Approaching Revelation
In his book, From Plato to Christ, Louis Markos wrote,
“The original title to the last book of the Bible is Apocalypse, a Greek word that means, literally, ‘uncovering.’ Translated into Latin, the word becomes “revelation” (re-veiling, which is to say, unveiling). It may at first seem odd that the most obscure and cryptic book of the Bible should bear a title that means ‘uncovering.’ Wouldn’t ‘covering’ more accurately describe the effects of reading John’s great prophecy? But the book is aptly named. The reason Revelation seems so strange to us is that we are not used to gazing directly on eternity. Through the power of Revelation, John rips away the veils of time and space, allowing us to peer into the divine, supratemporal workings of history.”1
Many would disagree with assessment. Some will shy away from Revelation as if its inclusion into the canon were some sort of practical error. They do not question it like a skeptic, but they avoid it as if it were filled with nothing but insoluble mysteries.
I am not going to address authorship issues, since I don’t think alternative theories are credible, and this isn’t a detailed class about Revelation in any event. Although bearing in mind John’s own stamp is helpful for interpretation as well. Think of words like “the word,” “light,” “life,” “world,” “manna,” “shepherd,” “living water,” and “lamb of God,” in crucial passages of the Gospel of John are used here as well.
Audience and Occasion
If there is one thing we know—one thing on which everyone can agree as being literal—it is that this is addressed, in some way, to seven historical churches in John’s own day. This is a vision, yes, but John also tells you he is writing from the island of Patmos in exile (1:9). Those seven churches were in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. Virtually all views hold to some symbolism or typology concerning these churches. Some go as far as to say that these should be understood as having a chronological relationship: i.e. that each church represents an era in church history.
Seven churches receiving seven concise messages, and yet a unity. There is no evidence of these being seven separate letters later consolidated; thus we have a plurality of “letters” in one document from the start. Bauckham puts it this way:
“The habit of referring to chapters 2-3 as the seven ‘letters’ to the churches is misleading. These are not as such letters but prophetic messages to each church. It is really the whole book of Revelation which is one circular letter to the seven churches.”2
Seven is the number of completion here as throughout the Bible.
There are also “seven spirits” (1:4) before the throne, “seven golden lampstands” (1:12), and “seven stars” (1:16) in Christ’s right hand, all of which only strengthens the typological reading of Chapters 1-3. So even this literal part of the book is also typological. And we are plainly told what they symbolize in this case—“the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and dthe seven lampstands are the seven churches” (1:20).
Another instance of realism is this seven as a picture of the church universal (idealist), even while they are real churches (preterist or “early historicist”). Even if it doesn’t stand for eras through church history, these seven are of kinds that are always around.
So what about the message(s) to these churches, and how might this help us in our view into the rest of the book? If this is typological for things to come, then which millennial view stands to gain from the message?
The Amillennialist will say with Bavinck,
“They serve to call an increasingly worldly Christianity back to its first love, to arouse it from apathy, and with an eye toward the crown awaiting it, to equip it for battle and to prompt it to persevere, with unyielding loyalty, even unto death.”3
The Postmillennialist will say with Bahnsen:
“He addresses the Church in the second section of Revelation, in these seven letters, in such a way that it is clear that He expects His Church to be an overcoming and victorious body.”4
I will not be discussing the specifics of the different millennial views here, as I have done that elsewhere.
The Date of Revelation
Those who hold to an early date for the writing of Revelation have in mind a time before 70 AD. In most cases, that must also mean before 68 AD because of the role that Nero is thought to play. So let us just have in mind a time in the 60s. What are the arguments for this view?
First, there are references to the temple as if it was still standing. It even appears to be measured in Chapter 11. Now that argument does not work as well for a highly symbolic genre; and the measurements do not match the literal temple that Herod constructed.
Second, there are said to be references to Nero. The persecutions are thought to be such as under his rule. And then especially the number 666, a symbolic way to refer to people’s names, is said to match him the best. Opponents will say that the gematria work is problematic. A more exact date in the 60s does provide nuance to this view, as pointed out, since Nero died in June of 68, giving way to the year of the four emperors—Galba (8 June 68 – 15 January 69), Otho (15 January – 16 April 69), Vitellius (19 April – 20 December 69), and then the more permanent Vespasian, the general presently holding Jerusalem under siege. All of this has to factor in to the eight “kings” that are mentioned, which just leads to other arguments on both sides.
Third, “Babylon” is a reference to Jerusalem here, namely, apostate Israel. This is strengthened by the reference in Chapter 11 to the place of the death of the two witnesses. It is called the city where the Lord was crucified.
As to the later date, we would mean sometime between 90-96 AD. A few considerations lead to this position.
