WIXLIB

Introductionliterature of the New Testament for many years, I have come torealize that the Revelation is consistent with the rest of the NewTestament in declaring that Christianity is not religion. Christianity is to be contrasted with religion. Christianity is in conflictwith religion. This is particularly apparent in the Revelation,where Jesus Christ is portrayed as the victor over all religion.It is usually conceded that this epistolary, apocalyptic book ofprophecy was written late in the first century, probably around95 AD. Of late there have been attempts to explain that thebook was written prior to 70 AD, but this is usually an attemptby certain post-millennialists to justify their preterist interpretation, and their setting of the book in a politically persecutivecontext. The external evidence of early church writers seemsto sufficiently document that the book was written late in thefirst century. Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.), for example, indicatedthat John saw his vision “almost in our day, toward the end ofDomitian’s reign.” Domitian was the Roman emperor from 8196 A.D. Despite when it was written; the message is the same,but the historical context of any document is important for itaccurate interpretation. The date toward the end of the firstcentury does seem to allow for the perverting and “religionizing” of the churches of Asia, to which the letter is addressed,but “religion” had long plagued the churches of this region.Paul combated “religion” in Ephesus and decided it was best todepart (Acts 19:1-20:1); he cautioned the Ephesian elders about“religionizers” from without and within the church (Acts 20:2831). In writing to the Colossians, he warns about “man-madereligion” (Col. 2:20:23). We will assume that this commentarywas drafted toward the end of the first century.We will also assume that it was written by the apostle John.The author identifies himself as “John” four different timesin the book (Rev. 1:1,4,9; 22:8). The best known “John,” whowould not need to give any other clarification of his identity,3

Introductionwould have been the apostle John. The earliest Christian writers accepted the apostle John to be the author.It has been pointed out that the grammar and vocabulary ofthe Greek text in which this book is written is very rough andcoarse, with what one author called “barbarous idioms.” Johnwould have flunked Greek Grammar 101. John’s writing in thegospel and the epistles is quite polished, however. Is it becausehe was getting elderly? He was probably old when he wrote thegospel and epistles, also. Is it because he didn’t have a secretary, an amanuensis, out on the island of Patmos, as he seemsto have had when he wrote the epistles? Or is it because thevision was so overwhelming and going on all around him, andhe was just writing as fast as he could, not worrying about hisgrammar?Despite the fact that the Greek grammar is different from thegospel and epistles, and that there are concepts in Revelationnot found elsewhere, there are many similarities which tieRevelation with the other Johannine writings: For example,the use of the word logos - John 1:1,14; I John 1:1; Rev. 19:13;Jesus as “lamb” - John 1:29,36, 28 times in Rev.; Christ asbridegroom - John 3:29, Rev. 19:7; 21:2; 22:7; Jesus “pierced”- John 19:34, Rev. 1:7; Jesus’ overcoming - John 16:33, 6 timesin I John, 17 times in Revelation.Picture-languageThe first word in the Greek text of this book is the Greekword apokalupsis. Thus it is that the book is often referred toas the Apocalypse. It is often explained that this writing is anexample of Jewish apocalyptic literature that was prevalent inthe last couple of centuries before Christ and in the first centuryA.D. Many of the academic attempts to narrowly define apocalyptic literature as distinct from parables, prophecy and allego4

Introductionry are “forced” categorizations. It is better to recognize that itwas typical Middle-eastern thinking to teach by “story-telling”in picture-language.It might be argued that the Revelation is the big, multi-faceted, new covenant parable! A good prelude to studying Revelation would be to study the parables of Jesus, which are theprevious picture-language story-telling of Jesus Christ utilizingimages and symbols. A study of the parables in the gospelswill reveal that Jesus used them as an exposé and critique ofreligion, in order to explain the difference in the new covenantreality of His life functioning in grace within the kingdom.1Jesus uses picture-language in the Revelation in much the sameway as He did in the parables.Just as in the parables, we should not try to force a fullfledged allegorical understanding upon the images. We shouldnot try to figure out the meaning of every detail. The “literalist”who demands a “direct face-value” for every detail in the bookis approaching Revelation like a “mechanic” tightening everynut and bolt, rather than an “artist” who wants to “see” the BigPicture. We do not have to get every detail figured out, naileddown. That is the absolutism of understanding that “religion”tries to achieve. Jesus wanted us to think, to ponder, to be discerning; that is why He spoke in parables and picture-language!If Jesus had wanted theological precision or the precision ofprophetic calculation, He would have used a different methodof teaching, and a precise vocabulary. He would have usedplain, straight-foward language!John was apparently an individual with an artist-mentality.He was a picture-painter with words. He often conveys what hewants to say with images and analogies. In the gospel that hewrote he employs pictorial language: Jesus is the “light of theworld” - in contrast to which religion is darkness and blindness5

