The Book of Revelation

As we have said elsewhere, it always good to know what something is before trying to study it! So we repeat a question we have asked a number of times before in relation to other works: what is this book we call ‘Revelation’?

George Beasley-Murray begins his article on Revelation in The Dictionary of the Later NT and its Developments by stating that the book of Revelation is a ‘closed book’ for many Christians today, and this is because they are largely unfamiliar with the OT prophetic books, and largely unaware of the importance of Jewish apocalyptic and historical setting as the background to understanding this book (p.1025). Yet in many Christian circles today, the biggest problem is not that Revelation is a ‘closed book’, so much as that it is one that they presume they understand, since it describes in detail events about which Tom Brokaw speaks on the nightly news.

Who wrote Revelation?

There can be little doubt that the same person did not write Revelation and the Gospel and letters of John. The style is very different, and the two authors use different words for ‘Lamb’ and spell Jerusalem in different ways. Revelation contains Greek that is frequently ungrammatical. In view of the consistency of style between the Gospel and letters, it seems unlikely that this is due to different scribes. And so if one wants to attribute something in the NT to John son of Zebedee, the Revelation is a better bet than the Gospel and letters, which nowhere explicitly claim that they were written by someone named ‘John’. Those who rejected Revelation in the early Church did so, not because the work did not have early attestation, but because they disapproved of its use by radicals like Montanus.

What type of book is Revelation?

Apocalyptic

First of all, it is an ‘apocalyptic’ work. In fact, Revelation itself gave the name to the genre, since apokalypsis is the Greek word for ‘revelation’, and it appears at the very start of this book. But how can one speak of the literary genre of a book that appears to be simply the description of what a seer saw?! How does Revelation relate to other books that appear to contain the same kinds of imagery, and thus to belong to the same literary genre?

The other canonical example of an apocalyptic work is the Book of Daniel (or at least the second half of it), and there are many more extracanonical examples from within both Judaism and Christianity: 1, 2, and 3 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, 4 Ezra, the Shepherd of Hermas, and many others. These apocalyptic works are almost unanimously recognized as being pseudepigraphic ‘pseudo-prophecies’ (that is, as having been written by someone later in the name of an earlier famous person, and while writing as if this ancient person were predicting the future, the author is in fact giving his own perspective and interpretation of history, with the benefit of hindsight). And so an obvious question to ask is how the Book of Revelation is to be interpreted in light of this fact. Is Revelation also a pseudo-prophecy?

The answer (you may be relieved to hear) is “no”. In contrast with other works in this genre, Revelation does not claim to be written by an ancient hero, but by someone named ‘John’ who is apparently known to the churches and who does not even identify himself as an apostle. So John is not simply writing about the past with the benefit of hindsight. But this should not lead one to jump to the conclusion that, just because John is writing about his future, that therefore he was writing about our future. It would be shocking were we to find that John wrote letters to seven churches to which he attached a rather long book that they could not understand and which did not apply to them in any direct way! And so we need to ask another important question: what is the Book of Revelation about? We shall come to that later…but first we need to think further about apocalyptic as a type of literature. Although most of us recognize apocalyptic when we see it, it has proved surprisingly hard to define!

A seminar of experts has suggested the following definition: “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world”.[1] There are a number of characteristics of apocalyptic writings that also help us to get a clearer idea of what we are talking about. What sorts of characteristics come to mind when you think of these books?

You may be surprised at this attempt to define this type of literature as a literary ‘genre’. However, at least when the author of Revelation wrote, if not when Daniel wrote, this was already a popular type of literature. Most of the examples we have are of authors who write ‘in the name of’ Moses, or Enoch, or some other such figure, providing an interpretation of the history and present situation of the people of God under the guise of a prophecy that is couched in symbolic language. So it is valid to ask what readers would have understood Revelation to be about, being already familiar with this type of literature. How would they have read it? What expectations would they have had? Would they have expected to understand it? What would they have presumed it to refer to?

Biblical imagery. Think of Daniel: Jeremiah’s 70 years become 70 weeks of years. Apocalyptic thus offered a re-interpretation of Biblical prophecy for a new period in history. Donald Guthrie writes that of the 404 verses in Revelation, only 126 contain no allusion to the OT. Thus we are clearly dealing with a literary genre that derives its imagery from the OT.

Prophecy

The second sentence in the book describes what the book contains as a ‘prophecy’. Is there any significant difference between a book of ‘prophecy’ and a book of ‘apocalyptic’? In what follows, we will skim briefly some topics relating to Biblical prophecy in general.

What is the ‘genre’ of the prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible? They are mostly collections of prophetic oracles and pronouncements, occasionally interspersed with narratives about their prophetic authors. Some are organized chronologically, but many arranged thematically, so that we may have several prophecies about one nation or topic joined together, much as we find Jesus’ teaching on a topic collected into one place in Matthew’s Gospel. The prophets will often use genres and literary features from other spheres of Israelite life: e.g. they use poetic forms and structures, and often use a lament as part of a prophecy of God’s judgment/imminent calamity. (It has been said that we need to focus on prophetic literature rather than prophecy or prophets since in the Bible are included prophetic writings, not prophets as human individuals or prophecy in general.) And thus for a prophet to write an apocalypse is no more surprising than a prophet writing poetry!

Are prophetic predictions conditional on human response? [Richard Wurmbrandt’s son’s question]

Is the emphasis on foretelling or ‘forthtelling’? Emphasis on addressing the problems facing the society then, or on predicting the future? [Not asking whether both may not be there; only which is the focus] Amos, one of the earliest prophets who left us a book (8^th century BC), has a strong ethical focus addressing the issues of economic justice in his time (cf. Amos 2:6-8; 5:11-12,15). Has this been lost in American Christianity, where ‘ethics’ has to do only with abortion, the death penalty, and sexual practices but nothing to do with economic justice? [Is God a Republican?]

To the extent that the future is ‘predicted’, is ‘prediction’ the right word? The prophet in apocalyptic writings may be ‘foreseeing’ the future, but in the prophetic writings it is always a question of what God will do in the future, not what God sees will happen. [Is the future set in stone already, unchangeable? This would lead to a very ‘bored’ view of God!]

