What is the Preterist or Contemporary Historical Approach?

The Preterist or Contemporary Historical Approach applies the book primarily (or completely) to the conflict between the Church and Rome. Some taking this approach apply the book to the conflict between the Church and Jerusalem, but that theory is seriously flawed. The villain in this book is Rome, not Jerusalem. We will see why as we work our way through the text, but let’s pause to consider one reason right now. A coin minted during the reign of Vespasian (the time when Revelation was written) depicts the goddess Roma sitting upon the seven hills that surrounded the city of Rome. Chapter 17 depicts the villain in Revelation as a bloodthirsty harlot sitting upon seven hills. If you lived in the first century, if you had that Roman coin in your pocket, and if you read Revelation 17, who would you think John was writing about? How could there be any answer other than Rome? The preterist approach does not violate John’s claim that the prophecies in Revelation were to come to pass shortly. This approach makes the book meaningful to its initial readers in that it gives comfort and assurance of victory to those being persecuted. According to this approach the book is not primarily eschatological— that is, it is not primarily concerned with the end of the world, but is instead concerned with the end of Rome. The remainder of the course will provide an extended description of this approach. Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What is the Extreme Preterist Approach?

The Extreme Preterist Approach is also called Realized Eschatology, the 70 A.D. Theory, or Max Kingism. I generally will not spend too much time on what could be called “crackpot” theories, but since this one originated in the Lord’s church, I think we should spend some time discussing it. Max King claims that although the kingdom came on the day of Pentecost following the ascension of Christ, it did not come with power and glory until A.D. 70. Max King claims that the event commonly referred to today as the “second coming of Christ” has already happened, and it occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Max King claims that both the Christian and Jewish faiths were in operation from the day of Pentecost until A.D. 70. When the temple was destroyed, the church (the body) was resurrected—it had been buried under Judaism for 40 years. Max King claims that there is no resurrection of the body and that Christ will never return to claim his people. All prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 and there is not a single prophecy that has not been fulfilled. It is tempting to disregard this as just so much nonsense, but we should be careful. First, there are many sincere members of the church who have been lead astray by this false doctrine, and I personally know of two congregations that have been divided because of it. Max Kingism denies several of the basic tenets of the Christian faith; namely, the resurrection of the body and the final judgment. So that we can confront it when (and if) we see it, I want to quickly go over several key reasons why this approach is wrong. Its biggest mistake is that it violates one of the interpretive rules we discussed earlier: Similarity of language does not prove identity of subject. There are many judgments in the Bible (Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Edom, Jerusalem, Rome, and the final judgment), but the same language is used to describe each. King focuses on the Jerusalem judgment in the New Testament and assumes that all judgment language refers to it. We often confuse the judgments ourselves, and King exploits this to get his foot in the door. I will be the first to admit that many passages that we often take to refer to the end of the world actually refer to the end of Jerusalem. (Matthew 24:1-34, for example.) However, this does not mean that all such verses refer to the end of Jerusalem. (Our confusion sometimes causes us to think that the apostles mistakenly thought that Jesus was going to come again within their lifetimes. The apostles were not mistaken about the date of Christ’s return! They were inspired by God!) Max Kingism is based on the premise that the focus of Revelation is the fall of Jerusalem. This idea is contrary to all of the evidence — both internal and external — and is one of its weakest links. There are numerous verses that can be used to respond to this false view. Acts 1:11, for example, tells us that Jesus will return in the same manner as he left. 1 Corinthians 11:26 tells us that the communion proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 15:25–26 tells us that death will be destroyed when Christ returns. 2 Timothy 2:17–18 reminds us that those who deny the resurrection can overthrow people’s faith, and sadly that has happened with Max King and his followers. And we could go on and on. God’s word is not decided by majority vote, but we should be concerned when we come up with something that no one has ever thought of before. Novel theories about the Bible are generally wrong theories about the Bible. Max Kingism is such a theory. Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

The Tenets of Premillennialism

(1) The Restoration of the Levitical Priesthood

Premillennialists teach that the Levitical priesthood is going to be restored during the millennium. This view arises from a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 44.

But what does the Bible say?

The role of the Levitical priests was to offer the sacrifices for sin that were demanded by the Law of Moses. Jesus’ perfect sacrifice put these people out of business permanently (Hebrews 10:12, 18).

The Levitical system was imperfect, weak, and useless (Hebrews 7:11, 18) and was set aside by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:18).

The coming of reality in Jesus Christ meant that the shadow of the Levitical system was removed forever. (Premillennialists say that all of the shadows will return.)

Further, Jesus could not be a priest if the Levitical system were still functioning. Under the Law of Moses (Numbers 18), only Aaron’s sons could be priests. The Law of Moses and the Levitical system cannot be separated—one cannot exist without the other (Hebrews 7:12). In addition, the old and new covenants cannot coexist (Romans 7:1–6). The first covenant was taken away so that the second could be established (Hebrews 10:9–10). Jesus cannot be priest on earth under the Levitical system (Hebrews 8:4).

(2) The Restoration of the Sacrificial System

Premillennialists teach that bloody sacrifices for sin will be restored during the millennium. This view arises from a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 43–45 and Zechariah 14.

But what does the Bible say?

Animal sacrifices were never able to cleanse the soul. They simply shadowed the coming sacrifice that would provide true cleansing. Jesus’ sacrifice was all sufficient. His perfect once-for-all sacrifice meant that future sacrifices were unnecessary (Hebrews 10:17–18).

Those who have remission of sin have no further need of sacrifice.

The premillennial view undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrificial atonement. Paul wrote in Galatians 2:21 that “if justification were through the Law, then Christ died to no purpose.”

(3) The New Covenant is not in force now

Premillennialists teach that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31ff is not yet in force and that it will not come into force until the millennium. Walvoord says that the new covenant applies only to Israel and has no relation with this present age.

But what does the Bible say?

In Luke 22:20 Jesus says “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

In Hebrews 9:15 we read that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant.

In 2 Corinthians 3:5–6 Paul writes that “our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.”

The problem of sin is the motivation behind both covenants. The new covenant provides forgiveness through the blood of Christ. Walvoord claims that Christ’s blood produced two new covenants.

The new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is the covenant that we are under today. This covenant provides salvation and forgiveness through the blood of Christ and there is no need for any other covenant.

Premillennialists have trouble explaining the need for their theories. Either Christ is all sufficient or he is not. If he is, then why do we need the restoration of the Old Testament shadows?

(4) Jesus is not presently ruling over Israel

Premillennialists deny the complete Lordship of Jesus. They insist he is not presently ruling over Israel.

Walvoord and Lindsey both claim that although Jesus has the right to rule the earth, he is not exercising that authority at this time. For proof they point to the mess that the world is in.

But what does the Bible say?

Psalm 29:10 reminds us that God reigned (and rained!) at the time of the flood even though the world was in a mess at the time.

Paul told the Ephesians in Ephesians 1:21 that Jesus is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” in this age. In Revelation 2:26–27 Jesus claims to have already been given the authority over nations that was prophesied in Psalm 2:8–9. In Revelation 1:5 we see that Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Psalm 110 depicts Jesus as sitting at God’s right hand and ruling in the midst of his enemies. This passage is quoted many times in the New Testament as having been already fulfilled. What does Walvoord say? He claims that although Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:4 have been fulfilled, the remaining verses in Psalm 110 have not been fulfilled.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

The Terminology

The “millennium” refers to the 1000 years mentioned in Revelation 20:4, where it is described not as a reign of Christ but rather as a reign with Christ.