Introduction(8,12). Jesus is the “good shepherd” - in contrast to the hirelings of religion (15). In his epistles (I,II,III John) he continuesto use images of “sons of light” and “sons of darkness;” sons ofGod and sons of the devil. He saw clearly the either/or antithesis of God and Satan, and pictured such in many ways. Whenhe writes what he saw in the Revelation, it is predominantlypicture-language.John saw the Big Picture and painted it in word-pictures. It islike a cosmic canvas on which he paints. He paints from God’sperspective, and it is difficult for us to get far enough back tosee the whole picture. We tend to analyze the strokes and thetexture. When we come to the book of Revelation, it is so easyto miss the forest for the trees; to miss the message for theminutia of detail and the fanciful interpretation of those details.We do not have to figure out every detail. If any man could dothat, he could stack all the factual data of interpretation andput it on the “knowledge” shelf. That is part of the “epistemological heresy” of religion, that reduces Christianity to a mere“belief-system.” The life of Jesus Christ cannot be formulizedand “put in the box” of doctrinal or eschatological understanding. Who would want such “canned” Christianity? Who wouldwant such a rigid rectification of Revelation?Therefore, we should attempt to see the message of Revelation in broad sections, rather than analyzing every detail; amacro-vision, rather than micro-vision.The structure of this recorded vision seems to be somethinglike a “movie in the round.” Have you ever been to one ofthose movies where multiple camera angles recorded the actionon every side, 360 degrees around you? When the action starts,you can hardly keep your equilibrium. We do not have eyesin the back of our head, so we cannot see everything at once.To see the whole movie, you would have to re-run it several6

Introductiontimes and see the different perspectives. The Revelation-visionseems to be like that. John “runs it by again” to view the newcovenant reality of Jesus Christ from different perspectives. Heturns the gem around to look at different facets of its brilliance.The Revelation is not so much a time and space, chronological sequence of either history or the future, but is an increasingly intensified recapitulation of the new covenant reality of JesusChrist. In repetitive parallels John views Jesus from differentperspectives, different angles, another picture, another view. Itdoes not seem to be consecutive or contiguous, but rather concyclic or synchronous – the Big Picture in the round!I will never forget the occasion when I was talking to a youngman who was zealous to understand the Bible and spiritualthings. He was not well-versed in theological vocabulary, butwas trying to use some of the terminology. In referring to thebook of Revelation, he meant to refer to it as “apocalyptic,” butinadvertently transferred the vowel sounds, and instead referredto it as “a-pickle-optic.” I could not help but chuckle to myselfwhen he said it, and the more I thought about it the funnier itbecame, because I realized that “a-pickle-optic” could be usedto describe “apocalyptic.” The pictorial imagery that John sawin the vision can indeed be “a pickle of an optic.” The interpretation of the symbols has proved to be a difficult “pickle” forBiblical commentators for almost two millennia.Though the book of Revelation can be “a-pickle-optic,” itwas meant to be apocalyptic. As previously noted, the book isoften identified as the Apocalypse, which is a transliterationof the first word in the Greek text of this book, apokalupsis.Apokalupsis is derived from two other Greek words, apo from, and kalupto to cover or hide. The Greek word apokalupsis meant to uncover, unveil, disclose or reveal. Thus it isthat we usually refer to this book in English as the Revelation.7

IntroductionThe purpose of this book was not to provide a difficult puzzleof images for future expositors to sort out, “a-pickle-optic,” butrather to reveal, through the Middle Eastern method of storytelling, the triumph of Jesus Christ.Varying InterpretationsIt will be instructive to consider some of the varying interpretations of Revelation and the interpretive methods they employ.There are hundreds, if not thousands, of varying interpretationsof the Revelation, but some of the broader schools of interpretation might be identified as follows: (cf. chart in Addendum E)(1) Preterist interpretation. This label is derived from theLatin word praeter, meaning “past.” This interpretation viewsthe pictures of Revelation as referring to what was happeningin the past, in the first century. They see the images as representing governmental persecution during the reign of eitherNero or Domitian. Most understand Revelation chapters 21 and22 as referring to the future, but there are some who “spiritualize” and put all 22 chapters of Revelation back in the past ofthe first century.(2) Historicist interpretation. This interpretation stretches outthe images of Revelation to refer to the history of the Westernchurch. For example, the “fifth trumpet” has been interpreted asthe Mohammedans in the 7th century; the “sixth trumpet” hasbeen viewed as the invasion of the Turks. Chapter 10 allegedlyrefers to the “strong angel” who announces the Protestant Reformation when the “little book” was found, i.e. the Bible. The“seven thunders” are against the Pope. Revelation 11 and themeasuring of the temple is interpreted as the Reformation determination of the true church, and the two witnesses have beeninterpreted as Luther and Calvin against Rome. The ultimatevictory is the overthrow of the Roman papacy.8

