In my previous post I tried to explain that the Apocalypse of John, as bizarre and weird and unfathomable as it may seem to most modern readers, would not have seemed that way at all to ancient readers who were accustomed to the ways “apocalypses” (Jewish and Christian) actually worked. These readers may have had trouble getting their minds around science fiction novels or limerick poems, but apocalypses were something they knew.
Since Revelation was written as an apocalypse, it followed most of the expected protocols of apocalypses, as I described these in the previous posts: As I explain in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press), it is a firsthand account written by a prophet who has been shown a vision of heaven that explains the realities of earth, a vision that is mediated by angels and full of bizarre and mysterious symbolism.
The nature of the book is indicated at the outset in the magnificent vision of the exalted Christ that the prophet describes in chapter 1. Here Christ appears as “one like a Son of Man” (cf. Dan 7:13–14, where the phrase describes the cosmic judge of the earth) and is seen walking amidst the seven golden lampstands (i.e., he is present among the seven churches of Asia Minor; Rev 1:20) with seven stars in his hands (i.e., he himself is in control of the guardian angels of these churches and therefore of the churches’ own destinies; Rev 1:20). His appearance is symbolic: among other things, he is a king (wearing a long robe with a golden sash; Rev 1:13); he is ancient (with white hair; Rev 1:14); he is the cosmic judge (with eyes like fire; Rev 1:14); he is full of splendor (with feet of burnished bronze; Rev 1:15); he is all-powerful (with a voice of many waters; Rev 1:15); he speaks the Word of God (with a two-edged sword coming from his mouth; Rev 1:16); and he is totally overpowering (with a face like the sun; Rev 1:16). The prophet’s response to this vision is understandable: he falls down as if dead. But Christ raises him up and commands him to convey both the message of his vision and the truth of what is yet to come. Many other features of the book are also typical of the genre.
Bizarre Symbolism. The symbolic character of John’s visions is obvious. Sometimes he himself doesn’t understand what he sees and needs an angel to explain it to him (e.g., Rev 17:7). Not everything he says is shrouded in mystery, however. Many of the symbols are not difficult to understand for those who know enough about the Old Testament (e.g., the image of “one like a Son of Man”) or about common images in ancient culture (e.g., eyes of fire). The explanations of other symbols are hinted at in the text. These are among the most interesting features of the book. I have already provided a couple of examples to illustrate how this symbolism can be unpacked (in an earlier post), with my discussion of the “Great Whore of Babylon” from ch. 17 and the number of the Beast, 666, in ch. 13.

Violent Repetitions. The book of Revelation follows the literary convention of using violent repetitions. It is impossible to take the predictions of this book as a linear, chronological sequence of events that are to transpire at the end of time. The universe caves in on itself in chapter 6, but the pain and agony continue for another thirteen chapters! The author has written for effect, compounding the tribulations and intensifying the sufferings of the last times to show how dreadful things are going to be.
Triumphalist Movement. The narrative moves through tragedy to triumph, through despair to hope. The fundamental point of the narrative is to provide assurance that, regardless of how terrifying the situation may become, God is ultimately in control of it all. The suffering of the present is part of God’s plan, and he will vindicate his people by destroying their enemies. When he does so, he will establish a new Kingdom on earth in which there will be no more pain, suffering, or death; no more persecution or exploitation; no more disease, famine, or war. There will only be Christ and his kingdom of saints.
Imminence. The author emphasizes at the beginning and end of his work that the events he records are going to happen soon (Rev 1:1, Rev 3; Rev 22:6, 10, 12, 20). This emphasis may suggest that the people he addresses are presently undergoing considerable suffering (note the pervasive references to persecution, exploitation, and martyrdom). He is writing to provide them with the hope that they will not have to suffer long before the end comes and God intervenes in history to make right all that has gone wrong.
Encouragement and Admonition. Ultimately, Revelation is a book about hope. In some respects, the author’s timetable matters less than his overarching message that God is sovereign over this world, appearances notwithstanding, and that he will soon bring his people’s suffering to a crashing halt. This message is meant to encourage those who are persecuted and weak, but it is also meant to admonish those who are tempted to abandon ship in view of their present distress. John emphasizes that those who depart from the faith will face a severe judgment; indeed, they will experience eternal torment. Believers must therefore hold on and not cave in—they must keep the faith and never abandon hope; for the end is near, and with it comes a fearful judgment for those who have proved faithless but an eternal reward for those who have stayed true.
