Authorship.

Many scholars attribute the Fourth Gospel and Revelation to a

common circle (for circles of literary production around an author, see the introduction
to 1 John). Nevertheless, scholars also comonly argue that different authors
wrote them; many do not even entertain the possibility that both were written
by the same person. The style of Revelation is quite different from that of the
Fourth Gospel, so some scholars as early as several centuries after their writing
denied that they could have been written by the same author. Nevertheless, their
connection should not be dismissed. Most of early *church tradition attributes
both documents to John the *apostle; the argument that Revelation was written by
him is certainly strong (see comment on 1:1; for the Fourth Gospel’s authorship,
see the introduction to John).
A close examination of the works indicates that much of the vocabulary is the
same, though used in different ways; theological communities and schools (see the
introduction to 1 John) usually share perspectives more than vocabulary, whereas
authors may adapt their style to the *genre in which and the situation for which
they write. If one accepts common authorship, one can account for most of the
stylistic variations on the basis of the different genres of the two works: Gospel and
*apocalypse (Revelation’s style borrows heavily from Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah,
etc.). That a single community could produce and embrace both a Gospel (even
one emphasizing the present experience of future glory) and an apocalypse is not
difficult to believe; the *Dead Sea Scrolls contain similarly diverse documents. That
a single writer could embrace multiple genres is no less possible (compare, e.g.,
*Plutarch’s Lives and his Moralia or *Tacitus’s Histories and Dialogues, though their
differences in genre and style are less pronounced than those between the Fourth
Gospel and Revelation).
Date. Some scholars have dated Revelation in the late 60s, shortly after Nero’s
death, as several emperors in a row quickly met violent deaths (cf. 17:10). In the
book of Revelation, however, the emperor’s power seems to be stable, and this situation
does not fit the 60s. Similarly, the imperial cult in the Roman province of Asia

(western Turkey) directly threatens some of John’s circle of churches; this situation
fits the period of the 90s better. The church also seems to be entrenched (and sometimes
prosperous) in the major cities of Asia; thus a date in Domitian’s reign in the
90s of the first century, reported in early church tradition and still preferred by most
scholars, seems more likely.
Genre. Revelation mixes elements of *Old Testament *prophecy with a heavy
dose of the apocalyptic genre, a style of writing that grew out of elements of Old
Testament prophecy. Although nearly all its images have parallels in the biblical
prophets, the images most relevant to late-first-century readers, which were prominent
in popular Jewish revelations about the end time, are stressed most heavily.
Chapters 2–3 are “oracular letters,” a kind of letter occurring especially in the Old
Testament (e.g., Jer 29:1-23, 29-32) but also attested on some Greek pottery fragments.
Although the literary structure of such documents may have been added later, many
scholars argue that many Jewish mystics and other ancient mantics believed that they
were having visionary or trance experiences. Like the Old Testament prophets he most
resembles, John may have experienced real visions and need not use them only as a
literary device. (The apocalypses are usually pseudonymous, thus it is difficult to be
certain to what extent they reflect religious experience. But other accounts of Jewish
mystics seeking to invade heaven in visionary ascents—see comment on 2 Cor 12:1-4—
and anthropologists’ reports on the commonness of ecstatic trance states in a variety
of cultures around the world today allow that many such experiences were genuine.
Early Christians generally accepted the reality of pagan inspiration as a phenomenon
but attributed it to the demonic realm, while viewing their own inspiration as continuous
with that of the Old Testament prophets. They held that there are many spirits
in the world, but not all of them are good—1 Jn 4:1-6.)
Structure. After the introduction (chaps. 1–3), the book is dominated by three
series of judgments (seals, trumpets, bowls), probably concurrent (they all culminate
in the end of the age), and snapshots of worship in heaven (chaps. 4–16),
then oracles against Rome (chaps. 17–18) and prophecies of the end (chaps. 19–22).
The judgments may cover the (probably symbolic, but possibly deferred) period of
1,260 days to which the book repeatedly alludes (see especially comment on 12:6—if
symbolic, this period might span history between Christ’s first and second comings).
The book is in logical rather than chronological sequence; John may report the visions
in the sequence in which he has them, but every time he notes “And I saw/
heard,” he is receiving a new image. The new image, while connected with what
preceded, need not always report an event that follows it chronologically.
Interpretations. There are several major categories of interpretation of this
book: (1) Revelation predicts in detail the course of human history till the Second
Coming, (2) Revelation reflects the general principles of history, (3) Revelation addresses
only what was happening in John’s day, (4) Revelation addresses only the

end time and (5) combinations of the above approaches (e.g., John addresses the
principles of history in view of the ever-impending end time until it arrives, and
originally articulated these principles to speak to the situation of his late-firstcentury
readers).
Many interpreters of John’s day (especially interpreters in the Dead Sea Scrolls)
reread Old Testament prophecies as symbols describing the interpreters’ own generation,
and the book of Revelation has similarly been reinterpreted by modern
prophecy teachers in every decade of the past century. (For a sober rehearsal of the
continual modification of prophecy teachers’ predictions with each new series of
events in the past century, see Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! [Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1977]; for a longer historical perspective, see Richard Kyle, The Last
Days Are Here Again [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998]; Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial
Maze [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992], pp. 37-63.)
Some prophecy teachers have interpreted and reinterpreted Revelation according
to the whims of changing news headlines; thus “kings of the East” (16:12)
went from being the Ottoman Empire to imperial Japan to Communist China to
Iraq, depending on the political needs of the Western interpreters. But John’s images
would have meant something in particular to their first readers, and this commentary
therefore investigates that sense, following the same procedure for interpretation
that it follows elsewhere in the *New Testament. Thus it directly addresses
the third category of interpretation mentioned above, although this data can be
combined with the second category (as it often is for preaching) and, in a sense that
becomes clear in the course of the commentary, the fourth (and thus fifth) category.
Method of Interpretation. John wrote in Greek and used Old Testament, Jewish
and sometimes Greco-Roman figures of speech and images; he explicitly claims that
he writes to first-century churches in Asia Minor (1:4, 11), as explicitly as Paul writes
to first-century churches. Whatever else his words may indicate, therefore, they
must have been intelligible to his first-century audience (see comment on 1:3; 22:10).
Ancient hearers had no access to modern newspapers, the basis for some popular
methods of interpretation; but subsequent generations have been able to examine
the Old Testament and first-century history while studying the book. Historical
perspective therefore makes the book available to all generations.
This perspective does not deny Revelation’s relevance for readers today; to the
contrary, it affirms that its message is relevant to every generation, although it uses
the symbolism familiar to the generation of its first readers. (Thus, for example,
future opponents of the church might be envisioned through the image of a new
Nero, a figure more relevant to the original readers than to modern ones. But Christians
oppressed in all times can take both warning—that such figures exist—and
encouragement—that their end is prophesied—from this image, once they understand
it.) By examing the original point of the symbols, this commentary provides