THE REVELATION

It is often said there is no book read less and misunderstood more than the book of The Revelation.  I find much truth in this statement.  Yet, there is no book more appropriate or of greater depth and vision for today than The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

John the Revelator

The more time placed between modern Church scholars and the writing of The Revelation, the more Church leaders tend to doubt the authenticity of the book.  Even Luther and Zwingli gave little credence to The Revelation.  While Luther merely relegated it to a separate list along with the books of James, Jude, 2^nd Peter and Hebrews, Zwingli boldly declared that it was “not a biblical book.”

But since the earliest of Church fathers The Revelation has been recognized as authentic.  Upon returning from banishment to the isle of Patmos, John spent his final years as the Bishop of Ephesus.  Here, he—the last living apostle of Jesus—served as a stabilizing force to the young growing Church; and he was the final authority as to doctrine and the authenticity of various writings.  

During this time the bishops of Asia (some of the same bishops addressed in chapters two and three, in the letters to the seven churches) visited John to ask his opinion of the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke.  He judged them authentic.  It was then that these bishops asked John to provide his own Gospel, thereby completing a fourfold account.  Thus, was it ordained that John should survive to place apostolic approval on the Canon of the Gospels.

Another work was circulating about this time that some claimed to be the work of Paul.  John steadfastly refuted it, condemning it as an illegitimate document penned by a spurious elder at Ephesus.  The Revelation was also circulating throughout the Church during this period.  Certainly, if the book was not authentic John would have refuted it as well.  On the contrary, many early Church fathers including both Papias and Polycarp—themselves disciples of  John, and Irenæus a disciple of Polycarp, adamantly attributed The Revelation to the apostle.

Perhaps just as important, in that it reveals the mind set of the second century Church which by now had spread throughout the empire, is the acceptance of The Revelation in 170 A.D., at the Canon of Muratori—the first official gathering of Church leaders to approve a New Testament Canon.

It was only in later centuries that certain Church leaders began to doubt the authenticity of The Revelation; and this, largely due to their inability, or unwillingness, to accept the grandiose visions and cryptic language.  The early Church, from the disciples of John to the leaders of the second century, clearly considered The Revelation authentic. 

As the last chapter of God’s Word specifically designed to complete the works of inspiration, it seems appropriate that it was written by the last living apostle and the only one not to die a martyr’s death.

The Time is Near

The Church has always considered the return of Christ imminent; and rightly so, as per the many instructions to watch and be ready.  Although we do not know exactly when it will happen, the prophets do present a vivid description of the events leading up to and immediately preceding his coming.  Thus, those actually living when the time arrives should have no difficulty discerning the signs of the times.

The world stage of which the prophets spoke is quickly taking shape.  The political alignment of nations, the religious and social underpinnings are in place with the foretold final state of affairs but a heartbeat away—held back until the restraining power allows fruition.  A seemingly insignificant, often overlooked passage in Daniel has enormous implication in this regard.  It is the simple statement that in the last days “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Dan. 12:4).  Daniel wrote this more than 2,500 years ago.  From our immediate, myopic perspective we might think little of this comment; but as we step back to consider the whole picture, to view the entire 6,000 odd years of recorded history and the importance is instantly apparent.

The contrast of our present scientific knowledge and our rapid and mass means of travel by trains, planes and automobiles, versus the limited scientific knowledge and obviously cumbersome means for travel throughout the greater part of history is dumbfounding.  Comparatively speaking, our vast knowledge and modes of transportation have a very short life span in the scheme of things.  Little more than a hundred years ago the primary means of transportation was still a beast of burden; and scientific knowledge was such that surgeons had no idea of bacteria.  They did not even know to wash their hands between patients.  Today we have traveled to space and scientists have mapped human DNA.

Even more amazing than our vast knowledge and advanced transportation is the exponential rate at which they have increased.  A bar graph of either is most telling.  A prolonged, gradual and nearly insignificant rise over 6,000 years with each millennium gradually lifting above the last.  Then suddenly, in the space of but a few decades, the graph spikes to astronomical proportions.

