Sunday School Notes: Revelation: Introduction

This week we started a study on The Book of Revelation. As with Romans, the plan is to work our way through the text of Revelation, going as fast as the group wants to go. We’ll take a few detours along the way, perhaps spending a week or two on topics of particular interest. But our focus will be on the message of the book–what do all these symbols mean, and what do they mean to us both as individual Christians, and as a church?

Among the New Testament writings, Revelation is often seen as the “red-headed stepchild”–the awkward guest at the party that everyone likes, but no-one knows how to talk to. It’s just so… different! This attitude isn’t unique to us in the 21st century. Early in the Greek manuscript tradition, before the Gospels and epistles were bundled together into a single codex, we find evidence of the four Gospels traveling together, and collections of Paul’s epistles. But Revelation seems to have circulated on its own. Its place within Scripture has been fairly unanimously recognized from early on, though with some interesting objections. From the early church, one man named Dionysius questioned Revelation’s apostolic authorship on the basis that (at least in his understanding) it taught a pre-millennarian viewpoint. Whether or not that’s actually the case, that’s hardly a good reason to reject Revelation. Martin Luther considered Revelation to be “secondary” to the other New Testament writings because he thought that Christ was “neither taught nor recognized” in it (see the preface to his 1522 Bible). This is an astounding claim, and I hope we will see that on this point, at least, Luther was wrong.

In order to set the stage for our study, we touched on some topics that pertain to understanding the book as a whole: What is Revelation? Who wrote it? Where did he write from? When did he write it? What’s the main message of the book? I’ll briefly outline what we discussed below.

What Is Revelation?

The title that circulated with the book from earliest times is Apokalupsis ‘Iôannou, “Apocalypse [or Revelation] of John.” The opening verse says that it’s actually an “apocalypse of Jesus Christ”–in other words, a revelation of Jesus Christ. It’s not about John, it’s about Jesus. The term apokalupsis means an unveiling, or a revealing. The verb kaluptô means to hide or cover, and with the apo at the beginning, we get the idea of uncovering, or showing what was originally hidden. This should add to the sense of awe we have as we read this work. We’re being given a glimpse “behind the scenes,” things that are normally withheld from mortal eyes.

There were others forms of “apocalyptic” literature around, both before and after Revelation was written. They all seem to follow similar patterns, involving mysteries revealed by angels or supernatural beings, showing things that are about to happen, using lots of symbols. Within Jewish apocalyptic literature, there were also themes of God’s intervention into this corrupt world at a future date, bringing judgment and establishing His kingdom. While Revelation appears to follow a similar pattern, it also differs in interesting ways. First, it’s author is named (many other “apocalypses” are anonymous). Also, while it speaks of a time when God will break into human history and establish His kingdom, John speaks of this not simply as a future event, but as an event that happened in the past (“the Lamb that was slain”) with future ramifications (i.e., the eventual overthrow of Satan, and the establishment of a new heaven and new earth). In other words, yes, God’s Kingdom will be established–but that work has already begun.

One final point to make on this topic is the fact that Revelation is also a letter. At the beginning (1:4), we find the familiar letter greeting: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia…” Then at the end (22:21), we have a familiar letter ending: “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all…” So this book was originally composed for a particular audience in a particular location for a particular reason. This is very important to bear in mind as we try to understand what the various symbols and visions mean.

Who Wrote It?

This is a much more controversial topic in some circles than in others. Within most conservative churches, there is no question that it was written by John, the Apostle and author of the Gospel. Academics will throw around other possibilities, from a “John the Elder” to an entire “Johannine school” that wrote the Gospel, the epistles, and Revelation. A large reason for the debate is because some feel there are irreconcilable differences between Revelation and other New Testament writings that bear John’s name. Among the more popular reasons for rejecting the idea that the Gospel writer wrote Revelation are:

• The Gospel writer clearly identifies himself as “the Beloved Disciple,” one of Jesus’ closest followers. Revelation-John makes no such claims–indeed, he simply calls himself “John” with no further qualification.
• The language of the Gospel, while simple and theologically deep, is clear, and largely conforms to the rules of Greek grammar. Revelation, however, uses vocabulary not used by the Gospel writer. It’s style is odd, and the writer makes some egregious grammatical mistakes–the kind of errors the Gospel writer would never have made.
• There were those in the early church that disputed the Apostle’s authorship of Revelation.

