Revelation Bible Study

Introduction 1

1. Sources
a. My own notes based on the video series Revelation by Steve Gregg, author of
Four Views of Revelation

2. The Need for an Introduction

a. When studying any book of the Bible, we need to study it in the context in which it
was written. This is true of Revelation.
i. Who wrote it? When? Why? Who were they writing to? What were the
circumstances of its writing?
ii. Some books present a clear context / background, but the book of Revelation
is more difficult
b. The Need to Deeply Study Revelation
i. Most people in our modern world only know one way of understanding
Revelation, the way made popular by the best-known authors
1. Modern view: Revelation is a book about the future, the end of the
world, a 7-year tribulation, the Antichrist, Jesus second coming, etc.
2. Problem with this: its not held by everyone, it hasnt been the longestheld view of Revelation, there are other ways to understand the book
ii. Four Views of Revelation
1. Futurist The events in Revelation are written to describe things that
will happen in the future.
2. Historicist Revelation is a map of sorts that explains the whole history
of Gods dealings with mankind.
3. Spiritualist Events in Revelation show us the continuing spiritual war
in the Christian life, everything is an allegory for the reality of the
spiritual realm.
4. Preterist Everything in Revelation has happened already, in the past,
and the book was written to communicate these events (namely the
fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD) to its original audience.
iii. Depending on how you view Revelation, itll change your understanding of
the book and its message entirely.
c. Paradoxical Nature of Revelation
i. Its the most difficult book to understand, and most honest Believers would
agree with this statement
ii. Its a very blessed book to study, full of faith-building material thats unique
to its pages.

3. Difficulties of Studying the Book of Revelation

a. Who is the author?
i. John, but which John?
1. Earliest Christians (until 200s AD) all believed it was the Apostle John,
but the author never claims that title himself. This is weird, because

b.

c.

d.

e.

Peter and Paul always referred to themselves as apostle, so why

wouldnt John?
2. Others have said it was another John
3. Scholars arent in agreement
ii. Why is this important?
1. The original Apostles spoke for Jesus, so if its written by John the
Apostle, were not allowed to disagree with it.
2. But if its written by a different John, maybe it shouldnt be included in
the Bible.
Should it be included in the Canon?
i. Revelation was the last book to be accepted in the New Testament canon
(396 AD)
ii. Some churches accepted it very early, but others did not
iii. If you had been born in 350 AD, the New Testament you would have had as a
child wouldnt have had Revelation in it.
When was it written?
i. Revelations date of writing is very important
1. For some books (Ephesians, Romans), the date the book was written
isnt so important
2. For Revelation, the date of writing determines everything
a. The Preterist view hinges on the date of its writing
b. Preterists say the book was written before 70 AD and predicts
the destruction of Jerusalem in that year. If the book was written
after 70 AD
i. It cant possibly be about the fall of Jerusalem and the
Preterist view is wrong
ii. Or its a forgery (someone claiming to write a prophecy
about the fall of Jerusalem, but he actually wrote after it
happened) and should not be in the Bible
c. The Preterist view is very convincing, but only if the date is not
after 70 AD
ii. Most scholars believe Revelation was written after 70 AD
1. Most common date given is 96 AD
2. If this is true, the book is not about the fall of Jerusalem and the
Preterists are wrong
iii. That being said, many other scholars believe it was written during the
persecutions of Neros reign, before 68 AD, in which case perhaps the
Preterist view is the correct one after all.
What was the historical setting?
i. If we dont know the date, we cant know what events are being referred to
ii. Which persecution is being discussed? Neros? Domnitians? Another time?
iii. Was it localized or an empire-wide persecution?
iv. Scholars dont agree on the setting
How is this book related to Johns other books?
i. We believe John wrote 5 books (Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and
Revelation)
1. Some scholars say that whoever wrote Revelation couldnt be the same
person who wrote the Gospel of John and 1-3 John
ii. Gospel + 1-3 John are the best Greek in the New Testament but Revelation
is the worst
1. Revelation is almost the most unintelligible document we have from
antiquity

