The book of Revelation is – hands down – the most misunderstood book in the Bible. What is the Book of Revelation really about? Is it just a play-by-play preview of the Apocalypse? Despite what many would have you think, the answer is no. Revelation is not simply a handbook for the end of the world. It is much deeper than that, and if we read the book carefully, it gives us several clues to its real meaning.
Not a Literal Account
Two related questions arise: 1) Is Revelation meant to be taken literally? and 2) Is it just a prophecy of the end times?
Let’s start with the first. While much of the book gives the impression that it is simply recording future events the same way a historian would recount past events, it gives us a few clues that there is more to it than meets the eye.
To begin with, there are some parts that are so obviously figurative there is no other way to take them. For example, in chapter 5, Jesus is described as “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes” (Revelation 5:6). This can’t be anything but figurative. Jesus is a man, not a lamb, and He definitely doesn’t have seven eyes or horns.
Likewise, in chapter 12, we read a description of Jesus’ birth in which a dragon stands before Mary waiting to devour the Christ Child when He is born (Revelation 12:1-6). Again, we know this is not literally what happened, so the text is obviously using figurative imagery to describe the significance of this event.
These and many other inconsistencies are clues that Revelation isn’t meant to be taken literally. Rather, it is a figurative account intended to convey truths beyond the details of what will literally happen
Not Just About the End Times
But there’s more. Revelation not primarily an account of the end times. Sure, the final chapters clearly talk about Jesus’ second coming and the restoration of creation that will happen at that time, but the book is about so much more than just that.
For example, Revelation was written to seven churches in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), and chapters 2 and 3 address those churches directly, setting the stage for the rest of the book. This tells us that its contents were relevant for those ancient communities, which is a big clue that it is about more than just the end times.
If it were just about the end of human history, it wouldn’t have been all that relevant for people 2,000 years ago. For that matter, unless Jesus comes again very soon, it wouldn’t be relevant for us today either. If it is a veiled account of things that will happen in the future, it wouldn’t be very helpful to anybody before the final years of human history.
Instead, while Revelation does contain some prophecies of the end times, it is primarily about things that directly affected the faith and life of Christians in the first century. Consequently, if we limit its meaning to the very last generation of the human race, we’re severely distorting its message and missing out on a whole wealth of teaching that it has to give us.
The Question of Rome
So what is this book really about? To answer that question, we need to focus on the great city that gets destroyed right before John’s final visions of God’s ultimate victory over evil (chapters 14-18). Most scholars understand this city to symbolize Rome, the political power that ruled the world when Revelation was written, and this seems to fit.
For example, Revelation tells us that the city (symbolized in this passage by a woman) sits on seven hills (Revelation 17:9). Rome was built on seven hills. Likewise, the city is also said to have “dominion over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18), and that also fits the capital of the world’s major superpower.
However, there are also some good reasons to think the city actually isn’t Rome. Most obviously, Revelation tells us that Jesus was killed there (Revelation 11:8), and we know from history that He was not crucified in Rome. Similarly, even though Rome was built on seven hills, this point isn’t quite as decisive as we might think.
Let’s go back to the passage about these hills. In Revelation 17:3, John sees a woman sitting on a beast, and the beast has seven heads. A few verses later, an angel explains to him that “the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated” (Revelation 17:9). At first, this seems to clearly mean that the city symbolized by the woman rests on seven hills, but a closer look complicates things a bit.
Most scholars interpret the beast as a symbol of Rome’s political power (in my opinion, rightly so), but that creates a problem for us. Later on in the chapter, the beast joins in the destruction of the woman (Revelation 17:15-16), so these two figures must represent two different cities. But if that is the case, then Revelation 17:9 cannot mean that the woman symbolizes Rome, the city built on seven hills.
So what does this enigmatic verse mean? To properly understand it, we have to notice that the hills are symbolized by the beast’s heads, so they actually belong to the beast, not the woman. Consequently, the scholarly consensus on the beast’s identity is correct. It is Rome, the city that is built on these hills, and Revelation 17:9 simply uses Rome’s hills as an image for the city itself. It is telling us that the woman is supported and propped up by Rome’s power, not that she actually represents Rome.