‘Thus saith…’ see Isa.36:4,14,16; Gen.32:3-4. Style in which an agent or messenger spoke.

Prophetic writers as theologians. Prophetic writers as poets. If they are no more or no less inspired than Paul writing letters to churches, then there is no greater (and no less of a) problem in asserting that the human author’s thinking, style, and personality played a role in what he wrote. This leads on to another question…

Religious experience, ecstatic experiences and prophecy. Did the authors of the prophecies write in an ecstatic state, so that they were not consciously focusing on or thinking about what they were saying? [Here a focus on religious experience is important] Note 2 Kings 3:15, where Elisha asks for a musician when he is asked to provide a word of Yahweh. Abraham Heschel talks about the key feature in the ‘writing prophets’ as ‘sympathy with God’, being in tune with the divine ‘pathos’. We see this feature often: the prophets cry out, speak as a scorned lover, and address the people with the feelings of God in this situation (see especially Hosea, who is uniquely able to ‘empathize with God’ because of his own personal experiences). Sometimes they deny that they particularly want the ‘job’ of prophet, as does Jeremiah – this reminds one of Mahler’s statement about musical inspiration, that he doesn’t choose his compositions, rather they choose him!

A letter?

Most of it is an apocalypse, but it is an apocalypse attached to a semi-circular letter. And so there is a sense in which rather than calling it ‘Revelation’ perhaps it should be called ‘the Letter of John (or the risen Jesus) to the Asians’ [see v4]! This is of crucial importance. Although one might argue that an apocalypse tended to be written with a message in mind for the author’s contemporaries, clearly a letter leads to the expectation that the things written therein will be relevant to the recipients. And so the fact that Revelation is at least in part a letter leads us to expect that the things narrated in the rest of the book were not wholly irrelevant to the churches to whom the book was sent.

When was the Book of Revelation written?

The key to dating this book does not lie first and foremost in external evidence. Church tradition says that John son of Zebedee (who is presumed to be the author) lived until the time of Domitian in the 90s of the first century. Modern scholarship tends to date the book to the time of Domitian (probably the end of his reign, around 95 CE), although a minority argues for it having been written soon after the death of Nero, around 68-69 CE. Either of these would fit the external evidence regarding when John was alive and could therefore have written. The latter position draws attention to the fact that Revelation 11:1-2, if taken literally, suggests that the city of Jerusalem still stood but was under siege. Nevertheless, the issues regarding the interpretation of that passage are somewhat more difficult to resolve. And another relevant piece of evidence is the reference to Rome as Babylon, which is certainly more typical of the language used to refer to Rome after 70 CE, when Rome like Babylon became responsible for the destruction of the city and the Temple. References in Revelation 13 and 17 to the beast having a deadly wound that was healed is usually taken to refer to the fact that rumors appeared after Nero’s death, stating that Nero had not in fact died and would return from the east to rule the empire once again. The direct reason for this is presumably that, after Nero’s suicide (he slit his own throat when he learned that the Senate had proclaimed him a public enemy and was sending troops to capture him), he was buried in the tomb of his family rather than being given a public funeral. Since a public funeral was the norm, many feared that the authorities were hiding the truth, namely that Nero was still alive and had escaped capture. If there had been tabloid newspapers in those days, sightings of Elvis would have had to take a back seat. The year after his death (in 69 CE) someone appeared claiming to be Nero; something similar happened in 80 CE, and in 88-89 CE someone almost convinced the king of Parthia that he was Nero, and nearly led to an invasion of the Roman Empire! Later, the next generation thought that Nero had died but would rise from the dead (if this is what John alludes to, it may suggest a dating to Domitian’s time). The expectation of Nero, the evil emperor returned from the dead, was focused on by John because it was just one example of the Roman Empire parodying the truth: it claimed worship for one who was not worthy, and even claimed he had risen or would rise from the dead. John focuses on points of comparison and contrast between God and Christ on the one hand, and Satan, the emperor, and the false prophet (presumably referring to the priests of the emperor cult in Asia Minor) on the other. There is no reason to think that John thought Nero had actually or would actually return from the dead; but he did expect that the demonic character of the Roman Empire evidenced in Nero’s persecution of Christians would be manifested again by one (or more) future emperor(s). He was clearly right.

The most promising (and for this reason perhaps also the most frustrating) piece of evidence regarding the book’s date is the reference in chapter 17 to the beast with 7 heads. Since the seven heads represent seven hills, the reference is clearly to Rome. But the fact that the heads also symbolize seven emperors, of which five have fallen and one now is, ought to have great potential for dating the work. However, things are (as ever) not so clear-cut. If we begin with Julius Caesar, then Nero would be the 6^th in line from him, and John would be writing in Nero’s time. However, the book seems to presuppose the rumors that arose after Nero’s death. After Nero, three emperors followed in quick succession within the space of a year, before Vespasian became emperor, and one wonders whether emperors who were merely transitory figures are counted in the equation. And so some take the number ‘7’ in its symbolic sense as referring to the totality of emperors. In this case, the meaning is that the majority have already come and gone, and thus the reference to 5 having fallen will not help provide us with an exact date.

The argument usually given for a date in Domitian’s reign focuses on claims that he sought divine honors for himself more than other emperors before (or after) him. But recent research by Leonard Thompson seriously questions this picture (see his article “A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalypse of John”, in Semeia 36 (1986) pp.147-174). In fact, the emperor cult had continued since the time of Augustus, and there is no evidence that it was particularly emphasized in Domitian’s time. At any rate, the churches to which John wrote all had the worship of the emperor taking place in their midst. Most likely, in view of the focus on a future increase of persecution and the emphasis on the legend and expectation of Nero redivivus, it was what the church had gone through under Nero that was the historical background to the expectation that more of the same was to follow, rather than specific events in Domitian’s time. This means that we can probably not look to specific events to help date Revelation more precisely. Nevertheless, there is at least some evidence from later Christian sources that Domitian was remembered as having persecuted Christians. Tertullian cites Nero and Domitian as exceptions to the general tolerance and balance of other emperors. If this reflects an accurate recollection of what happened, then John may be presenting Domitian as essentially a kind of ‘new Nero’.

