New Testament Study Helps:
    The Revelation of John

The Apocalypse of John

1. The Book in the Ancient Church

In all probability the book was known during the period of the Apostolic Fathers. The Shepherd of Hermas several times refers to the coming great tribulation (2.2, 5, 7; 3.6) which in all probability is an echo of Revelation 2:10; 7:14, while Hermas 1.1,3 may be compared to Revelation 17:3 (the Spirit carrying the prophet into a wilderness). But apart from these parallels there are many common images in the two writers which are most naturally explained if Hermas know Revelation. For example, the representation of the church as a woman, the enemy as a beast, the description of fiery locusts proceeding from the mouths of beasts, the idea of the apostles being part of a spiritual building, and the description of the faithful in white garments with a crown on their heads. In the period subsequent to the Apostolic Fathers the position was very different, for there is clear attestation of circulation of Revelation over a wide area. Justin (Dial. 81; see also Apol. 1.28) knew the book and attributed it to the apostle John and considerable weight must be attached to this witness. Melito, who was bishop of Sardis (one of the seven churches addressed), apparently wrote a treatise on the Apocalypse of John (see Eusebius 4.26). In the Syrian church it was equally known and respected, for Theophilus of Antioch cites it (Eusebius 4.24). When Irenaeus wrote his book against heresies, he explicitly cited the Apocalypse generally as by "John, a disciple of the Lord". whom he clearly meant to identify with the apostle. Since he also mentioned ancient copies of the book, it is clear that he knew of its circulation at a much earlier time. It is also significant that the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons cites the Apocalypse in one place as Scripture (see Eusebius 5.1.58). The Muratorian Canon shows that do doubt existed over the Apocalypse in the Roman church towards the end of the second century. Tertullian cited the book frequently and regarded it as by the apostle John. Similarly Clement of Alexandria accepted the apostolic authorship and cited the book as Scripture. The same goes for Origen. There are few books in the New Testament with stronger early attestation.

2. Authorship

Although the author calls himself only "John", it was traditionally assumed that this John was the apostle, as has been outlined above. Although the book does not claim to be written by the apostle John, there are internal considerations which are difficult to explain unless the author were the apostle. The first is that he is clearly known by the name John to the seven Asiatic churches and is fully acquainted with the history of each church. He is also a man of considerable authority, who can expect the churches to receive what he has written as a revelation form God. A fair conclusion from the book's own claims would be to maintain that the evidence is quite inconclusive, but that there does not appear to be anything which makes apostolic authorship impossible. The most certain line of evidence is the early tradition.

3. Date

An examination of the problem of the date of this writing raises many problems which are by no means easy to solve. Although the main purpose of this book may be considered apart from the question of date, this question is not unimportant in the quest to ascertain the precise historical background. Nor is it entirely irrelevant for arriving at a satisfactory interpretation of the book. The most widely held view is that this Apocalypse was written during the reign of Domitian, more precisely towards the end of that reign, that is, 90-95 AD. Undoubtedly a strong argument in favor of a Domitianic date is the fact that the earliest and weightiest witnesses attest it. Irenaeus is quite specific that the Apocalypse "was seen no such long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv Her 5.30.3). Since Irenaeus' own connection with Asia Minor and acquaintance with Polycarp (John's disciple) in his youth would give him a good opportunity to receive reliable information on this matter, this evidence must be treated seriously. Later tradition mostly supports Irenaeus' testimony, although there is some evidence for the time of Nero, and even one witness for the time of Claudius, but this was no doubt an error for Nero Claudius. It could be argued that, on the principle that a strong tradition must be allowed to stand unless internal evidence makes it impossible, the Domitianic dating must have the decision in its favor. But there have been some considerable arguments advanced for an earlier date.

4. Purpose

Assuming the first three chapters of Revelation form an integral part of the whole, we may at once say that it was designed for a specific group of people with specific needs. The main portion of the book (chapter 4 onwards) appears to be prepared on a much broader canvas, but nevertheless the more local purpose is not lost, as is seen in 22:16. Evidently the writer originally intended his message to be read aloud in the churches to whom it was addressed (1:3), in which case it may well be described as a circular letter. The letters to the seven churches reveal much about the internal conditions of these churches, which helps us fix with some accuracy the writer's purpose. There is a manifest tendency toward spiritual deterioration. Some churches are being subjected to the pressure of immoral environments. Some are affected by false teachers. In most of the churches there is need for the call to repent, while in at least one church, Laodicea, material prosperity has resulted in spiritual decline to such a degree that it has caused revulsion to the church's Lord. Yet, in spite of the words of criticism, for most of the churches the dominating theme of the letters is encouragement. Whoever is prepared to listen is invited to do so, as the formula at the end of each letter shows. Moreover, each message ends with a promise.

Beyond the need to challenge the churches is the problem of the increasing opposition between the church and state. But all this was to be viewed against the backdrop of the end time and this leads John to contemplate in the Spirit the consummation of the ages. He paints in vivid colors the various judgments which are to fall upon those whose activity is motivated by the spirit of the antichrist. Throughout the book there are hints at coming triumph, but it is not until towards the end that the final overthrow of the beast and of Babylon (the Roman Empire) and even of Satan himself is portrayed. This belief in the ultimate triumph of Christianity over all opposing forces brought a remarkable optimism at a time when the Roman empire was increasing its power and when the Christian church in proportion was pitifully small. The whole book, therefore, is a message of hope particularly adapted to those who are passing through, or who know they may soon be called to pass through, fierce temptation.

5. Destination

The book was obviously intended for the churches of Asia mentioned in chapters 2 and 3. It is not, however, addressed to all the Christian churches of the province, for there were certainly Christians in Troas, Hierapolis, and Colossae. It would seem, therefore, that in the book as a whole the writer thinks primarily of the immediate needs of his Asiatic churches, but that he foresees that the message of Christian triumph over the adverse forces of evil would have a much wider relevance. It is difficult not to feel that he envisaged the distribution of the book to a wide Christian public beyond the seven churches named. The early attestation for the book shows, at least, that such a wide distribution actually occurred.

6. Permanent Message

Without attempting an interpretation of the symbolism and chronology of John's Apocalypse, we can identify some of its main principles which remain relevant to readers in any age.

1. The first principle is that faith triumphs over might.
   This is the most obvious conviction which must strike every reader of the book. All the gathering power of antagonistic forces is laid low in the end. In the end it is the Lamb who is victorious, and this conviction has brought immeasurable comfort in all ages to those who have seemed so helpless in a time of crisis and persecution.

2. The second principle is the inevitability of judgment.
   The idea that sin and evil in all its manifestations in a materialistic age is doomed to final judgment is not palatable for our easy-going society. But the idea of judgment is integral to Christianity. Judgment is an idea which no amount of sophistication will ever make attractive.

3. The third principle is that the Christian approach presents the true philosophy of history.
   John looks at the present in the light of the future, as well as in terms of the past. If it be objected that the future is unknown and his method is therefore invalidated, it must be recognized that the Christian view of history assumes an onward movement to a final satisfactory consummation. Without this confidence there seems no ground for anything but pessimism and this was never truer than in a nuclear age. This book, with its powerful assurance that there are ultimate values which far outstrip claims of pure materialism has a particular relevance for today.

6. Outline

In progress

Chicago-North Shore Therapy.com