Introduction

The late British prime minister Winston Churchill once described the former Soviet Union as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Many Christians view the book of Revelation in much the same way. Bewildered by its mystifying symbolism and striking imagery, many believers (including some pastors, who never preach through Revelation) avoid serious study of the book. Even John Calvin, the greatest commentator of the Reformation, who wrote commentaries on the other books, did not attempt to write a commentary on Revelation. Such shortsightedness deprives believers of the blessings the book promises to those who diligently read it (1:3; 22:7).

Those who ignore Revelation deprive themselves of a rich treasure of divine truth. Revelation takes a high view of God’s inspired Word. It claims divine inspiration for itself (1:2), and it has been estimated that 278 of its 404 verses allude to the inspired Old Testament Scriptures. Revelation reveals God the Father in all His glory and majesty, describing Him as holy (4:8), true (6:10), omnipotent (4:11), wise (7:12), sovereign (4:11), and eternal (4:10). Revelation details the depths of man’s depravity. Despite experiencing the final outpouring of God’s devastating wrath and judgment on sinful mankind, people will nevertheless harden their hearts (like Pharaoh before them; 1 Sam. 6:6) and refuse to repent (9:20–21; 16:9, 11). Scripture contains no clearer summation of the doctrine of redemption than that of Revelation 1:5, which declares that “Jesus Christ … loves us and released us from our sins by His blood.” The ministry of angels also figures prominently in Revelation, which contains one out of every four references to angels in Scripture. Revelation warns the church of the dangers of sin and compromise with the world (chaps. 2–3), and teaches it how to properly worship God (chaps. 4–5).

Some who study Revelation do so seeking evidence to support their own (often bizarre or sensational) eschatological views. But they miss the point. Revelation is a rich source of truth about eschatology; in fact, it contains more details about the end times than any other book of the Bible. Revelation portrays Christ’s ultimate triumph over Satan, depicts the final political setup of the world system, and describes the career of the most powerful dictator in human history, the final Antichrist. It also mentions the Rapture of the church (3:10), and describes the seven-year time of Tribulation, including the three and one-half years of the Great Tribulation (7:14; cf. Matt. 24:21), the second coming of Christ, the climactic battle of human history (Armageddon), the thousand-year earthly kingdom of Jesus Christ, the final judgment of unrepentant sinners (the Great White Throne judgment), and the final state of the wicked in hell (the lake of fire) and the redeemed in the new heaven and new earth.

But the book of Revelation is preeminently the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1). It describes Him by many titles, including “the faithful witness” (1:5); “the firstborn of the dead” (1:5); “the ruler of the kings of the earth”(1:5); “the Alpha and the Omega”(1:8; 21:6); “the first and the last” (1:17); “the living One”(1:18); “the One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands” (2:1); “the One who has the sharp two-edged sword” (2:12); “the Son of God” (2:18); the One “who has eyes like a flame of fire, and … feet … like burnished bronze” (2:18); the One “who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars” (3:1); the One “who is holy, who is true” (3:7); the holder of “the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens” (3:7); “the Amen, the faithful and true Witness.” (3:14); “the Beginning of the creation of God” (3:14); “the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah” (5:5); “the Root of David” (5:5); the Lamb of God (e. g., 5:6; 6:1; 7:9–10; 8:1; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7; 21:9; 22:1); the “Lord, holy and true” (6:10); the One who “is called Faithful and True” (19:11); “The Word of God”(19:13); the “King of kings, and Lord of lords”(19:16); Christ (Messiah), ruling on earth with His glorified saints (20:6); and “Jesus … the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).

Revelation also affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ. He possesses the attributes and prerogatives of God, including sovereignty (1:5), eternity (1:17–18), the right to judge men (19:11) and to decide who lives and who dies (1:18; 2:23). He also receives worship (5:13) and rules from God’s throne (22:1, 3). Finally, Revelation affirms His equality of essence with God the Father by applying Old Testament passages that describe God to Jesus Christ (cf. Deut. 10:17 with 19:16; Prov. 3:12 with 3:19; Dan. 7:9 with 1:14; Isa. 44:6 with 1:17; also cf. 1:8 with 22:12–13).