2. Revelation is poorly written, with bad grammar, incomplete sentences,

and difficult-to-read portions
3. Whoever wrote Revelation doesnt understand the Greek language
very well, but whoever wrote Gospel + 1-3 John knows Greek very well

4. The Blessings of Studying the Book of Revelation

a. Its the only book in the Bible that invokes a blessing for those who read the book
(ch. 1:3)
b. Its the only prophetic book of the New Testament
i. 1 Corinthians 14:3 Paul says prophecy is to edify, exhort, and comfort, and
Revelation should be as much for us
c. Its the only book in the Bible that shows us what real, holy, perfect worship in
Heaven is actually like
d. It has the most exalted view of Christ of any other book
i. Paul states that Jesus is God a few times
ii. Peter says so 1 time
iii. John does it constantly, especially here in Revelation
e. Its the only apocalyptic book in the Bible
i. Original name: Apocalypse of Jesus Christ
1. Apokalupsis = unveiling
a. Apo = away from
b. Kalupto = covering
2. Something secret and unknown about Jesus is being made known
through this book
3. The Unveiling / Revealing / Uncovering of Jesus Christ
f. Its in 3 literary genres while most other books are in just 1 or maybe 2

5. In Which Genres is the Book of Revelation?

a. Epistle a writing addressed to someone, a personal letter
i. Most of New Testament books are epistles addressed to specific people ( just
not Matthew, Mark, and John)
ii. Revelation is just like other epistles:
1. It opens just like most epistles
a. Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches in Asia
b. John names the author and the audience in the beginning
2. It has a specific audience with specific issues
a. Jesus gives specific commands to those 7 churches of Asia (the
Roman province in modern Turkey)
3. It closes in the same way as most of Pauls epistles
a. Revelation 22:21 the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you
all. Amen.
4. To understand the book, you treat it like an epistle
a. The audience of every epistle is very different from us as
modern readers, but the more we understand them and their
situation, the better we can apply the specific truths they
received in our lives
iii. Reading an epistle is like reading someone elses mail
1. The better you understand the author and the audience and their
specific relationship and situation, the better you can understand an
epistle

2. There are a lot of unknowns in the epistles, knowledge that is shared

between the author and the audience but that we dont know about, so
we always have an incomplete picture with epistles, which makes
interpretation sometimes difficult
a. Philippians 4:2 Paul asks Euodia and Syntyche to agree. We
dont know who these people are or what their issue was, only
that Paul wanted them to agree.
b. What did Paul mean when he talked about head coverings to the
Corinthians?
c. What did Paul mean when he told Timothy women should not
speak at church?
3. Epistles were written in particular to a specific audience, not to us, so
some of the things in the epistles dont apply to us directly.
a. Paul told Timothy to bring his cloak, books, and papers before
winter (2 Timothy 4:13, 21). Does this mean we should bring
clothing, books, and papers to Rome before winter? Of course
not. Its a specific request to Timothy, not to us.
iv. We find in epistles universal theology and ethics that are applied in specific
situations with specific people though we are not the original audience, we
benefit
1. Universal teachings can be applied to every situation (Romans 1 and
the downward spiral of sin)
2. We often have similar situations in our lives (Timothy appointing
elders, the Thessalonians needing to work, etc.)
3. The specific situations show the heart of God that we can apply in our
different situations (the Corinthians needed better church order)
v. How to read Revelation as an epistle
1. We need to understand that it was written to a specific audience
dealing with specific issues, and though we cant directly apply
everything we read, the more we know about the audience and their
situation, the more we can apply the truths they received to our lives.
2. We act as if Revelation was written directly to us, in the 21 st century,
but it wasnt
a. Its written to 7 specific churches in Asia during the 1 st century
b. At least 6 times, John says these things will happen soon, the
time is near, its about to take place, etc.
3. Receive the transferrable truths, not the specific, non-transferrable
truths
a. Things that are universal and apply to every situation
b. Things that are applied when we find ourselves in similar
situations
c. Things that reveal the heart of God and can be applied to our
different situation
b. Prophecy a writing that is meant to edify, exhort, and comfort its readers
i. Revelation 1:3 were blessed if we read and hear the prophecy in Revelation
ii. Content of prophecy
1. Proclaiming Gods message to the original hearers This is what God
wants you to know. This is what youre doing wrong.
a. Revelation is full of this (especially Revelation 1-3)
b. Most Old Testament prophecy is this type (Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Hoseah, Habakkuk, etc.)
2. Predicting the future This is what is going to happen.

