Properly Interpreting Revelation

One of most important aspects of correctly interpreting Revelation is to understand the date when it was penned. There are two main views regarding the date of authorship. One is that it was written before 70 AD. and the destruction of the Temple, and probably before 68 AD and the death of Nero. The other, and more popular date, is 96 AD during the reign of Domitian. The question comes down to whether Revelation was written during the reign of Nero or Domitian.

Although less popular currently, the earlier date is to be preferred for many reasons. First, is the lack of evidence for any great period of persecution under Domitian. While Domitian was demonstrably cruel, there is no mention of an alleged widespread persecution of Christians by Domitian until the 5th century. Domitian did briefly banish some Christians but they were eventually allowed back into the Empire. John Robinson remarks: "When this limited and selective purge, in which no Christian was for certain put to death, is compared with the massacre of Christians under Nero in what two early and entirely independent witnesses speak of as ‘immense multitudes,’ it is astonishing that commentators should have been led by Irenaeus, who himself does not even mention a persecution, to prefer a Domitianic context for the book of Revelation." Robinson’s reference to Irenaeus refers to Irenaeus’ writing in Against Heresies in the late second century that the prophecy had been seen around 95 AD. The sentence in which that information appears is difficult in the original language and could just as easily be read that it was John who was seen in 95 AD, not the prophecy. This one sentence from Irenaeus, provides the only hard alleged evidence for the date during Domitian’s reign. Regardless of the ambiguity of the language, it is also possible that Irenaeus was mistaken if he was claiming a later date for the prophecy of John. (As wonderful as Irenaeus was, he did make factual mistakes, after all, such as writing that Jesus was nearly 50 when he died.)

Second, the familiarity that the author demonstrates with specific Temple worship practices suggests that the Temple was still standing when written. As the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, this would favor the earlier date.

Third, when interpreted properly, the book of Revelation is primarily dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would clearly put the date of authorship before September, 70 A.D. This provides the primary reason that people cling to the later date. They want the book to be about future events, and that interpretation is more problematic if Revelation was written before the fall of the Temple.

Fourth, Scripture teaches that the special revelation that resulted in the Bible would end by AD 70. "The angel Gabriel told Daniel that the "seventy weeks" were to end with the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:24-27); and that period would also serve to ‘seal up the vision and the prophecy’ (Daniel 9:27). In other words, special revelation would stop – be sealed up – by the time Jerusalem was destroyed. The brilliant, fourth century church father, Athanasius understood this to be the meaning of Daniel 9. He wrote: "When did the prophet and division cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stand, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them . . . For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time."

There are many other items that point to the earlier date for Revelation but the fact seems clear. God warned that the kingdom would be taken from the apostate Jews (Matthew 21:33-43). He held off his final judgment on the nation of Israel until the writing of the New Covenant document was complete. Once that was accomplished, God terminated the Old Covenant once and for all with the destruction of Jerusalem.

To understand the book of Revelation, and really the whole Bible, we must understand that the Bible is a book about the Covenant. The Bible is not a complete theological treatise, an encyclopedia of religious knowledge, a collection of moral tales, or a grouping of studies of spiritual heroes from times past. The Bible is the record of God revealing Himself to mankind and creating a relationship with man through His Covenant. The Covenant is the meaning of biblical history, biblical law, and biblical prophecy. David Chilton, author of Days of Vengeance, writes: "The prophets were God’s legal emissaries to Israel and the nations, acting as prosecuting attorneys bringing what has become known among recent scholars as the ‘Covenant Lawsuit.’"

The prophets did not give prophecies that would fit our culture’s definition of what a prophecy is. In other words, they are not a prediction but more of an evaluation of man’s response to the warnings of the Word of God. For example, look at God’s words through Jeremiah: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it" (Jeremiah 18:7-10). The words of the prophets were only predications in the sense that they relayed what would happen if the people did not respond humbly to the warnings. This is why Jonah’s prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days did not come true, so to speak. The Ninevites repented, and so disaster was averted.

