The Book of Revelation is Not Apocalyptic Literature

Thanks, Chris. Simple observation of your article would save a lot of trees and bring fidelity to our submission to Scripture.

This was excellent: “It is evident that the use of the term revelation or unveiling (Ἀποκάλυψις) in 1:1 is not a genre-technical term, but is rather an explanation of the content of the prophecy: the revealing of Jesus Christ.”

If we are forced to assign genre classifications (and we aren’t!), since we believe in inspiration, let’s call Revelation what Christ Himself calls it - “prophecy” (Rev. 1:3, 22:18), as you point out.

I had the privilege of studying Revelation as a ThM class under Dr. Thomas as he was getting his 2 volume series published through Moody. I appreciate His take on 1:1 - the revelation is not the Revelation of Jesus Christ, per se, but the revelation from Jesus Christ, and the revelation is the content of the book. Just a thought.
typo: 1 Cor. 12:4 s/b 2 Cor. 12:4

great article.

A literary genre is nothing more than a category for forms of writing that have similar characteristics. It’s often a huge, huge help in properly interpreting the revelation God has given—because we believe in inspiration. Inspiration is human as well as divine, and for that reason, the forms of writing can truly be categorized into genres.

That said, we should be not enslaved to them. Interp. should be served by genre analysis not the other way around, and I’ve seen that happen.

Is Rev. apocalyptic lit? I remember studying How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth (Fee and Stuart) some years ago. They went to great lengths to not only show that Rev is apocalyptic but also to then draw a great many expansive inferences from that conclusion. But as valuable as the book was in other respects, it failed in its apoacolyptic effort on two counts (a) wasn’t persuasive that Rev. really is apoc., and (b) wasn’t persuasive that it should be interpreted as loosely as they advocated even if it was apocalyptic.

Futurists/dispensationalists, et. al., do have more work do though on clarifying how it is that we distinguish what’s literal from what’s symbolic in the book. We are barely a few verses into it before we’re asking folks to believe “seven spirits” are really the one Holy Spirit, for example. So we shouldn’t suggest that the book’s prophetic nature makes it completely straightforward.

We are barely a few verses into it before we’re asking folks to believe “seven spirits” are really the one Holy Spirit, for example. So we shouldn’t suggest that the book’s prophetic nature makes it completely straightforward.

Yes. I never was too comfortable with 7 = 1….

So, last time through Rev with my church, I switched my interpretation on that point. I now teach the 7 spirits as a class of angels, hitherto unknown in the progressive revelation of Scripture.

FWIW, here’s my reasoning,

The 7 Spirits of God are a class of angels:

1. they are held in Christ’s hand, and only created things are in Christ’s hand in Rev 3:1, 5:6;
2. they are “before the throne” but not on it (1;4, 4:5);
3. the number 7 does not in itself indicate unity but plurality;
4. they are associated with other created things (“7 stars,” 3:1; “7 lamps of fire,” 4:5; “7 horns and 7 eyes,” 5:6);
5. they likely relate to Zech. 1:10 “sent into all the earth,” for this sending into all the earth is a mission for created beings who report back to God;
6. never is an angel called a “πνεύμα” in NT, but only demons and the Holy Spirit;
7. spirits and angels are differentiated in Acts 23:8-9

When “Spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit, He is just “the Spirit: “let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (7x, cf. Rev 3:6). So then, why refer to Him as 7 who report back to God (3:1) and then One who is God who speaks to churches (3:6)?

However, by viewing the 7 spirits as the Holy Spirit in Rev. 1:4 it completes a Trinitarian formula (καὶ ἀπὸ).

Futurists aren’t the only ones who need to work through Revelation and identify what is symbolic and what isn’t. That is something everyone needs to work through.

As to the 7 spirits, maybe Isaiah 11?

[James K]

Futurists aren’t the only ones who need to work through Revelation and identify what is symbolic and what isn’t. That is something everyone needs to work through.

As to the 7 spirits, maybe Isaiah 11?

Hi James,

That is certainly a good reference when considering the 7 spirits of Rev. 1:4 as a name for the Holy Spirit, for sure.

The reference to Isa. 11:2 does have a few problems - “Spirit” in its first use is clearly deity - but the others uses of that word are impersonal. As well, those impersonal uses of “spirit” are used 3 times, for a total of 4 in the text, so its an interpolation to make the 4 uses of “spirit” equal the “seven spirits.”

Wouldn’t “four spirits of God” been clearer in Rev. 1:4, if John were referring back to Isa. 11:2?

Ted mentioned Robert Thomas. I highly recommend his chapter on “genre over-ride” in his book “Evangelical Hermeneutics.”

