happening at the time and also in light of what was to come.
John Christopher Thomas and Frank D. Macchia call Revelation the “most sensual document in the New Testament, filled with references to things, seen, heard, smelled, touched, and even tasted!”2 The book was meant to be heard while it was read aloud by its audiences, the congregations in Asia Minor and beyond. G.K. Beale calls Revelation, quoting D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, “a prophesy cast in an apocalyptic mold and written down in a letter form in order to motivate the audience to change their behavior in light of the transcendent reality of the book’s message.”3
Revelation leans into the Old Testament as a source text in both material and form. It takes much of its cues from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel, adhering more closely to the tradition of Old Testament apocalyptic literature rather than Jewish first-century works.
Grant Osborne argues that John is faithful, on the whole, in his interpretation of the Old Testament context, but that he transforms it deliberately by applying it to his contention that the nations of the earth are analogous to the nation of Israel in Zechariah.4 Beale’s concept of John’s position in relation to the Old Testament as both servant and guide is a helpful picture. For John, the cross and the resurrection are key to understanding the Old Testament, and reflection on the Old Testament leads to further comprehension of the passion event in light of the present and the future. In this way, symbiotically, the New Testament interprets the Old, and the Old Testament interprets the New.5
Symbols are everywhere in Revelation, and each symbol would have been understandable to the first-century reader. We should not play guessing games trying to figure out what the symbols could mean in our context (example: interpreting the locusts mentioned in Revelation 9 as helicopters), but consider what they meant in their own. There are four main numbers that carry symbolic meaning: four, seven, ten, and twelve. Usually, the meaning is associated with completeness. Four carries the meaning of the four corners of the earth, or the whole world.6
Examples include the four corners (7:1; 20:8), the four winds (7:1), and the fourfold division of creation (8:7–8; 14:7; 16:2–3). “The one who lives forever and ever” is mentioned four times (4:9–10; 19:6; 15:7). As to the number seven, John includes seven spirits, sevenfold doxologies, seven seals, trumpets, and bowls of wrath, and seven beatitudes. Several titles of God (e.g., Lord God Almighty, the one who sits on the throne) are mentioned seven times; Christ is mentioned seven times, Jesus fourteen times. Jesus is called a “witness” seven times. John speaks of Christ’s “coming” seven times. The “Lamb” is referenced twenty-eight times. These cannot all be coincidences.7
Beale suggests there are four levels of communication in Revelation: 1) a linguistic level, the record of the text itself to be read and heard; 2) a visionary level, John’s actual sensory experience; 3) a referential level, the particular historical identification of the objects seen in the vision; and 4) a symbolic level, what the symbols in the vision mean about their historical reference.8 Beale notes, “Symbols have a parabolic function and are intended to encourage and exhort the audience. They portray a transcendent new creation that has penetrated the present old world through the death and resurrection of Christ and the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost.”9
Author
John, the apostle of Jesus and the brother of James, the writer of the gospel of John, is the most probable author of Revelation. As for internal evidence, the author mentions his own name in Revelation 1:1, 1:4, 1:9, and 22:8. He calls himself a “servant” (1:1) and a prophet (1:3; 22:9). There have been several suggestions as to the identity of this John: 1) as mentioned, John the apostle; 2) the elder John; 3) John Mark; 4) John the Baptist; 5) another John; 6) Cerinthus (a gnostic); 7) someone using the name of John as a pseudonym.10 David Aune argues there are very few features that suggest that the author of Revelation was part of a Johannine community in any meaningful sense.11 But Aune is predisposed to accept the truth of source criticism and believes that large sections of Revelation are the work of an editor. I do not see this as readily. The genre John is using is quite different from the genre of gospel writing, which accounts for the differences of style, grammar, and vocabulary that Aune and others interpret as evidence for two different authors.
The use of Greek is one of the biggest differences between the book of John and Revelation. The grammar in Revelation is unique, sometimes strange, and frequently Hebraic. But many of the solecisms (using grammar in a seemingly inappropriate way) appear deliberate, perhaps for theological purposes or influenced by the visionary experience that must have been so difficult to describe. At times, John wants his readers to make associations with Old Testament texts and uses the Hebraic form of the Greek to alert the reader to the connection.
Some scholars believe there are differences in theology. But these can be explained by the different context and genre. Is there only a God of love in the gospel of John and only a God of wrath in Revelation? This is a false contrast, and to say this shows a lack of understanding of the character of God. In fact, only in John and Revelation is Jesus called logos in the New Testament. Some scholars also argue that the realized eschatology of the gospel is not compatible with the final eschatology of Revelation. But it has long been accepted that the eschatology of the gospel of John is inaugurated. The different emphases of each book mean a different perspective, but from the same author. There is, instead, a similar overall message in both John’s gospel and Revelation: God seeks to bring the world to repentance. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7, using the same Greek word (ekkenteo), which is not used by the Septuagint and is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.12
Osborne notes that Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 81.4), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.20.11), Tertullian (Against Marcion 3.14.3), Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.108), and Origen (De Principalis 1.2.10) all believed John the apostle was the author. Marcion was the first to reject John’s authorship. Dionysius doubted it, as well as Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom. Dionysius thought “another unknown John” wrote it; Eusebius believed there were two Johns at Ephesus, with the apostle John writing the gospel and the Elder John writing Revelation. It is uncertain whether using a pseudonym was practiced in the early church, which seems to limit the field of likely candidates.13 William D. Mounce holds that the strong external evidence points to John the apostle’s authorship.14 Beale feels it is possible that John the apostle wrote the book, but that another John could have written it. He does not see the issue as important but is sure that the author at least identified himself as a prophet (1:1–3; 10:19; 4:1–2; 17:1–3; 21:9–10; 22:6–7).15
Given the strength of both the internal and external evidence, as I stated, I do think John the apostle is the author. For purposes of simplification and clarity, I’ve referred and will continue to refer to the author as “John” throughout this book.
Date
There are two major theories regarding the dating of the book: the time of the emperor Nero or the time of the emperor Domitian. Beale provides a helpful list of arguments for both a late date (95, Domitian) and an early
