Ii. The Revelation Of St John And Apocalyptic
II. THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN AND APOCALYPTIC
The Revelation is commonly regarded as an example of apocalyptic. This is the name given by modern scholars to a class of literature which flourished during the last two centuries BC and the first century AD. It is not easy to define with precision, as the apocalypses varied widely and they shade off into other types of literature. But normally an apocalypse purports to be a revelation made by some celestial personage (like an angel) to a great figure of the past (such as Abraham or Moses or Ezra). The message is usually expressed in vivid symbolism, sometimes of a bizarre kind. It appears in difficult times and conveys the author’s profound conviction that the troubles in which his readers find themselves are not the last word. God in his own good time will intervene catastrophically and destroy evil. Not infrequently this deliverance is associated with God’s Messiah who would inaugurate God’s kingdom. The apocalyptists were usually pessimistic about the present world. They despaired of man’s efforts ever overcoming evil, and they looked to God to bring the victory. Perhaps it is this stress on the divine that accounts for the small attention they give to ethical teaching. They see evil as overcome, not by better living, but by God’s mighty intervention. Apocalypses abound in history rewritten as prophecy in the mouth of some great figure of the past. Such ‘prophecies’ are, of course, precise enough up until the writer’s own day, but vague thereafter (which affords scholars evidence of the dates of such writings).
There are good reasons for classing Revelation with apocalyptic. Thus it abounds in symbolism of a typically apocalyptic character, symbolism whch is quite difficult to interpret. Again, it is like the apocalypses in its expectation of the setting up of God’s kingdom, and its looking for a new heaven and a new earth. So too we notice its mention of angels, or revelations made through heavenly beings. But this book also has some marked differences from typical apocalyptic which we should not overlook. The principal points are as follows:
1. The writer repeatedly calls his book a prophecy (1:3; 22:7,10,18-19). Apocalyptic is usually distinguished from prophecy, but this writer claims to be in the prophetic tradition.15 In line with this his visions convey the word of God (1:2).16
2. The typical prophetic insistence on moral considerations is to be found throughout the book. Typical is the series of warnings to the churches and the demand for repentance in the Seven Letters (2:5,16,21-22; 3:3,19).
3. Apocalypses are pseudonymous, written in the name of some illustrious predecessor. This writer gives his own name (1:4).17
4. The pessimism of the apocalyptists does not seem to be found here. This age is not seen as hopelessly dominated by evil, though the writer does look for an outbreak of Satanic activity at the last time. But he sees history as the place wherein God has wrought out redemption. And though evil is depicted realistically the book is fundamentally optimistic.
5. The apocalyptists characteristically retrace history in the guise of prophecy. From the standpoint of someone in the remote past they forecast what will happen up to their own day. There is no trace of this in Revelation. Rather, in the manner of the true prophet, John takes his stand in his own days and looks resolutely to the future.
6. G. E. Ladd maintains that this book ’embodies the prophetic tension between history and eschatology. The beast is Rome and at the same time an eschatological antichrist which cannot be fully equated with historical Rome. While the churches of Asia were facing persecution, there is no known persecution in the first century A.D. which fits that portrayed in the Apocalypse. The shadow of historical Rome is so outlined against the darker shadow of the eschatological antichrist that it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the two. History is eschatologically interpreted; evil at the hands of Rome is realized eschatology.’18
7. The apocalypses normally contain curious visions whose meaning is not clear until they are explained usually by an angelic personage. Often the whole apocalypse. depends on the contribution made by the heavenly guide. It is not unusual to have God himself pictured as contributing to the apocalyptic message. In Revelation this kind of explanation appears occasionally (an angel explains the mystery of the scarlet woman and the beast on which she rides, 17:ff.). But the general practice is simply to narrate the vision and to allow the reader to work out the meaning.
8. In general it is the case that apocalyptists look forward to the coming of God’s Messiah. He would introduce a new thing into human history. But for John the new thing has already appeared. He writes of a Messiah who will come indeed, but who has also already come and won the decisive victory. In his unforgettable picture of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world he sets forth the truth that the Messiah has already come and has paradoxically won his triumph through crucifixion. He bears the marks of his suffering, but is King of kings and Lord of lords.