Perhaps the most telling indication of these last days is our very real potential for global destruction.  Without even considering bio/chemical weapons, the collective arsenal of nuclear warheads already possessed by but a few nations is more than sufficient to destroy all conscious life on earth, if not the entire ecosystem.  And clearly, if left to ourselves, destroying the earth is exactly what we will do.  And we will do so in short order.  Thus, it is no small issue that the seventh trumpet of The Revelation is a curse sent “to destroy those destroying the earth” (Rev. 11:18).  Destroying the earth is a modern event.  It was not happening when John wrote the Revelation.  It was not happening one hundred years ago.  But it is certainly happening today, and with great abandon. 

Numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments, tell us of these last days.  Like pieces of a puzzle, when considered in context and cross-referenced to other similar passages the grand picture unfolds quite clearly.  And although we are given many specifics pertaining to the social, political, and even economical climate of the day, as Jesus foretold, it largely falls on deaf ears.  For as in the days of Noah, people will be preoccupied with the niceties of life, having no desire or need for God in their hearts.

They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. . . . after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (Lk. 17:26-30).

Beyond the unwillingness to heed the warning, there is another similarity between the people of the last days and those before the flood.  Paul paints a very dismal picture of the Antediluvians.  In general it was an immoral, hedonistic society, indifferent to reprimand and driven by a self-serving agenda that consciously excluded God from its thinking.  Paul said of them,

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator . . . their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in them-selves that recompense of their error which was due. And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understand-ing, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them (Ro. 1:25-32).

The similarity with today cannot be overlooked.  Indeed, the list of negative adjectives could just as easily have been written about our present condition.  Our modern, enlightened culture is determined to glory in homosexuality, deny the existence of the creator and insist upon an impossible, fantastical hypothesis that life sprang from dead matter out of a universe that came into existence from non existence by its own theretofore non existent energy.  Can there be anything more ludicrous?  But I have learned that logic can never convince passion, and those who hold to this idiocy are passionately opposed to the very idea of a creator; therefore they cling to anything that appears to give them legitimacy.

Beyond the social culture, we are also given specific details as to the political climate of these last days.  Of great significance is the return of the Jews to the land of Israel.  God said he would cause His people to return to their land and to reestablish Jerusalem, which until recently they have not controlled since their 6^th century Babylonian captivity.   

Although the actual captivity in Babylon was only 70 years, once they returned to their home they continued to suffer Gentile rule.  The Babylonian Empire was followed by the Medo-Persia Empire, the Grecian Empire and then the fierce Roman Empire; all of which ruled over the Jews and Jerusalem.  Then in 70 A.D., Titus finally drove the Israelites from their land and since that day they have been scatter about the face of the earth.  But God said that in the last days He would gather the Jews from around the world and bring them once again to their promised land.

I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the uttermost parts of the earth, . . . (Jer. 31:8).

I will gather them out of all the countries, where I have driven them in mine anger, and in my wrath, and in great indignation; and I will bring them again unto this place, . . . (Jer. 32:37).

Thus says the Lord Jehovah: Whereas I have removed them far off among the nations, and whereas I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them a sanctuary for a little while in the countries where they are come. . . . I will gather you from the peoples, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel (Eze. 11:16-17).

In 1914 (nearly two thousand years after the Jewish dispersion at the hands of Roman government), British Field Marshall, Edmund Allenby, won Palestine and Syria from the Turks.  Then a few decades later, after the appalling treatment of the Jews during WWII, a widespread—albeit fleeting—support began for a Jewish homeland; and in 1948 the Jews accepted the United Nation’s proposal to divide Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. 

The Jews named their state Israel.  The Arabs, however, refused to accept the division and continue to fight against it to this day.  But this too was prophesied; the Lord said,

I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the peoples round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded; and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it (Zech. 12:2-3).

We know also that in these last days the Roman Empire, though seemingly dead, will rise again to world dominance.  A modern and powerful union of ten nations will rise from the dust of the old and dormant empire.  I say dormant because even though we speak of the Roman Empire as having fallen, upon close scrutiny, fallen is hardly the correct term.  True the imperial authority over the empire crumbled and the kingdom divided into several smaller, individual nations.  But in many respects the ruling power merely shifted to the new political-religious authority of the papacy and to this day the financial interests of these splintered nations of this sleeping empire have far reaching tentacles that control much of the world trade market. 