“Premillennialism” takes the 1000 year period literally and teaches that the return of Christ will occur prior to the millennium (hence the “pre” in its name).

“Postmillennialism” takes the 1000 year period literally and teaches that the return of Christ will occur after the millennium (hence the “post” in its name). Under this view, the final coming of Christ would be preceded by a 1000 year period of peace. Understandably, this view is not very popular anymore. (Alexander Campbell’s Millennial Harbinger was post-millennial.)

“Amillennialism” takes the 1000 year period figuratively, noting that it a power of 10, which denotes completeness.

The first thing we should note about premillennialists is that they base almost their entire understanding of the Bible (by their own admission!) on one verse from Revelation 20! Remember, we should interpret difficult to understand verses by using easy to understand verses — and there are many easy to understand verses that prove premillennialism false.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What About the Millennium?

Does it make any difference what we believe about premillennialism? Is it all just a matter of opinion? Does it have anything to do with the so-called core of the gospel?

Carroll Osborn, the Carmichael Distinguished Professor of New Testament at ACU, wrote a book entitled The Peaceable Kingdom in which he grouped premillennialism among items that are just matters of opinion on which we should just agree to disagree. (On the same list he placed the issue of whether baptism is for the remission of sins or because of the remission of sins.) He is badly mistaken.

John Walvoord, a leading proponent of premillennialism, has the following to say about the importance of the dispute:

If premillennialism is only a dispute about what will happen in a future age which is quite removed from present issues, that is one thing. If, however, premillennialism is a system of interpretation which involves the meaning and significance of the entire Bible, defines the meaning and course of the present age, determines the present purpose of God, and gives both material and method to theology, that is something else. It is the growing realization that premillennialism is more than a dispute about Revelation 20. It is not too much to say that millennialism is a determining factor in Biblical interpretation of comparable importance to the doctrines of verbal inspiration, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection.

It does make a difference what we believe about this subject. The premillennialist doctrine has consequences that run counter to the very heart of the gospel.

We owe a great debt to Foy E. Wallace for keeping premillennialism out of the Lord’s church. Foy Wallace (then the editor of the Gospel Advocate) debated Charles Neal (minister of the Main Street Church of Christ in Winchester, Kentucky) in 1933 about the 1000 year reign. He was largely responsible for keeping that false doctrine from infiltrating the church. We have an “anti-debate” attitude today seemingly for fear we might offend someone by our knowledge and conviction, but I am certainly glad that was not the attitude back when Foy Wallace was preaching (and the church was growing!). Christians of his generation were much more interested in pulling perishing people into the boat than they were about not rocking that boat!

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What is the Futurist Approach?

The Futurist or Eschatological Approach claims that nothing in Revelation from chapter 4 until the end of the book has been fulfilled yet. Instead, the entire book will be fulfilled at some time immediately preceding the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. This approach includes the very popular dispensationalist view that is summarized below:

• Jesus came to establish a visible rule on earth.

• The Jews did not accept Christ so the offer to rule was withdrawn.

• The establishment of the kingdom was postponed until his return.

• The church was established for the interim period. The church is a parenthesis in history and is not a fulfillment of any Old Testament prophecy. The church is a mistake! (This is always a part of premillennialism. They downplay the importance of the church—the body of Christ!)

• The church age will end with a “rapture” in which all believers will meet Christ in the air. This is the first stage of the second advent.

• During the next seven years, the antichrist will rule the earth, the Jews will be restored to Palestine, the temple will be rebuilt, and the sacrificial system will be reinstituted. Those saved during this time are called tribulation saints.

• The antichrist will break a covenant with the Jews after 3½ years and a terrible persecution will follow.

• After another 3½ years Christ will appear a third time, defeat the antichrist, and rule on earth for 1000 years.

Hal Lindsey’s original scenario of the end is even more imaginative:

• For 3.5 years Satan will rule the world through a Jewish antichrist in Rome.

• The Jews will be allowed to rebuild the temple.

• Many Jews will be converted and a worldwide evangelism program will be undertaken by 144,000 Jewish preachers.

• After 3½ years the antichrist will set up his own image in the newly rebuilt Jewish temple.

• World War III will break out.

• Egypt will invade Israel.

• Russia will invade the Middle East and trample both Egypt and Israel.

• The Roman dictator will invade Israel.

• Rome will launch a nuclear attack against Russian forces in Israel.

• 200,000,000 Chinese troops will march on Palestine to battle the Roman army.

• The battle of Armageddon will begin and lead to worldwide destruction.

• Jesus will return to reign on earth for 1000 years.

If this seems dated, we are not the only ones to notice. Lindsey recently released a new book with an updated schedule of events.

Time does not permit us to discuss everything that is wrong with such an approach. First, it ignores the time frame as did the first approach that we considered. Further, it causes the book to have little significance to its initial readers. Finally, it changes as quickly as the headlines. Many thought Hitler was the antichrist— some still do. The political scene that caused Lindsey to reach his conclusions in 1974 is quite different in 2009.

Many saw Gorbachev as the antichrist— he even came complete with a built-in ‘mark of the beast’! More recently Hussein became their antichrist du jour as he threatened Israel with destruction while based near the site of historic Babylon. When asked about his changing views, a local dispensationalist preacher in Dallas said he wasn’t worried because everything he had said (and later retracted) was Biblical!

The ‘end-is-near’ crowd is not unique to our time. They have existed in every century since and including the first. A recent book entitled AD 1000: Living on the Brink of the Apocalypse shows how the ‘end of the world’ mentality raged near the end of the first millennium. That book begins with the following sentence: “On the last day of the year 999, according to an ancient chronicle, the old basilica of St. Peter’s at Rome was thronged with a mass of weeping and trembling worshipers awaiting the end of the world.” Even Paul battled those who thought that the end was near in the first century.

Although the purpose of this study is not to expose premillennialism, we will next consider a few of the basis tenets of that popular but badly misguided approach to this book.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What is the Historical Approach?

Numerous approaches to this book have been proposed, and we will next briefly review the major ones.

The Historical Approach is sometimes called the standard Protestant interpretation and is taken, for example, in the Gospel Advocate commentary by Hinds.

This approach views the book as a forecast in symbols of the history of the church. The Roman Catholic church often plays the role of the villain in this approach.

And it is certainly true that the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire have much in common. Listen as historian Will Durant describes the relation between the two, and specifically describes the transformation of Rome into the Roman church:

Christianity… grew by the absorption of pagan faith and ritual; it became a triumphant Church by inheriting the organizing patterns and genius of Rome.… As Judea had given Christianity ethics, and Greece had given it theology, so now Rome gave it organization; all these, with a dozen absorbed and rival faiths, entered into the Christian synthesis. It was not merely that the Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian Rome—the stole and other vestments of pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar, the worship of the saints, the architecture of the basilica, the law of Rome as a basis for canon law, the title of Pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff, and, in the fourth century, the Latin language as the noble and enduring vehicle of Catholic ritual. The Roman gift was above all a vast framework of government, which, as secular authority failed, became the structure of ecclesiastical rule. Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities; the metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors; and the synod of bishops would succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church followed in the footsteps of the Roman state; it conquered the provinces, beautified the capital, and established discipline and unity from frontier to frontier. Rome died in giving birth to the Church; the Church matured by inheriting and accepting the responsibilities of Rome.”

