Why Revelation is Special

[David Boyer]

Here are some thoughts on why I think Revelation is of special significance.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

John proclaims a special blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words of the book of Revelation. What other books of the Bible contain a blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words? Note that understanding is not part of the blessing, so interpretation is not really a component of the blessing.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Jesus commanded Revelation to be written. It is not so much inspired by the Spirit... as it is actually commanded by Jesus to be written. If you count the "things which you have seen..." to be the Gospel of John, then maybe a point could be made that both books were commanded... but that depends on when the Gospel of John was written in comparison to the vision.

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation has a curse not to meddle with its wording. Don't add or remove words from THIS book.

And to head off one common objection; just because Revelation is the last book in our modern cannon does not mean that these words apply to the entire Bible. I could resort the NT into a better format... History, then letters in order of the joining of the 12 Apostles. So Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts(Histories) then Letters(so the last letters would be Paul's writings). This would be a perfectly acceptable way to order the NT and Revelation would be before Romans. So order of the books is not relevant.

So we have a single continuous vision(that appears to be the case by a simple read of the text)... with a blessing for reading, hearing, keeping the text... a curse, by Jesus, to not alter the words of the text.

Is there another book of the Bible with this much authorisation from God?
I think that kind of makes this book special and I think that is kinda neat.

 

[Nancy]

Here are some thoughts on why I think Revelation is of special significance.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

John proclaims a special blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words of the book of Revelation. What other books of the Bible contain a blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words? Note that understanding is not part of the blessing, so interpretation is not really a component of the blessing.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Jesus commanded Revelation to be written. It is not so much inspired by the Spirit... as it is actually commanded by Jesus to be written. If you count the "things which you have seen..." to be the Gospel of John, then maybe a point could be made that both books were commanded... but that depends on when the Gospel of John was written in comparison to the vision.

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation has a curse not to meddle with its wording. Don't add or remove words from THIS book.

And to head off one common objection; just because Revelation is the last book in our modern cannon does not mean that these words apply to the entire Bible. I could resort the NT into a better format... History, then letters in order of the joining of the 12 Apostles. So Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts(Histories) then Letters(so the last letters would be Paul's writings). This would be a perfectly acceptable way to order the NT and Revelation would be before Romans. So order of the books is not relevant.

So we have a single continuous vision(that appears to be the case by a simple read of the text)... with a blessing for reading, hearing, keeping the text... a curse, by Jesus, to not alter the words of the text.

Is there another book of the Bible with this much authorisation from God?
I think that kind of makes this book special and I think that is kinda neat.

Yes agreed, Revelations is special! And yes, read, hear keep.
Funny you posted this as I am attending a bible study tonight on Revelation and Daniel.

 

[David Boyer]

Yes agreed, Revelations is special! And yes, read, hear keep.
Funny you posted this as I am attending a bible study tonight on Revelation and Daniel.

Awesome... And I hope that your study doesn't try to interpret Revelation by using Daniel. Most end up trying to say "what John meant here was..." and that just says that either Jesus wasn't clear with John, or the Messengers of God were not clear, or John wasn't able to communicate clearly.
Or Jesus, the Angels, or John lied about what is in Revelation. Revelation is true... and all the OLDER prophecies add detail, but never change the details in Revelation.
(I hope that made sense.)

Bless.

 

[DanielConway]

I like a great deal about what you said about Revelation, but I take issue with the position that Revelation had an early (somewhere around 63 AD) date. Early Church tradition is near unanimous in placing the work around 93 AD.

 

[David Boyer]

I like a great deal about what you said about Revelation, but I take issue with the position that Revelation had an early (somewhere around 63 AD) date. Early Church tradition is near unanimous in placing the work around 93 AD.

I just point out the possibility in the text that "write what you have seen..." might possibly refer to the Gospel of John. I make no claims about the dating of the writings as I don't know. Just the wording of Rev 1:19 makes it, at least possible, that Jesus was referring to the Gospel of John as well as Revelation.
Just covering my bases.

 

[Mantis]

I have always been enamored the book of revelation. It is just absolutely fascinating to me. I have read it hundreds of times. I think that we will be experiencing this book in real time soon!!

 

[DanielConway]

I just point out the possibility in the text that "write what you have seen..." might possibly refer to the Gospel of John. I make no claims about the dating of the writings as I don't know. Just the wording of Rev 1:19 makes it, at least possible, that Jesus was referring to the Gospel of John as well as Revelation.
Just covering my bases.

Quite. And this would imply that Revelation was written after the Gospel of John, or for that matter any of the Johann epistles, although not necessarily immediately after, yes?

 

[David Boyer]

Quite. And this would imply that Revelation was written after the Gospel of John, or for that matter any of the Johann epistles, although not necessarily immediately after, yes?

Like I said... I don't do the dating of writings. I just leave the door open that the vision might have happened, then John wrote the Gospel... and then Revelation... or vice versa. The door is left open by the phrase "write what you HAVE seen" possibly being Jesus saying that Johns version of the Gospel was also a commanded document.

Or maybe not. I would rather think that the two are rather self contained and if the vision wherein Jesus commanded the writing came first.... John would have mentioned it in the Gospel. But that is pure speculation on my part. So probably the command to write what was seen only applied to Revelation.

My opinion and 5$ might get you a coffee.

 

[ScottA]

Here are some thoughts on why I think Revelation is of special significance.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

John proclaims a special blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words of the book of Revelation. What other books of the Bible contain a blessing for reading, hearing, and keeping the words? Note that understanding is not part of the blessing, so interpretation is not really a component of the blessing.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Jesus commanded Revelation to be written. It is not so much inspired by the Spirit... as it is actually commanded by Jesus to be written. If you count the "things which you have seen..." to be the Gospel of John, then maybe a point could be made that both books were commanded... but that depends on when the Gospel of John was written in comparison to the vision.