Far from being the mysterious, incomprehensible book many imagine it to be, Revelation’s purpose is to reveal truth, not to obscure it. That fact is evident in its title, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1), primarily in His second coming glory. Apokalupsis (“Revelation”) could be translated “an uncovering,” “an unveiling,” or “a disclosure.” It is used in the New Testament to speak of revealing spiritual truth (Rom. 16:25; Gal. 1:12; Eph. 1:17; 3:3), the manifestation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19), and of Christ’s manifestation at both His first (Luke 2:32) and second (2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7) comings. In each case, apokalupsis describes something (or someone) that was formerly hidden, but now becomes visible. Revelation unveils truths about Jesus Christ, and makes clear features of prophetic truth only hinted at in the Old Testament and other New Testament books. This clarity is often obscured by a rejection of the principles of literal interpretation in favor of an allegorical or spiritualizing hermeneutical method. Such approaches attempt to place Revelation’s account in the past and present rather than the future. But once the plain meaning of the text is denied, an interpreter is left to his own imagination, and the truths of this book are lost in a maze of human inventions void of authenticity. See the further discussion of this matter under Interpretation below.

AUTHOR

Four times in Revelation the author identifies himself as John (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). The early church unanimously (until the third century) affirmed that he was John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles and author of the fourth gospel and the epistles of John.

Writing early in the second century (possibly as early as A. D. 135) Justin Martyr declared, “There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place”(Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 81). Since Justin lived for a time in Ephesus, one of the seven churches to which Revelation was addressed, his testimony is especially significant.

Dating from about the same time as Justin (C. A. D. 100–150) is the Gnostic writing known as the Apocryphon of John. That document cites Revelation 1:19 and attributes it to John the brother of James and son of Zebedee (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 28).

Another second-century affirmation that the apostle John penned Revelation comes from Irenaeus, who introduced a string of quotations from Revelation with the statement “John also, the Lord’s disciple, when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse” (Against Heresies, 4.20.11). Later in that same work he added, “And if any one will devote a close attention to those things which are stated by the prophets with regard to the time of the end, and those which John the disciple of the Lord saw in the Apocalypse, he will find that the nations are to receive the same plagues universally, as Egypt then did particularly” (Against Heresies, 4.30.4). Irenaeus’s testimony is valuable because he was a native of Smyrna, another of the seven churches to whom John addressed Revelation. Also, as a boy Irenaeus had been a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of the apostle John.

Also writing in the second century, Clement of Alexandria noted that it was John the apostle who had been in exile on Patmos (Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, 42). Obviously, it was the John who had been exiled to Patmos who penned Revelation (1:9).

Writing late in the second century or early in the third century, Tertullian declared, “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven,’ which the apostle also calls ‘our mother from above;’ [cf. Gal. 4:26]… This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld [cf. Rev. 21:2]” (Against Marcion, 3.24).

Other early testimony to the apostle John’s authorship of Revelation comes from Origen (De Principiis, 1.2.10; cf. 1.2.7), Hippolytus (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 36), and Victorinus, author of a fourth-century commentary on Revelation (in his comments on Rev. 10:3).

Such strong, early, and consistent testimony to the apostle John’s authorship affirms the book’s internal claims (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8) and cannot easily be set aside. The testimony of Justin and Irenaeus is especially significant, since they lived in Ephesus and Smyrna when some of Revelation’s original readers would still have been alive. That the church could have been mistaken about who wrote Revelation virtually from the time it was written is inconceivable.

It was not until the second half of the third century that Dionysius, the bishop (overseer, pastor) of the church in Alexandria, seriously questioned John the apostle’s authorship of Revelation. Concerned that some were teaching that there will be a literal earthly millennium (which he rejected), Dionysius attempted to discredit that teaching by denying that John wrote Revelation. (Since Dionysius accepted Revelation as inspired and part of the canon of Scripture, it is not clear what he hoped to gain by denying that the apostle John was its author.) His arguments against apostolic authorship rested primarily on the difference in style and vocabulary between the gospel of John and the Johannine epistles (which Dionysius believed John the apostle to have written) and Revelation. Those arguments are the same ones used today by those who deny that the apostle John wrote Revelation (see the discussion of this point below). As to who did write Revelation, Dionysius could only speculate that there were two Johns in Ephesus when Revelation was written. All that he could offer in support of that hypothesis, however, was the hearsay evidence that “they say that there are two monuments [tombs] at Ephesus, and that each bears the name of John” (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7.25). Donald Guthrie comments:

Seizing on Dionysius’s theory that a John other than the apostle wrote Revelation, the church historian Eusebius put forth the thesis that Revelation was actually written by a “John the Elder” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39). The existence of that shadowy figure rests entirely on a much-disputed statement attributed by Eusebius to Papias, who, like Polycarp, was a disciple of the apostle John. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying, “If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,–what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter [elder] John, the disciples of the Lord, say” (Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, 1).