We should be careful before we take a first century description that could apply to Rome and lift it out of that context to apply it instead to the Catholic church, even those these striking similarities suggest the description might very well appear to closely fit the Catholic church.

A major problem with the historical view is that it operates with the unstated assumption that we are presently living close to the end of the world. For all we know, there may be a million years of church history yet to come in which case the 2000 years we have seen so far will seem like a drop in the bucket. Remember, the end of the world will come like a thief in the night; there will be no signs!

Any theory that is based on an assumption that we can know that we are living in the end times is deeply flawed! It is based on a faulty premise.

This view ignores John’s clearly stated time frame for the book, that the things described therein were not to be sealed up but rather were to shortly come to pass.

In addition to ignoring the time frame, this approach makes the book to be of little significance to its initial readers. Further, it quickly becomes absurd in its attempt to match historical details to the visions in the book. As in the popular book by Nostradamus, something in Revelation can be found to fit almost any historical fact if the context and time frame are ignored.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

But Didn’t Rome Convert to Christianity?

Hadn’t Rome become a “Christian empire” by the time it fell in A.D. 476? How could that fall then be a judgment by God?

It certainly appears to some that Christianity conquered Rome under the emperor Constantine, and many historians so argue, but is that really what happened? In order to answer this question, it will be helpful to first consider the life and supposed conversion of Constantine the Great. History books portray Constantine as a great champion of Christianity and a friend of the church. but was he?

Constantine was born in about A.D. 285 and came to power through a complex series of civil wars. At this point, his primary concern centered about how to unify the empire under his authority. With this aim, he embraced Christianity as a unifying force, staked everything he had on its support, and began to use it for his own purposes.

Was Constantine’s conversion genuine? This question has long been a subject of debate and speculation. Michael Grant has the following to say regarding Constantine’s motivations:

The emperor’s motives have been endlessly analyzed and discussed. But it appears that he and his advisors experienced a growing conviction that, however uninfluential the Christians might be at present, the course of events was working, or could be made to work, in their favor—since they alone possessed the universal aims and efficient, coherent organization that, in the long run, could unite the various conflicting peoples and classes of the empire in a single, all-embracing harmony which was “Catholic,” that is to say, universal.

A politician exploiting Christians for his own personal power and benefit — where have we ever seen that before?

Constantine not only ended the persecution of Christianity but he began to treat Christianity as though it were a state religion which, in fact, it later became. He authorized state money to be used for the construction of elaborate church buildings.

His own personal lack of conviction is evidenced by the facts that he had his son, Crispus, put to death, his wife, Fausta, put to death, and he retained his position as the chief priest of the pagan state religion.

Ramsay Macmullen wrote the following with regard to Constantine’s view of Christianity:

Few of the essential elements of Christian belief interested Constantine very much—neither God’s mercy nor man’s sinfulness, neither damnation nor salvation, neither brotherly love nor, needless to say, humility. Ardent in his convictions, he remained nevertheless oblivious to their moral implications.

Some peoples’ religion is so private they don’t even impose it on themselves! There are many modern-day Constantines!

Alistair Kee in his excellent book Constantine Versus Christ described Constantine’s attitude toward religion as follows:

[His attitude toward religion] played an important part in his ambition to conquer and unify the Empire. … Religion was too important to his strategy to leave in the hands of the ecclesiastics.

Was Constantine a positive influence on the Church? Alistair Kee makes the following point with regard to this question:

Because of his relationship to the church, Constantine was able to influence it and Christianity at a profound level. We must now consider how Constantine’s values infiltrated the church: not how he was converted to Christianity, but how through his religious policy he succeeded in converting Christianity to his position.

Kee states later that “the values of Constantine replaced the values of Christ within Christianity” and that “Christianity was enlisted in his own personal crusade to gain control of the Empire and in the process Christianity was transformed.”

The Roman empire’s embrace of Christianity did more to damage the Church than did the earlier persecutions. Persecution, in a sense, allowed the Church to remain “pure” by effectively excluding anyone not willing to face death for his or her beliefs.

Remember Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 12:10 — For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Alistair Kee mirrors these thoughts when he states:

Only a sadist would wish that persecution continue in the church, only a masochist welcome it, and yet suffering seemed an inescapable experience for early Christians. … [T]he history of the church till the fourth century was of random and often intensive persecution. Whenever the Emperor or the traditions of the Empire seemed threatened, it was open season on persecuting Christians. And yet this tiny minority, insignificant, weak and defenseless, not only survived but grew. … To Christians … it was not at all incredible that persecution could actually strengthen the church: it brought precisely the experience in which God was made known to them in strength. The later Roman influence effectively weakened the Church from within.

This is always the effect that society has on the church. When we let the world into the church and start letting the world change us rather than seeking to change the world, we weaken the church from within.

“Under Imperial favor the Church experienced a rapid growth. Many who thronged into it did so from expediency, rather than deep religious conviction, and the moral and spiritual quality of the Christian community suffered.”

The marriage of Rome and the church was an adulterous one and the resulting offspring matured into Roman Catholicism. Although it is both common and, in an initial sense, understandable to treat Constantine as a great champion and benefactor of the Church, a close examination reveals that his influence was far from beneficial.

F. W. Mattox described Constantine’s influence as follows:

Out of respect to Constantine for the favors he showed, the church gave up her independence and began to rely upon the head of the state for its organization and authority. The leaders seemed too concerned with present problems to see the danger in these developments.

Alistair Kee described Constantine’s influence by stating:

The fundamental issue is not whether Constantine called himself a Christian or not, but how he actually used Christianity and how, in the course of using it, he transformed it into something completely different. … [I]n gathering up lines of thought often already present in the church and developing them in a certain way, they combined to effect something which had never been accomplished hitherto, the replacement of the norms of Christ and the early church by the norms of the imperial ideology. Why it has been previously thought that Constantine was a Christian is not because what he believed was Christian, but because what he believed came to be called Christian.

Finally, the following excerpt, also from Dr. Kee’s book, provides a sobering lesson in the dangers of compromise. The church of Constantine’s day, in embracing Rome, rejected Christ. (Did Rome become more like the Church or did the Church become more like Rome after Constantine? Ask a Roman Catholic.) After commenting upon the strength that the Christians had obtained through their persecution and suffering Kee notes:

[I]t is therefore all the more tragic that Christians should, in the moment of victory, forsake the Revelation in Jesus, for its opposite in Constantine. The church did not need the protection of Constantine; it had already taken on the Empire, century after century, and had in the end been victorious. … If Constantine had in turn persecuted the church, he too would have failed to conquer it. How was it then that he was able to succeed where his predecessors had failed? How was it that by a little kindness, a word of praise here, a grant to build a new church there, he was able to induce the church to forsake what they could not be made to forsake under threat of torture or death? The Emperor offered so much, beyond the dreams of Christians recently under constant threat. He offered in effect at least a share in the kingdoms of the world. When Satan is seen to offer such rewards, the temptation is rejected. When one comes professing to be a follower of the One God, then his offer is accepted. ... And once again the Son of Man was betrayed with a kiss. Not that the betrayal took place in a moment. It was a gradual process. Gradually the church came to have faith in the Emperor, to trust him and to see in him and in his ways the hand of God.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

How and When Did Rome Fall?