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation has a curse not to meddle with its wording. Don't add or remove words from THIS book.

And to head off one common objection; just because Revelation is the last book in our modern cannon does not mean that these words apply to the entire Bible. I could resort the NT into a better format... History, then letters in order of the joining of the 12 Apostles. So Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts(Histories) then Letters(so the last letters would be Paul's writings). This would be a perfectly acceptable way to order the NT and Revelation would be before Romans. So order of the books is not relevant.

So we have a single continuous vision(that appears to be the case by a simple read of the text)... with a blessing for reading, hearing, keeping the text... a curse, by Jesus, to not alter the words of the text.

Is there another book of the Bible with this much authorisation from God?
I think that kind of makes this book special and I think that is kinda neat.

Jesus being the source Author of Revelation, John's witness of Him being the Word, and Jesus' declaration of being the Beginning and the End...I would not leave out anything deemed scripture by the providence of God down through the ages from "the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter"...just as Christ often referred, saying, "since the beginning."

 

[Nancy]

Awesome... And I hope that your study doesn't try to interpret Revelation by using Daniel. Most end up trying to say "what John meant here was..." and that just says that either Jesus wasn't clear with John, or the Messengers of God were not clear, or John wasn't able to communicate clearly.
Or Jesus, the Angels, or John lied about what is in Revelation. Revelation is true... and all the OLDER prophecies add detail, but never change the details in Revelation.
(I hope that made sense.)

Bless.

I believe they will be pulling out of Daniel what is referenced in Revelation but, I have no clue what will be presented tonight. First time at this church and will be listening and watching closely. Thanks for your reply!

 

[DanielConway]

Like I said... I don't do the dating of writings. I just leave the door open that the vision might have happened, then John wrote the Gospel... and then Revelation... or vice versa. The door is left open by the phrase "write what you HAVE seen" possibly being Jesus saying that Johns version of the Gospel was also a commanded document.

Or maybe not. I would rather think that the two are rather self contained and if the vision wherein Jesus commanded the writing came first.... John would have mentioned it in the Gospel. But that is pure speculation on my part. So probably the command to write what was seen only applied to Revelation.

My opinion and 5$ might get you a coffee.

Nah... Consider that Christ wanted this missive sent to the seven Churches of Asia;

11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

There's no way Christ would have given that command and then allowed John to sit on it for 30 years.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Jesus commanded Revelation to be written. It is not so much inspired by the Spirit... as it is actually commanded by Jesus to be written

I’m not sure I agree with the above because Revelation 1:1 says God gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ to show to his servants.

it is interesting though what you shared about it being the only one that comes with a blessing. I’ve never consider before the significance of the Revelation of Jesus Christ being the only one with a blessing. It reminds me of Matthew 16:15-17 He said unto them, But who do you say that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.

Which reminds me so much of The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God unto him to show his servants. The special blessing “flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.” Considering that with what you shared…about it being the only one that comes with a blessing.

 

[David Boyer]

I’m not sure I agree with the above because Revelation 1:1 says God gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ to show to his servants.
.

I don't disagree with you. What exactly do you disagree with? God gave the Revelation to show His servants... but it was specially commanded. Rev 1:19.
Is there some other contradiction? Jesus commanded the book to be written... and it has a purpose to show what must happen.
Really, where do we disagree?

 

[Enoch111]

This would be a perfectly acceptable way to order the NT and Revelation would be before Romans. So order of the books is not relevant.

On the contrary, it is critical that Revelation be the last book in the Bible. Not only was it written last chronological (around 96 AD), but it also presents prophecies pertaining to the end times as well as "the end of time" going into the New Heavens and the New Earth. Therefore the warning to not tamper with this book applies to all of Scripture.

 

[David Boyer]

On the contrary, it is critical that Revelation be the last book in the Bible. Not only was it written last chronological (around 96 AD), but it also presents prophecies pertaining to the end times as well as "the end of time" going into the New Heavens and the New Earth. Therefore the warning to not tamper with this book applies to all of Scripture.

Wow that is such wrong thinking.
Even the wording of Rev 22:18-19 refute your thinking.
18 For I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

"This book", "the words of the book of this prophecy" ... Not all scripture. Not the Law. Not the prophets.
This book... This prophecy.

Simple language is on my side.

 

[Truth7t7]

Like I said... I don't do the dating of writings.

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
By Wayne Jackson

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.

Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel—when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.

In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:

Archaeological discoveries and literary studies have recently demonstrated that along with Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek was commonly spoken among first century Palestinians. Thus John must have known and used Greek since his youth (1970, 365).

B. B. Warfield contends that:

the Apocalypse betrays no lack of knowledge of, or command over, Greek syntax or vocabulary; the difference lies, rather, in the manner in which a language well in hand is used, in style, properly so called; and the solution of it must turn on psychological, not chronological, considerations (Schaff and Herzog 1891, 2036).

R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.

Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:

It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, “in the Spirit,” while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle’s mind, and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve (1064).

No Mention of Jerusalem’s Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.

In response we note the following points.

First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.

However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).

Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:

difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure—surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision (1904, 238).

 

[David Boyer]

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
By Wayne Jackson

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.
.

So what was the point of that long post?

 

[Truth7t7]

So what was the point of that long post?

Hopefully you learn when the Revelation was written

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[David Boyer]

Hopefully you learn when the Revelation was written

Jesus Is The Lord

I don't care when it was written. And you really should announce your purpose in posting something. I don't read such long ramblings unless there is a reason to... and you don't provide any.

And yes Jesus is Lord.

 

[ScottA]

So what was the point of that long post?

I marvel at those who can and do study and produce such works...but there is something lost in it, something much simpler that is all that is needed to know the truth.