First, as to timing, emperor worship and empire-wide persecution were not happening until Domitian (81-96 AD). For instance, the statues of Domitian in Ephesus, where John was ministering. Some see an allusion to this in Chapter 13. But persecution was more widespread at this time than in the 60s. Nero’s was more isolated to the city of Rome.
Second, there is the condition of the churches, seven real historical churches remember. If we specifically focus on Laodicea, it is described as wealthy and flourishing. Yet in the early 60s this city was leveled by an earthquake. It is more reasonable that it took a few decades to recover.
Third, Babylon equals Rome, not Jerusalem. There is not much evidence that Christians worldwide would have regarded Jerusalem to be Babylon.
Fourth, there is the testimony of church fathers: Irenaeus specifically says that John wrote it at the end of his life, under the reign of Domitian. He gets his info from Polycarp. As Polycarp was a disciple of John, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. This is a powerful testimony.
Genre and Symbolism
Here we have a case of three genres in one. Carson and Moo wrote,
“The complicated character of Revelation … suggests that we should not place it neatly into one genre category. Elements of prophecy, apocalypse, and letter are combined in a way that has no close parallel in other literature.”5
On the one hand, it is epistolary in character. Remember those real, historical churches. And it is not just at the beginning, but the standard epistolary conclusion at the end on Chapter 22. On the other hand, it is also obviously prophecy. We are told this—“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:3). To say “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (1:10) fits within the category of having receiving direct revelation from God.
But then there is apocalypse. What does this mean exactly? How is this different than ordinary prophecy?
Kruger gives five characteristics:
(i) It is a specific kind of Prophetic literature; (ii) Focus on the source of the Message; (iii) Message mediated by heavenly beings; (iv) Strong presence of symbolism, dreams, visions—for Kruger, this is the most important of the five points to get down—and (v) Eschatological Focus.6
This fits well within the Jewish Apocalyptic Period (200 BC — 100 AD). Jewish faithfulness seemed to reign from the post-exilic period to especially the Maccabean Revolution. Thus the question of IV Ezra well expressed Jewish frustration first under the Selucids, then under the Romans: “If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance?” (6:59) Such writings includes 2 Baruch, Jubilees, Enoch, the Testimonies of Levi and of Nephtali.
How should we describe these writings? Ladd explains them against the backdrop of the unfulfilled kingdom: “History was shot through with evils for which there was no prophetic explanation. This perplexing fact demanded a new interpretation of the hope of the Kingdom; and the apocalyptic writings provided such a reinterpretation.”7 Daniel and Ezekiel contain apocalyptic elements. That is important because so much of the imagery that John uses is pulled from these Old Testament books.
But what are the important implications of the apocalyptic form? It fits well with idealist model. While the canonical prophets experienced visions and dreams to initiate aspects of their message, with the apocalyptic form, Ladd remarks, “Visions and dreams have become a form of literature.”8 There is also a dualistic framework with respect to its main concepts. The antithesis between Christ and Satan, and between righteousness and wickedness is already there, but eventually incorporates a duality between “this age” and “the age to come.”
It is heavy on the use of symbolism. Precursors are often located in 1. Jeremiah’s linen cloth (Jer. 13:1-11); 2. the two baskets of figs (Jer. 24); 3. the valley of dry bones (Ezk. 37); 4. Hosea’s marriage to unfaithful Gomer (Hos. 1-3); and many such images in Zechariah. Symbolism can often be misunderstod. We ought to think of it here as forming a “picture of pictures.”
Hendriksen pressed upon his readers that we will get nowhere investing separate meaning in each piece of imagery. He uses the example of the Parable of the Good Samaritan and why it is absurd and subjective to take each element of the story on its own.
“They simply serve to make the parable complete … Something similar holds good with respect to the interpretation of the symbols of the Apocalypse. One must not begin to press the details … One should ask, first, what is the picture taken as a whole? Second, what is the one central meaning of this picture?”9
What kinds of symbols predominate in this book? Hendriksen suggests two kinds of symbols: “There are symbols which describe the beginning or the end of the course of the new dispensation … But there are also other symbols, namely, those that seem to intervene between Christ’s first and second coming.”10 The first is more like a specific event, and under this he groups the woman with the child standing for the Church bringing forth Christ (12:1-5), or the twofold harvest (14:15ff).
But there is also numerical symbolism. This is not new in the Bible.
For instance, who are the 144,000? The answer lies in noting the number 12. How is this used throughout Scripture? Think of the tribes of Israel, and subsequently the disciples. Several numbers have some totality in mind. The reason that different numbers are used in that similar way is because there is unity and diversity here, as much as in the pictorial symbols. In other words, several different things have a totality.