In our studies of Revelation, I will argue that its judgments are largely directed toward Rome, who was then persecuting the Lord’s church.

That argument will present us with some important questions: When did the Roman empire fall? How did the Roman empire fall? What factors contributed to the fall of the Roman empire? How was the fall of the Roman empire a divine judgment? Did the fact that “Christianity” had become the official state religion indicate that the enmity between the Roman empire and God had ended?

The imperial period of ancient Roman history began in 27 B.C. when Octavian, later called Augustus, became the first emperor of Rome and ended in A.D. 476 when the last Western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was overthrown. The Roman empire continued in the East for another 1000 years until the invasion by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.

According to Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, four primary reasons stand behind the eventual collapse of the Roman empire: External invasion, Inner decadence, Inner strife, Injury of time and nature.

Daniel 2 described the inner weakness of the yet future Roman empire as follows:

And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle.

This description from Daniel 2 fits well with Gibbon’s theory as to why Rome fell. In any event, if Rome is indeed the villain of this book, then it is clear that Rome is judged in this book. How and when did that judgment occur?

One theory is that Rome was judged when the Western empire fell and the city was invaded in A.D. 476. A potential problem with this view is that it pushes the judgment off for quite some time, which could cause a concern with the time frame of the book. Another potential problem is that the much ballyhooed fall of Rome in A.D. 476 was not viewed at the time (according to some) as much of a fall and, in fact, the Eastern Roman empire continued on for another 1000 years. It is possible, however, that the judgment in view in Revelation is against the city of Rome rather than the entire empire of Rome.

Another theory is that Rome was judged when Nero died in A.D. 68 and the Julio-Claudian dynasty came to and end and was further judged when Domitian, the last of the emperors considered in Revelation, was murdered in A.D. 96 and the Flavian dynasty came to an end. As for the emperors that followed Domitian from AD 96 to 180, Gibbon writes:

If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world when the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would without hesitation name that period which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commotus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors whose characters and authority demanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, (Five Good Emperors) who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws.

Although we should note that Christians were persecuted by emperors who ruled after Domitian (Diocletian in AD 303, for example).

We will have more to say about these two theories as we proceed into the text. (If you have been reading the 1990 commentary from our website, you will notice that it takes the first approach.)

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Who Were the Emperors of Rome & Why Should We Care?

We are going to spend quite a bit of time discussing the early Roman emperors. Who were they and why should we care?

We should care about them because Daniel and John wrote about them. In fact, Daniel sketched out the history of the first 11 Roman emperors 600 years before they came to power. John described them while they were in power. We will need to understand that historical context if we are to understand this book.

As we discussed earlier, our focus will be on the first eleven emperors. (Where even though we say first we should keep in mind that Rome was a monarchy before it was a republic as well as after it was a republic. We are starting our count after the republic.)

Julius Caesar was killed by those who feared that he was leading Rome toward a monarchy. His death in 44 B.C. marked the end of the Roman republic. His adopted son Octavius became Augustus—the first Roman emperor. The first five emperors make up the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.

Augustus was the first emperor (although no one at the time would have called him that). Many argue that the list should begin with Julius Caesar, and in fact the classic work by Suetonius (The Twelve Caesars) does begin with Julius. However, history tells us that Augustus was the first emperor. Further, he was the emperor at the time of Christ, which is another reason to start with him. Finally, as we will see, the internal evidence supports using Augustus as our starting point. Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus. Caligula was the adopted grandson of Tiberius. Claudius was the uncle of Caligula. Nero was the stepson of Claudius.

The next three emperors ruled during the Civil Wars of AD 68-69. Galba reigned 7 months and then was hacked to pieces in front of the Forum on Otho’s orders. Otho reigned 95 days and then killed himself after Vitellius defeated his army. Vitellius reigned 8 months and then was killed after Vespasian’s army entered Rome.

The next three emperors make up the Flavian Dynasty. Vespasian (along with his son Titus) put down the Jewish revolt of AD 67-70 and destroyed the Jewish temple. Titus was Vespasian’s eldest son and reigned for only 26 months. Domitian was Titus’s younger brother.

These 11 emperors are depicted in Daniel 7 and Revelation 17.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Rome Played an Important Part in God’s Plans

Daniel 2 tells us about four kingdoms that would rule in the 600 years from the time of Daniel to the time of Christ. The history of those great empires was determined by God long before it happened.

And history shows us the hand of God in those historical events. How else can we explain the rise of Greece under Alexander the Great? How else can explain the ascendancy of Rome over such great powers as Carthage, and the Hellenistic kingdoms of Macedon, Syracuse, and the Seleucid empire? How else can we explain the triumph of the church over the mighty Roman empire even though Rome attacked when Rome was at its height and the church was in its infancy?

Listen to a few sentences from the introduction to the recent book, Roman and Her Enemies: An Empire Created and Destroyed by War: “Lying at its heart is a mystery as profound as any in the records of human civilization. How on earth did the Romans do it? How did a single city, one that began as a small community of castle-rustlers, camped out among marshes and hills, end up ruling an empire that stretched from the moors of Scotland to the deserts of Iraq?” The answer is that it happened because God made it happen, just as he had already told Daniel that it would happen.

It is interesting to study about the interplay of Greek and Roman culture at the time of Christ. As Horace famously stated, Rome may have conquered Greece, but Greek culture conquered Rome. The combination of Greek culture with Roman might created the perfect cradle for the coming of Christ and the beginning of his kingdom, and it was not by accident!

The Greeks brought reason, rationality, logic, and language. Rome brought peace, roads, trade, law, and communication. Although Roman religion later brought emperor worship and persecution, initially it was open and tolerant. This situation allowed Paul to do what he did and take Christianity beyond Jerusalem into the Greek world.

The importance of the Roman peace, the pax Romana, cannot be overstated. The Greeks’ hobby was war. The church would have had a much more difficult time reaching beyond Jerusalem had the Greeks still been in charge.

Another important factor was the Greek language, which had been around since 800 BC and had twice the vocabulary of Latin.

Those who believe that Christianity is anti-intellectual and irrational should note that Christianity began at a time of Greek intellectualism and rationality, and again that was no accident. It is no accident that the church was established, not in a time of superstition, but in a time of rational inquiry. Greek thought is admired even to this very day. In fact, it has been said that the Greek contribution to western philosophy was western philosophy!

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

How Did Rome Begin?

Everyone agrees there is an evil villain in this book, but not all agree on the identity of that villain. I will argue that the villain in this book is Rome of the first century, and particularly certain of the emperors of Rome.

Rome’s early history is shrouded in legend. According to Roman tradition, the city was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus in 753 BC. Archaeological evidence supports the view that Rome grew from settlements on the Palatine Hill very possibly from the middle of the 8th century BC. The original settlement developed into the capital of the Roman Kingdom (ruled by a succession of seven kings, according to tradition), and then the Roman Republic (from 510 BC, governed by the Senate), and finally the Roman Empire (from 27 BC, ruled by an Emperor).