It is doubtful, however, that Papias had two different Johns in mind. He mentions John again with Aristion because they were still alive (as the present tense verb “say” indicates). He repeats the word “presbyter” before naming John again to show that he is referring to the John he had previously described as one of the elders [presbyters]. R. C. H. Lenski notes:

Even if it could be proven that Papias spoke of two Johns, that would not prove that “John the Elder” wrote Revelation. It is unlikely that two such prominent men named John lived at Ephesus at the same time. Beyond all that speculation, the writer of Revelation simply identifies himself as “John,” implying that he was so well-known to his readers that no further identification was necessary. Nor is it likely that the church was mistaken virtually from the time Revelation was written as to its author. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, as noted above, were in a position to have known some of Revelation’s original readers, making such a case of mistaken identity extremely improbable.

The differences in style between Revelation and John’s other inspired writings noted by Dionysius still form the main line of argument for those who deny that the apostle wrote Revelation. While those differences do exist, because the nature of the material is so different, they are not significant enough to prove that the apostle John could not have written Revelation. Some of those differences can also, as noted above, be explained by the different literary style of Revelation. And it is also possible that John used an amanuensis (secretary) when he wrote the gospel and the epistles (as Paul did; Rom. 16:22)–something he could not have done while writing Revelation in exile on Patmos.

Despite the differences, there are striking parallels between Rev- elation and the apostle John’s other writings. Only the gospel of John and Revelation refer to Christ as the Word (John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). Revelation frequently describes Christ as the Lamb–a title elsewhere given to Him only in John’s gospel. Both the gospel of John and Revelation refer to Jesus as a witness (John 5:31–32; Rev. 1:5). Revelation 1:7 and John 19:37 quote Zechariah 12:10 differently from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) but in agreement with each other. (For further examples of the similarities between Revelation and John’s other writings, see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, An Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1992], 11ff.; Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation [Reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977], cxxvi-cxxx; Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], 30.) Commenting on the similarities between Revelation and John’s other writings, Guthrie writes, “It should be noted, incidentally, that in spite of linguistic and grammatical differences the Apocalypse has a closer affinity to the Greek of the other Johannine books than to any other New Testament books” (New Testament Introduction, 940).

The arguments of some ancient and modern critics notwithstanding, the traditional view that the apostle John was the John identified as the inspired author of Revelation best fits the evidence. The strong testimony of the church almost from the time Revelation was written, the similarities between Revelation and John’s other writings, the absence of any credible alternative author, and the improbability that two prominent men named John lived at the same time in Ephesus argue convincingly for apostolic authorship.

The circumstances under which John wrote Revelation are discussed in chapter 3 of this volume. The seven churches, to which the apostle addressed the book, are described in detail in chapters 4–10.

DATE

Two main alternatives have been proposed for the date of Revelation: during either the reign of Nero (C. A. D. 68), or that of Domitian (c. A. D. 96). The earlier date is held primarily by some who adopt the preterist interpretation of Revelation (see Interpretation below). It is based largely on questionable exegesis of several passages in the book and attempts to relegate its prophetic fulfillment entirely to the period before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Those who hold to the early date see in Jerusalem’s destruction the prophesied second coming of Jesus Christ in its first phase. External evidence for the earlier (Neronian) date is almost nonexistent.

On the other hand, the view that the apostle John penned Revelation near the end of Domitian’s reign was widely held in the early church. The second-century church father Irenaeus wrote, “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision [the book of Revelation]. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (Against Heresies, 5.30.3). The church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome also affirm that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign (cf. Mounce, Revelation, 32; Swete, Commentary on Revelation, xcix-c). The testimony of the early church that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign is difficult to explain if it was actually written during Nero’s reign.

Revelation was written during a time when the church was undergoing persecution. John had been exiled to Patmos, at least one believer had already suffered martyrdom (2:13), and more persecution loomed on the horizon (2:10). The extent of the persecution under Domitian appears to have been more widespread than that under Nero, which was largely confined to the city of Rome. Thus, the persecution of Christians referred to in Revelation fits better with a date during Domitian’s reign.

The condition of the seven churches to whom John addressed Revelation also argues for the later date. As seen in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Timothy, those churches were spiritually healthy as of the mid-sixties, when Paul last ministered in that region. But by the time Revelation was written, those churches had suffered serious spiritual decline. Ephesus had left its first love, and most of the rest had been infiltrated by false doctrine and sin. Such a decline would have taken longer than the brief period between the end of Paul’s ministry in Asia Minor and the end of Nero’s reign. In a similar vein, some have argued that the lack of any mention of Paul in the letters to the seven churches implies an interval of at least a generation between his death and the writing of Revelation (Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 954 n. 1).

