This work is offered in the recognition that the Revelation is being fulfilled in this epoch. The Revelation is one of the most extensively studied but least applied of the books of the Bible. The style of writing, the often-profound reactions evoked and the uncertainty of the genre lends itself to scholarly license. While it had remained difficult in practical application, it had nevertheless inspired great artists and musicians. It is easy to conclude that in spite of its name, the Revelation often conceals more than it reveals (Mitchell).
In our study of The Revelation, it is important first to establish that it is a spiritual and not a scholarly work. Spiritual events cannot be confined within the bounds of intellectual analysis. Attempts to do so immediately narrow the perceptive capabilities of the individual and produces rigid interpretations and definitions of timelines. Attempts to date or give form to the end-time must remain futile and grossly limiting.
Scholars have also sought to classify The Revelation in accordance with accepted literary styles, resulting in highly erudite works that further distance the reader from the experiencing of the impact of The Revelation. Interesting theses have appeared on whether The Revelation is apocalyptic, prophetic or episcopal. Yet, while the literary genre of the apocalyptic owes its derivation from the revelation (Greek - apocalypsis), the work cannot be brought to fit with other apocalyptic writings (Ladd, 1957). Similarly, although John refers to his revelation as a prophecy, it lacks the scope of changeability inherent in prophecies, except for the letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Prophecies are predicated on human reactions to them and often change in details of manifestation (scope and time) if the target audiences repent. The Revelation on the other hand emphasizes the inevitability of its message from the beginning (Rev. 1:1) and this is intrinsic in the difference between the revelation and the prophecy genre.
The approach to The Revelation in this study will de-emphasize theological scholarship, avoid eschatology (end time motifs) and focus on the need to keep the human spirit alert to the coming of the Son of Man. The main purpose of The Revelation To John is not, as often supposed, to give comfort and hope to the Church, but to keep the focus of the servants of our God and His Christ on the defining event for Creation, as advised by the Son of God – the need to remain spiritually alert for the coming of the Son of Man. Once we understand this, attempts at interpretation of The Revelation become meaningless and unnecessary. Indeed, the Revelation itself warns against adding or removing from the work, an injunction that is persistently overlooked in many efforts to interpret the Revelation. The Revelation is to be read, either individually or to others, rather than interpreted (Rev. 1:3), a requirement that was more understandable to John’s contemporaries than to us.
In spite of this however, it remains necessary to indicate in passing, the effort many dedicated Christians have made to keep the message of The Revelation alive and relevant over the millennia. This introduction will therefore, briefly examine the approaches to interpretation, the controversies about authorship, date and style, some of which have a bearing on the unfolding of the revelation and may serve to awaken the reader to the message of the Spirit to the Churches.
Interpretation
The Book of Revelation has remained the most misunderstood document in the Bible, in spite of being extensively studied. This is only partly due to the heavily symbolic and apocalyptic nature of the writing. All through the church era and even long before it was reluctantly accepted as canon in the 4th century AD, The Revelation had been a controversial work. Arguments and discussions have ranged from its authorship and authenticity to its meaning and relevance. In spite of this, each epoch of the Christian church had found it relevant and supportive for their time while in most cases also providing for them a window into the future of the church.
The earliest commentary may be ascribed to Melitus, Bishop of Sardis about 175AD (Eusebius), but this work is no longer extant. The earliest extant work is that of Victorinus of Pettau (d.c. 304) and the plethora of commentaries and scholarly literature on the Revelation since then attests to its importance.
Interpretations, not surprisingly, have clustered around the timeline and meaning of The Revelation and various schools of thought have evolved overtime. These views have been extensively studied and categorized (Morris, 1987) and will not be discussed in detail here. Four main views stand out, Preterist, Historicist, Futurist and Idealist. From the earliest period of the church, the futuristic and idealist interpretations have been the major positions. It is however likely, as many scholars have pointed out, that the correct perception contains something of all of the above views.
Whatever view one adopts, the book itself refuses to be left in the past. Indeed, with each epoch of human development, new depths of interpretation emerged that suggested that the revelation is for all ages of the church until the end. It is in this context that this work intends to show that the revelation has never been as relevant as it is for our time. There is enough evidence within the text of revelations to believe that it was written for the end time, a concept that is in itself as abused as the revelation. Although, the phrase ‘end times’ has been adopted in this work, the revelation did not mention the end time. Caird emphasizes this point and according to him “Much debate ‘has turned on the nature of the eschaton, the final event...but the word eschaton (neut.) does not occur in the New Testament. John knows only of the eschatos (masc.), a person who is both the beginning and the end’ (Caird, 1966).
As the prophecies, indicating the end times unfold with alarming rapidity and as we gain more insight into them with almost every event, the revelation becomes more clarified, understandable and relevant. Rapid globalization, the explosion of knowledge and the fulfillment of the promise of the Spirit of Truth on earth, place the revelation in the centre of our time.
Authorship of The Revelation
The controversy about authorship may be regarded as almost incidental, for the work itself stands above the author. The author himself tells us from the beginning that the book is a revelation from above and that we must seek its relevance and authority from studying it for ourselves. However, as if to emphasize the authenticity of its documentation, the author also goes into the trouble of identifying himself, his location and his state of being. In spite of these, the authorship remains more controversial than that of the gospels where the authors sometimes deliberately obscured their identity.
It has remained an open question whether the author is John the Apostle or another John and the dominant arguments are based almost exclusively on an early reference by Justin Martyr in favor and a rather more reasoned argument against, from Dionysius (Eusebius). Since then, many esteemed scholars have extended the argument for and against (Morris, 1987). The arguments regarding authorship and date are closely linked and most commentators argue from their individual biases.
Dionysius (200-265AD) who first raised the argument against John the apostle as the author was the Bishop of Alexandria, and represented the predominant view of the Eastern Churches. Before his time, i.e. prior to the 3rd century AD, the early church largely attributed authorship of the Revelation to John the apostle [Irenaeus (120-200AD) and Tertullian (155-220AD)]. This position is summarized in Justin Martyr’s (100-165AD) commentary in his dialogue with Trypho:
‘There was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believe in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place’ (Martyr).
Even prominent leaders of the Alexandrian school before the time of Dionysius attributed the authorship to John the Apostle [Clement of Alexandria (150-211AD), Origen (185-254AD)]. There is also early confirmation that indeed John the Apostle was banished to Patmos. Ignatius (30-108AD) wrote regarding the early church leaders – ‘…Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos…’ Thus external evidence bordering the apostolic age indicates overwhelmingly that the author is John the apostle. Apart from Jerome (340-420 AD), this tradition of apostolic authorship was generally held in the Western Churches.
The arguments