IVP Dictionary of Later New Testament
The Book of Revelation is acknowledged to be a closed book by the majority of modern readers. This is largely due to the unfamiliarity of the prophetic books in the OT, the almost total ignorance of Jewish apocalyptic writings and the historical setting of the book which determines its content. In this article we shall endeavor to clarify these features and so enable the message of the last book of the Bible to be grasped.
1. Genre
2. Date
3. Historical Situation
4. Content and Structure
5. Authorship
6. The Expectation of Antichrist
7. The Purpose of the Revelation
8. The Significance of the Revelation for Today
9. The Revelation in the Earliest Post-New Testament Writings
1. Genre.
1.1. Apocalypse.
The book of Revelation is the only work of its kind in the NT, but there were many like it in the ancient world, written especially by Jews but later also by Christians. These were called apocalypses, which is a Greek term from the verb apokalyptō, meaning “to uncover,” “to reveal” or “to disclose” what is hidden. The characteristic motive of such works was to keep alive the flame of faith in difficult times and to maintain hope in the coming of the Day of the Lord (see Day of the Lord) and of the kingdom of God (see Kingdom of God). Accordingly the apocalyptic movement is commonly viewed as the child of prophecy. Jewish apocalypses, however, were not entirely concerned with the eschatological hope of their people, for they frequently contain descriptions of the heavens and the earth and their inhabitants, including [p. 1026] angelic and demonic powers. Nevertheless it is the eschatology of the apocalyptic writings that is most commonly in mind when one speaks of apocalyptic literature.
The most notable example of apocalypse in the OT is the book of Daniel, which became the model for subsequent apocalyptic writings. Other prophetic works, however, contain features that are related to apocalyptic thought and mode of expression. Ezekiel, for example, is sometimes called “the father of apocalyptic.” Many passages in Isaiah 40–55 anticipate the apocalyptic style and content, along with Isaiah 25–27 and Zechariah 9–14. All these and other passages from the OT prophets contain representations of the intervention of God for the salvation of his people.
The book of Revelation opens with the words, “The Revelation (apokalypsis) of Jesus Christ that God gave him.” We cannot be certain as to whether John intended to describe his work as an apocalypse. Was he implying that this revelation, given by God to Jesus (Rev 1:1–2), provided the definitive declaration of that which other writings of this kind sought to give? The nature of that which follows may be thought to justify it. If this admission is acknowledged, it would be of utmost importance in interpreting the language and symbolism of the book. Much of the teaching of Jesus is conveyed in parables; the book of Revelation employs parabolic pictures for setting forth its representation of the past, present and future of history. An understanding of the use of such parables in related literature is invaluable for their interpretation in John’s apocalypse. The pictorial language of Jewish apocalypses is itself rooted in the OT, and in turn the authors of the OT used imagery familiar to the nations of the Middle East. John the prophet was evidently acquainted with all that background, for it is recognized by virtually all scholars that his work reflects a mind soaked in the OT, and his language is dominated by it. A knowledge of this background is a prerequisite for a right understanding of his book.
1.2. Prophecy.
The second sentence of the Revelation reads, “Happy is the one who reads [to others] and they who listen to the words of the prophecy and keep the things that are written in it.” It is evident that John is aware that he was commissioned by the Lord to write this prophecy and that he is numbered among the prophets of God. As such he will have realized that he stands in the succession of the prophets of the new covenant. More than once this is mentioned in his book. The epilogue relates how John fell at the feet of the angel who had showed him the visions he had seen in order to worship him, but this he was forbidden to do: “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God” (Rev 22:8–9). In Revelation 19:10 the angel tells John, “I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold the testimony of Jesus . . . for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.” That appears to mean that the Holy Spirit who inspires prophecy enables prophets to bear witness to the revelation that Jesus brought and brings. It accords with the description of the content of the Revelation in its first sentence, where it is stated to be “witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:2). In light of these statements, indeed of the content of the entire book, we are to recognize that the Revelation is the work of the Spirit, who from Pentecost on has enabled Christians to bear prophetic witness to “the word of God and the witness of Jesus.” That witness includes God’s word concerning his will for humankind in the present and in the future.
It is evident, accordingly, that John’s work is not to be viewed either as an apocalypse or as a prophecy, as though those terms were mutually exclusive; rather one should acknowledge that it has the features of both; that is, his work is to be defined as an apocalyptic prophecy and/or a prophetic apocalypse.
1.3. Letter.
After the first paragraph John greets his readers in the conventional manner of one writing a letter (Rev 1:4–5). Correspondingly he concludes the prophecy with a benediction such as is normal in the NT epistles (Rev 22:21). Moreover John was commanded to write what he was about to see and to send the work to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia (Rev 1:11). All these churches have a short letter addressed to them. The latter always includes the exhortation, “Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches” (e.g., Rev 2:11).
It is clear that the seven letters were intended for the benefit of all the seven churches addressed. Significantly the cities in which the seven churches were located were centers of [p. 1027] civic administration and of postal distribution in their areas. It was therefore possible for copies of the whole prophecy to be dispatched to churches in other cities of the province. NT letters were clearly intended to be read to gathered congregations; the same applies to the entire book of Revelation, as is clear from the beatitude in Revelation 1:3 and from the epilogue in Revelation 22:6–21. If then the book of Revelation was a letter to the churches of Roman Asia, it is manifest that it was addressed to their situations.