We should pause here to note that the prophet Daniel lived around 600 BC, and in Daniel 2:40, 44 he wrote the following:

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. ... And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

That fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 was Rome! That was the kingdom, as strong as iron, that ruled the earth when God’s eternal kingdom was established in Acts 2. No one looking at those Roman settlements in 600 BC would ever have predicted that they would someday subdue all other worldly kingdoms, and yet Daniel knew 600 years before it happened!

Rome was part of God’s plan in ushering in his kingdom. We know that because Daniel tells us, but we also know that from the historical evidence.

In Galatians 4:4-5, Paul writes, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” It was not by accident or happenstance that Jesus came into this world when he did. God had been planning for his arrival since the foundation of the world, and those plans had become very specific by the time of Daniel in 600 BC.

When Daniel prophesied that a fourth kingdom as strong as iron would rule the world at the time of Christ, and that three kingdoms would precede it, the history of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome was predetermined for the next 600 years. Daniel and Revelation are bookends between great empires.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

How Can We Understand Revelation?

Now that we know we can understand Revelation, the next question is how can we understand Revelation.

We must follow the rules.

We have already mentioned a few of the rules:

(1) We should use easy to understand verses to help us understand hard to understand verses.

(2) We should interpret apocalyptic language figuratively unless we are forced to do otherwise.

There are two additional rules that we will use quite a bit:

(3) Similarity of speech does not imply identity of subjects. (The same image can be used to depict different objects.)

(4) Dissimilarity of speech does not imply distinctness of subjects. (Different images can be used to depict the same object.)

We must investigate the historical context.

The historical context is vital. And we must do more than just say the context is important—we must actually pay close attention to it!

Apocalyptic language always has historical significance, so we must study history in order to properly understand the images.

What is the historical context of the book? We have already discussed aspects of it in our earlier discussions about emperor worship.

Christianity upset the Roman cults because it taught that all men were lost without Christ. It was considered politically unsafe because it worshipped a criminal that had been executed by the state. It was considered morally undesirable because the early Christians were accused of incest and cannibalism. Christians would not pray to the king, they refused military service because such service required them to wear idolatrous insignias, they preached universal dominion by Jesus, and they refused to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor.

The persecution of the church by Rome was particularly intense during the reigns of Nero and Domitian. In A.D. 66 a fire destroyed much of Rome. A rumor spread that Nero had set the fire to further his plans to rebuild the city. To dispel the rumors Nero blamed the Christians who, as everyone knew, predicted a fiery end of the world.

Tacitus describes the situation as follows:

To scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his circus, mixing with the crowds in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.

This fierce persecution was reduced for awhile after the death of Nero but began again with renewed intensity when Domitian came to power. Tertullian called Domitian “a limb of the bloody Nero.”

We must see the book from a first century perspective.

If we fail to see the book from the perspective of a first century Christian suffering persecution by the Romans, then it will not be possible for us to understand it.

Many modern commentaries are filled with a sense of urgency that the time is now and the signs of the end have at last appeared. Why then was John so urgent almost 2000 years ago? What was the contemporary meaning of that Revelation to its initial readers — a small, persecuted minority of Christians in a hostile pagan world? To wrench this book from those first century martyrs and to tell them the book has nothing to say to them but everything to say to us is the height of egotism!

We must study the Old Testament.

Revelation is steeped in the Old Testament and we must be also if we are to properly understand it.

Revelation has more Old Testament references than any other New Testament book. Out of 404 verses, there are 278 Old Testament allusions by one count. One key to choosing a commentary on Revelation is to check how many times the commentator refers to the Old Testament. (It’s not fool-proof, but it is a good indicator.)

We are going to have to spend a lot of time in the Old Testament ourselves. Of the 66 books in the Bible, perhaps Revelation above all is dependent upon the rest for its proper interpretation. As one commentator observed, the marginal references in your Bible are often more enlightening than any commentary.

We must pay close attention to numbers.

We need to pay particular attention to numbers and periods of time. They have special meanings that we must carefully deduce from the evidence.

Most of the symbols behind the numbers make perfect sense immediately once you see them. For example, 3 is the number of God, 12 is the number of God’s people, 10 is the number of completion, 7 is the number of perfection, 6 is the number of imperfection, 4 is the number of the earth, 2 is the number of confirmation or strength, and 3.5 is a broken 7. Some require a little detective work, such as 1,260, 144,000, and 1,000. (1,260 days, for example, is 3.5 years at 360 days per year.)

How do we know all of this? Why shouldn’t we just take all of the numbers in this book literally?

Let’s think for a moment about Chapter 7, which is a beautiful chapter that describes the blessings of God’s people — no hunger, no thirst,no tears, etc. It was a message that God’s people really needed to hear when this book was written and Roman persecution was raging. In that chapter, the number 12 occurs 12 times, and the sum of God’s people is given as 144,000, which is 12 times 12 times 1000. What are we to think of this? Have we ever seen the number 12 used before anywhere in the Bible? Twelve tribes? Twelve apostles? Can we not see how 12 could be use to depict the people of God? Or can we really imagine God turning to the poor persecuted Christian wearing the number 144,001 on his chest and saying “Sorry, but you’re a day late and a dollar short! Better luck next time ... if there were going to be a next time!” At some point, common sense must kick in and tell us that numbers are being used figuratively in this book.

Again, we should try to read this book through first century eyes. We are much more quantitative than they were. It may be difficult for us to see numbers in figurative terms, but it would have been natural for a first century reader to have done so. Graffiti from Pompeii, for example, reads “I love her whose number is 545.” (Studies in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism, p. 95, by Maurice Harry Farbridge.)

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What about the Greek text?

The langauge of Revelation is unique. The Greek usage and vocabulary in Revelation are so different from that of the other books of the New Testament that it has been necessary for textual scholars to develop a special grammar in order to grapple adequately with the text. The book is written in Hebraic Greek, and some have speculated that it was possible translated into Greek from an Aramaic original form.

There are a number of passages in which the author seems to violate the simplest rules of Greek grammar and to express himself awkwardly. In several examples, these ungrammatical expressions are the unavoidable consequence of attempting to put into Greek a concept that the langauge cannot easily express, but not always. It is as if the author was thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic while writing in Greek.

J. B. Phillips: Revelation piles word upon word remorselessly, mixes cases and tenses without apparent scruple, and shows at times a complete disregard for normal syntax and grammar. ... And generally speaking, the tumultuous assault of words is not without its effect upon the mind.

Phillips presents a very interesting theory. He says that perhaps John wrote down what he saw DURING the visions. That, Phillips says, would fully account for the seeming incoherence, the strange formations of sentences, the repetition, and the odd juxtaposition of words.

Phillips also notes that once one has absorbed the initial shock of the peculiar Greek, the effect of the language of this books is most powerful. For example, a solitary eagle flying in midheaven, crying out in pity for the inhabitants of the earth, is out of its context bizarre but set as it is it is almost unbearably poignant.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

But Shouldn’t We Always Interpret the Bible Literally?

The usual approach to interpreting the Bible is that we understand a passage literally unless forced to do otherwise. (For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us that if our right hand offends us, we should cut it off. We understand that is not to be understood literally.)

This usual approach is reversed for apocalyptic language—we should understand apocalyptic language figuratively unless we are forced to do otherwise. Why? Because apocalyptic language by its very nature uses vivid and dramatic symbols to describe vivid and dramatic events. How do we know that? We know that because explanations of what the symbols mean are sometimes given in the text itself. We will see that in Revelation, and it occurs in Daniel, also. Also, we know that because in many and perhaps even most cases, it is not possible to understand what we read literally.