In time, ten nations from this fallen empire will unite and a dynamic and blasphemous leader will rise swiftly to power.  He will orchestrate a seven-year peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian/Arab nations. 

This world leader will grow in power and popularity and after 3½ years he will enter the Jewish temple, demanding their obedience and worship.  The Jews will reject him, having now realized that Jesus was indeed their Messiah.  What follows is a terrible onslaught against Israel and anyone else who rejects his authority.  Citizens around the world will receive an identification number to prove their loyalty to his rule. 

Given the current and growing state of global terrorism, which is generated by hatred for Israel, it is easy to envision a generally well-received personal, global identification number designed to isolate and apprehended terrorists.  However, it will be the Jews—God’s people—and those who come to believe in God during this time that are branded terrorists; for they will not bow to this tyrant, this false Christ.

After another 3½ years many will grow weary of his tyranny and a rebellion is born.  Armies from around the world converge upon the Valley of Maggedon for war.  It is then that the Lord returns in power and glory to establish his reign upon the earth.[1]

Jesus warned his listeners not to let anyone deceive them, for there would be many signs to clearly signify the end of the age.  Paul reassured the Thessalonians in the same manner.[2]  Admittedly, Jesus spoke to a Jewish audience, in that the Church had not yet been founded and the specific signs to which he referred will occur during the coming tribulation; however, as the address to the Thessalonians makes clear, there is a certain world stage that must be set before these events occur.  

Today that stage is set.  As never before, the time is clearly at hand.  For this reason, the study of The Revelation is especially apropos for our time.  It provides a vivid portrayal—from both the earthly and heavenly perspective—of the final days before the Lord’s return.  And once these events begin they will progress quickly.  Jesus said, “when you see all these things, know that it is near, at the doors . . . (Mt. 24:33. And “by no means will this generation pass away until all these things happen” (Mt. 24:34).  Therefore he warned, “when these things begin to happen, stand up and lift your heads, for your redemption draws near (Luke 21:28).  And Paul told the Thessalonians, “Don’t let anyone deceive you by any means . . . Don’t you remember when I was with you, I told you these things?” (2 Th. 2:3,5).

The Name of the Book

In the earliest manuscripts,[3] the book of the Revelation was titled the Apocalypse of John;[4] but as many as sixty different titles are found in subsequent manuscripts; the longest of which, is most interesting.  The Mount Athos manuscript from 1847 is titled, “The Revelation of the all-glorious Evangelist, bosom friend (of Jesus), virgin, beloved to Christ, John the theologian, son of Salome and Zebedee, but adopted son of Mary the Mother of God, and Son of Thunder.”  Today, we generally refer to the book by its first phrase, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ,”[5] or simply “The Revelation.”

Many commentators have pointed out that we might think of Genesis and The Revelation as the capstones, or the book ends, of God’s Word.  The beginning of many themes and subjects in Genesis come to fruition in The Revelation.  God creates the heavens and the earth in Genesis; in Revelation they are destroyed. Sin and death are introduced in Genesis; they too, meet their doom in the Revelation.  The same is true of man, Satan, pain, murder, redemption and so forth.

Gregory of Nyssa called The Revelation “the last book of grace.”  Others have referred to it as “the seal of the whole Bible.”  Indeed, the canon of Scripture would be incomplete without it and no further inspiration is to come until Christ himself returns.

For the defense of the faith and the complete inerrancy of Scripture, there are probably no more important sections of Holy Writ than Genesis and The Revelation.  It therefore comes as no surprise that these are the first books attacked by the unregenerate mind.  Both the infidels of secular humanism and the apostates of modern theology have done their best to discredit them.  Such are the schemes of our adversary.

The Intent of this Commentary

The intent of this work is by no means meant to replace or supersede the many excellent commentaries on The Revelation.  What I have attempted to provide is a commentary that views these prophetic events in light of our recent history and current global circumstance.  As such, the letters to the churches of chapters two and three, and the coming world empire of chapters thirteen and seventeen are given considerable attention.  Although it is not my aim to supply answers for every cryptic passage found in The Revelation, these difficult passages seem less so, once we understand the theme and the purpose of the book.