In this respect Revelation stands in contrast to the opening paragraph of 1 Enoch, which states that what the prophet saw was “not for this generation, but for a remote one which is to come.” The situations and needs of the churches to which John wrote were as truly in John’s mind as the situations and needs of the churches to which Paul and other Christian leaders wrote. The recognition of this fact has important consequences for the interpretation of the whole work. The prophet was bidden to write to the churches of Roman Asia in view of events that were developing in their time and to prepare them for their future. Just as the rest of the letters in the NT require the circumstances of the churches to which they were addressed to be known for understanding their content, so it is with the book of Revelation. Failure to grasp this fact has led innumerable readers to misinterpret the book by identifying the figures and events described in it with persons and events of their own times. Such misunderstanding is corrected by every effort to perceive the situation addressed in the book and its message for those living in it and for all subsequent generations.
1.4. Liturgy.
Not a few books in the NT reflect liturgical elements in them (see Liturgical Elements), especially prayers and hymns and confessions of faith (see Creeds). One thinks of Ephesians 1 and the prayer of Ephesians 3:14–21; the christological hymn in Philippians 2:6–11 and that in Colossians 1:15–20; the short snatch of a hymn in Ephesians 5:14 (all thought by some scholars to have been composed for the celebration of baptism) and the various “faithful sayings” of the Pastoral Epistles. The book of Revelation has more such songs scattered through its pages than does any other writing in the NT. Their substance and contexts led M. H. Shepherd to suggest that the early paschal liturgy of the churches formed the model for the Revelation. This interpretation has not found acceptance by most scholars, but the presence of liturgical forms in so many sections of the book is important; their combination with other liturgical forms should be acknowledged.
1.5. Drama.
In the Greek tradition, worship and drama are closely linked. The presence of the many hymns in the book of Revelation has encouraged some interpreters to see in the book a drama of the end time. J. G. Bowman observed that the book is made up of seven acts and seven scenes. The hymns have a similar function to the choruses in Greek drama: they throw light on the visions of the book. This E. Schüssler Fiorenza acknowledges: “They [the hymns of Revelation] function in the same way as the chorus in Greek drama, preparing and commenting upon the dramatic movements of the plot”; but she asserts that the Revelation is not a drama (Schüssler Fiorenza, 166), and with this most concur while readily admitting that the book is a remarkably dramatic work.
2. Date.
Two chief possibilities as to the time of writing the Revelation have been and still are maintained by scholars, namely, either in the turbulent period shortly after the death of Nero (A.D. 68–69) or toward the end of Domitian’s reign, about A.D. 95.
The former view is held on the basis of the likelihood that John had endured the fearful persecution of Christians by Nero and also because there is no clear reference in the book to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If Revelation 11:1–2 is interpreted literally, it can indicate that Jerusalem had been under prolonged attack and that the altar and outer court of the temple either had been seized or could not be kept from the Roman forces, whereas the sanctuary itself continued to be preserved by God.
In the latter chapters of the book Rome is called “Babylon” (see Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). The most probable reason for giving the name Babylon to Rome was that as Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had destroyed Jerusalem in 586 .B.C.. so Rome had done in recent times. The dirge over Babylon in Revelation 18 views the current tyrant city as another Babylon. The apocalypses 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were written at the end of the first century of the [p. 1028] Christian era and also gave the name of Babylon to Rome for the same reason.
In Revelation 13:3 (cf. Rev 13:14) it is stated that one of the heads of the “beast,” the antichrist, had received a deadly wound, but he lived again and was empowered by Satan to rule the empire (cf. Rev 17:8). This appears to refer to the contemporary belief that the wounded “head” was Nero and that he had not been killed, whether by himself or another, but had escaped and would return to rule the empire (see Roman Empire). Revelation 17 has a developed form of this notion and represents the belief that the Beast Nero had risen from the dead and would come with a confederate army from the East and destroy “Babylon the Great.” This expectation would require a later date than the death of Nero.
The majority opinion as to the date of Revelation is that of Irenaeus, who wrote concerning the book, “That was seen no very long time since, but almost in our own day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign” (Irenaeus Haer. 5.30.3). Eusebius cited this judgment with approval (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.18-20; 5.8.6). This assessment of the date of Revelation suits other evidence of the character and contents of the book, above all the delineation of the antichrist as another Nero.
The explanation in Revelation 17:9–11 as to the meaning of the seven heads of the beast has been investigated with a view to determining the date of the Revelation, but in vain. Two meanings are given in the text, the one identifying the seven heads with the seven hills of Rome, the other representing seven emperors. Both explanations are secondary, since they are applications to a contemporary situation of an ancient myth or saga of the seven-headed monster of the deep who opposed the powers of heaven. The list of emperors up to Domitian is Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian—twelve in all. Of these John states that five have fallen, one is (the sixth), one is to come (for a short time only), the eighth is one of the seven and will be the antichrist. Starting from Julius Caesar, John would be writing in Nero’s reign, but the difficulties discussed remain. The simplest solution is to assume that the “five” that have “fallen” represent the majority, the sixth is the reigning emperor, Domitian; the seventh will reign for a short time and the antichrist will follow.
3. Historical Situation.
3.1. The Imperial Cult in Roman Asia.
It is imperative to bear in mind that the churches for which Revelation was written were situated in the province of Roman Asia and that the emperor cult (i.e., the worship of the emperor) was enthusiastically adopted in that area, possibly more than elsewhere in the Roman Empire. L. L. Thompson pointed out that the imperial cult had its high point in the reign of Augustus: “Language praising him is lofty and is similar to that offered to the gods” (Thompson, 159). All the cities of the seven churches had the worship of the emperor in their midst. In many cities annual festivals were held, especially on the emperor’s birthday, and such festivals were supported by people from all walks of life. Thompson, however, urges that the importance of the worship of the emperor for the early Christians should not be exaggerated. In his view the greater issue revolved around Christians’ relation to adherents of traditional religious cults rather than their relation to the cult of the emperor, for sacrifices were made in connection with them also (see Religions, Greco-Roman).
