Slideshow image

I am on a bit of a theological journey, revisiting what the Bible says about spiritual gifts, Israel and the church and eschatology. I was blessed to receive a wonderful theological education, but years have passed and it is time to go back to drawing board. Why would I do this? My main answer is simple: Because I want to.

So it is now time in my eschatological journey to dive deeply into the book of Revelation. This will likely take a number of months to answer all 77 questions, but here we go!

QUESTION 1: What does the phrase “must soon take place” in Revelation 1:1 mean?

One of the challenges when interpreting prophecy or eschatology is dealing with this idea of “imminency”. The hearers of divine revelation are often told to be ready or to be alert, which assumes the possibility that these future events could occur during their lifetime. And yet, the reality is, especially regarding the Second Coming of Jesus, Christians have waited two millennia and still no Jesus.

Furthermore, some scholars argue that many (if not most) of end-time prophecies were fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus Himself said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). Yet Jesus also stated two verses later, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only?”

Obviously, this is a complicated issue. The concept of time in the genre of prophecy rarely plays nice. The classic example is the coming of the Messiah. The prophets thought it was one coming, but it is actually two. Chronology within prophecy is often slippery and fluid.

So, what is the answer? Well, this may be simplistic, but there are two verses that use the exact same phrase: Luke 18:8 and Romans 16:20. In those two verses, soon does not mean “immediately”, but rather when it begins it will be “sudden and complete”. In Romans 16:20, Paul states that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet”. This crushing will occur, but as of many eschatology hopes, it is still in the imminent future.

The bottom line is this: The word soon in Revelation 1 is to be understood as soon from a prophetic standpoint or through the lens of a prophetic/apocalyptic genre. Therefore, soon does not mean “immediately”, but rather “eschatological imminency”. This is the most natural and consistent way to understand this phrase.

QUESTION 2: What does the phrase in Revelation 1:6, “ He (Jesus) made us a kingdom” mean?

The concept of the kingdom is also tricky, from a New Testament perspective. The Old Testament almost always viewed the kingdom of God as physical and Jewish-focused. But Jesus seemed to redefine or at least, widen, the Jewish understanding of the kingdom of God.

Here is Revelation 1, the word “kingdom” refers to an inaugurated, spiritual kingdom. In this kingdom, Christians are called to be “priests”, which obviously takes the OT mediatorial concept and reapplies it to the NT context. Now this kingdom is present, but not completely realized. Some theologians call the current kingdom — the “Already, not yet” kingdom. In other words, the Bible teaches there exists both a present, inaugurated spiritual kingdom (the Already) and a future, fully-realized, physical, eternal kingdom to come (the Not-Yet).

QUESTION 3: Revelation 1:7 contains the phrase “even those who pierced Him”. Who is John referring to?

Generally speaking, there are two answers given. Either this group is 1) the generation of historical Jews who crucified Jesus or this is 2) referring to “all those of every age whose careless indifference to Jesus is typified in the act of piercing” (Mounce). To hold to the first view, it requires to do what Beale and many other commentators do, interpret the first part of Revelation 1:7 — ”Behold, He is coming with the clouds….” as a reference not to the Second Coming, but to a “coming of judgment” in 70 A.D. Though this view is possible, it seems to deny the connective thread of Daniel 7 and Matthew 24 to Revelation 1, which I believe, especially with the use of the term “clouds”, is a clear reference to the Second Coming of Jesus. Therefore, the view of Mounce is the best way to understand this phrase.

QUESTION 4: John writes to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 1:4. Is he writing exclusively to the historical seven churches?

The answer is yes and no. The key is found in Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22. John writes “let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES”. John’s intention was also that this letter was to be read in ALL seven historical churches in Asia Minor. Therefore, since John’s original intention was that it was meant for the universal church in the 1st century, Christians today understand it to be meant to be read and applied to the universal church in the 21st century.

QUESTION 5: When did John write the book of Revelation?

This is a very important question and I would argue that the answer has significant eschatological ramifications, which I will explain in a bit. The two views are 1) the early date — it was written before 70 A.D. or 2) the late date — probably around 95 A.D.

This could be a very long and detailed answer, but I will attempt to not get bogged down in the weeds. The majority view is still a late date and one scholar (who holds to an early date) admits that if the only evidence was external evidence (i.e. the testimony of the early church fathers), the answer is a resounding win for the late date of Revelation.

So, it really comes down to the internal evidence (i.e. evidence from within the book of Revelation itself). Here are some of the internal arguments for a late date (these arguments are from Mounce, Revelation, p. 19):

  1. The spiritual decline at Ephesus, Sardis and Laodicea would require an extended period of time.
  2. The existence of a distinct heretical sect with the well-known title, the Nicolaitans, presupposes some distance of time from the apostolic epistles (in which they are not even hinted at).
  3. The absence of any reference to the pioneer work of Paul in Asia Minor is more understandable with the passage of time.
  4. The probable use of Matthew (and perhaps Luke) would argue a date later than 80 to 85, if the common dating is accepted.
  5. The church of Smyrna may not have existed until after 60–64 A.D.
  6. Revelation 3:17 describes the church of Laodicea as rich although the city was almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in 60–61 A.D.

Again, are some of the above arguments less compelling because their arguments are based on the silence of the text? Yes, without question. Yet, if you compile all the evidence, external and internal, there is a very strong case for a late date. Even G. K. Beale, who has written the most comprehensive (and arguably best) commentary of Revelation and argues strongly that most of the prophecies are fulfilled in 70 A.D., will admit that a late date of Revelation is more probable than the early date.

Why does this matter? Because if a late date can be substantiated, it (in my opinion) severely cripples the view that most of the prophecies are fulfilled in 70 A.D. The vision of Revelation must be in the future, since it would have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. Now some commentators, like Beale, argue that a late date does not cripple or even dampen the legitimacy of their view. Either way, the late date seems to hold up under scholarly scrutiny.

Summary of Revelation 1

An angel was sent to the apostle John, who was living on the island of Patmos, serving out a prison sentence for proclaiming the gospel. One Sunday morning, John is likely put in a trance-like state and is told by this angel to write what he sees in this vision and send this letter to the seven historical churches of Asia Minor.

The vision begins by John seeing the glory of the resurrected Jesus, who tells him to write “the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this”.