Bavinck comments about that number,
“The church on earth therefore does not need to be afraid of the judgments with which God in the end visits the world. The 144,000 servants of God out of every tribe of the sons of Israel are sealed in advance (7:1-8).”11
And then most famously there are sevens everywhere. Some see John using “patterns of seven” both in his Gospel and in this book. In Revelation, the number seven occurs 54 times.
Structure and Cycles
There are other views aside from the one I would recommend. Since there are more than I could list here, let me mention one that is at least interesting. Essentially, these are two prophecies. One is to the Jews and then the other to the Gentiles. And, no, this is not a dispensationalist model!
From the postmillennialist and partial-preterist perspective, Bahnsen suggests this interesting division at 10:7-11:
“At the beginning of the section of ‘things which will take place after this,’ John is given a scroll. He is shown a scroll that has seven seals and when that is opened, and when God has finally explained to him what that is all about, then John encounters another book, a small book which is in the hand of the angel who stands upon the sea. Near the end of this section, John is told to pick up that book and eat that book because he is going to prophesy again … This time he is told he is going to prophesy over many people, tongues and nations. Previously he had prophesied about only one; now he is going to prophecy about many. To put it very simply, there are two prophecies here.”12
This can accommodate the preterist emphasis and give biblical ground for a future fulfillment. Of all the views I would not take, this is the most reasonable.
There is also the strictly chronological way to take things. To a dispensational premillennialist, especially, all of the events of Revelation 4 through 19 are a description of the seven year tribulation period. Yet how they explain Chapters 11 and 12 is very interesting.
Those aside, the majority of Reformed commentators have discerned what has been called a cyclical view.
Hendriksen sees seven cycles.
Cycle 1: (Ch. 2-3) Christ in the midst of the lampstands.
Cycle 2: (Ch. 4-7) The vision of heaven and the seals.
Cycle 3: (Ch. 8-11) The seven trumpets.
Cycle 4: (Ch. 12-14) The persecuting dragon.
Cycle 5: (Ch. 15-16) The seven bowls.
Cycle 6: (Ch. 17-19) The fall of Babylon.
Cycle 7: (Ch. 20-22) The great consummation.
The key is that, “Each of [these cycles] spans the entire dispensation from the first to the second coming of Christ. This period is viewed now from one aspect, now from another.”13
Five arguments are then made for this cyclical structure.
First, there are identical durations assigned in the third and fourth sections, namely “1260 days” or “42 months” or “time and times and half a time” (11:2, 3; 12:6, 14).
Second, this is the section least able to be treated chronologically, since Christ returns to consummate His kingdom in 11: and then history from prior to the Incarnation to that consummation is spanned in Chapter 12.
Third, the same difficulty of chronology exists in the relationship between Chapters 19 and 20, and then 20 seems to parallel Chapter 12 on some important details.
Fourth, the results of the trumpets in Chapters 8-11 seem to parallel those of the bowls in Chapters 15-16. I defer to Hendriksen again, “Notice, therefore, that the first trumpet (8:7) affects the earth; so does the first bowl (16:2). The second trumpet affects the sea; so does the second bowl. The third trumpet refers to the rivers; so does the third bowl. The fourth, in both cases, refers to the sun. The fifth refers to the pit of the abyss or to the throne of the beast, the sixth to Euphrates, and the seventh to the second coming in judgment.”14
Fifth, there is already precedence for this in the book of Daniel, where “parts of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (chapter 2) correspond exactly with the four beasts of Daniel’s dream (chapter 7). The same period of time is covered twice, and is seen from various aspects.”15
Overlaying the seven cycles, many of the same scholars, believe that there is a more basic twofold division of the book, and that 11:15 to 12:1 marks the break. But what exactly is that division based on? Hendriksen answers:
“In the first group (chapters 1-11) we see the struggle among men, that is, between believers and unbelievers … In the second group of visions (chapters 12-22) we are shown that this struggle on earth has a deeper background.”16
So the first division contains three of the cycles, or groups of visions; and the second division contains the other four cycles.
Purpose and Themes
All parties can agree that the book was written for the comfort or encouragement of the saints. But how does this play out?
Hendriksen distinguishes between the purpose and theme in a helpful way:
“In the main, the purpose of the book of Revelation is to comfort the militant Church in its struggle against the forces of evil … The theme is the victory of Christ and of His Church over the dragon (Satan) and his helpers.” And then he adds, very insightfully, “The Apocalypse is meant to show us that things are not what they seem.”17
For Kruger, the basic purpose is twofold: first, for the saints to endure: 1. encouragement to persecuted Christians; and 2. warning to apostate or disobedient Christians; and then a second purpose being to demonstrate Christ’s ultimate victory.