Domitian, in whose reign the Revelation is believed to have been written, has had the reputation of being a monster, who carried to an extreme the imperial cult. He is said to have erected an immense number of statues of himself, demanded that he be addressed as “our Lord and God” (dominus et deus) and embarked on a vicious persecution of the churches. Thompson has investigated the truth of these claims and come to the conclusion that they are false. The portrait of Domitian was drawn a few years after his death by a circle of writers around Pliny the Younger, which included Tacitus, Dio Chrysostom and Suetonius. After Domitian’s assassination Nerva became emperor, but his reign lasted only two years (A.D. 96–98). He was succeeded by Trajan, who recognized his need of writers and orators who could promote his ideas. He found them in Pliny and his friends. They pursued a common policy of exalting Trajan by contrasting him with Domitian. Pliny, for example, wrote of the pleasure of being appointed consul during September, a month of triple rejoicing “which saw the removal of the worst of emperors [Domitian], the accession of [p. 1029] the best [Nerva] and the birth of one even better than the best” (i.e., Trajan; see Pliny Panegyr. 92.4).
On this procedure Thompson comments: “Propagandists for a new age have to sharpen both edges of their two-edged sword; both the ideal present and the evil past have to be exaggerated” (Thompson, 115). Contrary to the claim that Domitian demanded to be addressed as “our Lord and God,” Statius reports that when Domitian was acclaimed as Dominus at one of his Saturnalia he forbade those who did so to address him in this manner (Statius Silvae 1.6, 81–84). There are no references to Domitian as dominus et deus on any inscriptions, coins or medallions from the Domitianic era. Certainly there were people who referred to Domitian as dominus et deus, but Thompson urged that one must reckon with popular opportunism among those seeking benefits from the emperor (Thompson, 105–6).
If Thompson has made a strong case for clearing Domitian’s name as a monster obsessed with his inherited divinity, with others he has underestimated the threat of the emperor cult to the churches and instead has imputed to John the prophet an obsession with Jewish apocalyptic. While recognizing that apocalyptic writings have frequently been due to crises precipitated by persecution, Thompson denies that such action of governing authorities in Roman Asia existed in John’s day. He cites the concept of “perceived crisis” put forward by J. J. Collins: that is, the apocalyptist sees in the situation in which he lives a crisis that is nonexistent but is “perceived” through interpreting his situation from the viewpoint of apocalyptic beliefs (Collins, 2–8). Far from being an objective analysis of society at that time, Thompson affirms, “First century Roman life was . . . one of the most integrated, peaceful, meaningful periods of history for most of those who lived in the empire. This confusion of a particular social location with society as a whole is not uncommon in the study of early Christianity” (Thompson, 237 n. 10).
When one bears in mind that Roman society was dependent on sixty million slaves, many whose life of slavery was largely due to conquest of their countries by Rome’s armies, the compulsion of many male slaves to become gladiators for the entertainment of crowds in the amphitheaters and female slaves to become prostitutes, such a statement is beyond comprehension. John the prophet refers to these in his doom-song over the fall of Babylon as he concludes his list of the trades of the city with the words, “cattle and sheep, horses and chariots and bodies and souls of men” (Rev 18:13). He was no small-minded man, limited to an isolated congregation in a restricted area. He exercised an influential ministry over a group of churches in what was probably the most Christianized area of the Roman Empire in the late first century A.D. He was in a position to know what happens when emperors take measures against subjects whose conscience forbids them to acknowledge his divinity; for example, the action of Antiochus Epiphanes to compel the Jews to forsake their own religion and adopt that of the rest of his domain, including sacrificing to himself as the representative of Zeus; Caligula’s attempt to set his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem and the panic caused by that among the Jews of Jerusalem; and the appalling cruelty of Nero in his persecution of Christians in Rome during John’s own lifetime.
Certainly John knew the teaching of the book of Daniel and its attitude to rulers who claimed to be not only divine but above the gods. Not that he interpreted the reigning emperor as holding that notion of himself, but it is evident that he saw in the enthusiastic pursuit of the emperor cult a preparation for the emergence of an antichrist who would not only declare war on the church but, astonishingly, destroy the empire itself (see Rev 17:12–17).
3.2. Persecution.
Earlier beliefs that Domitian had already begun a severe persecution of the church are not borne out by the Revelation itself. References such as Revelation 2:10 and Revelation 2:13 indicate a present hostility toward Christians but speak of a future increase of such opposition. Nevertheless, the fact that John had been removed to Patmos is evidence that the governing authorities in Roman Asia were taking action against the Christian church. John had been banished to Patmos because of his powerful ministry of the word of God and witness of Jesus and therefore was viewed by the authorities as a dangerous leader of the Christian sect. His perception of the nature of the imperial cult accordingly was conditioned by his experience, not his prejudice.
4. Content and Structure.
4.1. Introduction (Rev 1).
The opening [p. 1030] chapter forms an introduction to the book, with a prologue (Rev 1:1–8) and a vision of the risen Christ given to the prophet John (Rev 1:9–20). The former makes known the origin and nature of the book, pronounces the first of seven beatitudes in the work on its readers and hearers, gives a greeting from the triune God, a doxology to Christ and two prophetic sayings stating the theme of the book. The vision that follows contains a commission to John to write what he sees to seven churches in Roman Asia. The description of the risen Lord echoes that of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9 and the powerful angel in Daniel 10:5–62.
4.2. Letters to Seven Churches (Rev 2–3).
A series of seven letters to the churches named in Revelation 1:11 is given in Revelation 2–3. They are very brief, reminding us of the eight short oracles of Amos 1–2. The letters have an identical structure: an introductory statement from the risen Christ, drawn from the opening vision and usually pertinent to the contents of the letter; praise for the good qualities of the church and/or criticism of its faults; a promise to the victor relating to the blessings to be bestowed in the kingdom of Christ; and an exhortation to listen to what the spirit is saying to the churches.