Who is the ‘beast’ in Revelation? Although the name ‘antichrist’ is often also used in modern Christian parlance, in fact that terminology comes from 1 & 2 John (where it is used in the plural as well!) and is absent from Revelation. It seems quite likely that the symbolism of the number 666 is connected with the name ‘Nero Caesar’. Not only is the number the one that results from writing the Greek name in Hebrew and calculating its numeric value, but there are manuscripts with the textual variant reading 616, which is the numeric value attained by transcribing the Latin form of Nero’s name into Hebrew letters. For more information on this subject try the following site:

And so it seems that the main historical background and stimulus to the Book of Revelation was the demonic face of the Roman Empire that manifested itself during the reign of Nero. Whatever else one may think about the Book of Revelation, it accurately foresaw that what happened under Nero was not the end of Roman persecution of Christians, but only the beginning and the setting of a terrifying precedent. The number 666 thus served to highlight the contrast with Christ, whose name could be calculated to add up to 888. By way of contrast, the numeric value of Nero’s name added up to ‘triple imperfection’.

What is the Book of Revelation about?

Past, present, future?

Is Revelation about helicopters carrying nuclear warheads, or events in the Roman Empire? Can it be about both? If we begin with OT prophecy as our best analogy, then it is clear that the primary focus of the Hebrew prophets was the present and the near future. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility of ‘secondary fulfillment’, as NT authors often find in interpreting the OT. But it does mean that we should expect there to be a direct and not merely a tangential reference and relevance to the circumstances of the original readers of Revelation. John rightly foresaw that the Roman Empire would soon use the requirement to worship the emperor as a means to rooting out Christians. It would not be long before Christians would find themselves required to either sacrifice to the emperor and receive a certificate stating that they had done so, or else face imprisonment and execution. And so, taken as a prophecy in symbolic language about the trials and persecutions the church would soon face, the Revelation of John foresees things in a way that seems to clearly go beyond mere political and religious insight into contemporary trends!

As we have seen, there is a reference to seven horns which represent seven kings, of which five have fallen and one now is. When does this refer to?! Did this have an initial, primary reference to John’s time, or must we really expect a reconstruction of the Roman Empire, the Jerusalem Temple, etc.? Could American Christianity ever cope with the idea that its fate is not spelled out in Scripture? It is a huge blow to our ego that the Bible dies not mention America, that it is not directly about us, when we tend to think that we are the focus and climax of history. We can’t imagine that in 5,000 years’ time the United States as we know it might not exist, and history may still be moving forward, and no one will remember that in the 20^th century there were people who were convinced that the Antichrist was Michael Gorbachev, or Ronald Reagan, or Saddam Hussein, or, or…

One of the big questions confronting interpreters relates to the interpretation of the language of Revelation as literal or figurative. Pretty much everyone recognizes that there is symbolic language. The big question is how much is symbolic. All, some, or only a little? [horns/heads = kings; is the New Jerusalem a literal city or the church, the bride of Christ?] Is any of it to be taken, as Hal Lindsay suggested, as an ancient author’s perception of things like helicopters, scud missiles, and so on? It must also be recognized that eschatological language can at times be used about contemporary or historical events (look at Acts 2 and the quotation of Joel 2. It refers to the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood, but Peter speaks of it as fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost). And thus one must beware of assuming that the language of the moon turning to blood (to take one example) cannot be anything other than literal.

Excursus: Premillenial/Dispensationalist interpretations of Revelation:

Those who take the apocalyptic writings of the Bible as predicting the whole course of history up until the end claim that the Roman Empire must be restored (since the language of Revelation clearly has Rome in mind). This is what John Walvoord does in his book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis, p.25. He bases this on Daniel 7:8 and Revelation 13:1. But in order to understand Daniel, one need not look beyond the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, which is what the book was universally regarded as referring to within Judaism. One might argue that it points beyond that to other events in the distant future, but one simply cannot read Daniel as though it is first and foremost about modern politics in the Middle East!!! When Walvoord goes on to say what Russia will do on the basis of Ezekiel 38-39 (p.28), he has overstepped the bounds of Biblical interpretation, and is essentially claiming to be a prophet and/or apocalyptic seer himself, and to know for certain things that perplex even the best and most skilled interpreters. Reference is then made to Red China in Daniel 11:44; Rev.9:15-16; 16:12 (p.29). Russia is brought in once again on the basis of Daniel 11:40. But in the preceding verses the ‘king of the north’ is clearly the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes. On what basis can one assume (never mind definitively conclude!) that suddenly Russia is in view! This is the worst form of ahistorical, acontextual eisegesis! If these books were really about the modern history of Israel and the Middle East, then there is no explanation why Walvoord fails to quote them in connection with this historical events he relates from 1949 through to his discussion of Saddam Hussein, current oil-related issues, etc. (see pp.31-48,53-63,83-86). In order to read history and prophecy into one another, he is forced to claim (p.101; see also p.130) that the Roman Empire has never fallen! Other authors, in order to take the 70 weeks of years in Daniel to refer to the coming of Christ, with the final week as the Great Tribulation, find themselves forced to redefine what a ‘year’ means! If these are the friends of Scripture, then Scripture doesn’t need enemies! Christians who were sure that God had ordained 6,000 years of history (and who have little idea about either the age of the earth or the birth of Christ!) to be followed by the millennium created a lot of fervor in the lead up to Y2K. Now they are selling large quantities of second-hand generators, dried fruit, and canned goods. In the process of setting dates and equating Biblical imagery with contemporary events, we manage time and again to discredit the Gospel. The time is now certainly near – time, that is, that we learned our lesson!

Approaches to the Interpretation of Revelation (by Leon Morris):

Preterist: the book arises out of the situation of the church in the first century and has no other significance

Historicist: the book is an inspired forecast of the whole of human history with the end coming in the time of whoever is reading it

Futurist: sees the whole book (with the exception of the first few chapters) referring to the end of time and the second coming of Jesus

Idealist: does not see references to specific happenings in the book, but to ideas and principles on which God acts throughout history.

