Author's Preface
1. Accepting Or Uniting
   
2. Who Is A Christian?
   
3. "Why Don't You Leave The Church of Christ?"
   
4. The Iniquity Of The Fathers
   
5. Our Judicial System
   
6. "You Are My People Now"
   
7. Serving "Otherwise Than As Prescribed"
   
8. Does Baptize Really Mean To Immerse
   
9. Our Relationship Through Baptism
   
10. Those Gospel Meetings
    
11. A Prelude To Worship
    
12. Worshipping In Spirit And Truth
    
13. The Forbidden Prayer
    
14. "I Didn't Hear Nobody Pray"
    
15. Communion Prayers
    
16. Communion With Bread, Wine, And Money
    
17. Thursday Is The Lord's Day Too!
    
18. Not Forsaking The Assembly
    
19. Acts 20:7 One More Time
    
20. Our Father Who Art Where?
    
21. Does Nature Reveal God's Love
    
22. Copyrighted: All Rights Reserved
    
23. Don't Pour Water On Them
    
24. The Remaining Restriction For Women
    
25. Some Questions About Revelation
    
26. Must One Fully Repent Before Baptism?
    
27. Nicodemus In Context
    
28. Our Respected Myths Of Religion
    
29. Hook's Points: A Potpourri
    

Perhaps I am one of the last persons who should be writing about Revelation since I have made no special study of the book. So I will ask more questions than I will pretend to answer.

As a beginning question, is it even safe for one to try to explain the book? The consequences of a wrong emphasis are disastrous. If I add to its meanings, I will receive the prophesied plagues; if I minimize its projections, I will be excluded from the tree of life and the holy city. Is it safer just to bypass Revelation or to remain neutral and nonexpressive? That fearful prospect has not intimidated countless writers who join the currently popular exercise of predicting the fulfillment of what they call "end times" prophecies.

The person who reads aloud the prophecy and those who hear and keep what is written are promised a blessing. What is the blessing? Is it eternal life? No, for disciples had eternal life before Revelation was revealed. Is it more understanding and assurance? Perhaps, but disciples had those qualities enabling them to endure persecution and martyrdom before this was written. Was the blessing just bragging rights of "I understand the prophecies and you don't"? And does the blessing to be received outweigh the danger of misinterpretation?

In panoramic vision John was privileged to see the things that "must soon take place" for "the time is near" (1:13). The revelation ends with Jesus declaring, "Surely, I am coming soon" (22:20). This parenthesis of imminence encloses all that is included between the first and last sentences in the book. Am I insane for concluding that all that John includes there was to happen soon, not in our time, but in the time of the seven churches to whom it was all addressed? If these expressions meant that the events would occur after the passing of a few thousand years, what expression could have been employed if the Spirit had wanted to indicate that they would happen soon? If the Spirit meant that they would just begin to happen soon, why did he not say so? There was to be a sequence of events: "Now write what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter" (1:20). But the time was near for the whole sequence of events which must soon take place. Can we possibly conclude otherwise? And how could Jesus begin to come soon nineteen centuries ago and still not have arrived?

The church in Pergamum was warned, "Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth" (2:16. Compare 2:5; 3:3). Was this a threat to return many centuries later to fight against the church at Pergamum to punish it for the sins of its first century constituency? Are those firstcentury congregations still in existence to receive their punishment? Was the time of the return of Jesus to be determined by a localized group such as the church in Pergamum, Ephesus, or Sardis?

Are the warnings to those churches universal in their application? If so, any unrepentant congregation can hasten the return of Jesus to the earth. And, since he has not returned, it would prove that there have been no impenitent congregations!

The disciples in Thyatira were encouraged to "hold fast what you have, until I come" (2:25). Were they to hold on for many centuries? Those in Philadelphia were told, "I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world" (3:10). Were not these revelations being made to churches in the first century to prepare them for things which would take place in their lifetime? Paul definitely expected Jesus to return in his time. Among other statements confirming this, he wrote, "May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thes. 5:23). Was Paul misguided?

The coming of the Lord is the theme of Revelation. There are various mentions of his coming in both Old and New Testament writings. Do they all refer to the same coming? No. Do they all refer to a coming in a physical body as when Jesus was born of Mary? No. Can I distinguish between all of his comings? No. Do I deny that a final return is yet to occur? No.

Sometimes the coming of the Lord or the day of the Lord was a rendering of vengeance upon rebellious people or the vindication, comfort, or encouragement of his suffering saints.

Consider the descriptions and terms used in prophesying the destruction of Babylon, of Damascus, of Ethiopia, and of Egypt (Isaiah 13, 17, 18, 19; Compare Ezek. 32). Zechariah 14 is a similar prophecy against Jerusalem, not about the "end times" coming of Christ. These prophecies employ highly figurative, symbolic, and dramatic language with exaggerated imagery of cataclysms. Similar prophecies in similar language are given against Jerusalem and the Jewish nation by Jesus in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Parables and other teachings pictured God's rejection of Israel and his destructive actions against their nation. The events foretold would come in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. (Consider these references in order relating them to each other: Luke 16:1931; Matt. 8:11f; 21:3341; 22:14; 23:2939; Luke 16:116.)

At his revelation "every eye shall see him," but every is limited by the appositive identifying clause, "everyone who pierced him." He was to come with vengeance upon his rejecting people who crucified his Son. They were inviting this when "all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt. 27:25).

Could these visions not also be a confirmation of the change of God's kingdom to the spiritual? Israel had been God's kingdom and priests. Now John is saying that those redeemed by Jesus' blood are God's kingdom and priests (1:6). With the disciples, John shared the kingdom, the tribulations coming upon it, and the patience required to endure (1:9). In the Spirit he was transported in vision to see the Lord's Day, or Day of the Lord, the epoch of God's overthrow of the fleshly kingdom and the reaffirmation of the universal spiritual kingdom. The visionary scenes would not frighten the believer but would give him assurance (1:17f).

The changes from Moses to Christ are dealt with in Hebrews. The transition was not without persecution and distress. Believers were to keep in touch to encourage one another "as you see the Day drawing near" (Heb. 10:25). The epochal Day of the coming of the Lord was imminent in which God would identify positively the new "kingdom that cannot be shaken" while removing the one shaken (Heb. 12).

Is the traditional late date for Revelation so set in theological concrete that we cannot even consider that John might have written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

Would God use symbolic language just to appeal to our curiosity, or was it to avoid incurring more persecutions caused by plainly identifying the men and powers involved? Is it not reasonable to think that inspired prophets gave disciples the key to understanding those prophesies? Why do we not have that key to understanding? I don't know, but perhaps it is because that, after the prophecies were fulfilled, they were not relevant to us in later times. We can see historically what took place, making the symbols irrelevant to us.

If we reject the above, then we ask what person among us knows the meaning of all that is depicted in Revelation? There is a great chorus of expounders, but they are not in harmony. Out of all the discord, to which voice shall we listen? I am told of a longtime student of keen mind who says he has read more than one hundred books about Revelation. His conclusion: Nobody knows what it means! Will you join me in an "amen"?

This week as I sat at the funeral of Willis Jernigan, a studious man who preached and ministered for seventyseven years, I jotted down another question: Can I suppose that he is on the other shore shouting, "Thank God, I made it here due to my understanding of the prophecies in Revelation"? That question sort of puts Revelation in proper perspective for me.

Departing from my announced plan, I have offered some explanations instead of only asking questions. So just put a big question mark here at the end of this treatise.