4.3. Vision of the Heavenly Throne Room (Rev 4–5).
As the vision of Christ in Revelation 1 leads into the seven letters, so the vision of heaven in Revelation 4–5 leads into the main body of the Revelation. It initiates the process of events leading to the unveiling of the final kingdom of God (Rev 6–19) and at the same time determines the symbolism of the first series of messianic judgments (Rev 6:1–8:5).
4.4. Seals, Trumpets and Bowls (Rev 6–16).
At this point we have to make a decision on how to interpret the relation of the three series of judgments that dominate the major part of the Revelation (Rev 6:1–19:10), portrayed under the symbolism of the opening of seven seals of the document in God’s hands (Rev 6:1–8:5), the sounding of the seven trumpets (Rev 8:6–11:19) and the outpouring of seven bowls of wrath (Rev 15–16). These three series of judgments in Revelation have been interpreted as following in chronological sequence (see, e.g., Charles, 1:xxiii; Farrer 1964, 9–23; Court, 74–75; Rowland, 416).
There is, however, one major feature of the three series of judgments that makes this interpretation difficult to accept: each of the three series concludes with a description of the Day of the Lord, which leads to a revelation of the final kingdom of God. The first series of judgments is closely paralleled with features of the eschatological discourse of Mark 13, although ostensibly it employs the imagery of four riders on horses, adapted from Zechariah 1 and 6. The fifth seal reveals the cry of martyrs beneath the throne of God, “How long?” but the sixth seal brings the judgments to a climax as it tells of a great earthquake, the sun becoming black as sackcloth, the moon as blood, the stars falling to earth, the sky vanishing like a rolled up scroll, and every island and mountain removing from its place. The kings and the mighty call on the rocks of the mountains to fall on them and hide them from the face of God and the wrath of the Lamb, “for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” The passage is made up of citations from OT prophetic descriptions of the Day of the Lord (e.g., Is 13:10, 13; 34:4; Zeph 1:14–15), the meaning of which is not the destruction of the universe but a pictorial representation of the terror of the universe when the God of heaven steps forth to judge the world (cf. the last judgment scene, Rev 20:11).
In Revelation 6:12–20 the end of the rebellion of humankind in history has been reached, and with the opening of the seventh seal in Revelation 8:1–5 the prayers of the martyrs beneath the throne of God and of the saints on earth are answered, and the accompaniments of the coming of Christ in his kingdom take place (with Rev 8:5 cf. Rev 11:19; 16:17–18).
The judgments of the seven trumpets are described in a similar fashion as those at the opening of the seven seals: the judgments of the first four trumpets are adaptations of those on Egypt at the exodus; they are followed by the announcement of three woes to come on earth, but the third woe is withheld until later, and instead a song of triumph that celebrates the consummation of the kingdom of God is sung in Revelation 11:15–18:
“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”
The twenty-four elders then fall on their faces and worship God:
“We give you thanks, Lord God Almighty,
who is and who was,
[p. 1031]
for you have taken your great power
and begun your reign.”
Observe that whereas the elders in Revelation 4:8 sing to him “who was, and who is, and who is to come,” they now sing of him “who was, and who is,” for God has come, and his reign of ultimate salvation in the fulfilled kingdom of God has begun.
The same goal has evidently been reached on the completion of the outpouring of the seven bowls of wrath. A voice from the temple and the throne proclaims “It is done” (Rev 16:17; cf. Rev 21:6, where the cry signifies that the completion of God’s purpose in creation has arrived). It would appear that with the end of each series of messianic judgments, the end of history that precedes the triumph of the kingdom of God has also arrived. A corollary of this element of parallelism is that the period of divine judgments is not elongated into an interminable series of punishments but is a comparatively short period of intensified judgments executed by the Lord of history.
It is, however, important to note that John has linked the three series by a technique that has been variously described as “overlapping or interweaving” (Bauckham 1994, 8–9), “interlocking” (A. Y. Collins 1976, 16–18), “intercalation” (Schüssler Fiorenza, 172–73). Between the silence in heaven and the offering of prayers to God for the kingdom’s coming the seven angels who are to sound the trumpets are introduced (Rev 8:1–5). After the sounding of the seventh trumpet the opening of the temple of God in heaven is mentioned, and thereby the ark of the covenant is seen (Rev 11:19). Similarly Revelation 15:5–6 tells of the opening of the temple of the tent of witness in heaven out of which proceed the angels with the seven last plagues, so bridging the extensive gap of Revelation 12–14 (Bauckham 1994, 8–9). By this method of repetition and development John builds up to the advent of Christ in an awe-inspiring climax.
4.5. Interludes: Glimpses of the Church and Its Conflicts (Rev 7; 10:1–11:13; 12–14).
Between the three descriptions of the messianic judgments are set episodes that throw light on what happens to the church during the period of tribulation and also the nature of its task.
In Revelation 7, between the opening of the sixth and seventh seals, occur two visions, the first of which recounts the sealing of God’s people for protection in the time of trial (cf. Ezek 9:1–11), the second giving a proleptic description of their joy in the final kingdom of God. Likewise between the sixth and seventh trumpets a more extensive interlude takes place in which John is confirmed in his prophetic ministry (Rev 10), and an oracle reveals the church’s vocation to carry out a powerful prophetic witness expected of Elijah and Moses in the last days (Rev 11:1–13). Revelation 12–14 provide the longest interruption in the judgment visions; these chapters set the opposition between the emperor worship and the church in the context of the age-long conflict between the powers of darkness (see Light) and the God of heaven.
