The purpose of this study is to determine if the Book of Revelation should be considered prophecy or apocalyptic literature. Although apocalyptical is a type of prophecy, not all prophecy is apocalyptical (Apl). What’s the difference you may ask? Here’s what I have learned. While the word “revelation” is derived from the same root word as “apocalypse” it should not be automatically assumed they have the same meaning.
A prophecy is literal, specific and gives details.
Apl is general and uses vague symbolism to get its point across.
A prophecy is usually given by a named prophet or representative of God.
Apl authors generally use psuedonyms to give themselves more authenticity.
A prophecy has a specific audience.
Apl is written to a general, non-specific audience.
Generally, a prophecy is a call for sinners to repent.
Generally, an Apl message gives saints hope.
A prophecy is direct communication from God or an assigned messenger.
Apl is usually derived from visions and/or dreams.
In the NT, prophecy is for a church based audience.
Generally, Apl is strictly for a Jewish based audience. Although, Revelation does have specifics of what will happen to some Israelites and Jerusalem as part of the collective whole, being directed to the seven churches puts it in the church-based audience category.
The book of Daniel can be considered apocalyptical because of how Daniel received his prophecy. In Daniel, the words vision (s) are used 31 times. The words dream (s) (ed) are used 29 times.
Comparatively the book of Revelation has 0 mention of anything associated w/ the word “dream” and the word “vision” is only used once (Rev. 9:17).
Consider this, (from sharperiron.org) If Revelation is in the apocalyptic category, then we shouldn’t expect it to be understood literally at all. The apocalyptic category would support the preterist interpretation, the historicist interpretation, the idealist interpretation (a non-literal view that the book doesn’t predict actual events at all, but rather symbolizes the epic struggle between good and evil), and the eclectic interpretation (a hybrid approach, popularized by George Ladd, this view combines the preterist and futurist interpretation).
On the other hand, the futurist model (a literal interpretation in which the events described in the book, beyond chapters 1-5, are still yet in the future) is supported by the simple category classification of the book as prophecy. The futuristic interpretive model is the only one of the five models that stems from the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and is initially derived from the simple past-present-future commission of John in Revelation 1:19: “Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.
The book of Revelation defines itself as prophecy in Rev. 1:3, 22:7, 10 and 18-19. By the use of the phrase “Come up hither” in Rev. 4:1 it removes Revelation from the dream/vision category and puts it more of an out-of-body, and in the spirit category (Rev. 1:10) where he is actually being shown future events and describing them as best as he can. This reality should remove it from being considered apocalyptic. It has a specific audience (the seven churches), the author is Jesus Christ and John is only recording what he is told and shown by Christ or his authorized messengers. The message is basically for sinners, showing them what they will face if they do not repent, with the revealing of a more pleasant future for the church and parts of Israel at the end of the prophecy.
I’ll admit that if you research this on the internet you will find way more sites putting Revelation in the apocalyptical, than as prophecy. However, just because an idea is popular with the majority doesn’t mean it’s the correct viewpoint. After all, reading Revelation as apocalyptical is in my opinion, another form of escapism similar to the pretrib viewpoint. Why?, because the apocalyptical interpretation means that none of the horrible stuff in Revelation is true and are just symbols used to deliver a warning. For some people, the reality is just too horrible for them even to consider the possibility of it being real, but then the folks in Noah’s day thought so too.
A prophecy is literal, specific and gives details.
Apl is general and uses vague symbolism to get its point across.
A prophecy is usually given by a named prophet or representative of God.
Apl authors generally use psuedonyms to give themselves more authenticity.
A prophecy has a specific audience.
Apl is written to a general, non-specific audience.
Generally, a prophecy is a call for sinners to repent.
Generally, an Apl message gives saints hope.
A prophecy is direct communication from God or an assigned messenger.
Apl is usually derived from visions and/or dreams.
In the NT, prophecy is for a church based audience.
Generally, Apl is strictly for a Jewish based audience. Although, Revelation does have specifics of what will happen to some Israelites and Jerusalem as part of the collective whole, being directed to the seven churches puts it in the church-based audience category.
The book of Daniel can be considered apocalyptical because of how Daniel received his prophecy. In Daniel, the words vision (s) are used 31 times. The words dream (s) (ed) are used 29 times.
Comparatively the book of Revelation has 0 mention of anything associated w/ the word “dream” and the word “vision” is only used once (Rev. 9:17).
Consider this, (from sharperiron.org) If Revelation is in the apocalyptic category, then we shouldn’t expect it to be understood literally at all. The apocalyptic category would support the preterist interpretation, the historicist interpretation, the idealist interpretation (a non-literal view that the book doesn’t predict actual events at all, but rather symbolizes the epic struggle between good and evil), and the eclectic interpretation (a hybrid approach, popularized by George Ladd, this view combines the preterist and futurist interpretation).
On the other hand, the futurist model (a literal interpretation in which the events described in the book, beyond chapters 1-5, are still yet in the future) is supported by the simple category classification of the book as prophecy. The futuristic interpretive model is the only one of the five models that stems from the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and is initially derived from the simple past-present-future commission of John in Revelation 1:19: “Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.
The book of Revelation defines itself as prophecy in Rev. 1:3, 22:7, 10 and 18-19. By the use of the phrase “Come up hither” in Rev. 4:1 it removes Revelation from the dream/vision category and puts it more of an out-of-body, and in the spirit category (Rev. 1:10) where he is actually being shown future events and describing them as best as he can. This reality should remove it from being considered apocalyptic. It has a specific audience (the seven churches), the author is Jesus Christ and John is only recording what he is told and shown by Christ or his authorized messengers. The message is basically for sinners, showing them what they will face if they do not repent, with the revealing of a more pleasant future for the church and parts of Israel at the end of the prophecy.
I’ll admit that if you research this on the internet you will find way more sites putting Revelation in the apocalyptical, than as prophecy. However, just because an idea is popular with the majority doesn’t mean it’s the correct viewpoint. After all, reading Revelation as apocalyptical is in my opinion, another form of escapism similar to the pretrib viewpoint. Why?, because the apocalyptical interpretation means that none of the horrible stuff in Revelation is true and are just symbols used to deliver a warning. For some people, the reality is just too horrible for them even to consider the possibility of it being real, but then the folks in Noah’s day thought so too.