Worship

There can be no doubting the importance of worship as a theme in the book of Revelation. Of particular interest in recent times has been the theme of the angelic refusal of worship, which to many appears highly significant when it is contrasted with the worship that is offered to the risen, exalted Christ. The present study will attempt to determine what the significance may be of who is and is not worshipped in the book of Revelation. Just considering the uses of the verb ‘to worship’ (proskunein) and its cognates, without yet considering any other related terminology or actions, one finds a statistically high use of these terms in Revelation in comparison with other New Testament writings. The root occurs in various forms in Revelation 3:9; 4:10; 9:20; 11:1; 13:8,12,15; 14:7,9,11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:10,20; 22:8-9. Just the spread and frequency of the term can be said to give us some initial indication of the theme’s importance in this book.

However, before considering this narrower theme of worship in the Apocalypse, it is important to have a sense of the overarching theme of worship in the study of early Judaism and Christianity. Great importance has been attributed to worship in recent discussions of early Jewish and Christian monotheism. Many peoples in the ancient world worshipped the high god and many others as well. Israel, it is generally accepted or assumed, worshipped only the high God. It has therefore been suggested, most notably by Larry Hurtado, that worship was the key dividing line between Israel’s one God and all others. [i]

However, certain ambiguities in the literary evidence force us to query and reconsider this approach. First, ‘worship’ is a broad term and there has been a great deal of ambiguity in its usage. In reference to prostration before another figure, the evidence seems to clearly indicate that this was not something most Jews felt to be reserved for the one God alone. It is true that two Jewish texts (Philo, Leg.Gai.116 and Esther LXX 13:12-14) express reservations about the practice of prostrating oneself before a human ruler.[ii] Likewise, several texts express a similar reserve regarding human prostration before angels.[iii] However, on the whole the practice of prostrating oneself before a ruler or other exalted figure appears to be accepted in the Jewish Scriptures and continued into early Judaism. Objections only appear to arise in the case of (1) pagan rulers, whose rule might be regarded as representing other gods and idols and thus opposed to that of the one God, and (2) angelic figures. The cases involving angels may be due to two considerations: it is often argued in Jewish writings that the status of angels is not above that of human beings, and there is also the danger of mistaking the angelic messenger for God himself. In none of these cases does there appear to be any grounds for assuming that a ban was being placed on prostration before a figure who rules on God’s behalf as God’s appointed viceroy.

An interesting passage that illustrates this point and at the same time suggests a way forward is 1 Chronicles 29:20-23. Here we see the people ‘worship’ (i.e. bow before) Yahweh and the king, with a single verb being used to describe the action addressed to both. Slightly later, Solomon is said to sit upon the throne of Yahweh. Clearly, neither the throne nor the prostration is felt to be problematic by this author. This evidence is important in evaluating the significance of the witness of such writings as the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian or 1 Enoch, with their portraits of prostration before a human figure seated on a heavenly throne. If there is a cultic activity addressed to Yahweh alone, it is the sacrificial worship of animals (1 Chronicles 29:21). Interestingly, not only Jews, but even Christians felt that the offering of animal sacrifices was the make-or-break issue as regards their fidelity to God, even in later times when they no longer worshipped their own God through such animal sacrifices. Here, it would seem, we have a clear boundary line for most Jews. There is one God, and only one Temple, where sacrifices are offered to him and to no other.[iv] However, this boundary marker, while important and illuminating, is also of uncertain relevance to the study of early Christology. As there was to our knowledge no sacrificial worship of Jesus by the early Christians, does worship in any way clarify his relation to Israel’s one God? In many texts he is viewed as a sacrifice offered to God, but he is thus by definition not the recipient of that sacrifice. It thus seems that while worship may have provided an important dividing line in terms of practice, it remains to be seen whether this dividing line can shed any light on early christological thinking.

And so, it appears likely that the specific type of ‘worship’ offered to particular figures in Revelation will be of great importance, since the Greek word for ‘worship’ spans a whole range of activities, from simply bowing before another figure, to cultic worship involving liturgy, prayer and sacrifice. The former could be offered to figures other than God within most streams of Judaism; the latter seems to have been reserved exclusively for God for the most part, and certainly sacrificial worship appears to have been the make-or-break issue for most Jews and Christians. It is thus crucial that we consider the character of the worship offered to Jesus and other figures in the book of Revelation, as well as the titles and actions associated with both the figures in question and their worshippers.

Hurtado, in his recent book on the importance of worship in early Christianity and in particular early Christology, notes this breadth of meaning of the verb proskunein, and he thus lists a number of other words that normally denote an action or type of worship reserved for the deity alone.[v] Of these, the noun latreia does not occur in Revelation, while the verb latreuein occurs only twice: once in 7:15, where it has God as its object, and once in 22:3, where there is a reference to the throne of God and of the Lamb, but where it is nevertheless specified that his servants worship him. This may of course simply be an imprecise way of speaking and have both God and the Lamb in view. However, if we go by what the author actually wrote, then it is unlikely to mean that the Lamb’s servants worship him rather than God. For this reason here too it seems that the most likely object and recipient of the worship is God, ‘the one seated on the throne.’ Other verbs that Hurtado lists as similarly reserved for cultic and sacrificial worship do not occur at all in Revelation. These terms are, of course, relatively rare in the New Testament, apart from in Hebrews, where the whole argument of the letter revolves around the themes, language, and imagery of cultic worship. However, were Revelation intended to make a christological point by applying worship-language to Jesus that is normally reserved only for God, then one could only conclude that it makes this point poorly. Not even the broader verb proskunein has Christ as its object in Revelation: we are not told anything more than that others bowed down before him (1:17; 5:8). And although such worship or reverence is explicitly said to be inappropriate when offered to angels by human beings, this type of worship or bowing down is said to be appropriately offered to Christians in Revelation 3:9![vi] Thus, while it is clear that the language and terminology of worship plays an important role in this book, its precise significance and meaning is less immediately apparent, and therefore requires further careful study, which shall be the aim of the rest of this study.