a. This is the main use of prophecy in Revelation, though only a

small part of Old Testament prophetic books
iii. How to read Revelation as prophecy
1. Prophecy is meant to edify, exhort, and comfort us, and so any
interpretation of Revelation should be the same
c. Apocalypse a writing that describes earthly events using fanciful, larger-than-life
symbols and images
i. Apocalyptic literature
1. Popular style of writing among Jews and Christians from 200 BC 100
AD
a. Apocalyptic writing was not as strange to its original audience as
it is to us, because they all were reading it and understood it
2. Named apocalyptic because they resemble Revelation, but they
mostly were written before Revelation but discovered after (majority in
the 1940s in Egypt)
3. Apocalyptic writings were the ancient equivalent of pop music
4. Many early Christian books excluded from the Canon were apocalyptic
works (Apocalypse of Abraham, Apocalypse of Adam, Apocalypse of
Moses, Apocalypse of Lamech)
5. Other than the book of Revelation, these apocalyptic writings are not
included in the Bible, though Daniel and Zechariah have apocalyptic
sections.
6. When John wrote Revelation, he was writing in the most popular style
of his day, using a form of writing that everyone liked and understood
ii. Characteristics of apocalyptic literature
1. Writing about earthly, natural events using fanciful symbols like
dragons, giants, wars in the sky, etc.
2. Its a work of fiction that explains a message the writer wants to give,
not a true story
3. Generally, an angel appears to the author, guides him, and interprets
the things for him
4. Apocalyptic literature is difficult to interpret because you need to find
what the symbols represent
5. Authors of apocalyptic literature claimed to be someone famous and
important from Jewish or Christian history - The Testimony of the 12
Patriarchs, the book of Enoch, the book of Baruch (Jeremiahs scribe)
a. Claiming to be someone important lent credibility to their writing
iii. An example Esther and the apocalyptic additions
1. We have one very easy-to-interpret apocalyptic writing additions to
the book of Esther that re-interpret the book in apocalyptic language.
a. These additions are included in both the Catholic and Orthodox
Bible as the Apocrypha, but not in Protestant Bibles.
2. Hundreds of years after Esther was written, a writer claimed to be
Mordecai and wrote a prologue and epilogue to Esther.
a. In the prologue, he claims he had a dream, and in that dream,
he saw certain fantastic images, battles, dragons, etc.
b. In the epilogue, after the events of Esther happen, the writer
realizes that his dream was foretelling the events that
happened.
3. These writings sound much like Revelation
a. Additions before Esther 1 [5] Behold a noise of a tumult, with
thunder, and earthquakes, and uproar in the land: [6] And,