4.6. The City of Antichrist and the City of God (Rev 17:1–22:5).
One would have expected that after completing the description of the messianic judgments John would portray at once the coming of the Christ and his kingdom. Instead he reveals the doom of the antichristian empire as it falls prey to its own forces of destruction (Rev 17–18) and the praise of God’s people and heaven’s hosts over it (Rev 19:1–10). Then John is free to describe the coming of Jesus to defeat the enemies of God by his all-powerful word (Rev 19:11–21:3), the kingdom of Christ in the world (Rev 20:4–6), the last vain attempt of Satan to overthrow that kingdom (Rev 20:7–10), the last judgment of the human race (Rev 20:11–15), the new heaven and earth (Rev 21:1–8) and the city of God, the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:9–22:5).
It is important to observe that, strictly speaking, the story of salvation, the new exodus, ends at Revelation 21:8 with its depiction of the new creation. The description of the city of God, the bride of the Lamb, is given in a deliberate contrast to the antichristian city described in Revelation 17. The book of Revelation reaches its climax as the story of the harlot and the bride. It is in truth a tale of two cities!
4.7. Epilogue (Rev 22:6–21).
The concluding paragraphs of the Revelation sum up and press home on the conscience of the readers and hearers the practical lessons of the book. It primarily emphasizes the authenticity of the book as a true revelation from God and the nearness of the fulfillment of its message.
5. Authorship.
The author makes himself known in the first sentence of the Revelation as “his [God’s] slave, [p. 1032] John.” The use of that term slave jolts the modern reader, as it did the translators of the King James (Authorized) Version, for although the term frequently appears in the original languages of both Testaments, it occurs once only in the KJV OT (Jer 2:14) and once in the KJV NT (Rev 18:13). Paul began his letter to the Romans, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle.” John wrote in the same way, but whereas he often refers to himself in his book, he never speaks of himself as an apostle (contrast 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1).
From the latter part of the second century it was assumed that the Fourth Gospel, the letters of John (see John, Letters of) and the book of Revelation were all written by John the son of Zebedee. Nevertheless, from early times it was recognized that there are difficulties in that assumption, notably with respect to the differences between the Revelation and the Gospel. The issues were clearly stated by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria in the third century. He had been disturbed by the spread of millennial teaching in his diocese and wished to discourage it. He therefore sought to establish first that the Revelation is not to be interpreted literally and then to demonstrate that the book could not have been written by John the apostle. He adduced three reasons for the latter position.
First, the author did not claim to be the Beloved Disciple, or brother of James, or an eyewitness and hearer of the Lord, as John the Evangelist did; many Christians had the name John, and there were two Christian leaders of that name in Roman Asia and two tombs in Ephesus that were acclaimed to be the tomb of John.
Second, there are many contacts of thought between the Gospel and letters of John, but the Revelation is utterly different from both: “It scarcely, so to speak, has a syllable in common with them.”
Third, the style of the Gospel and letters is different from that of the Revelation; the former are written in excellent Greek, but the latter is often ungrammatical and uses barbarous idioms.
While Dionysius has been applauded for his insight in the critical evaluation of the Revelation, the issues are much more complicated than he realized. That he was right on the last point there is no doubt: John does break rules of Greek grammar frequently but not always through lack of knowledge; it has been said that for every solecism in Revelation there is an example of correct linguistic usage (note, e.g., John’s refusal to decline the divine name after a preposition in Rev 1:4, immediately followed by the correct use in relation to the seven spirits before God’s throne). It is now generally recognized that behind the Revelation is the mind of a Semitic author, one whose native language is Hebrew or Aramaic, but how that relates to the style and language of the book is uncertain.
R. H. Charles held that John thought in Hebrew and wrote in Greek (Charles, 1:cxliii). H. H. Rowley maintained that John’s first language was Aramaic and that he thought in Aramaic as he wrote in Greek (a view he communicated in a letter to this author). C. C. Torrey affirmed that John wrote his book in Aramaic and someone else translated it into Greek very literally out of reverence for the master (Torrey, 158). If Torrey’s view were adopted, it would complicate discussion on the linguistic differences between the language and style of the Gospel and the Revelation. Ironically, however, C. F. Burney wrote a book entitled The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922) to demonstrate that the Gospel of John was written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek! It will be appreciated that recent scholars are wary of accepting that whole books of the NT were originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. In this case the argument has reached stalemate.
Dionysius’s statement that Revelation has scarcely a syllable in common with the Gospel and letters of John is an exaggeration. Part of the problem of determining the relation between the Gospel and the Revelation is precisely their differences and likenesses. Both works alone, for example, use the term logos (the “Word”) of Christ, both see in the Lamb of God a coalescence of the concept of the apocalyptic Warrior Lamb and the Passover Lamb (see Beasley-Murray 1978, 124–26; and 1986, 24–25, 354–55). Moreover the terms for witness, life, death, thirst, hunger and conquer in a spiritual or moral sense occur so frequently in the Gospel and the Revelation as to suggest a positive relationship in the area of soteriology between the two works.
Yet these two books almost uniquely express [p. 1033] the minds and personalities of two authors. Their works were composed with utmost care and in a peculiarly intricate manner. It is increasingly agreed that the Fourth Gospel contains material that not only has been thought over carefully but also has been preached a great deal through the years, and it displays a first-hand knowledge of rabbinic thought and Greek philosophical theology. The Revelation comes from a mind imbued with the OT but also reflects a first-hand knowledge of apocalyptic literature, so that John finds it natural to express himself in this mode of writing.
How then are we to account for the relationships between the two works? Their authors must have been well acquainted. Of late the postulate of a school of John has been put forward to explain the origin of the Johannine writings, which is a highly plausible hypothesis (see esp. Culpepper). There is, however, a further feature about this problem: it never occurred to Dionysius that the son of Zebedee may have been John the prophet and not the author of the Gospel.