The Question of Jerusalem
But if she is not Rome, what city does she represent? The answer, I would suggest, lies in the fact that Jesus was killed in her. That can only refer to one place, Jerusalem, and the rest of the book confirms this for us. For example, if we turn back to the passage that mentions the seven hills, we find that it perfectly fits Jerusalem’s political situation before the city was destroyed by Rome in 70 AD. Just as the woman in that passage is propped up by the beast, so too were the rulers of Jerusalem supported by the Roman authorities. They ruled by Rome’s permission and with their backing.
Likewise, Revelation’s description of the city’s worldwide rule can also fit Jerusalem. Even though we don’t normally think of this city as the capital of the world, the Old Testament actually tells us that it was supposed to be just that (Psalm 2:6-12). The Israelites simply failed to achieve this goal because they could never remain faithful to God long enough for Him to fulfill His purpose for them.
Revelation is largely a patchwork of images drawn from the Old Testament prophets and recycled for new purposes, so it makes perfect sense that it would describe Jerusalem with imagery drawn from God’s purpose for it in Scripture, regardless of whether the city ever actually achieved that purpose or not.
The Church’s Persecutors
Finally, we can look back to the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2-3 and see that those messages encourage the readers to remain faithful to Christ through thick and thin. They are exhortations to remain faithful in the face of hardship and persecution, as well as prosperity, which can make us lose sight of what really matters. The rest of the book bears this out.
The overall message is that while we may have to suffer here on earth, God will one day conquer all evil and usher in an age of eternal bliss for those who remain faithful to Him. He will conquer all His enemies – namely, those who persecute His people – and they will finally get what is coming to them.
Consequently, it stands to reason that the city He destroys later in the book is the “headquarters” of those who were persecuting the Church when Revelation was being written. It never mentions Rome, but a few of the messages in chapters 2-3 do talk about persecution at the hands of the Jews (Revelation 2:9, 3:9).
As you probably know, Jerusalem was the seat of their official governance, and that is our smoking gun. God’s people were being persecuted by hostile Jewish congregations, so the book foretells the destruction of the Jews’ capital city.
Is It Relevant Today?
The book tells us that one day the beast will perish too (Revelation 19:20), which means that while Revelation focuses on Jerusalem, it doesn’t forget about Rome. It foretells the fall of both cities but focuses more on Jerusalem because that city fell first. Yet, if the book is only about the fall of two ancient cities, how could it possibly have anything to say to us today?
To understand the contemporary relevance of this enigmatic book, we have to first ask why John decided to write it as a series of symbolic visions rather than as a literal explanation of whatever he intended to teach his readers. We might be tempted to say that he wrote it this way because God told him to write what he saw in visions (Revelation 1:11, 19), but that is not very helpful. It simply pushes the question back a step: why did God want him to write it that way?
I would suggest that Revelation was written as a series of symbolic visions because that style allows future generations to apply it to their situations without skipping a beat. We can seamlessly apply its symbols to the world powers and great cities of our own day thereby making the book timeless. While the woman/great city and the beast originally symbolized Jerusalem and Rome, they can also refer to all the empires and world powers that have come after them.
The True Meaning of Revelation
Simply put, cultures, cities, and empires will change over time, but the basic message of Revelation remains the same. It tells us that we should always put God first and that we should never compromise our faith in order to fit in with the culture around us, no matter how much pressure we may feel to do so.
No mere human power can last forever, so no matter how invincible the current international giants may seem, they will all fall sooner or later. We simply have to make sure that we don’t fall with them. More specifically, we have to make sure that we don’t succumb to their moral and religious errors and find ourselves condemned along with them for those errors.
The fact that the book ends with a vision of the consummation of human history is also significant. The final chapters of the book tell us that the seemingly endless cycle of rising and falling human powers won’t last forever. A day will come when God will finally intervene and put a stop to it once and for all. He will eventually destroy the last earthly power that will ever oppose his will, and in its place He will create a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1), a place where His goodness will reign supreme and where evil will be completely vanquished.