Like so many other Biblical writings, the Revelation is a specific covenantal prophecy. The only way to properly understand the images in Revelation is through the understanding of the covenantal context. If it is ignored, the intent of John’s message is lost and Revelation becomes open to the latest fanciful eschatological (having to do with the end of times) flavor of the day. The book of Revelation is a covenant document not a predictive look at the very near future. If it is not read in the proper context of covenantal understanding it loses its continuity with the rest of the Bible and becomes little more than a disturbing appendix to the rest of God’s Word, in other words it becomes the ‘scary’ book at the end of the Bible.

God’s relationship with Israel was described in covenantal terms throughout the pages of the Bible. Israel was God’s bride, bound to Him through covenant. The Covenant was a legally binding contract between Israel and the Lord God. It should be of no surprise, then, that the structure of many of the Old Testament Covenantal books in the Old Testament are extremely similar to the accepted form of peace treaties and covenants in the ancient Near East. It is not as if the biblical writers copied the old world’s form of treaties, rather it would seem the other way around.

Treaties in the ancient world were pretty simple. A conquering king would make a covenant with their defeated enemy. In the covenant certain promises and stipulations would be made that would guarantee protection for the defeated vassal. He also agreed to obey and respect the authority of their new lord. If the vassal or inferior king violated the covenant terms, the lord would send messengers to warn the vassal to remind him of the curses and consequences of breaking the sanctions. This was the function of the biblical prophets. They were reminding Israel of the curse-sanctions if they did not quickly repent of their covenant-violating activities.

The standard treaty in the ancient world consisted of five parts, all of which appear in the biblical covenants:

1. Preamble (identifying the lordship of the Great King, stressing both his transcendence and his immanence);

2. Historical Prologue (surveying the lord’s previous relationship to the vassal, especially emphasizing the blessings bestowed);

3. Ethical Stipulations (expounding the vassal’s obligations, his "guide to citizenship" in the covenant);

4. Sanctions (outlining the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience);

5. Succession Arrangements (dealing with the continuity of the covenant relationship over future generations).

We need look no further than the book of Deuteronomy to find a biblical example of this treaty form.

Deuteronomy

1. Preamble (1:1-5)

2. Historical Prologue (1:6-4:49)

3. Ethical Stipulations (5:1-26:19)

4. Sanctions (27:1-30:20)

5. Succession Arrangements (31:1-34:12)

Once the covenant had been set in place it was God’s expectations that the stipulations be followed. When they were not, the prophets were sent as prosecuting attorneys. The pattern of the lawsuit was always patterned after the same structure of the original covenant. This means that the biblical prophecies follow the five-part treaty structure. The book of Hosea, for example, is laid out according to the covenant outline:

Hosea

1. Preamble (1)

2. Historical Prologue (2)

3. Ethical Stipulations (4-7)

4. Sanctions (8-9)

5. Succession Arrangements (10-14)

In the tradition of many other biblical prophecies, the Revelation is a prophecy of the Covenant demonstrating God’s wrath against Israel and a reminder of the covenantal curses that will follow as a result of their violation of the stipulations. By rejecting Jesus Christ, Israel had rejected the Covenant and now the curses would kick in. The Revelation is written in the same five part treaty structure style in which many other biblical prophecies are written:

Revelation

1. Preamble: Vision of the Son of Man (1)

2. Historical Prologue: The Seven Letters (2-3)

3. Ethical Stipulations: The Seven Seals (4-7)

4. Sanctions: The Seven Trumpets (8-14)

5. Succession Arrangements (15-22)

Another indicator that Revelation is covenant lawsuit is the fact that is so closely mirrors and follows the structure of Ezekiel, one of the clearest covenant lawsuits in the Bible. Revelation is very dependent upon the language and imagery of Ezekiel. According to Albert Vanhoye there are at least 130 separate references to Ezekiel found in the Revelation. John does more than just make some allusions to Ezekiel; it appears that he follows him step-by-step. Phillip Carrington says, with just a slight hint of hyperbole: "The Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel. Its fundamental structure is the same. Its interpretation depends upon Ezekiel. The first half of both books leads up to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem; in the second they describe a new and holy Jerusalem. There is one significant difference. Ezekiel’s laments over Tyre is transformed into a lament over Jerusalem, the reason being that St. John wishes to transfer to Jerusalem the note irrevocable doom found in the lament over Tyre. Here lies the real difference in the messages of the two books. Jerusalem, like Tyre, is to go forever." Look at the obvious parallels between the two books.