H. B. Swete, in his discussion on the authorship of Revelation, was impressed with the kinship between the character of John the apostle as he appears in the Synoptic Gospels and what one would expect of John the prophet. He and his brother James were named by Jesus “Boanerges,” that is, “Sons of Thunder” (Mk 3:17); John forbade one who was not a member of the apostolic group to cast out demons in the name of Jesus; he wanted to call down fire from heaven on Samaritans who would not give Jesus and his disciples hospitality (Lk 9:52–55); he was a witness of the transfiguration of Jesus and of his resurrection. Swete therefore was inclined to view John the apostle as the author of the Revelation and to divorce the problem from that of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, but he wished to keep an open mind on the issue (Swete, clxxx-clxxxv).
M. Kiddle, forty years later, adopted a similar attitude and stated, “The authorship of the Revelation may prove to be the one mystery of the book which will never be revealed in this world” (Kiddle, xxxvi). W. G. Kümmel, yet another generation after Kiddle, wrote, “We know nothing more about the author of the Apocalypse other than that he was a Jewish Christian prophet by the name of John” (Kümmel, 331). Do we need to know more? In no other book of the Bible is the identity of the author of so little importance, for it is not, as earlier editions of the Bible had it, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” but the revelation of Jesus Christ to his servant John. The question of authorship is settled not by the name of the person who received the Revelation and wrote it down but by the nature of the work, which in the providence of God completes the canon of the Scriptures as its crown.
6. The Expectation of Antichrist.
We have already observed the connection between the emperor cult and the anticipation of the appearance of an antichrist who shall rule not only the empire but also the world. This expectation dominates Revelation 12–14 and Revelation 16–17, passages in which the apocalyptic style reaches its height in the Revelation. The imagery of a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet and twelve stars above her head, and a dragon in the sky that throws a third of the stars down to earth clearly reflects ancient sources. These were known not only to writers of the OT but also to all the nations of the Middle East and were utilized in many ways. Common to all of them was the concept of a monster of the sea who fought the gods of heaven and sought to overthrow them. The imagery is clear in such a passage as Isaiah 27:1: “The Lord with his cruel and great sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” The vision of the world empires in Daniel 7 that are symbolized by beasts that emerge from the sea, culminating in a fearful adversary of God and man, is an application of that same imagery to a contemporary tyrant who not only oppressed God’s people but also sought world domination.
This symbolism was applied frequently in the OT as a cartoon for oppressive rulers, all of whom were doomed to be overcome by Israel’s God, the Lord of heaven and earth. That cartoon was applied by the prophet John to the awaited antichrist emperor. It must be emphasized, however, that John did not look upon the reigning emperor as the antichrist; rather he viewed the emperor cult as preparing the way for an antichrist who would exploit it to the full, in a comparable manner as Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 spoke of “the mystery of lawlessness” as already at work in the world. More precisely, [p. 1034] John applied the dragon symbol to Satan (Rev 12), to the antichrist (Rev 13) and to the city and empire over which he ruled (Rev 17).
But John goes further in that he conjoins the antichrist concept with the contemporary expectation of the return of Nero to Rome. This is seen first in his description of the antichrist as smitten by a deadly wound and coming to life after it (Rev 13:3), secondly by Revelation 13:18: “Let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is 666.” The possibility of representing a name by a number lies in the fact that Hebrew and Greek did not have separate signs for numbers but used instead letters of the alphabet, so that “a” = 1, “b” = 2, “c” = 3, and so on. On this basis any name could be calculated by adding up the values of its letters. A. Deissmann, for example, cites a graffito on a wall in Pompeii reading, “I love her whose name is 545” (Deissmann, 275).
Through the centuries many names that add up to 666 have been suggested as the answer to the puzzle set by John, but in recent years a large measure of agreement has arisen that the name John had in mind is Nero Caesar in Hebrew. If one asks how Greek-speaking congregations could have known that, the answer is that it almost certainly arose among Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking Jews; they had no reason to love Nero (the Roman-Jewish war began in his reign), and it would have become common knowledge among the churches, just as Abba and Maranatha became known among them all. Confirmation of this is found in an alternative reading of Revelation 13:18 in some manuscripts; that is, 616, which is the Hebrew number of the Latin form of Nero. By contrast it was early known among Christians that the name Jesus in Greek totals 888, which represents an advance upon perfection (777), as the antichrist shows a consistent falling below it. That indicates that the antichrist of Satan falls as far short of being the deliverer of humanity as the Christ of God exceeds all the hopes of humanity for a redeemer.
As to the historic Nero, Suetonius reported that when Nero learned that the Roman senate had proclaimed him a public enemy and troops were on their way to capture him, he committed suicide by slitting his throat and was buried in the tomb of his family (Suetonius Nero 49–50). This lack of a public burial for Nero led to widespread doubt that he really had died and contributed to the supposition that he had fled to the East. No fewer than three claimants to be Nero rose in subsequent years, one in the year following his death (A.D. 69), the second in A.D. 80 and the third in A.D. 88–89; this last one almost convinced the king of Parthia that he was Nero and nearly led to an invasion of the Roman Empire. Whereas earlier it was often supposed that Nero was still alive, a generation later it was thought that he had risen from the dead and would return to take vengeance on Rome. That is so expressed in the third, fourth and fifth books of the Sibylline Oracles.
John made use of this widespread expectation. In Revelation 13:3 he wrote that one of the beast’s seven heads “was as it were slaughtered to death,” a peculiar way of stating it, “and its deadly wound was healed.” This is a reminiscence of Revelation 5:6, where the Lamb is described as “standing as it were slaughtered.” The Christ of Satan is plainly a parody of the Christ of God, in this as in all other respects (see Rissi 1966, 66). The adaptation of the Nero anticipation to the coming antichrist appears again in Revelation 17:7–18 but with a different emphasis, in that the beast represents both the empire and the antichrist. On the one hand the beast on which the woman sits “was, and is not, and is to ascend from the abyss and go off to destruction” (Rev 17:8) and on the other hand it is said, “The beast who was and is not is the eighth [head], and is of the seven, and he goes off to destruction.”