Before proceeding to compare the different objects of worship in Revelation, however, we may look briefly at other types of action, other imagery and language that are used, which may indicate worship of some sort even though a specific word for ‘worship’ is not used. Here we may think not just of the several examples of prostration before another, but also the very interesting use of songs of praise and of prayer (symbolized as incense) in worship. It is often suggested that the heavenly worship that is described in Revelation is patterned on the worship services of the early Christian communities. If this is true, then the description of the prayers of the saints as incense may indicate a conviction that the worship of the Christian churches in some way replaces the cultus of the Jerusalem temple. The author could presumably also be making the same point over against the worship in the synagogues, as some of the hymns in Revelation bear striking resemblance to those used in the synagogue liturgy in later times. This may, however, simply be due to the fact that the worship of the Christian churches was indebted to Jewish models, without any further polemical interest intended. Be that as it may, it is nonetheless striking that neither prayer nor incense were normally offered to figures other than God within the streams of Jewish belief in this period for which we have literary evidence. It is thus at least theoretically possible that Revelation 5:8, with its reference to the offering of incense (representing the prayers of the saints) in worshipping the Lamb, could turn out to be the most significant verse in the whole book from the perspective of Christology. We shall return to this point, however, once we have evaluated some of the arguments made in recent scholarship regarding the importance of the angelic refusal of worship as that over against which the worship offered to Christ is contrasted.

Let us now turn to an examination of who is and is not worshipped in the book of Revelation, and what the significance of this may be for the author’s understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God on the one hand, and Jesus and angels or other figures on the other. First and foremost, and most obvious, is the worship offered to God, often designated as ‘him who sits on the throne’. God is the recipient of the majority of the worship mentioned in the book, and of most if not all the worship that is evaluated positively.[vii] Chapter 4 marks the beginning of John’s heavenly journey, and the first thing he witnesses is a scene of heavenly worship. The description of the worship of God in heaven in 4:1-11 is followed by the description of the Lamb who is also worthy of praise, honor, glory, and power in 5:1-14. The worship in chapter 5 includes the Lamb, in ways that we shall consider below, but God continues to be the recipient of worship, and perhaps remains its principal focus. Not much later, in 7:9-17, worship is once again offered to God and the Lamb. Songs of praise and prayers are offered to God in 11:15-19. While songs of thanksgiving are offered for both God and the Lamb and the salvation they have brought to humankind, the one who is always clearly and unambiguously the recipient or both worship and prayer is God, ‘him who sits on the throne’. This is seen again in 15:2-4, where the song that is sung is the song of Moses and of the Lamb, but it is addressed to the ‘Lord God Almighty’, who is also the one addressed in the prayers of 16:5-7. In chapter 19, further praise is offered, with God as its recipient. In all such instances of worship, even if the salvation accomplished by the Lamb is the reason and motivating factor for the worship in question, and thus the worship has the Lamb in view as well (as we shall see below), nevertheless God is always at least one of the recipients of the worship that is offered.

Now in view of tendency in Revelation to apply the same titles to both God and Christ, it must be asked whether any of these instances of worship addressed to the Lord God Almighty or to him who sits on the throne could be addressed to both God and Christ, to both Father and Son. While not impossible, the use of the phrase ‘him who sits on the throne’ as a designation that distinguishes the figure in question from ‘the Lamb’ suggests this is not the case (cf. 4:2-4,9-10; 5:1,7,13; 6:16; 7:10,15; 19:4; 21:5). In contrast, when the Lamb is referred to on the throne, it is usually through an unusual expression such as ‘the Lamb (standing) in the midst of the throne’ (see especially 5:6; 7:17). It thus seems accurate to say that, in Revelation, worshippers address themselves in song and prayer primarily to God, and sometimes also to the Lamb.

The Lamb/Christ is addressed and/or mentioned alongside God in the following contexts and in the following ways:

1. In the opening epistolary greeting beginning ‘Grace and peace to you’ (1:4-6). There is an interesting resemblance to the Pauline equivalent, and its threefold form reflects the same Christian tradition preserved elsewhere in the New Testament.

2. The reference to Jesus in 4:14 as ‘ruler of God’s creation’ is not to be overlooked. This is essentially a reference to Jesus as God’s vice-regent, the one who rules God’s creation on his behalf. This resembles the status given to Adam in some Jewish literature, and fits well with the other ways Jesus is portrayed in the letters to the churches, most of which open with christological language that focuses on new creation.[viii]

3. The first reference to Jesus sharing his Father’s throne is found in 3:21. Here it is said that Jesus occupies this place because he overcame, and likewise he will grant to Christians who overcome the right to share his throne. Note also 2:26-27, where Jesus promises to share with his faithful followers the authority he has been given by God.

4. In 14.4 we have a potentially significant metaphor. The chaste remnant of Israel is said to be offered ‘as firstfruits’ to God and the Lamb. Here we have the use of an interesting cultic metaphor in reference to both God and the Lamb, with the Lamb being mentioned alongside God precisely as recipient of this cultic, sacrificial offering. However, precisely because it is a metaphorical usage, its significance should not be pressed without additional supporting evidence. At face value, it need mean no more than that this group represents the first of a larger group to be dedicated to God and the Lamb.

5. In 14:12, obedience to God’s commandments and faithfulness to Jesus are set in parallel.

6. A further cultic image involving both God and the Lamb is to be found in 20:6. Those who participate in the first resurrection are said to be priests of God and of Christ. Since ‘priests of God’ would normally refer to those who offer cultic worship to God in the temple, it is legitimate to ask what the concept of a ‘priest of Christ’ might mean in this context. If it is presumed that in the millennial kingdom with Christ present there would be no need for nor expectation of sacrificial temple worship, then the idea here may be that of individuals who are set apart for the service of God and Christ. Once again, it is unlikely that the full cultic overtones and traditional duties of priesthood are in view here. In Revelation 21:22-23, the author’s ideal is expressed in terms of a Jerusalem in which no temple is needed, because God and the Lamb are its temple and its light. To whatever extent the millennial period either foreshadows or symbolizes this eternal ideal, the language of priesthood is thus to be understood in a broader sense, without implying cultic activity or involvement in literal sacrificial worship.

