Alpha And Omega, A Commentary
on the Book of Revelation, by Nick Lunn (Willow Publications, 19 Salcott Road, Croyden, Surrey, CRO 4PS, England, 1992).
We are being offered yet another interpretation of the Apocalypse in this new work by Bro. Nick Lunn. The book is attractively presented in soft cover, 256 pages in length. Bro. Lunn is an able writer, as we had learned from his very helpful series, “The Origin of the Trinity,” in The Testimony, 1990. This book, however, is a disappointment. It offers little that will be helpful in understanding the Book of Revelation. This effort, like other recent ones, puts aside the continuous-historic approach to the prophecy and adopts one that is both preterist (fulfilled in the first century) and futurist (yet to be fulfilled). This viewpoint is what the title is intended to illustrate —Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. The Revelation, in the author’s view, relates to events in the first century and the last. It is little concerned with anything between those two periods.
It will come as no surprise then, that Bro. Lunn takes the position that the Apocalypse was written before A.D. 70 and that a large part of the book is taken up with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. In this respect, the commentary is similar to that of the late Bro. H. A. Whittaker in The Revelation, A Biblical Approach. They differ in some respects. Bro. Lunn, while applying most of the Revelation to Israel, does apply some part of it (chapters 15-18) to refer to the Christian apostasy.
It is difficult to accept that the Apocalypse has nothing to say about the entire period from A.D. 70 to 1948, as Bro. Lunn’s chart on page 87 indicates. It is true that the nation of Israel was eclipsed during that long season, but throughout those centuries God was surely working with and for the faithful remnant of believers.
How important is the date of writing?
In setting the groundwork for his commentary, the author takes considerable space to establish the early date for writing the Revelation (before A.D. 70, as opposed to c. A.D. 96). We have become familiar with this approach; the early dating is essential to the preterist futurist interpretation. Bro. Lunn probably gives as good an argument for the pre-A.D. 70 date as anyone has done, but in the end it is clear that the dating is important to him, not because this position can be proven, but because the early date supports his view of the Apocalyptic message.
Bro. Lunn’s position is that the Revelation is an adaptation of the Olivet prophecy and is concerned, therefore, with the fall of Jerusalem — first in A.D. 70 and then, in the later chapters, to the time of the end. Like the other expositions of recent years, Alpha and Omega disposes of the traditional interpretation of the Apocalypse as set forth by Bro. John Thomas.
There would appear to be some risk in taking a position that depends upon the date of any New Testament book. The point can be made that the continuous-historic interpretation of the Revelation is not affected by the dating of John’s visions. Whether they were received before A.D. 70 or later has no bearing on our understanding of the meaning of the visions if they cover the period from the first century to the present.
Before Jerusalem Fell
One of the works cited by Bro. Lunn in favor of the early dating of Revelation deserves comment. It is a book entitled Before Jerusalem Fell, written by an American Presbyterian minister, Kenneth Gentry, Th.D. It is probably the most ambitious of the efforts to prove the pre-A.D. 70 date. (The book was reviewed in The Testimony, September, 1990).
Having carefully studied this work, we believe two points must be made. The first is that Dr. Gentry has produced no new information to prove the early date. He does, in fact, review the evidence for the later dating, and in our judgment, the facts he presents on this side are more compelling than the evidence he gives for his own point of view.
The second point, an important one, is that the author is by no means objective in his argument. His theological point of view clearly demands a pre A.D. 70 position. Indeed, the purpose of his book is to establish that Christianity in A.D. 70 replaced Israel as the Kingdom of God on earth (the millennium is now!).
Dr. Gentry quotes a colleague as properly stating the theme of the Revelation, “which is not the second coming of Christ, but rather the coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel, in order to establish the Church as the new Kingdom” (p. 127).
We repeat, for emphasis, that the traditional Christadelphian interpretation is not affected, one way or the other, by the date of the writing of Revelation.
John the prophet
In writing of the structure of the Apocalypse, Bro. Lunn compares the apostle John and the Revelation with the Hebrew prophets (Ezekiel and Daniel particularly) and their writings (pp. 39-41). There is a valid comparison, certainly, but an important element is being overlooked. The message of Ezekiel is seen by the author to be three-fold: (1) judgments against Judah and Jerusalem; (2) judgments against the nations, and (3) the restoration of Israel, the temple and holy city. This is correct. But Bro. Lunn sees the Revelation to be concerned with these same themes — relating to Israel.