In light of Revelation 13 the eighth king is plainly Nero, in whom the nature and the destiny of the antichristian empire were embodied. Both share in the likeness of the dragon (Satan), both oppose the Lord in his people, both belong to the “abyss” (see Hell, Abyss) and both are doomed to suffer the fate of those who make war on the Lamb (Rev 16:14). But one major difference is apparent in the representations of the antichrist in Revelation 13 and Revelation 17: in the former the empire receives a boost from the antichrist, so that all in the world, apart from those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, receive the mark of the beast and worship him (Rev 13:8, 16–18). In Revelation 17 the fears of many are fulfilled, and the Christ of Satan persuades the kings of the East to join him in attacking “Babylon the Great,” and the city is destroyed and burned [p. 1035] with fire (Rev 17:15–17). Such is the outcome of the emperor cult. The beast and his allies remain in the hand of the God they defy, and by the impulse of the devil they fulfill the words of God (Rev 17:16–17; on this see Bauckham 1994, 329–417).
One point must be clarified concerning John’s use of the so-called Nero myth. There is no question that John looked for Nero literally to return from the dead to fulfill the role of the antichrist. He utilized the current expectation to portray the works of the antichrist as those of another Nero, and that for a good reason: Nero was the first Roman emperor to persecute the Christian church, and he did so with such bestial cruelty as to provide a pattern for the beast of Satan to follow in his war with the Lamb (Rev 11:7–10; 13:7; 17:12–14). By his presentation of antichrist as another Nero, John has made it clear that the cult of the emperor is a projection of what will take place when the seeds of its beginning reach their full harvest. It could not be otherwise. The emperor cult, as R. J. Bauckham observed, was a deification of power (Bauckham 1994, 451–52). History, not least in the twentieth century, shows that such deification is capable of reappearing with appalling results. Humankind ignores that to its peril.
7. The Purpose of the Revelation.
E. F. Scott described the Revelation as “a trumpet call to faith” (174). For the Christians of John’s generation, especially in Roman Asia, the exaltation of Rome and the popularity of the emperor cult made the living of the Christian life difficult and the future dismaying, in light of the pressure to join the majority in the celebration of Caesar’s divinity and the readiness of informers to report to the authorities their refusal to do so. Yet to yield to such pressure entailed the denial of the Christian faith in its entirety, which was unthinkable. John therefore wrote at the behest of the risen Lord to strengthen the faith and courage of believers, to nerve them for battle with antichristian forces in the world and to help them to bear witness to the one true Lord and Savior.
The whole book of Revelation is rooted in its portrayal of God Almighty as the Lord of history and his redemptive activity in Christ. So surely as Jesus has accomplished the first and most important stage in the redemption of humanity, so he will complete his appointed task of bringing to victory the kingdom of God and thereby the total emancipation of humanity from the powers of evil. The followers of the Lamb cannot expect to avoid sharing his sufferings; hence the call early in the letters to the churches: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev 2:10). And that will be to participate in life eternal in the company of God and the redeemed in the eternal city of God.
8. The Significance of the Revelation for Today.
The book of Revelation has been an inspiration for the church through the ages, above all when it has known the fierce opposition of ruling authorities (see Civil Authority). From time to time, however, it has been criticized as a sub-Christian book. R. Bultmann, to cite one example, considered that it presents “a weakly Christianized Judaism” (Bultmann 1955, 2:175). Bultmann’s criticism reflects his rejection of all apocalyptic, yet he is aware that the NT presents the atonement as involving both the love and judgment of God. This is seen especially in John 12:31–32 but also in John 3:16–21; on the latter Bultmann made the striking comment, “There would be no judgment at all were it not for the event of God’s Love” (Bultmann 1971, 154).
A. Y. Collins cites D. H. Lawrence as asserting that the book vents the anger, hatred and envy of the weaker against the strong, against civilization and even against nature (cited by A. Y. Collins 1984, 169). Lawrence’s evaluation of the Revelation is typical of his outlook on life, but it is disturbing that Christian exegetes should adopt such a view. Collins considers that John sought to overcome the tension between reality and faith, what is and what ought to be. Faith includes that God is ruler of all, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of all and that in the messianic kingdom all Christians will rule with him. The reality is the power of Rome and the powerlessness of Christians, their fear of denunciation before Roman authorities, their recollection of Nero’s persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem and the banishment of John. This led to aggressive feelings of envy of the wealthy, frustration about the emperor cult and desire for vengeance for the violent acts of the empire. But these violent images were transferred to God and Christ in the Revelation; hence Jesus will make war with the sword of his mouth against [p. 1036] followers of Balaam, Nicolaitans and Jezebel (“fellow Christians”!) as well as the generals and rich and strong (Rev 6:15–17) and the armies that follow antichrist (Rev 19:21; see A. Y. Collins 1984, 156–57).
Much more is written in this vein, which requires more space to answer than is possible here. A few points, however, need to be made. If it be a question of realism, John the prophet has it. The followers of Balaam, the Nicolaitans and Jezebel are not broadminded Christians but those affected by the antinomianism of emerging Gnostics, and their influence had to be opposed. The hostility to the emperor cult is inevitable in any generation, and use of the cartoons derived from the ancient Middle East religions is justified. Regarding the violence in applying the latter, it is essential to recall the tradition of hyperbole used by the OT prophets. An outstanding example is seen in Zephaniah’s language. In Zephaniah 1:2–6 the judgments of God are described in terms that involve the destruction of all living creatures on the Day of the Lord. That language is repeated in Zephaniah 3:8.