1. The Throne-Vision (Revelation 4/Ezekiel 1)
2. The Book (Revelation 5/Ezekiel 2-3)
3. The Four Plagues (Revelation 6:1-8/Ezekiel 5)
4. The Slain under the Altar (Revelation 6:9-11/Ezekiel 6)
5. The Wrath of God (Revelation 6:12-17/Ezekiel 7)
6. The Seal on the Saint’s Foreheads (Revelation 7/Ezekiel 9)
7. The Coals from the Altar (Revelation 8/Ezekiel 10)
8. No More Delay (Revelation 10:1-7/Ezekiel 12)
9. The Eating of the Book (Revelation 10:8-11/Ezekiel 2)
10. The Measuring of the Temple (Revelation 11:1-2/Ezekiel 40-43)
11. Jerusalem and Sodom (Revelation 11:8/Ezekiel 16)
12. The Cup of Wrath (Revelation 14/Ezekiel 23)
13. The Vine of the Land (Revelation 14:18-20/Ezekiel 15)
14. The Great Harlot (Revelation 17-18/Ezekiel 16, 23)
15. The Lament over the City (Revelation 18/Ezekiel 27)
16. The Scavengers’ Feast (Revelation 19/Ezekiel 39)
17. The First Resurrection (Revelation 20:4-6/Ezekiel 37)
18. The Battle with Gog and Magog (Revelation 20:7-9/Ezekiel 38-39)
19. The New Jerusalem (Revelation 21/Ezekiel 40-48)
20. The River of Life (Revelation 22/Ezekiel 47)

This step-by-step "pegging" of Revelation with Ezekiel demonstrates more than just a literary relationship. "Level pegging is not usually a feature of literary borrowing. . . Level pegging is a feature rather of lectionary use, as when the Church sets Genesis to be read alongside Romans, or Deuteronomy alongside Acts. . . Furthermore, it is plain that John expected his prophecies to be read aloud in worship, for he says, ‘Blessed is he who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear’ (1:3)." The fact that John repeatedly refers to his book as ‘the prophecy’ indicates that he was aligning himself with the Old Testament prophecies. David Chilton sums this up saying that, ". . . the Book of Revelation was intended from the beginning as a series of readings in worship throughout the Church Year, to be read in tandem with the prophecies of Ezekiel (as well as other Old Testament readings). M.D. Goulder further describes the purpose of Revelation, ". . . both books divide into about fifty units, and the Jewish (Christian) year consists of fifty or fifty-one sabbaths/Sundays. So we have what looks like material for an annual cycle of Ezekiel inspiring a year’s cycle of visions, which could then be read in the Asian churches alongside Ezekiel, and expounded in sermons in its light."

Another insight into properly interpreting Revelation is to understand the symbolism in the book. As stated above, prophecy is not strictly predicting the future. It is primarily a message from God reminding the hearers of their violation of the Covenant and the proclamation of a covenant lawsuit. The prophets did predict future events but they did not do so in historical form. They predicted the natural results of the way events were going. They used symbols and figures from history, the surrounding culture, and creation. Most errors in interpreting books of biblical prophecy, including the Revelation are due to misunderstandings of the nature of symbolism in prophecy.

It is important to remember that the Bible is literature. It is divinely inspired, but it is literature, nonetheless, and must be read as literature. When one reads poetry, it must be read differently than if it was the Wall Street Journal. In the same way, prophetic symbolism cannot be interpreted anyway you would like. Think of how silly it would seem if we were to expect to read Psalm 23 literally. Is there literally a valley of the shadow of death? Does Jesus make us lie down in green pastures? I know of no one that would suggest the twenty-third Psalm be read that way, yet these same people have little problem in attempting to read prophetic symbolism like that found in Revelation that way.