But shouldn’t all prophecies be taken literally? No, and I don’t know anyone who does. Think about the first Messianic prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Is that just a prophecy about enmity between snakes and humans? Hosea told Israel that they were going into Egyptian captivity when in reality they went into Assyrian captivity. (Hosea knew that to a Jew, Egypt meant oppression and captivity, so he used that symbol.) To literalize Isaiah 11:6–10 is to deny that Paul applied it correctly to the first century in Romans 15:10–12. To literalize Ezekiel 16:53–55 would require the resurrection of the inhabitants of Sodom to their former prosperity despite what we read in Jude 7. To literalize Ezekiel 37:22–25 would require that David and not Jesus be Israel’s eternal king.

Those who say that they take Revelation literally are never consistent in that regard. They always take some things figuratively. To Hal Lindsey, for example, the 144,000 Jews in 7:4 are literal yet the locusts in 9:3 are Cobra helicopters. To John Walvoord, the 10 days in 2:10 are figurative yet the 1000 years in chapter 20 are literal.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Why Does God Use Apocalyptic Language?

Some think it was used in Revelation to shield the church from Roman retaliation. But that explanation has never appealed much to me. If we can understand the book 2000 years after it was written, then surely Rome could understand the symbols at the time it was written.

I think the reason it was used is that God wanted to use it! This book is an oil painting from God. Numbers 12:8 reminds us that God does not always speak clearly, but sometimes uses dark language, and perhaps such language is reserved for times of conflict and judgment.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

What is Apocalyptic Language?

Revelation is called Apokalupsis in Greek, and it is from that word that we get the word apocalyptic, which means unveiled, uncovered, or revealed.

Apocalyptic language is composed of symbols that are often lurid in color, violent in tone, and easily remembered. They strike the imagination and grab hold of the mind. In addition to Revelation, such language can be found in Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Isaiah, the minor prophets, and even in the gospels and epistles.

Apocalyptic language is almost always used to denote conflict and victory. It is used when God judges and smites an oppressor and vindicates his people. It is used to describe times of crisis and judgment.

All apocalyptic literature deals with these events: the sin of the present age, the terror of the time between, and the blessings of the time to come. It sees the present world as beyond mending. It looks forward to a new world after this present one has been shattered by the avenging wrath of God. It is continually attempting to describe the indescribable, to say the unsayable, to paint the unpaintable.

Can We Understand Revelation?

Yes! (But it will be challenging!) One problem with studying Revelation is that it is difficult to say what anything means until one has decided in a sense what everything means.

But despite its many challenges, the book is meant to be understood. Chapter 1, verse 3, provides a blessing to those who read and understand the book. Also, the very name of the book indicates that the message is revealed.

Some might argue that Revelation falls into the category of items dealt with by Deuteronomy 29:29 (“The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”) But Revelation is not a secret thing! Revelation has been revealed! We were meant to understand it, and we can understand it.

Even with the confidence that we can understand Revelation, we must all agree that Revelation is difficult to understand because it is so very different from anything we find in the New Testament and in almost all of the Old Testament. What makes it so different? The main reason it is different is that is is written in what has become known as apocalyptic language.

Why was Rome such a problem?

In most of the other books of the New Testament, Rome is seen in largely neutral terms and sometimes even positive terms. We think, for example, of Paul’s use of his own Roman citizenship in the book of Acts.

But in Revelation there is nothing but blazing hatred for Rome. Rome is a Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk on the blood of the saints. John hopes for nothing but her total destruction. The explanation for this change in attitude from what we see for example in Acts lies in the wide development of Caesar worship and its accompanying persecution, which together form the background for Revelation and help explain why Revelation was written.

By the time of Revelation, Caesar worship was the one religion that covered the whole Roman empire, and it was because of their refusal to conform to its demands that Christians were persecuted and killed. Its essence was that the reigning Roman emperor as embodying the spirit of Rome was divine.

Once a year everyone in the empire had to appear before the magistrates to burn a pinch of insense to the godhead of Caesar and to say “Caesar is Lord.” After he had done that, a man might go away and worship any god he liked so long as that worship did not infringe decency and good order, but he must go through this ceremony in which he acknowledged the emperor’s divinity.

The reason was very simple. Rome had a vast heterogenuous empire strecthing from one end of the known world to the other. It had in it many tongues, races, and traditions. The problem was how to weld this varied mass into a unity. Rome knew there is no unifying force like that of a common religion. But none of the national religions known to Rome could conceivably have become universal. Caesar worship could. (Constantine later discovered the universal aspect of Christianity!)

Caesar worship was the one common act and belief that turned the empire into a unity. To refuse to burn the pinch of incense and to say Caesar is Lord was not an act of irreligion, but was an act of political disloyalty. That is why the Romans responded with the utmost severity with the man who would not say Caesar is Lord, and no Christian could give that title to any other than Jesus Christ.

One of the very worst Roman emperors in this regard was Domitian. Barclay writes that he was a devil, the worst of all things, a cold blooded persecutor. With the exception of Caligula, he was the first emperor to take his divinity seriouly and to demand Caesar worship. The difference between Caligula and Domitian, was that Caligula was an insane devil while Domitian was a sane devil, which is much more terrifying. (And yet Suetonius tells us that Domitian “used to spend hours in seclusion every day, doing nothing but catching flies and stabbing them with a keenly-sharpened stylus”!)

Domitian launched hatred against the Jews and against the Christians. He informed all provincial governors that government announcements and proclamations must begin with the phrase “Our Lord and God Domitian commands.” Everyone who addressed him must begin Lord and God. All over the empire men and women must call Domitian god or die. All must say Caesar is Lord. There was no escape.

What were the Christians to do? What hope had they? They were confronted with the choice — Caesar or Christ. It was to encourage men in such times that the book of Revelation was written. The book of Revelation comes from one of the most heoric ages in church history. The book of Revelation is a call to be faithful unto death in order to win the crown of life. Revelation is the most difficult book in the Bible, but it is infinitely rewarding.

When I taught this book in the 1990’s, I had a lesson in which I compared Rome of John’s day with the United States of our day — and there are some similarities. But in my notes, written during the Clinton administration, I made the comment that one difference between Rome and the U.S. is that we hardly deify our leaders. In fact, at that time, Clinton was being demonized. But when I read that comment in 2009, I wondered how long that particular item will remain in the “differences” column! A Google search for the two terms “Obama” and “Messiah” returns 3.3 million hits!

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Why Was Revelation Written?

In studying any book, one should always begin with same question: Why was the book written? What was its initial purpose?

A short answer to this question is that the book of Revelation was written to provide comfort and encouragement to the people of God. The book was written to convince the church that God had not abandoned them.

If I had to point to a theme from the book itself, I would point to two verses:

Revelation 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, ‘’O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?”

Revelation 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.

We will have much more to say later about the theme of the book and its initial audience, but one thing we can say now is that we should be very wary of any view that makes us the focus of this book! This book was written to Christians suffering under Roman persecution, and any interpretation that ignores that suffering is a fatally flawed interpretation.

God was not comforting persecuted first century Christians by telling them about some great battle that would happen 2000 years later! The focus of the problem was first century Roman persecution, and the focus of Revelation is first century Rome.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

When Was Revelation Written?

