Been thinking of posting on Revelation for a little while cos I so understand what is written there. Every vision, every time-line: all so easy!! However, I take comfort that the writer declared that those who read and listen to the words will be blessed (1:3), not those who get it all… and the writer does add that we need to ‘keep’ what is written which I guess means we should seek to align ourselves to the Jesus that is revealed in the book.
Traditionally it was written by John (one of the twelve) who was imprsoned on the island of Patmos. Two dates are suggested – in Nero’s (or Galbo’s) reign in the mid to late 60s pror to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, or in the late 90s in Domitian’s reign. The weight seems to come down on the later date, and given the clear details with many ‘hidden’ details it is well possible that the book developed over time. As for the author, probably we are as well referring to him as ‘John the Seer’.
The book was included in what is probably the first written record of a list of NT books to be regarded as ‘canonical’ (the Muratorian canon – probably late 2nd Century) but Martin Luther thought it was somewhat dodgy and placed it in a ‘disputed’ section of the German Bible.
Canonical it should be, but many interpretations should be in the ‘disputed’ category, or better ‘the well dodgy, hyper speculative and of no use to anyone’ section! (IMHO.)
There are different genres in the book with a huge part of it being ‘apocalyptic’. There are a few other sections of Scripture that employ that language but no part of our Scriptures where that genre shapes a whole book. Apocalyptic might be compared to political cartoons that appear in newspapers – they are not to be taken literally but make a point through exaggeration and often use imagery to describe something. A political leader sitting in the top pocket of a billionaire, or being taken for a walk on a dog lead by someone is not to be understood as a photograph but as a non-literal representation of the reality that is being communicated.
Tom Wright uses the illustration with the description of the Berlin wall collapsing as being ‘an earth shattering event’. If someone a few centuries later were to discover that description and then wrote that the wall collapsed because of some massive earthquake they would be making quite an error!
Thus we should be very wary of seeking to understand the imagery and language as being literal. The exagerrated language and imagery is to capture the imagination so that the readers’ world woud be seen and responded to in an informed way.
All of that suggests that the book was written for those first Century believers so that they might live faithfully to their call… and written for us – those in every generation so that our eyes might be open. Given that the language of the NT is highly charged politically it is not a surprise that I consider the book is a political critique of the Imperial world, that had Caesar as its ‘lord, saviour, king of kings’…and other such titles.
There are a (surprisingly) few OT quotes but over 400 allusions. Those allusions would not have been recognised at a first, nor a second reading and this is part of the ‘redemptive and confusing gift’ of the book. By that I mean once the writer includes (for example) a description of the throne room of heaven that parallels Domitian’s throne room and adds allusions to Nero as one who did not die or mythological creatures, any listener would have been confused. But redemptively, for we need to be confused about what is proclaimed as normal and only through the path of confusion do we discover the questions that will lead us on a different path.
Ah well some initial thoughts.