I had two persons in mind while writing this commentary: the average church member who has been told that the book cannot be understood and the average preacher who has been taught to refrain from preaching through this most important book.  For, as we will see, this is the only book in the Bible that promises happiness to those reading, hearing and obeying it.  Consequently, this book is meant to be studied; it must be taken seriously. 

Daniel, who addressed many of the same events, was told to seal up the words of his prophecy until the time of the end at which time the righteous would understand.  Similarly, Jesus told John that this vision was given to show his servants the things that must happen.  The end is near and it is time to reveal the meaning of these prophecies.

There is another important promise associated with this book.  The promise of damnation to anyone who adds or subtracts to The Revelation. 

The Intent of this Translation

Neither is the translation I have provided meant to replace or supersede any of the established versions that we have been reading for years, even centuries.  While preaching through a book of the New Testament I make it a discipline to do so from the original Greek, thereby necessarily providing my own translation.  I do this for my own clarity.  I reject any notion that one translation is inherently better than another.  Such an argument is (and I am not sure how to say this tactfully) obtuse.  At the very least it is the product of ignorance—ignorance as to the importance of the many extant Greek manuscripts and ignorance of the actual translation process.  Furthermore, each of our popular translations is, relatively speaking, not very old—the oldest being less than a mere 400 years.  What, I might ask, do we suppose the Church read before any of these popular versions existed?  The answer is quite simple.  They read from the numerous ancient Greek manuscripts (or translations thereof) that we now translate into our modern language.     

True, some versions such as the KJV and NASV provide a literal translation, while other versions such as the NIV are based upon the concept of dynamic equivalence (which at times makes them more a commentary than a translation), still both systems have their strengths and their weaknesses.  For example, the literal, word-for-word translation is often awkward and sometimes fails to convey the historic idiom making the requisite discovery of these important details left to the reader.  But few readers have the means or the desire to ascertain these historic details.  On the other hand, the system of dynamic equivalence reads smoothly and interprets the idioms for the reader; however the reader must rely upon the translator’s understanding of the idiom.  And the reader must trust that the idiom has been understood correctly; for there are passages in which theological bias or historical ignorance can influence the understanding of a certain idiom.

Then there is another important issue; that of textual criticism.  Of the volumes of possible manuscripts, which are we to use?  Each is slightly different from the other.  Do we use the older manuscripts such as Sinaticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, or the later manuscripts of Bazae, Cantabrigienis and Basel?  Or should we use the scholarly works such as Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Bover, Merk, Vogels or the Textus Receptus?  This is not an easy issue and it is foolish to simply brush it aside naively favoring one text or system above the others.  

But this is not to imply that widespread variations exist among the manuscripts or that some are erroneous while others are not.  On the contrary, it is nothing short of miraculous how God has kept his Word intact generation after generation throughout thou-sands of years of hand transcription.  Nothing in the history of literature compares.  For example, the earliest complete copy of Homer—the famed Greek poet of the 8^th century B.C., only dates back to the 13^th century A.D.  No manuscript of Herodotus—known as the father of history, who wrote in the 5^th Century B.C., dates back beyond the 10^th century A.D.  One copy of the great Roman poet Virgil from the 1^st century B.C. dates back to the 4^th century A.D., and only a fraction of the works of Cicero—the Roman orator of the 1^st century B.C., are this old.  

Rather than alarming, there is something quite reassuring about the textual variations (or the comparative lack of them), in the extant manuscripts.  If we simply did not read any of the variant passages, the gospel message would not be affected; neither would any significant doctrine of the faith.  Dr. Hort, the eminent Greek scholar and textual critic taught that the substantial variations were so rare that only about one word of a thousand summoned a critic’s attention.  For us to squabble over benign variant passages is unwarranted and unwise; and to do so over subsequent translations into a second language is quite juvenile.

That being said, the translation I have provided is a literal, word-for-word translation based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, et al, and the twenty-first edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece.  However, by its very nature, the act of translating from one langu-age (any language) into another necessarily requires interpretation.  Each language has idioms peculiar to its culture and historical setting.  These are often difficult to translate into a second language—especially in a literal, word for word manner.  For example, what we generally translate “for ever and ever” in the Greek is literally “unto the ages of the ages.”