“In the fire of my passion all the earth shall be consumed.”
This is immediately followed by Zephaniah 3:9:
“At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord.”
Such contradiction of utterance cannot be taken literally, but the judgment and salvation of the Jews and Gentiles is seriously meant, as the rest of the book makes plain. The like holds good in the Revelation, as Revelation 11:10 and Revelation 15:3–4, the survival of earth’s inhabitants in the millennium, Revelation 20:4–6, and the kings of the earth bringing their gifts into the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:24–27) indicate. The picture of the city of God in Revelation 21:9–22:5 goes far beyond abating alleged anger and envy of Christians; its ultimate motive is to reveal the fulfillment of God’s purpose for his creation in a redeemed humanity in fellowship with himself. In declaring this revelation the prophet John was truly led by the spirit (Rev 19:10). The church today will do well to give heed to the appeal that appears in every one of the letters to the seven churches: “Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the spirit is saying to the churches.”
9. The Revelation in the Earliest Post-New Testament Writings.
A number of the apostolic fathers indicate the influence of the book of Revelation in their works, though not all do so. Didache, 1 Clement (see Clement of Rome), the letters of Ignatius and the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians show little or no reflection of the Revelation and are more concerned with the life of the church, its order (see Church Order) and worship. The conclusion of the Didache (Did. 16) has an “apocalyptic postscript,” but it clearly echoes the eschatological discourse of the Gospels (Mark 13 par.) rather than the Revelation. The Epistle of Barnabas adopts the interpretation of creation in six days as a figure of the cosmic week of history: the latter lasts for six thousand years and is followed by the sabbath rest of the kingdom of God (Barn. 15). This could well be one of the traditions that contributed to John’s picture of the millennium. It is also found in 2 Enoch 33, a book possibly of the same period as the Revelation.
The Visions of the Shepherd of Hermas are also in the apocalyptic tradition. They concern the life of the church and are therefore close to the Revelation. The like may be said of the Similitudes of Hermas, especially in the prominence given to angels, who are represented as responsible for creation, and a good and an evil angel are set over people (Herm. Man. 6.2.1; Herm. Vis. 3.4.1).
Papias above all was enthusiastic about the millennium. His famous statement relating to the extraordinary fruitfulness of the earth in that time is attributed to “the Lord” as made known by “presbyters who saw John.” Vineyards will have “ten thousand vines, and each vine ten thousand branches, and each branch ten thousand shoots, and on every shoot will be ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will yield twenty-five measures of wine.” Such growth will apply to wheat grains, fruit trees, seeds and herbs, and animals who eat them will be peaceable to each other and to man (reported by Irenaeus Haer. 5.33.3–4). A related but less extravagant statement is found in 1 Enoch 10:19.
L. Gry suggested that Papias’s concept of the millennium was gained from the followers of Aristion and the elder John. It is evident that Papias’s ideas were widespread in the church of [p. 1037] his time and led to the endeavor of Dionysius to diminish the influence of the Revelation. Nevertheless, the millennial interpretation of Revelation 20 was firmly held by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Victorinus. Origen, however, was “the vehement opponent of millenarianism” (Beckwith, 323). Tyconius in his commentary followed in Origen’s steps, and Augustine buried chiliasm by his doctrine of the millennium as the age of the church. Needless to say, the doctrine of the earthly kingdom of Christ has been resurrected in later centuries and espoused by many interpreters.
See also Antichrist; Apocalyptic, Apocalypticism; Babylon; Beasts, Dragon, Sea, Conflict Motif; Bowls; Christology; Eschatology; Heaven, New Heaven; Jerusalem, Zion, Holy City; Judgment; Lamb; Liturgical Elements; Martyrdom; Millennium; Old Testament in Revelation; Parousia; Persecution; Prophecy, Prophets, False Prophets; Scrolls, Seals; Trumpets; Visions, Ecstatic Experience; Worship and Liturgy; Wrath, Destruction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Commentaries: D. E. Aune, Revelation (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1997); G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (rev. ed.; NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: Macmillan, 1919); M. E. Boring, Revelation (IntC; Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989); G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1966); R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920); J. M. Ford, Revelation (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1975); W. J. Harrington, Revelation (SacP 16; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993); M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (MNTC; New York: Harper, 1940); G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); H. Lilje, The Last Book of the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957); E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (2d ed.; HNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953); E. Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960); L. Morris, The Revelation of St. John (2d ed.; TNTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987); R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); A. Schlatter, Die Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgart: Calver Verlag, 1938); E. F. Scott, The Book of Revelation (London: SCM, 1939); J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979); H. B. Swete, Commentary on the Book of Revelation (3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1909). Studies: D. E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” Semeia 36 (1986) 65–96; R. J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994); idem, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1986); J. G. Bowman, “The Revelation of John: Its Dramatic Structure and Message,” Int 9 (1955) 436–53; R. Bultmann, Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971); idem, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1951, 1955); A. Y. Collins, The Apocalypse (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1979); idem, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (HDR 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976); idem, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984); J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984); J. Comblin, Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse (Paris: Desclée, 1976); J. M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979); A. Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools (SBLDS 26; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975); A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978 [repr.]); A. M. Farrer, A Rebirth of Images (Westminster: Dacre, 1949); A. Feuillet, The Apocalypse (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965); L. Gry, “Henoch X,19 et les belles promesses de Papias,” RB 53 (1946) 197–206; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); C. J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986); T. Holtz, Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes (TU 85; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962); W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975); F. D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective (BZNW 54; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989); M. Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19:11–22:15 (SBT 2d ser.; London: SCM, 1972); idem, Time and History (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1966); C. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (New York: Crossroad, 1982); E. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); M. H. Shepherd, [p. 1038] The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1960); L. L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); C. C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York and London: Harper, 1941).