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
20 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.

It gets me that the author repeatedly says “soon” but people keep trying to make this book be about our present day. I guess when the end of the world didn’t come people re-interpreted it as a prophecy of the future, instead of saying “I guess John was wrong!” Like what was done with Jesus: the end of the age didn’t come so they reinterpreted his teachings to fit a long-term view?
Yup, some did/do. Others think he really does mean soon. For us! (Hey, it’s all about us)
“ancient readers who were accustomed to the ways “apocalypses” (Jewish and Christian) actually worked. ”
Since most of the population was uneducated, is this statement referring to the educated people who could read or could the uneducated who had an apocalypses read to them also understand it?
They are the ones we are informed about, of course. But ancient people “read” usually by hearing things read (like people “read” books on Audible), so even the uneducated could read a lot.
(For A.M.A. purposes)
Dr. Ehrman,
As a non-specialist, there comes a point in the Synoptic Problem discourse where I get lost in the weeds. I certainly understand the basics and the role of a hypothetical Q, but two-document hypotheses, Mathean Posteriority, etc. quickly make my eyes glaze over.
Perhaps you could provide a quick answer as to WHY the Synoptic Problem is so important, i.e. what’s at stake, theologically? Other than the quest for historical knowledge, why is this particular topic worthy of reams of academic writing and ad infinitum debate?
One of the main things that matters is that if you can show, e.g., that Matthew was copying Mark, then any time he *changed* Mark’s wording it must have been for a reason, so that Matthew’s alterations of his source show something about what he wanted to emphasize or say different from the source, sometimes in contradiciton. Studying this is called “redaction criticism.” You see how a redactor has altered a text. That gives you some leverage for figuring out his own distinctive message.
While on this subject, Dr Ehrman, would you agree that, without Q, there is greater scope for arguing that a lot of what we think we know about Jesus was simply invented by Matthew and Luke?
I’m not sure it would. Without Q, it would simply mean that the material in both Matthew and Luke comes from Matthew. So instead of having the two independent sources of Mark and Q you’d have Mark and Matthew (in those passages where Matthew is not copying from Mark). Both Matthew and Mark, for example, have independent material about John the Baptist, and the crucifixion, and the parables, and so on.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
If the Apocalypse of Peter was written by Peter why would he write a book teaching so differently to what Jesus taught?
Thanks.
It wasn’t written by Peter.
I have a question regarding pre-Christian apocalypticists, such as John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, who only preached to a Jewish audience: They preached that Jews had to repent in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. Repentance included proper observance of the Law of Moses. In what manner did John or Jesus imagine that non-Jews who had obviously never followed the Law could enter into the coming Kingdom of God?
I’d say we can’t know about John, but Jesus appears to have thought that the Law could be summarized in the commandments to love God and love your neighbor, and that pagans could very much do that and enter the kingdom (e.g. Matt. 8:11; 25:31-46, both of which I think probably do go back to the historical Jesus)
The application of Revelation to modern times seems to be due to the fact that the current time people live in is always the most important one, and thus the book is about that particular time. I think it has to do with a belief that we are always at the pinnacle of evolution, now, so obviously, these themes must apply to us. It’s a hubris about the present, rather than an understanding of the past.
One thing I’ve noticed about Revelation is that its language is just plain weird, in a very direct and literal sense. For instance, verse 4.3 says, “And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby.” Jasper and ruby may both be “jewels” as a wider meaning, but are two completely-different types of jewels. Hard to see how one thing can be both jasper and ruby at the same time.
I suppose it’s possible there may be something about the original Greek in which this doesn’t appear as weird as it does in translation, but it’s hard to know how, since even the ancients understood the difference between jasper and ruby.
It’s equally weird, as it turns out.
Isn’t it just a metaphorical way of saying red?
I have relied on G. B. Caird’s The Revelation of Saint John for my understanding of the book for years now. What if any are major new developments since that was published some 30 years ago?
He was a fine scholar, but I don’t remember his particular take on Revelation just now. A very fine commentary more or less in his tradition (I believe) is Craig Koester’s commentary in the Anchor Bible Commentary series.
I have that as well. Thanks.
He was a fine scholar, but I don’t remember his particular take on Revelation just now. A very fine commentary more or less in his tradition (I believe) is Craig Koester’s commentary in the Anchor Bible Commentary series.