7. If earlier in Revelation ‘the one seated on the throne’ was a designation of God in contrast to the Lamb, by the end of the book the throne is described as being ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb’ (22:1,3). There is also a clear sharing of the same titles between God and Christ – in particular ‘Alpha and Omega’ (21:6; 22:13), ‘Beginning and End’ (21:6; 22:13). Of course, these are still a far cry from the direct giving of the very name of God to either Christ (Philippians 2:9-11; John 8:58; 17:11) or another figure (the angel Yahoel in Apocalypse of Abraham, Enoch as the ‘little Yahweh’ in 3 Enoch).[ix] Nonetheless, it is clearly a significant move within this agency tradition, and the precise meaning of such designations as ‘Beginning and End’ when applied to Christ needs careful consideration. Although angelomorphic language is applied to Christ in Revelation, there is no mention of or allusion to his pre-existence. In the absence of any explicit reference to this concept, the language used could conceivably mean that, just as God is the beginning and end of the first creation, so Christ is the beginning and end of the new creation. But regardless of the exact significance of the titles, they are a clear example of the transfer of roles and attributes between the sender and the sent, between God and his agent, that one finds in Jewish literature. The language and imagery used is thus well within the bounds of what one might expect to find in a Jewish context as a response to the arrival of God’s eschatological redeemer.[x]

1. Although John prostrates himself before the risen Jesus in 1:17, the first actual occurrence of the verb ‘to worship’ is found in 3:9, where it is before Christians that those of the ‘synagogue of Satan’ will worship (i.e. bow down). This, when taken together with point 3 from the preceding section, is highly significant, inasmuch as both show that neither sharing the throne nor receiving worship was something reserved for Christ alone, and therefore it is unlikely that these affirmations are being used in Revelation to make a subtle christological point. The act of ‘worship’ or prostration before another is a sign of submission and recognition of the status of the other as worthy of honor. Presumably the Christians in question had had contacts with the synagogue in question that had been felt to be dishonoring. Here, the risen Christ promises that their opponents will eventually show them honor and acknowledge that they were right.

2. After overcoming through death and showing himself worthy to open the scroll, the Lamb stands in the midst of the throne, and receives worship in the form of prostration, prayer (represented by incense), and song (5:6-14). The most striking point here is the mention of the elders holding not only harps, but also bowls of incense ‘which are the prayers of the saints’. The inclusion of God’s appointed representative alongside God as recipient of praise is unusual and noteworthy, but it is neither unique nor without precedent (see especially 1 Chronicles 29:20,23). Such a development was foreseen to a certain extent and was perhaps even to be expected as a response to the appearance of God’s agent in the realization of his eschatological salvation.[xi] However, there is little precedent or prayers being addressed to such a figure. Of course, it is to be admitted that the prayers/incense, while clearly part of the paraphernalia of worship employed when the Lamb is worshipped, are nowhere said to be offered directly to the Lamb. It is thus conceivable that the author assumed such prayers to be either offered to God in thanksgiving for Christ, or offered to God through Christ, just as the elders appear to be mediators of the prayers in bringing and presenting them before God and the Lamb. The description in 8:3-4 of an angel offering these prayers/incense before God, with no mention of the Lamb, could be regarded as confirming this interpretation.[xii] At any rate, even if we conclude that we are dealing with a striking development within the context of early Jewish theism, it should also be stressed that it is just that – a development within the bounds of what Jewish monotheism in this time could conceivably incorporate, rather than a significant mutation of and/or development away from Jewish devotion to only one God. Thus, while we must return to this preliminary conclusion once we have surveyed the evidence further, it is worth noting at this point that we have thus far noted no developments that appear inconceivable or inappropriate within the boundaries of early Jewish theism as it comes to expression in the extant literature.[xiii]

We must now turn to two additional examples of worship in the book of Revelation, the illegitimate worship of the beast and of an angelic figure. These negative examples are foils that are presumably intended to bring out the significance of that worship which the author regards as legitimate. We may begin with the worship of the beast, which presumably has in view the situation that arose wherein Christians were put under great pressure to offer sacrifice to the emperor and/or pagan gods (cf. 12:8,15-17). This worship is one reason for the divine judgment that comes upon the empire and upon humankind, as is described later in Revelation. While the enigmatic character of some of the riddles associated with this worship may hinder any attempt to offer a detailed interpretation, what is quite unambiguously clear is that the heavenly worship of God and the Lamb is evaluated positively, while the earthly worship of the beast is a dark counterfoil thereto. The contrast is almost certainly intentional. Of particular interest is the way this evidence from Revelation suggests that the worship of Christ was not patterned on non-Jewish models.[xiv] On the contrary, in this very Jewish work, one finds an outright rejection of the Greco-Roman cultus side by side with an incorporation of Jesus into the heavenly worship (which presumably in turn reflects his incorporation into the earthly worship of the Christian Church). The worship of the Lamb is not added alongside the worship of Israel’s only God to form a sort of Christian pantheon. Rather, he is allowed to share God’s throne, titles, and other prerogatives in a manner familiar from other Jewish literature that uses the agency model to attribute such things to other figures in a similar way.