behold, two great dragons came forth ready to fight, and their
cry was great. [7] And at their cry all nations were prepared to
battle, that they might fight against the righteous people. [8]
And lo a day of darkness and obscurity, tribulation and anguish,
affliction and great uproar, upon earth. [9] And the whole
righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own evils, and were
ready to perish. [10] Then they cried unto God, and upon their
cry, as it were from a little fountain, was made a great flood,
even much water. [11] The light and the sun rose up, and the
lowly were exalted, and devoured the glorious. [12] Now when
Mardocheus, who had seen this dream, and what God had
determined to do, was awake, he bare this dream in mind, and
until night by all means was desirous
i. Here the writer claims to have a dream about very
dramatic events with dragons and wars, tribulation and
anguish
b. Additions to Esther 10 - [1] Then Mardocheus said, God hath
done these things. [2] For I remember a dream which I saw
concerning these matters, and nothing thereof hath failed. [3] A
little fountain became a river, and there was light, and the sun,
and much water: this river is Esther, whom the king married, and
made queen: [4] And the two dragons are I and Aman. [5] And
the nations were those that were assembled to destroy the
name of the Jews: [6] And my nation is this Israel, which cried to
God, and were saved: for the Lord hath saved his people, and
the Lord hath delivered us from all those evils, and God hath
wrought signs and great wonders, which have not been done
among the Gentiles.
i. Here the writer realizes that the dream represents what
has taken place with Esther and Haman and the threat on
the life of the Jews
4. Why is this important?
a. The apocalyptic version of the story was with fanciful images of
dragons, wars, etc. but the real story involves a woman saving
her people from persecution.
b. This shows us that apocalyptic literature is not, in fact, about
what the writer writes about apocalyptic writers use grand
symbols to represent more natural things.
iv. How is Revelation similar to apocalyptic literature?
1. Other than the fact that Johns writing is true and really from God, its
exactly the same as other apocalyptic writings.
v. How is Revelation different from apocalyptic literature?
1. John isnt writing fiction an angel really did come to him and reveal
these things to him.
2. Revelation is the only apocalyptic writing we have that claims to be the
prophetic word of God. John isnt sharing his own message but a
prophetic message God gave him, using an apocalyptic style of writing.
3. All other apocalyptic writers lie about who wrote them, claiming to be
someone famous from Christian or Jewish history, but Revelation
seems genuine in its claims of authorship

a. If the writer is John the Apostle, hes not lying. Hes stating the
truth. And the fact that he doesnt claim to be someone even
more famous from Israels past (King David or Isaiah or Jesus
father Joseph), like all other apocalyptic writers did, is good
evidence that hes telling the truth. If he wanted to lie, he would
have claimed to be someone more famous.
b. If the writer isnt John (the Apostle or otherwise), why did he just
say John? Itd be a more convincing lie for him to write, John
the Apostle, son of thunder, son of Zebedee, the one who leaned
on Jesus breast, the disciple Jesus loved, to gain more authority
as an Apostle and not just a man named John.
c. All he says is I, John, showing us hes familiar to his readers
and thats probably his real name, so he doesnt need to add
embellishments and titles. Theres no need to convince anyone
to read his writing. They already know who he is and he trusts
theyll read it.
4. Others dont call the people of God to repent but just encourage the
reader that God is on their side, the enemy is defeated, and we win
but Revelation is constantly calling on the people of God to repent.
vi. How to read Revelation as apocalyptic literature
1. We understand that the fanciful, grand images are not reality but a
symbol for something much more mundane
a. Jesus = lamb with seven eyes and seven horns
b. Devil = dragon
2. We dont take it as an exact literal record of events but understand it
as a metaphor for something in the real world

6. The Author
a. Knowing who wrote it is important
i. If John the Apostle wrote it, the words are as good as Jesus words, because
the Apostles had a delegated authority from Him.
ii. If its some other John, well maybe its not authoritative and shouldnt be in
the Bible (like the Gnostic Gospels, which werent written by the Apostles or
their close associates)
iii. If its not John, then the writer is lying, and if hes lying about his name, how
can we trust him about anything else he says? This is why no other
apocalyptic writings are in the Bible, because they all lied about who wrote
them.
b. The author calls himself simply John 5 times
i. There was certainly more than one Christian named John in the 1 st century
1. Peter the Apostles fathers name was John (Jonah), the apostle John,
an elder at the church of Ephesus known as John
ii. John the elder at Ephesus
1. Eusebius (260-340 AD) quoted Papias (wrote 6 books at end of 1 st
century, an associate with those who knew the apostles) For I have
never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell many things but
those that teach the truth, but if I met with anyone who had been a
follower of the elders anyway, I made it a point to inquire, What were
the declarations of the elders? What was said by Andrew, Peter, or