We are going to deal with this question at length when we get to Revelation 17, but since that will be months from now I will briefly discuss it here in the introduction.

Augustus was the first emperor of Rome. (Some argue that Julius Caesar was the first emperor, but we will deal with that objection later in our studies.) Following Augustus were Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. After Nero, there was a period of civil war in which four emperors came to power in the span of about a year. The first three of those four (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) reigned for only a short time before they were killed. The fourth was Vespasian, who was followed by his son Titus, and then by his other son Domitian.

The key verse in dating Revelation is 17:10-11, where John discusses 8 kings, and tells us that one is, one will come and continue only a short time, and then the eighth will come. If we can determine the one that “is” then we will know when the book was written.

The first problem is that I listed 11 emperors and John mentions only 8. I believe the explanation to that problem is that John ignores the three who came and went during the Civil Wars. (Daniel 7, by contrast, mentions them but says they were plucked up.) If we omit those three, then number 8 is Domitian. Counting back one, we reach Titus, who did reign only a short time as we read in 17:10-11. Counting back one more, we reach Vespasian, who then must be the king who “is.” Thus, I will argue that Revelation was written during the reign of Vespasian, although it likely was not circulated until some time later when John’s exile ended.

But there is external evidence from shortly after the time that tells us John was banished by Domitian and restored by Nerva. How can that fit in with our proposed date for the book during the reign of Vespasian?

In December of 69, Vespasian was acclaimed emperor, but for the first half of 70, he was occupied in Alexandria, while his elder son Titus was engaged upon the siege of Jerusalem. His younger son Domitian, the sole representative of the family in Rome, accepted the name of Caesar and imperial residence and was invested with full consular authority, his name being placed at the head of all dispatches and edicts. As Josephus tells us, Domitian was ruler until his father showed up, and for over 6 months with the backing of the army that is what happened.

It was perhaps during this time that John was exiled to Patmos. That would have been in early AD 70. In June, Domitian left Rome, and shortly thereafter Vespasian arrived. In the following year he took as his colleague in the consularship, Nerva, a lawyer and a future emperor. Nerva held office in AD 71, and perhaps at that time he revoked the sentence that had exiled John to Patmos, which would mean that John's exile would have lasted almost exactly one year.

So John could have been banished by Domitian and restored by Nerva, as the tradition tells us, but in AD 70-71 rather than later when Domitian became emperor and later still when Nerva took his place.

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Who Wrote Revelation?

This one is easy. Revelation 1:1-2 tells us that the author was John, who bare record of the word of God and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things things that he saw. That could be no other than the Apostle John.

Some commentaries begin by doubting the truthfulness of that claim of authorship in the first two verses of the book. It makes me wonder why they bother to read any further!

Please visit ThyWordIsTruth.com for free audio lessons on Revelation, for a unique daily Bible reading calendar, to read about God's plan of salvation, to read the answers to hundreds of questions submitted by our readers, and for much, much more.

Why Should We Study Revelation?

The easy answer is that we should study Revelation for the same reason we study any other book in the Bible. It is the Word of God, and we should want to know everything about it. But there are other reasons that apply specifically to this book.

First, I would argue that few evangelistic tools are better than a knowledge of Revelation. Just placing a commentary on your desk at work can create an open door for spreading the gospel.

Second, people out in the world are interested in Revelation, and if we can answer their questions about this book, they may trust us on other books. People are interested in Revelation. their interest provides us with a great opportunity.

Historian Timothy P. Webber tells us that a resurgence of interest in prophetic themes is one of the most significant developments in American religion since World War II. This fact, he says, is evidenced generally in the rising flood of eschatological literature pouring forth from the so-called “Christian” publishers.

One of the most widely distributed books of the present era is Hal Lindsey’s multi-million selling The Late Great Planet Earth. It has been translated into no fewer than 31 languages and circulated in more than 50 nations. It was Lindsey’s book that caused Newsweek magazine to report that in America there is a “boom in doom”!

There is a widespread popular interest in Revelation today. Unfortunately, most of the interest in Revelation seems based on a radical misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the book.

A third reason to study Revelation is that it is incredibly interesting. If you enjoy Bible studies that cause you to search for clues all throughout the Bible then you will love Revelation. If you enjoy the study of history, and particularly the history of Rome, then you will love Revelation.

A fourth reason to study Revelation is that the book is incredibly beautiful and dramatic.

Some today think we need to add drama to the gospel by presenting dramatic plays in the worship service or by adding dramatic music to cassettes of the scriptures. The Bible is already dramatic! It does not need any help from us. How exactly does man increase the drama of a story that involves the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of deity? Simply reading the book of Revelation from the pulpit would provide more drama than any play that man could ever write.

This book contains images that outdo much of what we find in the movies: Blood and horror? In Revelation 14:20 we read of a river of blood 200 miles long that comes up to a horse’s bridle. Fierce creatures? How about seven headed beasts and dragons? Success of an underdog? How about the church versus the greatest political and military power the world had ever known? Happy ending? How about the church triumphant?

What is the Time Frame of Revelation?

The time frame is vital to understanding any prophecy. It helped us understand Matthew 24 a moment ago, and it will help us understand Revelation.

Absent a time frame, we are left with what I call the Nostradamus Effect. That is, we have vague statements with no anchor in time that could apply to any of dozens of events that have happened throughout history. If I told you a king would arise, and he would be followed by another king who would do this or that, and then by a third king who would be evil, would you be surprised if it happened at some point in the next 2000 years? But what if I told you exactly when it would happen? And what if I told you that 600 years before the fact? Prophecies without timeframes are usually not that impressive. For one reason, how can they ever be proved wrong?

Fortunately, Revelation has a very clear time frame. John says that the events dealt with in the book would occur shortly after the book was written, and he tells us that four times!

Revelation 1:1 (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass)

Revelation 1:3 (Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.)

Revelation 22:6 (And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.)

Revelation 22:10 (And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.)

The meaning of these passages would not be disputed in any other context. In Revelation, however, the passages conflict with men’s interpretation of the book and instead of changing their interpretation many change the clear meaning of these important verses.

Walvoord recognizes the proper meaning but ignores it. Hinds inserts a word in order to have John say that his writings concern events that were to shortly begin to come to pass. Others say it means that the events in the book would happen quickly. That, however, is not what John said.

The time frame in Revelation 22:10 is particularly instructive. In that verse, John was told to “seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” Daniel received a vision in 550 B.C. (described in Daniel 8) that was fulfilled 400 years later in 165 B.C. when the sanctuary was restored after the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. In Daniel 8:26, Daniel was told to shut up the vision because its fulfillment was a long way off. In Revelation 22:10 John is told just the opposite — Don’t seal up the vision because the time for its fulfillment is at hand. By what theory do we argue that the “long way off” in Daniel is 400 years, while the “time at hand” in Revelation is 2000 years and counting? Does that make any sense?

What about 2 Peter 3:8 where we see that to God 1000 years appears as 1 day? Time does not mean the same thing to God as it means to man yet in Revelation 1:1, 3 God is not talking to himself — God is talking to man. Which time frame do you think he would use? In Daniel 8 he said that 400 years were “many days.”

Many commentators ignore or try to explain away those clearly stated timeframes. We will not do that in this class.

