THE BOOK IN GREATER DETAIL
If you haven’t read the book of Revelation, you should. And if you have read it—good—you should read it again.
Revelation was “one of the most systematically read and used books of the New Testament” by the early Christians and it’s the only one promising happiness to those who read it (Rev. 1:3).[i] Above all, Revelation is a book of prophecy, the only one in the New Testament dedicated to describing the last days; a catastrophic time when Satan makes a final effort to control mankind, after which Christ returns to assume rulership of the earth and bring down the curtain on human history as we know it. This is important, it is epic! But why an “epic drama?” One definition for drama is: “an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events.” That is exactly what my book is about; that the seemingly disconnected events described in Revelation’s visions can be arranged into a coherent series, much like a “drama in four acts” (hence the title).
The tag line to the book’s main title: An Approach Revealing the Significance of the Drama,” begs the question as to what makes the drama so significant. For those who face the trials of the great tribulation, knowing the specific sequence of events and how things work out will be absolutely vital; like a map in a war zone indicating where the minefields are and how to avoid them.
The Revelation drama should also have a deep impact on those today who come to understand it. It reveals who the political and religious enemies of God’s servants will be during the time of tribulation, making preparation for that day possible.[ii]
Countless commentaries over the centuries have tried to explain Revelation: Who the rider of the white horse is, the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, the false prophet etc. Of all the commentaries, none—that I know of—have proposed a scenario based solely on the text of Revelation. There are scenarios of the last days based on many different things…except Revelation. It seems that from early times scholars concluded this was a fool’s errand.
Here is where REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts is totally unique and therefore, worth examining. It arranges Revelation’s visions into a coherent series of events based on the text of Revelation. This is possible because Revelation was written with an internal logic; the repetition of expressions, characters and events in similar contexts but different visions.
Scholars have long recognized this phenomenon in Revelation. Leon Morris described it this way: “It seems to be part of the method of our author [John] to repeat his themes…In this way the same ground is traversed, but other perspectives are revealed, and fresh facets of the revelation are brought out.”[iii] The technical term for this is parallelism. Steve Gregg writes: “A certain amount of parallelism is to be observed in Revelation…That is, some portions double back to cover the same ground as was covered in previous sections.”[iv]
What is referred to above as “a certain amount of parallelism,” I find so pervasive as to suggest that the visions were meant…designed…intended…to be arranged into a coherent sequence; like the bread crumbs intentionally dropped leaving a trail for others to follow. As a side note, this level of sophistication seems unique to Revelation. To my knowledge, nothing quite like it exists in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, the genre in which scholars group Revelation.
Parallelism in Revelation was recognized as far back as the mid-Second Century CE. by Victorinus of Petovium, who wrote the earliest extant commentary on Revelation. Regarding two different visions, he noted: “whatever he [John] said rather briefly by way of the trumpets [8:6-9:20 and 11:15-18] he said more completely by way of the bowls [15:7-16:20]”[v] But, if Victorinus recognized parallelism in Revelation, why didn’t he follow through and arrange a coherent sequence of events from its visions?
Surprisingly, Victorinus specifically advised against doing just that: “Nor ought we inquire too much into the order of the Revelation. Rather, we ought inquire after the meaning, for there is also the possibility of a false understanding.”[vi] Aside from the fear of mistakes, something else moved Victorinus to focus on “meaning” rather than on the “the order of the Revelation” (see subheading below).
Frankly, it concerned me that I had never come across a commentary arranging a sequence of events based solely on the text of Revelation. People would ask--professors, pastors, even my wife--if it was really possible that after 1800 years there were no other commentaries like mine, based exclusively on Revelation.
Though I am reasonably well acquainted with the literature on Revelation, I wanted to check my own conclusion. So, I asked Steve Gregg, whose knowledge of the commentaries on Revelation is exhaustive due to research for his own book REVELATION: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (a comparison of different views/methodologies without advocating for any particular one). He replied: “I have never heard an eschatological position based solely on the Book of Revelation.”
I take it for granted that others must have done something along the lines of my book and their writings were lost or never made public. Today, however, there seems to be no other commentary out there dedicated to arranging Revelation’s visions into a storyline that is based solely on Revelation. As can be imagined, I have thought a lot about why this might be so. Here, at very least, is a partial answer.
