(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous posts, I have talked about the use of “gematria” in early Christianity – the interpretive technique that uses the numerical significance of letters of the alphabet to provide keys to the interpretation of words. It is almost a highly *creative* interpretation of words. E.g., I have shown how gematria gets used on the epistle of Barnabas to show that the sign of circumcision given to the father of the Jews, Abraham, was really a symbol for the cross of Jesus, and how it may be used in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew to stress that he really is the messiah, the son of David.
In the post that follows this one, I will explain how that relates to one of the great mysteries of the Bible, the identification of the Antichrist in the book of Revelation, whose number was 666. What is this number referring to?
To make sense of this intriguing number, I need to return to an important topic over the course of the blog: the symbolism of the book of Revelation generally. My students usually think of the book of Revelation as an amazing one-of-a-kind book, unlike anything ever written, a blueprint for the future of the earth. What they learn in class is that in fact, it is not one-of-a-kind, but instead is like a number of ancient books, both Jewish and Christian, that are called “apocalypses.” The term “apocalypse,” in this context, refers to a literary genre. Like all genres, apocalypses had set literary features. The reason Revelation seems so weird and unusual to readers today is that they are not familiar with the genre. But there were numerous other books like the book of Revelation (also called the Apocalypse of John), in which a human prophet was shown the heavenly secrets that can make sense of earthly realities.
For most of these apocalypses, the reality here on earth is that the world is controlled by forces of evil. The secrets of heaven are that the days are numbered for these forces. For the book of Revelation, God is soon going to intervene to destroy this wicked world and replace it with a perfect utopian kingdom in which there will be no more pain, misery, or suffering. But first, all hell has to break out.
The author was not writing for those…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It’s not much money, and every penny goes to charities dealing with hunger and homelessness.
Wow. Here I was thinking this was the far future. To think the rise and fall of the Christian churches, for instance, would happen within the lifetime of the readers. Paraphrase – ‘No more the voice of the bride and bridegroom… no more the lighted candle… but a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.’ Sounds like the 20th Century, but no it wasn’t, it was the 1st Century! Within a generation Jesus’ church would be worshiping idols, aggrandizing power, ruling over the nations – and then ‘in one day’ it would all collapse. Odd because in John’s day Christians lived as they were instructed to live – there were no churches, no candles and couples married elsewhere. Rival Christian religions had hardly begun their rise to temporal power.
Was Revelation primarily addressed to Gentile churches? The fact that it uses symbols, names and places (lamb, Balaam, Mount Zion, Babylon, etc) familiar to the Jews: does that imply that early churches actively taught from the Jewish scriptures, so the people were expected to recognize these allusions? Or do you think many Gentile Christians were left scratching their heads, as many people do today when reading it?
yes, they seem to be gentiles, who are being taught to oppose the “synagogue of Satan” And yes, they were almost certainly scratching their heads, but also eagerly awaiting the end.
Would you recommend Bruce Metzger’s book “Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation” to someone (me!) who seeks to have a firmer grasp on the material contained in the Book of Revelation? Also, have you read the book? If so, what did you think of it?
Yup. Yup. I think it is very basic, but solid, and I do recommend it.
Aren’t the five kings that have fallen, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius; the ‘one who is’ is Nero and the one after Nero who ‘must remain for only a short time’ is just a future prediction going wrong?
Huge debates about that. For one thing, none of them wa a king. Another thing, Caesar wasn’t an emperor. Problems abound!
Yeah – none of them were officially emperors but they were all “Caesars”.
Was Revelation written in such a colorful way to disparage Rome without the Romans realizing it or was it known by Rome and was used to further persecute the early Christians?
That’s often said, but I don’t think so at all. No Roman would have ever laid eyes on it or been interested in reading it if he had….
Here’s an idea: these beasts mentioned in rev. 13, neither of them is said to be “the” “A”ntichrist… rather the only places in the canon that use that term use it in more of a little “a” way I.e. anyone who teaches against the teaching that the johannine community taught was against/anti christ. Perhaps ascribing the term “Antichrist” to the beast in rev. 13 is a part of a premillinialist ideology that is not a part of the New Testament canon.
Question: what did early writers say about revelation? What early writers applied revelation to Rome? (I reveal my ignorance of extra biblical material, but I’m trying to remedy that)
It was a much debated book in early Chrsitainty, with many thinking it didn’t belong in the canon. WE don’t know what the earliest readers of it made of it, since we don’t have any record. Later Xns debated about whether it was trying to give a literal interpretation of the future, a description of what had happened already in the past, or something else, and whther it was related to Rome or something bigger.
How early do we have writers giving meaningful comment on its meaning? Which writers if I may ask? Not so much debating its canonicity, but saying it means this or that. I’d kinda like to see what they said.
I suppose we first have is Hippolytus of Rome at the end of the third century? He has a work on the “Antichrist” where he discusses passages from Revelation, and mentions 13:18, but doesn’t identify 666. In a probably spurious work sometimes said to be his he says that some others have suggested names, but he points out, using gemtaria, that the Greek word “deny” adds up to 666 (whcih it does, if you spell it in an unsual way) and thinks that the number means the One who Denies Christ.