From the very first prophecy in the Bible we already see the tendency to use symbolic language: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" (Genesis 3:15). This is clearly not as simple as being history written before it happens. This is a symbolic statement, as is most biblical prophecy.

John tells his readers from the first verse of Revelation that this is a book of revelation and signs: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John" (KJV). The Revelation was signified or "sign-ified" by the angel. John wants his readers to know that this is a book of signs and symbols and should be read that way. "The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by St. John’s use of the same term in his Gospel (12:33; 18:32: 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ ‘signifying’ a future event by a more or less symbolic indication, rather than by a prosaic, literal description. And this is generally the form of prophecies in the Revelation. It is a book of symbols from beginning to end." John did not intend for the Revelation to be read as "tomorrow’s newspaper today." He expected that his readers would read his prophecy in the terms of the Old Testament symbolic language with which he wrote the book.

The key here is to use the Old Testament symbolism that John intended. We must interpret symbols using the system the author intended and used. We cannot make symbols mean whatever we wish them to. This is irresponsible and dangerous. David Chilton agrees that we cannot interpret symbols however we choose. He says, ". . . nor did St. John create the images of the Book of Revelation out of his own imagination. He presents Christ to his readers as a Lion and Lamb, not because he thinks those are a pretty picture, but because of the connotations of lions and lambs already established in the Bible." It is obvious that John used allusions to Old Testament language and symbols as a starting point for his own symbolism. Merrill Tenney says that if looked at conservatively, John makes 348 clear references to the Old Testament, although he never once quotes the Old Testament. This includes 57 from the Pentateuch, 235 from the Prophets, and 56 from the historical and poetical books.

The very earliest Christians would have easily understood John’s language, references, and symbols. By the late second, and early third centuries, the Hebrew influence had largely vanished from the Church and so did the ease in understanding such a Hebrew book. Our current difficulty in finding the key to unlocking the Revelation lies in our inability to understand the Old Testament references and symbolism. We simply cannot, however, fall into the trap of interpreting Revelation’s symbols without an understanding of the Old Testament references.
One clear example of the misinterpretation of symbols in Revelation is that of the seal or mark on the hands and/ or foreheads of people (Revelation 7, 9, 14, 22). These are clear references to the Old Testament concept of the seal or mark (Genesis 3:19; Exodus 28:36; Deuteronomy 6:6-8; Ezekiel 9:4-6). The symbol mark or seal is a clear allusion to the Old Testament symbol of the mark or seal referring to man’s total obedience to whomever or whatever he was sealed by. Yet, this symbol has been interpreted to mean all kinds of fanciful and fantastical things. We must read the symbols in the way that John intended them to be read which is according to the Old Testament language. When we do this, we see that the book is a covenant lawsuit, not some fanciful prediction of the end of all things.

Another example is the oft-misinterpreted phrase "coming with the clouds" (Revelation 1:7). This should not be taken, as it often is, as Jesus riding gloriously down from heaven to scoop up His people. There is no biblical precedent to interpret this symbolic phrase in that way. A quick look through the Old Testament will show us that God coming on the clouds is one of the most familiar biblical images for judgment (Genesis 15:17; Exodus 13:21-22; 14:19-20, 24; 19:9, 16-19; Psalm 18:8-14; 104:3; Isaiah 19:1; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Nahum 1:2-8; Matthew 24:30; Mark 14:62; Acts 2:19). When God comes on the clouds it is not generally a happy event, this is judgment language and people should tremble. Several times throughout the opening chapters of Revelation, Jesus says that He will come to the churches if they do not repent (2:5; 2:16; 2:25; 3:3). I hardly think that Jesus is threatening the churches with His Second Coming. When we see the Bible talk about God coming or coming on the clouds it is almost always in judgment; it is not referring to some sort of rapture scenario.

The final category through which we can understand that the Revelation is a message to the first century church and a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem due to Israel’s Covenant violations is the contemporary focus of Revelation.