Finding the Key versus solving the Puzzle. Commentators often speak of finding “the key to understanding Revelation,” as if Revelation were a mystery lying behind a locked door. I think Revelation is more like a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces reveal a picture when fitted together. To my mind, no key is needed since the door lies open—the inspired text is there to be examined—we just have to read it carefully in order to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
REVELATION IS LIKE A PUZZLE--THE PIECES NEED TO BE FIT TOGETHER
For Victorinus, the key was allegory, his chosen methodology of interpretation.[vii] This methodology led him to conclude that Revelation’s visions depict recurring events throughout history rather than a specific sequence of events that would occur during the last days. Once he came to that conclusion, why waste time trying to discern a scenario? His key led him, and those that adopted his methodology, (for the next 1000 years!), to ignore his astute observation regarding parallelism rather than following it to its final conclusion.
A modern example of this can be seen in Bruce Metzger’s explanation of the rider of the white horse in Revelation 6:2: “I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.”
Metzger writes: “The key to the meaning of this lies in the bow. It was the characteristic weapon of the mounted Parthian warriors, to whom also white was a sacred color. Parthia was a formidable neighbor on the eastern border of the Roman Empire. What is suggested here is a Parthian invasion that meets with success.”[viii] Metzger finds the key in the historical context of the First Century. That sounds good, but is it really helpful, or does the explanation actually cause more questions than it answers? How were Christians affected by the ‘successful Parthian invasion?’ When exactly was that, anyway? And…so what?
Professor Metzger isn’t alone, scholars today generally interpret Revelation according to one of four main methodologies. Historicists, in the light of events throughout history; Preterists, in the light of events in the First Century; Spiritualists/Idealists, as the Christian experience that repeats itself in every generation; Futurists—the majority being believers in the rapture—offer literal interpretations of Revelation where Christ returns twice; once before the great tribulation, to rapture the faithful to heaven, and at the end of the tribulation, to destroy the wicked.[ix]
As might be expected, these methodologies result in very different interpretations. Consider how the rider of the white horse in Revelation 6:2 (above) is generally interpreted by adherents of these methodologies (from REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Appendix: Interpreting Revelation: Four Methodologies).
Preterists interpret the white horse and its rider as Vespasian or Titus at the head of the Roman armies before the year 70 CE.
Historicists see the first horseman as representing Roman imperialism from 96-180 CE.
Idealists interpret the first horseman as military conquest in general or Christ and/or the progress of the gospel in the world.
Futurists see the white horse and its rider either as the Antichrist, Christ or the spread of the gospel.
The differences in the above interpretations are so vast that some readers might find it hard to imagine that they are all explaining the same text.[x] Many would agree with Mark Twain: “many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it.”
The first horseman according to Revelation: Aside from the dictates of any methodology, Revelation identifies Jesus—unequivocally, I would say—as the first horseman. Everything associated with the first horseman—the crown, the bow, the color white—is also mentioned in relation to Jesus.
The following table is taken from REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Chapter 6: The Epic Drama in Four Acts. Yellow highlights the color of the horse and cloud. Blue highlights the symbols of authority. Green highlights the war carried out by both Jesus and the first horseman. The sequential element is also unmistakable when the passages are arranged side by side.
Scenarios built on methodology and Bible texts outside Revelation: Believers in the rapture, especially, have constructed detailed scenarios of the last days. Dr. Thomas Ice, for example, explains that the tribulation will be “a future time period of seven years in length that will commence with the signing of a covenant between the nation Israel and the European Antichrist...At the midpoint of the seven years, the Antichrist (also known as the Beast) will defile a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem and set himself up as god, demanding that all the world show allegiance to him by receiving his mark (666) on their right hand or forehead. At this point, the Antichrist will turn against the Jews. Those in Jerusalem will flee to the wilderness, where they will experience divine protection for the second three-and-a-half years. Toward the end of the Tribulation the Antichrist will gather the armies of the world to surround Jerusalem in an effort to destroy the Jews. This will lead to the conversion of all Israel to Jesus as its Messiah…Jesus will hear their plea and return from heaven to earth with His entourage of angels and saints to rescue now-submissive Israel. Upon His return, Jesus will prepare the world for His thousand-year reign on earth from Jerusalem.”[xi]
The above scenario is undeniably specific, but it has nothing to do with the text of Revelation. For example, that the Antichrist is European, will make a covenant with the Jews, and then break it after three and a half years, is based on Daniel 9:27. That the Jews will convert to Christianity, is based on the methodology of Dispensationalism.
