Revelation is a vivid book. In Rev 1:3 it promises a blessing for the few who read it and the many who hear it read aloud (a reflection of the low literacy of the 1st century). Interpretations abound, falling mainly into three strains. The Continuous Historic (i.e. Revelation is a prophetic timeline from the first century to the turn of Jesus), the Preterist (everything in the book was completed by AD70) and the Futurist (everything is future and basically nothing has happened yet). The first model requires major logical leaps and reworking every 100 years or so (because it fails) yet remains popular. The second is interesting but suffers a relevancy problem and the third is also interesting but means the book was irrelevant to the first audience and to all Christians but those who see Jesus’ return. Maybe the eastern church was right all along?
The book of Revelation was likely written late in the reign of the Emperor Domitian, a view which was early and enjoys strong support today[1]. Rev 1:1 introduces the author as John – which typically is assumed to be the Apostle John and author of the fourth gospel and three letters. However, this assumption has been challenged – as early as the third century. Today the differences in the language and emphasis has resulted in a lack of consensus as to the author. [2] As a result perhaps the best conclusion is to leave “authorship an open question”[3].
Of perhaps more interest is the acceptance of the book which had “relatively late acceptance as a canonical NT text in many parts of the ancient church”[4]. Conservative scholarship acknowledges there were some questions asked but brush these aside with statements such as:
though it was questioned by some for the first few hundred years of church history, the book was clearly and almost universally accepted as a unique feature of the inspired New Testament[5]
The reality is somewhat more complex. The simple summary is:
Revelation was more readily accepted by the Church in the West than in the East. In the second century the rationalistic “Alogi” of Asia Minor rejected its millennial promise; later, Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea questioned its apostolic authorship. But in the fourth century Athanasius threw his great influence toward its support. The book of Revelation was recognized as canonical by the Third Council of Carthage in the West (397) and by the Third Council of Constantinople in the East (680).[6]
So, the West church took 300 years to officially accept the book of Revelation and the east nearly 600. One of the reasons for the slow acceptance in the east was concerns about the integrity of its prophecies – an issue which gathered steam in the third century[7]. Questions about its actual author and the understandable difficulties in understanding the book also reduced support for its acceptance[8].
In the East the position of went beyond slow acceptance to outright rejection. Around 300AD Eusebius noted that while some accepted Revelation, he did not consider it canon[9]. Cyril of Jerusalem banned private and public reading. The rejection of Revelation was official eastern position by the fourth century when the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia excluded the book (as did the Apostolic Canons). As late as 692AD the Trullan Synod would reaffirm the Laodicean canon excluding Revelation.
Obviously some were faster to accept Revelation. Likely written in the late 2nd century the Muratorian Fragment includes Revelation as canon (albeit it misses Hebrews, drops one of John’s epistles and includes the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter)[10]. Possibly the rejection of Revelation by the early heretic Marcion aided the general acceptance in the west.
What do you do with this book? I used to listen spell bound to expositions which always demonstrated God’s mastery of history – the Continuous Historic was the dominant model in my faith tradition. In hindsight the implicit assumption that Revelation was predominantly focused on Europe seems obviously odd. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church was the ultimate bad guy yet was the reason we have Revelation in our Protestant bibles today I find ironic. Now, well a little like the eastern church fathers for the first 600 years after Revelation appeared I kind of think there are more useful pursuits for disciples than trying to squeeze history into Revelation. Who wrote the book? I don’t know. Should it even be in the canon? Smarter people than me closer to the date of writing were clearly unsure. There are plenty of more accessible and practical parts of the Bible to focus on. One day I guess we will find out….
by Daniel Edgecombe
[1] David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, vol. 52A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1997), lvii–lviii.
[2] Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 884.
[3] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed., The Master Reference Collection (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 947–948.
[4] David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, vol. 52A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1997), cxxxvi.
[5] Mal Couch, “Inerrancy: The Book of Revelation,” Conservative Theological Journal 5, no. 15 (2001): 208.
[6] Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 885.
[7] Adela Yarbro Collins, “Revelation, Book of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 695.
[8] John D. Barry and Rebecca Van Noord, “Canon, Timeline of Formation of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[9] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 156.
[10] F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 161.
Living Faith 