The Revelation was written to remind a suffering and battered church that Christ was Lord. John wanted them to not forget during the coming times of turmoil that Jesus had claimed "all authority on heaven and on earth," (Matthew 28:28) that He was in control, and that He was the King of all things. John wanted them to understand that their suffering was a part of God’s plan, that they were an integral part of the great war of history. Israel would soon be punished as a Covenant breaker. The sufferings of the Church and the coming destruction of Israel was not a sign that Jesus had abandoned the world to Satan; rather it was part of the plan to exalt the Church. They were no abandoned by God; they were on the front line of the battle of the ages. The battle was won at the Resurrection, everything since then has been nothing more than a mop-up operation. The message was for the church to have heart and overcome the world because Christ has already conquered it and has passed off His dominion to His bride.

The true message of the Revelation can only be understood if it was written to John’s contemporaries. Of what comfort would the Revelation be to the persecuted church if it was concerning events over 2,000 years in the future? Is it logical to consider that the book of Revelation would be irrelevant and unintelligible for 2,000 years of Christians? Interestingly, since the time of Montanus, a third-century heretical offshoot of true Christianity, virtually all heretical groups have interpreted Revelation futuristically, and have assumed that their own generation was the end of all things.

The early church’s biggest enemy was an apostate victory. The message that God was soon about to clearly terminate his ties with the violators of His Covenant was exactly what the first-century church needed to hear. The message of Revelation for Christians since the first-century is not futuristic, but is instead, that Christ has already defeated our enemies, now it is up to us to exercise dominion and transform the world. Some would claim that a contemporary understanding of Revelation would make it irrelevant for today, but that could not be further from the truth. If this were the case then all of the epistles would also be irrelevant as they were written to deal with first-century problems. In fact, although not addressed specifically to us, the Revelation’s message of dominion and overcoming is just as relevant for the Church today as it was 2,000 years ago.

There are at least four specific areas that point to the contemporary nature of the Revelation. First is simply the contemporary focus of the book. John seems to address the martyrs throughout the book (6:9; 7:14; 12:11). When we realize that the Revelation was written to comfort a suffering church, we realize that John was addressing the needs of the first-century martyrs. What would have been the point of writing a book to a suffering group of people that were told to read and ponder the book that was full of futuristic references that would have made no sense to them?

Second, John himself says that the Revelation would "soon take place," (1:1) and that the "time is near" (1:3). The words shortly and near would be nonsense if they were referring to events 2,000 years in the future. Some might be tempted to trot out 2 Peter 3:8 which says "a day is like a thousand years." They forget that Peter cancels that out with the end of the sentence, "and a thousand years are like a day." Plus, the context of this passage is completely different.

Third, John clearly references several events and situations as contemporary. In 13:18, he tells his readers that if they have insight, they can calculate the number of the beast. This would be a cruel hoax if the beast were not to arrive for another 2,000 years. In 17:10, a passage that is clearly referring to ancient Rome, John informs his readers that the sixth king is still on the throne. Further, in 17:18, John says that "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth." The present tense used, ‘is the city’, indicates a contemporary situation.

Fourth, the angel tells John to not seal up the prophecy of the book because the time "is near" (Psalm 22). This again implies that the prophecy is about events in the near future. In addition to that, compare this with the command Daniel received at the end of his book, "close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end" (Daniel 12:4). Daniel’s prophetic vision concerns things in the distant future so he is told to seal it up until the time of the end of the Old Covenant. John, in contrast, is told not to seal up his prophecy because the time to which it refers is near.

With a proper framework of understanding, we will attempt to dive into the book of Revelation and interpret it, to the best of our ability, in the way that it would have been understood by its very first readers. Once we have accomplished that task, although we will surely make some mistakes, we can then set about to decipher the lessons that the Revelation still holds for us, today, in the 21st century. As this is a study guide and not a full work on the Revelation, you will note that works quoted and used are given in the text itself, there is no room for full footnoting (please contact me if you would like further information on any source). It should be noted that there will be many source cited in this study guide, however, the author freely admits his heavy reliance on two works in particular: Biblical Apocalyptics by Milton S. Terry, and Days of Vengeance by David Chilton.