A more balanced partial-preterism takes a twofold approach to purpose, as in Gentry’s summary:
“In the first place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new and major feature of that persecution was the entrance of imperial Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68. In the second place, it was to brace the Church for a major and fundamental re-orientation in the course of redemptive history, a re-orientation necessitating the destruction of Jerusalem (the center not only of Old Covenant Israel, but of Apostolic Christianity … and the Temple.”18
One more specific theme that both Amillennialists and Postmillennialists can agree to—even if they cannot agree to how this would play out in the real world—is that the church is encouraged to overcome or even to conquer. The word nikao is used repeatedly (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 6:2; 11:7; 12:11; 13:7). The ESV and NIV use “overcome,” but Kruger says “conquer” is better because of the military connotations.19 That’s intentional, as it is an ultimate battle between Christ and Satan. Victory is guaranteed.
“And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands” (15:2).
All of this has to be seen in its descriptive and prescriptive dimensions.
So two concise ways to summarize the theme are: “Christ wins” and “To the one who conquers.” But why should these be two separate possibilities? The problem with saying only “Christ wins” or else “To the one who conquers…” is that the Scriptures themselves would not give us an eschatology that leads to either pietistic passivity or naturalistic zealotry. Taking the one without the other would have that effect. The parallel between Chapters 1 (Christ in heaven) and 2-3 (Christ in and through the church[es]) sets the stage for both levels in the rest of the book.
If we place the same in an “upper-lower story,” we see heaven and earth beginning to be reconciled, paradoxically, through the Great War. This is the deficiency with the idealist and historicist views. We have already seen that the full preterist and full futurist cannot make since of the whole length of the book. But the idealist and historicist cannot do any better with the fullness of the stage of action.
Hendriksen’s idealism is at least concrete enough to make headway here.
Let us summarize the way he viewed the parallels between Chapters 1 and 2-3 in this way: 1. Christ with seven stars, walking among the lampstands (1:13, 16; 2:1); 2. Christ is the first and last, who died and rose again (1:17, 18; 2:8); 3. A two-edged sword comes from Christ’s mouth (1:16; 2:12); 4. His eyes like a flame of fire, His feet like burished brass (1:14, 15; 2:18); 5. Seven spirits before His throne, and seven stars in His right hand (1:4, 16; 3:1); 6. He is the faithful, true witness, and He has the key of death and Hades, or the key of David (1:5, 18; 3:7); 7. Added to “faithful and true witness,” He is the “first-born of the dead,” which parallels “the beginning of the creation of God,” and then finally “the ruler of the kings of the earth (1:5; 3:14).20
Ultimately in Revelation, Christ is sovereign. Not only is He is control of all things, but is everywhere winning. He is the ultimate Victor (1:18; 2:8; 5:9ff; 6:2; 11:15; 12:9ff; 14:1, 14; 15:2ff; 19:16; 20:4; 22:3). He is present with the church. The opening symbol of the lampstand makes this very point; and of course He had promised this in the Great Commission: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mat. 28:20). And Christ is worthy of all worship.
In his sermon on Revelation 5, Jonathan Edwards spoke of “the admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies” found in Christ alone. He says,
“The lion and the lamb, though very diverse kinds of creatures, yet have each their peculiar excellencies. The lion excels in strength, and in the majesty of his appearance and voice. The lamb excels in meekness and patience, besides the excellent nature of the creature as good for food, and yielding that which is fit for our clothing and being suitable to be offered in sacrifice to God. But we see that Christ is, in the text, compared to both, because the diverse excellencies of both wonderfully meet in Him.”21
There are more commentaries on the book of Revelation than may be profitable for anyone to stack up in their studies. If you ask me, any pastor getting ready to preach on the book would do themselves a favor by aiming at the best little overview and the best scholarly treatment. For my money, that means Hendriksen’s More Than Conquerors for the former, and G. K. Beale’s Book of Revelation in the New International Greek Commentary series for the latter.
_____________________
1. Louis Markos, From Plato to Christ: How Platonic Thought Shaped the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 5-6
2. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge University Press, 1993), 2.
3. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, IV:675.
4, Greg Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1999), 45.
5. D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 715-16.
6. Kruger, “Revelation: Background and Genre,” RTS Lecture from Hebrews through Revelation.
7. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 77.
8. Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 83.
9. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 39.
10. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 40.
11. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, IV:676.
12. Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus, 12.
13. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 16-18. Others who have held this view include B. B. Warfield, Louis Berkhof, and Robert Godfrey.
14. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 19.
15. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 19-20.
16. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 21.
17. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 7, 8.
18. Kruger, “Revelation: Background and Genre,” RTS Lecture from Hebrews through Revelation.
19. Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 15-16.
20. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors,
21. Edwards, “The Excellency of Christ” in Altogether Lovely (Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 18.