To address these point-by-point:

• There’s a strong early tradition that the Apostle John ended up in Asia Minor. His name is closely associated with the city of Ephesus, and he would, therefore, have been well-known to the seven churches addressed by Revelation. If this is the case, there would really be no need for John to further identify himself. His audience knew who he was, and this, perhaps, helped him communicate the very stern warnings passed on to him by Christ in the letters to the churches (chapters 2 and 3).
• Gospel, Apocalypse, and Epistle are three very distinct forms of writing, each demanding a particular style. There are verbal similarities between Revelation and the Gospel (contrasting “light” and “dark,” for example). But it’s not inconceivable that the Apostle would write a different way when communicating the visions given to him on Patmos. Another important point to bear in mind is the fact that Revelation is heavily steeped in the Old Testament (particularly Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Psalms). In fact, while there are very few (if any) direct quotations of the Old Testament, there are more references and allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation than in any other New Testament book. It’s very possible that John deliberately changes his style to reflect the style of these writings, to draw his readers’ attention to the fact that he’s alluding to the Old Testament. Even his “bad Greek” might actually reflect a conscious decision to mimic the original phrasing of the Hebrew or Aramaic. We’ll explore this more as we study the text.
• There were plenty of people within the early church who affirmed the apostolic authorship of Revelation, too.
• It seems to me only right that Jesus would give to the one known as his Beloved Disciple the special visions in this book. Jesus makes personal appearances to John in Revelation, and gives him personal instructions. I consider this consistent with the relationship between John and his Lord in the Gospel.

 Where Did He Write From?

This one’s easy–the text tells us! John is writing from the island of Patmos, about 40 miles south-west of Ephesus. It’s a small island, only about 6 miles wide by 10 miles long, and was used by the Romans as a place of exile–which seems to be John’s reason for being there. He notes that his exile is because of the gospel. We might also reiterate that John isn’t just writing to kill time. This is a book that he was commanded to write in the vision, and it was intended for “the seven churches that are in Asia.” So it has an audience, and a purpose.

When Was It Written?

There are two possible time frames for when John wrote Revelation: Just after the time of Emperor Nero (68-69), or toward the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign (95-96). The only way we can possibly determine which is more likely is to discern the situation in Asia Minor from the book, and compare that with what we know of what was happening in each era. First, Revelation seems to address a time when the church was afflicted with persecution. That would speak to both Nero and Domitian’s times. While the church was persecuted during these times, advocates of the Nero time frame point out that there isn’t much contemporary evidence for persecution of the church during the reign of Domitian–certainly not a systematic, state-sanctioned persecution. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Neronian persecutions ever went beyond Rome. Revelation also seems to point to the temptations of idolatry, and worship of false gods. There certainly was a cult of Nero, but it’s unlikely that refusal to worship Nero was the basis of persecution (indeed, Nero’s persecution of the church was based on his assertion that Christians started the Great Fire of Rome). We do, however, have evidence of Domitian ascribing to himself the title dominus et deus (“Lord and God”), and deeming those not willing to allow him that title as disloyal. In other words, it’s possible that Christians were executed for refusing to call Domitian “Lord and God.” Interestingly, the Jews were given a religious exemption from this demand. Maybe Christians took shelter in synagogues, identifying themselves with the Jewish community, hoping to avoid having to comply? This would certainly raise tensions between church and synagogue–something we also see in Revelation.

The accounts of the churches in the seven letters seems to point to a time when apathy and stagnation has crept into the church. Granted, churches have always had problems (we saw that with Rome). But the seven churches appear to be facing the kinds of problems churches face when they’ve become settled in their ways. Perhaps the biggest clue we get from these seven letters is from the description of the Laodicean church, i.e., that it’s rich. From historical records, we know that the city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60/61. For the church to rebuild (as well as the rest of the city) to the point where it considers itself to be wealthy and in need of nothing in 7 or 8 years seems to me a bit of a stretch.

On the other hand, it’s worth noting that there is no mention, or even reference to, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70. One might expect that in a book so full of Old Testament references, addressing those dealing with suffering, some remark or allusion might be made to that event. Unless, of course, that event hadn’t yet happened (i.e., the book was written in 68-69).

I tend toward the later date, but I think it’s well to note that this is not a settled matter, and good Christians can disagree.

What’s the Main Message of the Book?

There are many other topics that could be addressed, and we touched on some in the class. For example, does Revelation present events that have happened (a “preterist” view), or events yet to occur (a “futurist” view)? I tend toward what’s called a “partial preterist” view–that is, Revelation alludes to events that have already taken place, but there are events referenced in the book that have yet to occur (chiefly, the return of Christ and the final consummation of all things). Also, does Revelation present events in a chronological fashion (“this happened, then this, then this…”), or in a “recapitulated” fashion? I tend toward the “recapitulation” view, in that, for example, instead of seeing the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls as consecutive events, I see them as a series of seven visions, with three layers. The seals present the visions at one level; the trumpets refer to the same things but on a different level, and so on. We’ll explore this a little more as we study the relevant passages. One thing I want to avoid, however, is a strict literalism. These are visions. When John says, “this happened… then this happened…” he may not be speaking chronologically, but simply giving the visions in order that he received them. The visions themselves may not have any particular bearing to time.

Many of these points are up for discussion, and we don’t all have to agree. While I’ve stated my persuasion, I’m willing to be challenged by what makes the most sense when we consider what John’s readers would have understood, and how that applies to us today. What we mustn’t lose sight of is the main message of the book. The church is going through a tough time, and things may well get worse. But God is sovereign. His hand is all over history, and He is in control of all that happens. There is purpose to the church’s suffering, and one day we will see the fruit of our suffering. A day is coming when God’s promise of redemption will be realized, and His people will receive the fullness of the salvation bought for them by that Lamb that was slain.