Even more significant than the idioms is the nature of the languages themselves.  Greek, like most languages, has an exten-sive grammatical system for the declension of nouns and the conjugation of verbs.  Although ancient English had some of this grammatical phrasing, little of it survives today.  A few remaining examples are the declination of the third person, plural, personal pronoun, and the conjugation of the verb “to be.”  When the third person plural, personal pronoun is the subject of the sentence, we say “they.”  When it is the object of the sentence we say “them.”  And to express possession we say “their.”  Likewise, the verb “to be” is still conjugated in modern English.  We say “I am, you are, he is,” etc.  But these are rare exceptions.  Today we largely rely upon context to signify noun declension and helping words such as “has, have been, shall, might,” to signify verb conjugation.

All of this makes a literal, word-for-word translation quite cumbersome; at least grammatically speaking.  This is especially noticeable when translating participles.  The identification of the rider on the white horse in chapter six is generally translated “he that sat,” however, the literal transition would be “the sitting one.”  In participles not in the present tense and active voice this can be even more crucial.  Although the perfect tense passive voice participle is often simply translated “was burned” or “was clothed,” it is literally “having been burned” or “having been clothed,” thereby making it clear that someone other than the subject did the action.  True, it is a subtle nuance, but it is a subtle nuance the writer consciously meant to express.

I do not mention this to diminish our current translations—for again, this is the nature of translation.  But I mention it to emphasize that all worthy commentary and all doctrinal issues must address the original language.  It is not proper to build doctrine or even to espouse matters of practical theological concepts based merely on a second or third generation translation.

Point of View

My approach to The Revelation is a pre-millennial, futuristic point of view.  I believe The Revelation is largely chronological in content; and, except where the text demands otherwise, it is to be taken literally.  Yet even here it is a literal-figurative, which itself is a form of literal speech.  We use the term literal to mean that every passage has a plain meaning.  The author or speaker had a singular understanding in mind when he wrote or spoke.  We refer to this as a meaning with a single sense.  It is therefore, the interpreter’s goal to understand the author’s plain, singular meaning.

It is the nature of language, both written and verbal, for writers and speakers to express themselves in various ways.  The authors of Scripture were no different.  All of us have favorite words and idioms we use frequently.  We may have a certain style of expression, such as short choppy sentences, or long drawn out sentences connecting one parenthetical idea to another; but always, there is a plain singular meaning in mind.

Words, then as now, have figurative and metaphorical uses, as well as concrete uses.  Each usage is considered literal.  One is figurative-literal, the other is concrete-literal.  Therefore, the concept of literal refers to the author’s contextual meaning for the term.  This is true in both the figurative or concrete sense. 

When we use the idiom, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” everyone understands this to be a euphemism for “It’s raining hard.”  And when we say, “It’s raining hard,” everyone understands that we are using “hard” in the figurative sense.  The concrete-literal meaning of hard is, “not easily penetrated, firm, solid.”[6]  But this concept does not fit our context.  There is nothing solid about rain drops. But there are several figurative meanings for hard.  In this phrase “hard” is a reference to the inclement weather.  This is the speakers obvious meaning and to understand it as such is to understand it literally.  It is a legitimate, figurative-literal, use of the term.

Likewise, when James said, “the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity . . . ,” (Jm. 3:6), he did not mean fire in a concrete-literal sense, as Luke meant it when he said Paul “shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm” (Act 28:5).  Nor did James mean “world” in the concrete-literal sense.  His use for both terms is plainly in the figurative-literal sense.  Thus, “the tongue is destructive, the sum total of iniquity.”  But we must take it still another step to arrive at the literal-meaning.  Even James’ use of the generally concrete term “tongue” is a euphemism for the thoughts and intents of the mind, which control the tongue.  This is the plain meaning of James’ figurative speech.  This is literal interpretation.

Lastly, in that it has not been my intent to provide a critical commentary, I have refrained from supplying the typical historical introduction.  Students will find several worthy introductions in any number of critical commentaries and encyclopedias.

Desmond Allen, PhD, MDiv

Return to Book