Paul nowhere mentions the heretical sect known as the Nicolaitans that plagued the churches at Ephesus and Pergamum (2:6, 15). But by the time of Revelation the sect had become so notorious that John could simply name it; the Nicolaitans were evidently so well-known to his readers that no description was necessary. That again implies a long time gap between the time of Paul and the time Revelation was written.

Laodicea, one of the seven churches, was devastated by an earthquake about A. D. 60. For the rest of Nero’s reign, the city was involved in reconstruction, and could hardly be considered “rich … wealthy” and having “need of nothing” (3:17). A date during Domitian’s reign would allow time for Laodicea to regain its wealth.

There is evidence that the church at Smyrna was not founded until after Paul’s death (about A. D. 67 [Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 954]). It could hardly have begun, grown to maturity, and declined in the brief interval between the apostle’s death and the end of Nero’s reign at about the same time.

A final reason for preferring the late (A. D. 95–96) date for Revelation is the timing of John’s arrival in Asia Minor. According to tradition, John did not leave Palestine for Asia Minor until the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome (A. D. 66–70). Placing the writing of Revelation during Nero’s reign would not allow sufficient time for John’s ministry to have reached the point where the Romans would have felt the need to exile him (Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 22). G. R. Beasley-Murray notes that

The weight of the evidence clearly favors a date for the writing of Revelation in the mid-nineties, near the end of Domitian’s reign. This is critically important, because it eliminates the possibility that the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

INTERPRETATION

Revelation’s picturesque images, mysterious symbols, and apocalyptic language make it one of the most challenging books in Scripture to interpret. There are four main interpretative approaches to the book.

The preterist approach views Revelation not as future, predictive prophecy, but as a historical record of events in the first-century Roman Empire. The preterist view thus ignores the book’s own claims to be a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19). Nor were all the events predicted and depicted in Revelation fulfilled in the first century. The second coming of Christ described in chapter 19 obviously is yet to occur. But the preterist view requires that one see the words about Christ’s second coming as fulfilled in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, even though He did not appear on that occasion. Nor is there any persecution in the first century that fits the description of the horrific events depicted in chapters 6–19.

The historicist approach finds in Revelation a record of the sweep of church history from apostolic times until the present. Historicist interpreters often resort to allegorizing the text in order to find in it the various historical events they believe it depicts (e. g., the fall of Rome to the barbarians, the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, the advent of Islam, even the French Revolution). Not surprisingly, such a subjective, arbitrary, and whimsical approach has given rise to a myriad of conflicting interpretations of the actual historical events in Revelation. Like the preterist approach, the historicist view ignores Revelation’s own claims to be a prophecy. It also robs the book of any meaning for those first-century believers to whom it was addressed. And it removes the interpretation of Revelation from the realm of literal, historical hermeneutics, leaving it at the mercy of the allegorical and spiritualized meanings invented by each would-be interpreter.

The idealist approach sees depicted in Revelation the timeless struggle between good and evil that is played out in every age. According to this view Revelation is neither a historical record nor a predictive prophecy. Like the first two views, the idealist view ignores Revelation’s claims to be a prophecy. It also, if carried to its logical conclusion, severs Revelation from any connection with actual historical events. The book is thus reduced to a collection of myths designed to convey spiritual truth.

The futurist approach sees in chapters 4–22 predictions of people and events yet to come in the future. Only this approach allows Revelation to be interpreted following the same literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutical method by which non-prophetic portions of Scripture are interpreted. As previously noted, proponents of the other three approaches are frequently forced to resort to allegorizing or spiritualizing the text to sustain their interpretations. The futurist approach, in contrast to the other three, does full justice to Revelation’s claim to be a prophecy. The futurist approach is often criticized as robbing Revelation of any meaning for those to whom it was written, since it views much of the book as describing events in the distant future. In reply John F. Walvoord notes:

Anything other than the futurist approach leaves the meaning of the book to human ingenuity and opinion. The futurist approach takes the book’s meaning as God gave it. In studying Revelation, we will take this straightforward view and accept what the text says. It is nearly impossible to consider all the interpretive options offered by people holding the other three views, so we will not try to work through that maze of options. Rather, we will take the book as it comes in the normal fashion of language.