The depiction of the worship of the beast as blasphemous also shows the strength of Jewish and Christian sensibilities as regards the cultic (i.e. sacrificial) worship of another figure. Persecutions on the part of the Roman authorities against Christians in the centuries that followed regularly focused on worship of this sort, and it was here that the martyrs took their stand. No other god or figure was to receive this worship. This sensibility continued long after there ceased to be any longer a sacrificial cult offered to their own God in the Jerusalem temple. It thus seems that Hurtado is right to regard worship as the (or at least an important) ‘dividing line’ that defined Jewish monotheism in this period. However, it seems (as we suggested earlier) to have been quite specifically the issue of sacrificial worship that was the dividing line and make-or-break issue, which in turn suggests that worship will not have functioned to make a christological point about the divinity of Christ. As the death of Christ was regarded as the sacrificial worship par excellence that was offered to God, there was no real way that he could be portrayed as both the one who offers such sacrificial worship, and at the same time the recipient thereof. Thus, while important in understanding monotheism in this period, worship is unlikely to provide the key to unraveling the development of early Christology. It must also be emphasized that early Jewish sensibilities regarding worship in the broader sense appear to have depended to a large extent on the question of whom one honored in this way. To show reverence and obeisance before God’s agent of salvation could often be appropriate; to show the same reverence to a pagan king who did not honor God or to a god other than the one true God was unacceptable and blasphemous.[xv]

What, then, of the worship offered to and rejected by the angelic figure? In two verses, 19:10 and 22:9, we find the seer prostrating himself before the angel to worship him. This feature of the book of Revelation has been the subject of a significant amount of scholarly attention in recent times.[xvi] It is generally felt that the author’s coupling of this motif with his portrait of the worship of Jesus makes a christological point, namely that Jesus is now placed on the divine side of the dividing line between God and creation, so that he receives the worship that was previously reserved only for God himself. In view of the available evidence, some of which we have already surveyed, this appears to be an over-interpretation of the evidence. The worship/prostration offered to Jesus was not without parallel within Judaism, and most Jews are unlikely to have found it objectionable in and of itself.[xvii] What, then, is the meaning of the angelic refusal of worship? If such prostration before another figure was often acceptable and is permitted in Revelation itself as an appropriate action towards Christians (3:9), then the point is presumably not about worship per se, but rather relates specifically to the significance of the worship of an angelic figure by a human being.

Before proceeding, it should be stressed that one ought not attribute too much significance to the fact that the angelic refusal of worship is repeated. Rather than representing an emphasis through repetition on this particular worship-related point, the repetition is part of a larger structural and linguistic parallelism between two passages, Revelation 17:1-19:10 and 21:9-22:9, as Aune has clearly demonstrated.[xviii] The repetition of this particular element may well represent little more than a way for the author to draw attention to the parallel between these two passages, rather than being intended to draw attention to the angelic refusal of worship for its own sake.

In the literature of this period, there are a number of places where the view is expressed that angels and similar heavenly figures are antagonistic to humans. Here we must avoid seeking to relate Revelation to significantly later writings, such as the Rabbinic literature and the Life of Adam and Eve. Although these works provide interesting parallels and points of comparison, they are too distant temporally from the time when Revelation was written for it to be legitimate to appeal to them in our search for knowledge of the background against which Revelation was written.[xix] Nevertheless, the idea of some form of angelic antagonism towards humans (such as is found in a developed form in numerous Gnostic writings, and also in the rabbinic literature (both in the Merkabah tradition and in the Midrashim in general) and in the Life of Adam and Eve), has adequate independent attestation by the book of Revelation itself, so that we need not depend on or appeal to the evidence of these later works. In the Gnostic and mystical writings, this antagonism usually comes to expression when one seeks to ascend past the heavenly powers. By way of contrast, as Aune has rightly noted, the cosmology of a multi-tiered heaven that is typical of such ascent traditions is entirely absent from Revelation.[xx] There are no references to multiple heavens nor to anything that would indicate that the existence of such is presupposed. Nevertheless, as in works that presuppose the Ptolemaic cosmology, Revelation regards heaven not as the dwelling place of God and his allies alone, but also of antagonistic celestial powers. Thus it is that Satan is eventually ‘cast down to the earth’, after having been involved in celestial warfare heaven (cf. Revelation 12:7-13). The author appears to share the apocalyptic view that the struggles of the people of God on earth are parallels to heavenly struggles that are taking place. The role of angels in the book of Revelation cannot be underestimated. They serve throughout as those who inflict God’s judgment upon the earth, and beginning with chapter 12 (although hints had already been given in 2:9,13,24; 3:9, with their references to Satan) it becomes clear that the struggle of the Church is not just between Christians and earthly authorities, but also have a spiritual, celestial dimension. In this context, the relationship between humans and angels would have been important. In Revelation, we find the following uses of worship, and it will soon become apparent how these may relate to the issue of the relationship between angels and humankind:

4. Humans like John should not worship angels because they are their fellow-servants of God (19:10; 22:9).

Thus the meaning of the angelic refusal of worship probably has little to do with distinguishing Christ from angels or with making a subtle point concerning monotheism and Christology. Rather, the refusal of worship has to do with the point the angel itself is presented as making: angels are fellow-servants of God together with Christians, and thus Christians are to regard themselves as equal to the angels. In the context of persecution in which the book was written, the whole world presumably appeared to be against the Christians, and they believed themselves to be the targets of an onslaught by malevolent heavenly beings and surrounded by signs of God’s judgment being brought by angelic intermediaries. In this context, the emphasis placed on the dignity and equality of humans in God’s creation would presumably have offered considerable encouragement. Rather than having to live in subjection to the whims of celestial forces, Christians were encouraged to believe that God and Christ are rulers over the creation. This is a point that is made in other early Christian literature as well, in particular Colossians. Here in Revelation it is further emphasized that humans are not to be considered as inferior to angels. The worship offered to Christ would presumably have also reinforced this point: in heaven, seated on the throne, a throne which Christians who overcome will share, the recipient of the praise and adoration of all creation (both human and angelic) is a human being, Jesus Christ, the one who represents Christians in the heavenly realm just as Christians represent him on earth. This is presumably one of the key points that the author wished to make through his multi-faceted use of a multiplicity of worship-related images in Revelation.

The millennium

There is probably no doctrine based on a single short passage (in this case Revelation 20:4-6) that has sparked such a high degree of controversy. It is impossible to answer definitively the questions of ‘pre’, ‘post’ and ‘a’, since the Book of Revelation nowhere explicitly describes Christ’s return, believe it or not! The message of the whole book is that Christ is coming soon, and yet it is unclear how this coming relates to the judgments Christ enacts, the establishment of the millennial kingdom, and the final defeat of Satan and death. Yet even that ending is ambiguous: at the end, there still appear to be people living outside the city! And so it may be wrong even to attempt to systematize Revelation in a chronological manner. Its repeated pattern of seven seals, bowls, and trumpets may not be entirely chronological, if at all.