Does it Matter What We Believe About Revelation?

Revelation has permeated the popular culture. There are many people who can’t name the four gospels yet who have heard about 666.

Revelation forms the basis for virtually all of the predictions by the end-is-near prophets. Many feel that the Middle East and especially Israel will play a special role in the end of the world.

Here is a list of book titles from the 1980’s and 1990’s: Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East, Iraq in Prophecy, Holy War for the Promised Land, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon, The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times, Global Peace and the Rise of the Antichrist, The Coming Russian Invasion of America, The New Millennium by Pat Robertson, Road to Armageddon by Billy Graham, 88 Reasons why the Rapture is in 1988 and its much anticipated (and unexpected!) sequel, The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989, and The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey.

A simple Amazon search would turn up many more that are available today. One that I purchased recently is entitled Armageddon, Oil, and Terror, by John Walvoord, someone we will have more to say about later. That book lists a series of 12 catastrophic events that will supposedly take place as the fulfillment of Revelation.

Walvoord writes: “The rapidly increasing tempo of change in modern life has given the entire world a sense of impending crisis. ... How long can world tensions be kept in check? ... As alarming as these events are, they really are not surprising in light of the Bible’s end-time prophecies.” (pp. 4-5)

Let me read next from the introduction of a similar book: “It is impossible for the most thoughtless to overlook the impressive and almost unprecedented character of the age in which we live. Events, as rapid in their succession as they are startling in their magnitude, ... chase each other like waves on the sea... .”

And where did that second quote come from? From another modern end-is-near bestseller? No. It came from The Great Tribulation, or Things Coming on the Earth by John Cumming, which was published in 1863 in New York at the height of the U.S. Civil War!

The first time I taught this class in 1990, we were at war with Iraq—the site of ancient Babylon. Popular books at that time told us that the locusts were smart bombs, and Sadam Hussein was the antichrist.

The second time I taught Revelation was in the aftermath of a war with Waco. David Koresh’s crazy ideas about the seven seals in Revelation were broadcast by the national media, who seemed to particularly enjoy an opportunity to heap ridicule on the Bible.

Now, the third time I am teaching the book, we are once again at war in Iraq. And once again, the books and the preachers are shouting that the signs are clear that this is the end.

Do we really believe that God’s word changes with the headlines? Is that what we want the world to believe? These modern day prophets of doom are doing great damage to God’s word.

Another example is premillennialism. As we will see, that false doctrine involves much more than simply a 1000 year reign of Christ. The premillennialist doctrine has consequences that run counter to the very heart of the gospel.

It matters what we believe about and what teach about this book.

Do misconceptions about Revelation make any difference?

Yes. In fact, misconceptions about the Jews and the end of the world may have effected political decisions. Ronald Reagan said “I sometimes believe we’re heading very fast for Armageddon” and told People magazine in 1983 that “theologians have been studying the ancient prophecies—what would portend the coming of Armageddon—and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up until now, has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, but never anything like this.” Will a president one day mistakenly see himself as an instrument of God destined to make end time prophecies come true?

What is Revelation About?

Either Revelation is almost totally neglected or it is elevated to a prominence shared by no other Biblical book. No other part of the Bible has proved so fascinating to commentators, and no other has suffered so much at their hands.

What is this book all about? The Future? The Past? Heaven? The Church?

Most people would tell you that Revelation is all about Heaven, the second coming of Christ, and the end of the world ... and perhaps as we study the book we will find that they are right. But we need to be very careful. Not every coming of Christ in the New Testament deals with his final coming at the end of the world.

In Matthew 24:29–30 Jesus speaks of a time when:

The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

That sounds like the end of the world, doesn’t it. But if we keep reading, we find something interesting in verse 34: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

Verse 34 provides a time frame—the most important feature of any prophecy. Whatever the “coming” was in verses 29–30, it must have happened in the first century!

A basic principle of Bible study is that we should use the easy verses to help explain the difficult verses. And verse 34 is very easy to understand!

The language in Matthew 24 is the language of judgment, and there are many judgments in the Bible: Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Edom, Tyre, Sidon, Babylon, Assyria, Judah, Israel, Jerusalem, Rome, and the World. The same sort of language used in Matthew 24 to describe a judgment against Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is used elsewhere in the Bible to describe other judgments.

So what can we conclude about Revelation from Matthew 24? Only that we should be careful not to automatically assume that language of judgment must apply to the final judgment of the world. It definitely does not in Matthew 24, and we may discover that it does not in Revelation.

One thing we can say for sure is that Revelation is a book about Jesus. Some of the most wonderful titles and images of the Messiah in all of Scripture are found in Revelation, including:

-The faithful witness

-The first born of the dead

-The ruler of kings on earth

-The first and the last

-The living one

-The true one

-The one with the key of death

-The one with the key of David

-The lion of Judah

-The lamb that was slain

-The King of kings and Lord of lords

-The alpha and omega

-The bright morning star

Not only is this a book about Christ, but this is a book about the church of Christ. The most beautiful descriptions of the Lord’s church found anywhere in the Bible are found in this book.

What is Revelation?

This would seem to be an odd question to ask about a book of the Bible, but Revelation is like few other books of the Bible. Is it prophecy? Is it history? Is it literal? Is it figurative? Is it art? Just what is Revelation? Here are several answers to that question:

(1) Philip Carrington said: “In the case of Revelation, we are dealing with an artist greater than Stevenson or Coleridge or Bach. John has a better sense of the right word than Stevenson. He has a greater command of unearthly supernatural loveliness than Coleridge. He has a richer sense of melody and rhythm in composition than Bach. It is the only masterpiece of pure art in the New Testament. Its fullness and richness and harmonic variety place it far above Greek tragedy.”

(2) Novelist Will Self in an introduction to a pocket edition of Revelation wrote: “In its vile obscurantism is its baneful effect; the original language may have welded the metaphoric with the signified, the ‘logos’ with the flesh, but in the King James version, the text is a guignol of tedium, a portentous horror film.”

(3) Hal Lindsey wrote in 1973: “The information in the book you are about to read is more up to date than tomorrow’s newspaper. I can say this with confidence because the facts and predictions in the next few pages are all taken from the greatest sourcebook of current events in the world.”

(4) Williams Barclay, referring to Revelation as “The strange book,” wrote: “When a student of the New Testament embarks upon the study of Revelation, he finds himself projected into a different world. Here is something quite unlike the rest of the New Testament. And not only is it different, but it is notoriously difficult for a modern mind to understand. As a result it has sometimes been abandoned and has instead become the playground a religious eccentrics. One despairing commentator said that there are as many riddles in the Revelation as there are words. And another that the study of Revelation either finds or leaves a man mad!”

(5) “There is a choral, symphonic nature about the book of Revelation that stirs up our feelings as much as it does our ideas. It is a dramatic, forceful, yet surprisingly tender and comforting book. The result is that this remarkable book is both hard to understand fully and impossible to forget.”

(6) “Beautiful beyond description is the last book of the Bible. Beautiful in form, in symbolism, in purpose, and in meaning. Where in Scripture do we find a more vivid and picturesque portrayal of the Christ, Faithful and True, going forth unto victory, seated upon a white horse, arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood, followed by the armies of heaven?”

What is Revelation? There are as many answers to that question as there are commentators. We will see how we answer that question at the end of our studies.