Philip? Or what Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the

disciples of Our Lord had said? What was said by Aristion and the
presbyter John, disciples of the Lord?
2. There are 2 Christian tombs at Ephesus that have the name John on
them. Its believed that one is of John the Apostle and the other from
this elder
c. Did someone other than John the Apostle write Revelation?
i. No good reason to say this, except for difficulties of the Greek language
1. Gospel + 1-3 John are all very good Greek, but Revelation is very bad
Greek
2. JH Molten Its grammar is perpetually stumbling, its idiom is that of a
foreign language, as if its author didnt speak Greek as a native
language. Its whole style is that of a writer who neither knows nor
cares for literary form.
3. Earl Rademacher The book of Revelation is the most uncultured
literary production that has come down to us from antiquity.
ii. Since the 3rd century, some people have denied that the Apostle John wrote
Revelation
1. Most denied it could be John the Apostle due to the difference in
writing style
2. Eusebius believed Cerinthus, a Gnostic writer, wrote it, because he
thought it taught a future Millennial Reign of Christ, which he and the
early Christians universally rejected as a heresy developed by Gnostics
iii. Is the difference in language really a problem?
1. We know John was an uneducated man (Acts 4:13), who probably
didnt write Greek very well. He likely normally wrote Greek similar to
an uneducated foreigner, like we see in Revelation
2. Why are Gospel + 1-3 John so much better-written?
a. Revelation was written by John himself on the island of Patmos,
while his other writings were dictated by him and written by an
educated editor (amanuensis).
i. Most New Testament books were written with an
amanuensis (Silvanus was Peters amanuensis (1 Peter
5:12), Tertius helped Paul write Romans (Romans 16:22))
ii. In Ephesus, where John wrote Gospel + 1-3 John, he would
have had access to any number of amanuensis to help
him write better
iii. We dont know if John used an amanuensis to write Gospel
+ 1-3 John, but its a possibility
iv. We know he didnt use one to write Patmos, because he
was alone on the island
b. Revelation was written by John when he was in an excited,
unusual state of mind, trying to understand all the crazy visions,
so he wrote much more poorly than when he was in Ephesus
thinking normally and writing clearly
d. Strong arguments that John the Apostle wrote Gospel + 1-3 John and Revelation
i. The author calls himself simply John.
1. John the Apostle was the most famous John of that era, so if he wasnt
John the Apostle, you would expect him to clarify his name and call
himself, John the presbyter or John, not the famous one.

2. Why didnt he call himself John the Apostle, like the other apostles
made clear that they were apostles? Because he didnt need to clarify.
Hes the last of the apostles. Everybody knows hes an apostle, and
everyone knows who he is, so theres no need for him to clarify that
hes an apostle. His audience knows already.
3. All the church fathers until the 3rd century believed it was John the
Apostle for these reasons
ii. Certain ideas are unique to Revelation and Gospel + 1-3 John
1. Only John uses logos (the word) as a title for Jesus (John 1:1, 1 John
1, Revelation 19:13).
2. Only John refers to Jesus as the lamb (27 times in Revelation, 2 times
in John 1)
3. In John 7:37-38 and Revelation 22:17, Jesus invites the thirsty to drink
living water. Nowhere else does this appear in the Bible.
4. Only John speaks again and again of Jesus and the disciples
overcoming, in all his books (John 16:33, 1 John 2:14, 1 John 5, the
churches in Revelation, Revelation 5:6, Revelation 12:11)
5. John uses the word lanthano (true) more than any other Bible writer (9
times in John, 4 times in 1 John, 10 times in Revelation and only 5
times elsewhere in the New Testament)
6. The Greek phrase ek tereo (to keep from, to keep out of) appears only
twice in the Bible, both times in Johns books (John 17:15 and
Revelation 3:10)
7. Only John talks specifically about Satan being cast out of Heaven (John
12:31 and Revelation 12:9-10)
8. Both John and Revelation quote, but not exactly, Zechariah 12:10 (John
19:37 and Revelation 1:7)