So, in the final analysis, Jerusalem and Rome are examples for all future readers of Revelation. What happened to them can and will happen to every other seemingly invincible human power (including the United States). We shouldn’t place our ultimate hope in anything worldly.
Rather, we need to keep our eyes fixed on God. We need to remain faithful to Him through thick and thin, no matter what the world throws our way. If we do that, He will vindicate us in the end and bring us to the fullness of His kingdom and the eternal bliss of His presence. That is ultimately what the book meant to its original readers, and that is what it means to us today as well.
5 thoughts on “What the Book of Revelation is Really About”
From my Catholic Bible,
Revelation 1:9
New American Bible (Revised Edition)
9 I, John, your brother, who share with you the distress, the kingdom, and the endurance we have in Jesus, found myself on the island called Patmos[a] because I proclaimed God’s word and gave testimony to Jesus.
Footnotes
1:9 Island called Patmos: one of the Sporades islands in the Aegean Sea, some fifty miles south of Ephesus, used by the Romans as a penal colony. Because I proclaimed God’s word: literally, “on account of God’s word.”
In his own words, John indicates that he is writing after his arrival on Patmos.
It is generally agreed by many, including the RCC, that John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (81-96AD).
Consequently, your suggestion that he wrote the Book of Revelation earlier than 70 AD isn’t supported. It is only your opinion.
Yes, the scholarly consensus is that Revelation was written at around 90 AD (although, I would add, the Catholic Church doesn’t “agree” with this dating; the Church allows us to accept this dating, but she herself hasn’t said anything about when Revelation was written), but the scholarly consensus isn’t infallible. It can be wrong, and there are scholars who go against it.
So saying that my dating of Revelation “isn’t supported” is incorrect. Sure, it’s not supported by the majority, but there are scholars who do support it, and I’ve even given some evidence for it (my argument that the book is about the fall of Jerusalem rather than Rome). And actual evidence is always a stronger argument than a simple appeal to the majority.
Similarly, your assertion that my dating of Revelation is just my opinion is misleading. Sure, it’s my opinion, but the scholarly consensus is also just an opinion. It may be the majority opinion, but it’s still just an opinion, and like any opinion (including my own on this question), it’s only as good as the evidence it’s based on.
So if you want to talk about the dating of Revelation, I’d be glad to do so. Just give me some actual evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem, and we can go from there.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Your article does a great disservice to the Book of Revelation.
It, along with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and other portions of the Bible (in particular, Paul’s letters), do deal with the end of the age.
The introduction of the book clearly states its purpose – future events.
Since John wrote the Book of Revelation around 90AD on the Island of Patmos, it is not about the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70 AD).
Yes, it does give believers guidance on what they should and should not do.
But it is more than that. Keep in mind that John was recording the visions through his 1st century AD mindset.
Again, Chapter 1: 1-3 makes it clear about the intent of the book.
Finally, we all should take heed of the warnings in Chapter 22 of the book.
Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments. To make this easier to follow, I’m going to take your points one by one.
1) “It, along with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and other portions of the Bible (in particular, Paul’s letters), do deal with the end of the age.”
Of course Revelation deals with the end times. That’s not the question. The question is whether the entire book is about the end times, and simply asserting that it is isn’t a real argument. If you think I’m wrong, tell me why. How do we know that the entire book is about the end times? And where do I err in my arguments to the contrary?
2) “The introduction of the book clearly states its purpose – future events.”
Of course, but like I say in the article, it’s future events that will happen “soon,” not thousands of years down the road.
3) “Since John wrote the Book of Revelation around 90AD on the Island of Patmos, it is not about the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70 AD).”
Again, simply making an assertion isn’t an argument. How do we know it was written in 90 AD and not earlier? In fact, if my argument is correct and the book is largely (although obviously not entirely) about the fall of Jerusalem, then that’s an argument against your dating and in favor of dating it before 70 AD. We date the book based on what we think it’s talking about. We don’t come at it with a preconceived date of composition and then interpret it according to that assumption.
4) “But it is more than that. Keep in mind that John was recording the visions through his 1st century AD mindset.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Can you please elaborate?
5) “Finally, we all should take heed of the warnings in Chapter 22 of the book.”
Again, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Please elaborate.