Rev. 13’s first beast rises from the sea, indicating a large empire (see Rev. 17:1,15). The “ten horns” with “ten crowns” (Rev. 13:1) refers to the first ten emperors, those before Domitian. “Seven heads” is a double-meaning clue. First, Rome was built on seven hills. Second, three of the first ten emperors all ruled in a period of about one year (68-69 AD) and were too ineffectual to be “heads.” The blasphemy of Rev. 13:1,5-6 refers to emperor-worship.
The second beast comes from the land, not the sea. This indicates telescoping in and narrowing the field of vision. The second beast is not the Roman Empire with all its first ten rulers. The second beast is specifically the Domitian-Nero beast. Note the second beast has only two horns (verse 11), one for Nero and one for his “reincarnation,” Domitian. In verse 13, Nero’s building projects are the great signs (or wonders) and the magically appearing fire is the fire Nero allegedly set, and which he used to persecute his enemies and raise taxes.
John’s readers would have easily have identified the 666 with Neron, one way Nero’s name was spelled, and the 616 seen in some manuscripts with Nero.
I simply believe the term antichrist is thrown around way too much nowadays. The second beast, is anti christ to be sure, but not THE Antichrist. I contend that there was no concept in the infancy of Christianity, rather anyone who was against Christ was “antichrist”.
“The secrets of heaven are that the days are numbered for these forces.”
This is Apocalypticism as I understand it. Is “apocalypse” simply the name for the genre of the books written about Apocalypticism? Or is it more complicated than that?
Apocalypse is the name of the genre of books like this, yes. But it can also refer to the catalysmic end taht these books narrate.
Mr, Ehrman, this interpretasjon is no any longer obvioius to me, if it ever has been. Perhas it is even a multilayer text.
Religious symbolism has been investigated, even from a psyko-spiritual level. Dr. Carl Jung and those within his line of understanding of the human psyke (soul), who was the founder of analytical phsycology would not agree at all. From him, you might have theological philosopy which basically is “hatched out of someones head, but he claim that certain myths derives from a deeper level of one’s “self”, either from a unconciouss level, but mainly from a collective unconsious level. An unskilled use of those symbols my lead people into a wild fantacy journey in the hand of the interpreter.
Even, if you leave a physology, you can even look at ideas around when the Revelation was written, like Gnosticism. Their visions are believed to come from within, on a consciousness level. It is known that they experienced and considered those visions through ritual practises /baptis practise/the 5 seal, rituals etc, of the soul ascend both as a ritualistic vision/journey and also preperation. It is my understanding that this point toward a more inner, or spiritual or consciousness understanding of the symbols sometime and some (not all) found in this Acopalyptic and Apocryptic texts.
The late Joseph Campbell, a Jung oriented professor in literature and comparative mythology and religion once wrote
«The center of conciousness is termed the EGO, the «I» within the expression of life. All expressions from the unconcious mind flow into the farme of existence the EGO has constructed.
Mythology is the language the SELF phsyci/soul speaking is talking to the EGO system, and the EGO system has to learn how to read it (which in our world, seems to have forgotten).
So,,,perhaps the symbology in the Revelation comes from a deeper source and can’t be interpreted on a superficial level.
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o’clock.
Right! I showed the opening scenes to my undergraduate class today!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaQ_Bhgmrc
Moderate preterist Kenneth Gentry makes some intriguing points for his “Babylon / Harlot = Jerusalem” view that argues in general that Revelation is “the tale of two cities” (old Jerusalem & new Jerusalem). His arguments include:
–11:8 (Christ crucified in Jerusalem). Roman (“beast” of 17:7) “carries” the harlot Israel in killing Christ.
–The Jews killed prophets and persecuted the saints (16:6, 17:6, 18:24, 19:2; Mt 27:25 & Mt 23:34-5; Acts 4:3, 5:18, etc.).
–17:4 The harlot’s dress is akin to the Jewish high priest garments (cf. Ex 28:5-6).
–Rev 17 & 21 contrasts two women: adulterous (old) Jerusalem (17) and chaste (new) Jerusalem (21). cf. Gal 4:24-26.
–In the OT God is Israel’s “husband” (Jer 31:32). Due to unfaithfulness, God’s “lawyers” (prophets) bring a case against Israel/”harlot” (Hos. 4:1; Mic. 6:2) and give her a “writ of divorce” (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:8).
–“Seven sealed scroll” of Rev 5 linked to “seven times” of judgment in Lev 26:18, 21, 24, 28 for breaking “marriage” covenant (cf. Eze 2:8-9). God then marries a pure “Bride” (Rev 21:2).
What’s your assessment of Gentry’s points & view?
Are you asking if I think the imagery of the harlot and the beast represent Jersualem? No, in my view they almost certainly refer to Rome.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, what were the reason(s) why the book of Revelation was debated amongst the early church before its inclusion into the canon of the New Testament?
Lots of church leaders did not like the idea of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, but were interpreting the original message of Jesus and his followers metaphorically.
Prof Ehrman,
If the Book of Revelation portrayed Rome and its powers in such a negative manner and imagery, what was then the motivation for its inclusion in the canon by the same Romans. It makes sense the anti-Semitic elements present some of the text of the NT, but can’t seem to make much sense of why the church in Rome which was subservient to the Roman authority will reflect such?
Different Romans by that time, who thoguht their forebears really got it wrong about Xty. Even with governments, you can’t step into the same river twice…