Introduction(3) Futurist interpretation. Revelation 1-3 is recognized to bein the past, but chapters 4-22 are regarded as the record of future events in the seven-year tribulation, leading to the secondcoming and the millennium. Ryrie, for example, takes 1:19 asthe structural “key” for Revelation: (1) “things seen” - 1:9-20(2) “things which are” - 2:1-3:22 (3) “things which shall takeplace” (4:1-19:21 in the tribulation; 20:1-15 in the millennium,etc.)(4) Triumphalist interpretation. Sometimes called the idealistor symbolic interpretation, this interpretation usually sees theimages of Revelation as explaining the conflict of good andevil, God and Satan, throughout all of time.The preterist commentator interprets the message of Revelation primarily as in the past. The historicist interprets the message of Revelation primarily as the process of Western history.The futurist interprets the message of Revelation as referringprimarily to the future. The triumphalist interprets the messageof Revelation primarily as the symbolic representation of thetriumph of Jesus Christ in every age.These varying interpretations are not necessarily issues tofight over. There is value in each of them. From the preteristwe can learn that Christianity is contextually rooted in thehistorical past, and so is the Revelation. From the historicistwe can learn that Christianity is continually timely, and so isthe Revelation. From the Futurist we can learn that Christianityis confidently hopeful for the future, and so is the Revelation.From the Triumphalist we can learn that Christianity is constantly recognizing Christ’s victory, and the book of Revelationcertainly reveals such.Regardless of which interpretive method one employs, onehas to admit that there is symbolism in Revelation that pictures9

Introductionthe triumph of Christ; the letter was first written to historicalchurches in Asia in the past, back in the first century; it is arevelation that has had some message for Christians throughouthistory; and Revelation does speak of the ultimate victory ofChrist at the end of time in the future.In this study we will employ a Christocentic or Christological interpretation that would probably be a sub-category of theTriumphalist or Symbolic interpretation.The reason I employ the Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation of Revelation is because it seems to me to provide thebest consistency with the interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is consistent in its message from beginning toend, and the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. Theconsistency of this interpretation is seen from its:(1) Scriptural consistency. The whole of the revelation ofScripture is to reveal that Jesus Christ is the divine life thatmakes man man as God intends. Religion will not suffice. The“tree of the knowledge of good and evil” can be viewed as the“religion” tree; the “tree of life” as Christianity. The naturaltendency of man is to revert to “religion” man-made religion.”(Col. 2:21).There is a consistency in this interpretation with the Old Testament prophets. They were critiquing “religion” and callingfor repentance, using some of the same images.There is a consistency in the use of picture-language andstory-telling. God uses pictures. The entire Old Testament canbe viewed as the “picture-book” illustrating what God was todo in Jesus Christ.10

Introduction(2) New Testament consistency. The entirety of the new covenant literature, the New Testament, explains the superiority ofChristianity over all “religion.” Christianity is not religion, it isthe vital dynamic of the life of Jesus Christ lived by grace.The New Testament concept of “prophecy” is primarily thatof proclamation rather than prediction; forth-telling rather thanforetelling. The prophecy of Revelation is likewise a proclamation of Jesus Christ, rather than the future.(3) Internal consistency. The preterist and futurist interpretations seem to segment the interpretation of Revelation, some inthe past, some in the future, with a big chasm in-between in thepresent. This tends to divide the Revelation into “revelations,”as many people inaccurately refer to this book, and create adisjuncture. The Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation thatexplains the conflict between Christianity and religion, allowsthe entire book to remain consistently connected. Chapters 2and 3 provide the historical setting of “religion” creeping intothe churches, so that chapters 4-22 can be pictorially placedalongside to reveal the conflict between Christianity and religion.It is extremely important that we approach the Revelation,willing to engage in exegesis, rather than eisegesis. What is thedifference? Exegesis comes from two Greek words meaning“to lead out.” It means that we derive the meaning “out of thetext.” We do not want to “read into the text” our preconceivedideologies and interpretations. That is eisegesis. Too often people come to the book of Revelation with predetermined eschatological opinions, ideological “grids,” and they use and abusethe book to try to document what they think they already know,twisting it to fit their presuppositions.11

IntroductionSome try to make an issue between “literal” interpretationand “symbolic” interpretation. “Literal” does not mean just adirect, face-value interpretation of the words. “Literal” interpretation refers to an interpretation that is in accord with theliterary style and literary intent of the author. If the literatureis written in a literary style that uses images and symbols, then“symbolic” interpretation is “literal” interpretation, i.e. it is aninterpretation that is consistent with the literary genre of

A Commentary on the REVELATION of John JESUS: Victor over Religion James A. Fowler k. CHRISTOCENTRIC COMMENTARY SERIES A COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF JOHN Jesus Christ: Victor Over Religion James A. Fowler Publishing P.O. bOx 1822 FallbrOOk, CaliFOrnia 92088-1822 k ciy. A