Ezekiel’s relationship was with the Jews, whereas John was witnessing to Gentile believers. And this must be emphasized. The prophet’s warnings were to his people (the Jews) –as John’s were to the churches. That, in our view, is why the Apocalypse so carefully positions us among the Gentile ecclesias in its opening chapters. We cannot, therefore, take as valid the author’s view that the Apocalypse is simply an expanded version of the Olivet prophecy.
The restoration
There is another indication that the Apocalypse is concerned with Christianity, rather than primarily with Israel. Bro. Lunn takes note of the fact that in the closing visions of Revelation there is no temple to be seen in the new Jerusalem. He concludes that the temple description of Ezekiel (chapters 40-48), was part of a prophecy conditional upon Israel’s obedience. The vision of John may then suggest (in his view) that there will be no literal temple.
We believe that Ezekiel’s was a prophecy of the literal restoration of Israel and the re-building of the temple in the kingdom age. On the other hand, John, as a continuation of his message to the ecclesias, is portraying the restoration of true Christianity. So the holy city is described in symbolic terms to indicate the spiritual aspects of the new Jerusalem. The difference in the two visions illustrates the unique application of each. The one is a message to Israel whose restoration includes a literal city and temple. The other is a message to spiritual Israel which finds fulfillment in a host of glorified individuals who comprise a spiritual city and temple. The two visions both represent the truth, of course, for the Kingdom of God will be substantial as well as spiritual.
Sun, moon and stars
“…Throughout the Apocalypse the symbolic use of sun, moon and stars relates to Israel” (page 91). The writer has concluded that these figures in the Old Testament (Joseph’s dream, for example) pertain to Israel, and that they must therefore be taken to do so in the Revelation. Again, we believe that the Apocalypse is primarily concerned with Christianity — with the trials of the true ecclesia and the development of the apostate church. Figures taken from the Old Testament would therefore have to be seen in that context.
The author’s understanding of these figures leads him to conclude that “the woman” of Revelation 12 represents Israel. And with an unusual twist, it is Israel in the last days. “The male child then we conclude to be a Christian community born of Israel, i.e., Jewish-Christians of the last days.” Bro. Lunn writes that these are equivalent to the 144,000 and are not the saints in general, but “the fruit of the Elijah-like ministry of the (two) witnesses.” The 1,260 days, (Rev. 10:3), Bro. Lunn takes to be a literal period of time during which the now-converted Israel will witness.
The beast of Revelation 13 is taken to be Russia on the basis that Moscow has replaced Constantinople and has been called “the third and last Rome.” This statement is cited from The Orthodox Church, a book by T. Ware. (Something might be made of this idea in the context of some Bible prophecies, but we can’t see its application here.)
What about the Revelation?
A great deal has been written in defense of the traditional approach to the Apocalypse, and we will resist doing that here. We cannot object to serious efforts to understand the Revelation, even if they do not entirely agree with long-held conclusions in Christadelphian literature. We do feel, however, that too much conjectural application is counterproductive. And that is how we would have to describe much of this work. For instance, the summary of Revelation 12-13 (p. 255). “Last day protagonists presented as beasts: the dragon (Satan), the sea-beast (Russia) and the earth-beast (Iran/Islam).”
Why new interpretations?
The Revelation is, without question, a difficult book to fathom. For some time brothers and sisters have wished for a simple interpretation of the Book -one that would be easily understood and remembered. To meet this desire some of our writers have experimented with new approaches. One course that has been taken is simply to make almost everything in the book refer to the same thing, such as the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
But the fact is that the Revelation is neither simple nor uncomplicated. Efforts to simplify it have all been unsatisfactory with too many questions left unanswered. Another approach has been to place all fulfillment in the future -leaving the field open to any kind of speculation. Bro. Lunn’s effort combines these two methods while perhaps taking a small step back toward the traditional concept. Perhaps we will eventually see our writers come full circle and stand once again with our pioneer brethren. (We personally feel that Bro. Thomas would not make any drastic revisions to his exposition were he alive today.)
We hope that brothers and sisters will not be put off by these differences of opinion concerning the Apocalypse. It would be a grave mistake to abandon serious study of the Revelation, for it has great relevance for our day and certainly for our future.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One