Methodology, historical context, texts from other parts of the Bible…everyone seems to be seeking a key outside of Revelation as the ultimate source for their interpretations rather than trying to figure out how the pieces of the Revelation puzzle fit together.
To clarify, I truly appreciate the valuable contributions scholars have made to Biblical understanding. As regards Revelation, however, I believe they have relied too heavily on methodologies rather than looking at Revelation itself to understand Revelation. This is a little strange when you stop to think of it.
Passages revealing the drama’s timeline: The following table refers to the beast, the archenemy of the saints (from REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Chapter 7: Time Factors in Revelation). Three passages are compared: Yellow highlights details regarding the beast, blue refers to the beast’s violent treatment of the two witnesses/saints, green refers to the timing of the beast’s recovery from a death blow and grey to how people admire and worship the beast.
Seeing these passages side by side helps to appreciate that, though nearly parallel, the passages are actually consecutive. In the first column the beast will come up out of the Abyss. In the second, the beast is coming out of the sea/Abyss after its “fatal wound had been healed.” In 11:7 and 13:7 the beast is set to kill the two witnesses/saints. The repetition of details makes it possible for the alert reader to determine whether the passages are parallel, or as above, consecutive. This is exciting!
Earthquakes and other phenomena in Revelation serve as transition markers, much like notebook dividers. Most commentators overlook this and miss important clues to understanding the sequence of events in Revelation. George Eldon Ladd’s comment on 11:19 represents the majority view: “The flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, earthquake, and heavy hail are conventional ways of expressing majesty and power attending the manifestation of the divine presence.”[xii] Though Ladd sees only expressions of divine majesty and power in these descriptions, something much more interesting, and meaningful, is at work here.
The following tables illustrate the point. The near identical passages in the first table indicate they are parallel accounts, describing the same event. Notice five similarities: flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. (From REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Chapter 7: Time Factors in Revelation).
In contrast to the above, the passages in the following table describe catastrophes that obviously occur at different junctures in the Revelation drama. Notice the contrast in: 1.) The reaction of the people—grey 2.) The magnitude of the earthquake—blue 3.) What happens to the islands and mountains—green.
When the clues in Revelation are followed conscientiously, it is possible to arrange the events into a sequence revealing the story the book itself is telling. As it turns out, it is much like a drama in four acts.
If the drama were a theatrical presentation, the program could conceivably look like this (from Revelation—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Chapter 6, The Epic Drama in Four Acts):
Like so many dramas, this one has an epilogue: Human society is set to flourish under the rule of Christ with the prospect that people of every nation will be able to worship God undisturbed in a world of peace. Revelation 21:1-5 “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth…4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away… 5 "I am making everything new!"
When the Revelation narrative is pieced together, it clearly is an epic drama, with all the elements of an epic drama: monstrous villains plotting to take over the world, courageous heroes that risk it all for their ideals, and a final battle where ‘the good guys’ win and change human history forever.
Revelation is certainly not alone in the genre of epic dramas; there are a lot of good stories out there. But, the one aspect this epic drama does not share with the others is that this one will actually will happen! That is why there is a promise of happiness for those that read and take to heart the Revelation…and that is why I wrote the book.
=================================================================================
[i] Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture – New Testament XII – Revelation, p. xvii.
[ii] Two sections of the book are dedicated to the drama: Part 1 is a mini-drama illustrating how the Revelation scenario could look in the real world and Part 2 presents the biblical reasons for arriving at the series of events described in Part 1. Part 3 is an in-depth study of the questionable validity of the pretribulation rapture doctrine because it so distorts the Revelation narrative.
[iii] The Revelation of St. John, p. 41 and 93.
[iv] Revelation-Four Views-A Parallel Commentary, pp. 19.
[v] Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture – New Testament XII – Revelation, p. 121.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid., p. xxii. Early Biblical Interpretation, p. 179. The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 1, p. 419. A methodology is ‘a system of principles of interpretation.’ The allegorical method of interpretation is ‘an interpretive method that assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense as opposed to the literal sense.’
[viii] Breaking the Code—Understanding the Book of Revelation, p. 58. Metzger is a well known expert on the text of the New Testament who has taught many years at Princeton Theological Seminary.
[ix] See, REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts, Appendix: Interpreting Revelation: Four Methodologies.
[x] Revelation-Four Views-A Parallel Commentary, pp. 103-105
[xi] The Great Tribulation – Past or Future? pp. 69, 70.
[xii] A Commentary on the Revelation of John, p. 164.