I’m not convinced that merely the word “apocalupsis” in Rev. 1:1 is all we need to determine that Revelation is not a genre that is similar to apocalyptic literature. There is another term in Rev. 1:1 which strongly hints that this is no straight-forward, literal unveling or revelation of Jesus Christ. The word is “semaino.” Literally (in the NASB) Rev. 1:1 says: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated (semaino) it by His angel to His bond-servant John.” The footnote in the NASB has “or signified” for the word translated “communicated” in the text. The KJV also has “signified.” So this revelation was “signified” to John. G.K. Beale explains that this word in its predominant usage in the New Testament, means “communicated by symbols.”

So the literal meaning of Rev. 1:1 says God communicated a revelation to John by symbols. So right from the start, Revelation indicates that symbolic language and symbolism is going to be the means by which the book’s revelation is transmitted.

I give an excerpt from Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson which points this out as well, in this post, if you want more on this point.

Ted,

Has anyone in the history of the church given an interpretation of the seven Spirits as being a new class of angels? I am sure you are cautious about your new understanding there. I think sometimes we who prize sola Scriptura so much can run the risk of pursuing interpretations that the church has never entertained before. To do so is risky and should be done with the utmost caution.

Also, if the seven spirits are a new class of angels, how would Rev. 5:6 make sense? Rev. 5:6 also alludes to Zech. 4:10. The Is. 11 passage has 3 pairs of two characteristics of the spirit, so a total of 1 +2x3= 7.

Regardless, taking the seven spirits and demystifying that expression (which is patently curious and laden with some kind of symbolism) and instead supposing this to be a new heretofore unmentioned class of angels seems to be a hermeneutical dodge. It is as if, items in the text which would point toward a symbolic literature / apocalyptic literature / symbol-laden, non-literatlistic — it seems as if some are out to flatten those difficulties toward a literalist approach and remove them. So in one sense you say it isn’t apocalyptic, and then on the other hand you are demystifying it by inventing brand new interpretive schemes to remove apocalyptic difficulties.

I’m not saying you are doing this personally. But that approach could be construed that way.

Bob, who denies that Revelation is full of symbols?

The communication is one by means of symbols. Not that symbols happen to be there, but that it is the predominant scheme of the writing. That is what apocalyptic literature is too.

As Beale notes: “Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.” (Beale, Book of Revelation, pg. 52)

Oh and one other thing.

The original post is basically arguing from the word “apocalupsis” that the entire book is meant to be a revelation, so that genre thing is wrong. It’s not mystical apocalyptic it is a communication. I’m just replying that from the other word in that verse “semaino” which the noun form is the word for “sign” or “miracle,” that form that word, it is clear the intent of the book is to disclose by means of signs and symbols the said revelation.

Hi Bob, hope you are well,

So the literal meaning of Rev. 1:1 says God communicated a revelation to John by symbols. So right from the start, Revelation indicates that symbolic language and symbolism is going to be the means by which the book’s revelation is transmitted.

Indeed, but this isn’t itself a code to employ different hermeneutics to this book that Romans or Matthew. In the prior verse the letter is called “prophecy” - by Christ. That word governs the interpretive method, not “ἐσήµανεν”.

The verb “ἐσήµανεν” could be translated “represent” (Govett, Apocalyse, 243). Christ’s miracles are symbols, but that doesn’t mean a responsible reader can make 12 baskets full of bread remainders to refer to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Has anyone in the history of the church given an interpretation of the seven Spirits as being a new class of angels?

Walvoord and Moffatt see it angelic. New (hithertoo unrevealed) class or not, I don’t know.

It is as if, items in the text which would point toward a symbolic literature / apocalyptic literature / symbol-laden, non-literatlistic — it seems as if some are out to flatten those difficulties toward a literalist approach and remove them.

My response above to Aaron details my reasons for adopting this interpretation in 1:4. The strongest reason against it is not the overlay of a different hermeneutic, for then the interpreter is untethered to the text and to his own theology. But the phrase “καὶ ἀπὸ” (and from) in Rev. 1:4 featured the proposition “ἀπὸ” — ultimate source. How can grace and peace come from a class of angels?

Thanks for responding Ted. I certainly don’t think you can interpret Revelation in the same way you do Romans or Matthew. Even you would not in practice do that, I think. Certainly the other two books are not prophetic (and certainly not apocalyptic either).

We’ll have to disagree and leave it at that.

Your last two reasons for your angelic 7 spirits view don’t seem to help your view either, unless you take Revelation to be the final revelation which trumps all (overruling Acts and etc.). I would view it as a final book which weaves biblical symbolism together wonderfully and ties together the various biblical theological strands that are developed in the progressive revelation of Scripture.

The difficulty in adopting the madness of Beale is that the OT is all symbolic and the final word in the NT is now also symbolic. It is all symbolic and subjective to mean whatever he can come up with. That does explain his interpretation of Chapter 20.

The content of Revelation may have some similarities with apocalyptic literature, but the contrasts are many and enough to rule it out as fluffiness. It is prophecy, it is epistle, it is narrative, etc.