Among the orthodox Church Fathers, those who took the millennium literally included Papias, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and one may also mention Montanus. Others, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine rejected such millennial speculations. And so there is no single interpretation that can be regarded as ‘orthodox’ or even ‘the historic Christian viewpoint’. Also to be considered is the question of whether the millennium will really involve a reign only by the martyrs. And of course, if one takes a historicist, preterist, or symbolic approach to the rest of the book, then a postmillennial or amillenial reading is likely to fit better with that.

The enduring message of apocalyptic

Revelation has had a controversial history down the ages. This is not because of its attestation (it is already quoted by Justin Martyr, and subsequently by Irenaeus and others), but because of its contents. Luther said that “his spirit could not put up with this book” because it focused on tales and pictures rather than the clear teaching of Christ. He judged it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic, and demoted it to a kind of secondary status. Zwingli denied it scriptural status, and it is the only book on which Calvin did not write a commentary. Already in the early church Dionysius of Alexandria had raised similar objections to those of Luther.

Apocalyptic is literature for the powerless, who see that they must stand firm in a hostile situation, where their faith and their lives are at risk. It offers encouragement, a picture of a God who is in control, who is sovereign over history (not in the sense that all of history is moving as he wants it to, but that he has the power to bring an end if evil rears its head too high). However, we must remember that it was God’s message to a people who did not know and could not imagine democracy. In our time, we may find it more appropriate to emphasize the aspect of our human responsibility in cooperating with God in building a world as he wants it to be. Certainly I am convinced that anyone who uses the apparent fatalism of books like Revelation, taken out of context, to say ‘Well, there is no point in trying to do anything because the end is already set in stone’, will be held accountable for God. In our context we have unique freedoms that the author of Revelation and of Daniel could hardly imagine. It is our responsibility in our context to use those freedoms for the glory of God. Apocalyptic also teaches us trust, faithfulness and even praise and worship for God in the midst of suffering and crisis, in light of the bigger picture of God’s plan for all creation.

Raymond Brown writes words which he knows will scandalize some Christians (Introduction to the NT, pp.809-810): “God has not revealed to human beings details about how the world began or how the world will end, and failing to recognize that, one is likely to misread both the first book and the last book in the Bible. The author of Rev did not know how or when the world will end, and neither does anyone else.”

Web links:

SET TEXT

Revelation 16:17-17:18 (Greek: 17:8-14)

Try studying this one on your own with the help of the Word Biblical Commentary, other commentaries, and the following links:

[1] Semeia 36 (1986), Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting, p.2. Cf. also Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, p.17.

[i] Cf. Hurtado, One God, One Lord, p.38 and passim; Bauckham, God Crucified, pp.13-15.

[ii] Bauckham, God Crucified, p.14 rightly draws attention to these passages. He fails to note, however, that they appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

[iii] See the convenient discussion in Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT, 2.70), Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995; “Angelic Refusal of Worship”.

[iv] Cf. e.g. Josephus, Ap. 2.193, on the argument that one God implies one Temple. That most Jews felt this to be the case appears to be largely undisputed.

[v] Larry Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999, pp.65-69.

[vi] As Hurtado rightly notes, At the Origins of Christian Worship, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999, pp.67.

[vii] Much attention is also given in Revelation to worship that is considered illegitimate by the author, namely the worship of idols and/or of the beast. We shall discuss this slightly later in this chapter.

[viii] On the role attributed to Adam see the discussion in Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), pp.115-119. See also D. Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” JSNT 39 (1990), pp.95-109.

[ix] Richard Bauckham, God Crucified, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998, pp.53-54 notes the source of the title ‘the first and the last’ in Isaiah 44:6; 48:12. From our perspective, such language could only mean that Jesus is identified with God in the most explicit and complete manner possible. However, the transfer of God’s name to his supreme agent has already been documented as a recurring motif in Jewish literature in this period (see further the present author’s recent book, John’s Apologetic Christology, where I treat this theme in some detail in relation to the ‘I am’ sayings in John’s Gospel), and thus the Christian appropriation of this tradition in reference to Christ would within this context would not necessarily have expressed more than the conviction that Jesus is that supreme agent. Unfortunately a complete treatment of this point in the present context is impossible, but the present article is part of a projected book which will hopefully deal with some of these related matters in some detail.

[x] In view of 3:21, Aune is clearly wrong to suggest that the presentation of the Lamb standing in the midst of the throne relates to the Jewish reticence in later times to allow that any being could be seated in the presence of God.

[xi] See esp. 46:5; 48:5; 61:8; 62:2,5-6,9; 69:27,29. See also Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998, pp.19-20, whose highly problematic interpretation of this and other evidence related to the current topic will be examined further below.

[xii] Even if this were to be taken as an indication of the redactor failing to add a mention of the Lamb to an earlier Jewish recension of the apocalypse, it nonetheless remains true that the author-redactor, by not including the Lamb here, at the very least gives no indication that it was his purpose to either completely merge the figures of Christ and God or to attribute to Christ all that was appropriate for the divine within Judaism. On the significance of prayer addressed to Christ in general in the New Testament see further Larry Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999, pp.74-81.

[xiii] See further David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary), who rightly notes that the verb proskuein is “conspicuously absent” in this passage’s description of the ‘worship’ of the Lamb.

[xiv] Contra Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God.

[xv] On the importance of whether the figure reverenced in this way was a past worthy or a contemporary figure see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998, pp.24,29; Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999, p.73.

[xvi] See especially Richard Bauckham; Loren T. Stuckenbruck.

[xvii] Many of the objections raised by Jewish interlocutors in the first few Christian centuries have to do, not with the things that are attributed to Jesus per se, but with the fact that they are attributed to Jesus, a man who was crucified and whom they regard as unqualified and unworthy to be regarded as the Messiah and to receive such honors. See further my discussion in John’s Apologetic Christology.

[xviii] Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary), introduction 4.ii.

[xix] See the brief discussion of some of these works in Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998, pp.118-119.

[xx] David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Word Biblical Commentary).