Traditionally, the author is identified as John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. This attribution is supported by early Christian testimonies and internal textual clues.
The Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, is widely believed to have been written in the late first century, around 95 AD. This dating is based on historical and textual evidence suggesting it was composed during the reign of Emperor Domitian, a period marked by significant persecution of Christians. Irenaeous records that "him who beheld the apocalyptic vision" saw it "almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."1 Sweet concludes that "the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus."2
"This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John, who testified to God's word of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it, for the time is near." (Rev. 1:1-3). The primary purpose of Revelation is to provide hope and encouragement to Christians facing persecution by affirming God's ultimate sovereignty and the eventual triumph of good over evil. Revelation calls followers of Jesus to resist idolatry, to worship God alone, and to patiently endure suffering knowing that God will ultimately judge evil and redeem creation.
Hermeneutics Needed for Revelation: "Hermeneutics provide principles for sound exegesis. Exegesis in this case is the application of hermeneutical rules of the sacred text in order to obtain its setting, historic context, proper meaning and sense. And if ever there is a requirement to do so in such a disciplined manner it is this controversial book. Failing to employ such a solid structured method of interpretation will bring much confusion upon the reader."
J. Hampton Keathley, III, The Introduction Proper (Revelation): "Hermeneutics is called a science because it follows rules that guide and control the interpreter. It is called an art because it requires skill and practice to apply the rules correctly as in any skill. This is evident in Paul’s words to Timothy and the context for the words, “accurately handling the Word of truth” in 2 Timothy 2:15. Without an accurate handling of the Bible, we end up with error, not truth. We must, then, using the science of hermeneutics, seek to ground interpretation in fact or the objective data of Scripture—context, grammar, historical setting, meaning and use of words, literary style, etc."
Brian J. Tabb, All Things New: Revelation as Canonical Capstone, vol. 48, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2019), 8: "Like Jesus and the Old Testament prophets, Revelation presents its message in symbolic, pictorial language to unveil true spiritual realities compellingly to those with ears to hear... Jesus Christ ‘made known’ or ‘signified’ (sēmainō) the revelation to John by sending an angel (Rev. 1:1). Similarly, Daniel 2:30, 45 LXX says that the mystery of the king’s dream ‘was shown’ (sēmainō) to Daniel and ‘the great God has shown [sēmainō] the king what will be at the end of the days’ (NETS)."
Grant R. Osborn, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002): "John deliberately uses... made known ['the verb cognate of the noun “sign” in john’s Gospel']... in 1:1 because of its parallels with Dan. 2:28-30, 45, where God 'signifies' truths through pictorial or symbolic visions. Thus it means to 'communicate by symbols' and connotes the need to interpret the reality behind the symbol... Symbols are metaphorical utterances that are meant to be understood first pictorially and then referentially... The sources for interpreting them come from the OT, intertestamental literature, and the Greco-Roman world—in other words, in the common world of the original readers in the province of Asia."
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 50-52, 56: "Rev. 1:1 introduces the book... with the word 'apocalypse'... a clear allusion to Dan. 2... The revelation is not abstract but pictorial... Dan. 2:28-30, 45 indicates that a symbolic vision and its interpretation is going to be part of the warp and woof of the means of communication throughout Revelation. This conclusion is based on the supposition that John uses OT references with significant degrees of awareness of OT context, for which I will argue later... [A] number of authors of both popular and scholarly commentaries contend that one should interpret literally except where one is forced to interpret symbolically by clear indications of context... But the results of the analysis above of 1:1 indicate that... the essence of the book is figurative ['1:12-20 and 4:1-22:5 at the least']... The OT and Judaism are the primary background against which to understand the images and ideas of the Apocalypse."
Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 47: "Some people today come to Revelation with the recipe, 'Interpret everything literally, if possible.' That recipe misunderstands what kind of book Revelation is. Of course, John literally saw what he says he saw. But what he saw was a vision. It was filled with symbols, like the Beast of 13:1–8 and the seven blazing lamps in 4:5. It never intended to be a direct, nonsymbolical description of the future. People living in John’s own time understood this matter instinctively, because they recognized that John was writing in an 'apocalyptic' manner, a manner already as familiar to them as a political cartoon is to us today."
David B. Woods, Jews And Gentiles in the Ecclesia, 25: "Each biblical genre has its own interpretive hermeneutic; parables, poetry, and prophecy are all interpreted differently. Unlike historical narrative, visions are interpreted symbolically, not literally. Jeremiah’s vision of the boiling cauldron (Jer 1:13) had nothing to do with food. Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14) had nothing to do with bones. Zechariah’s vision of the woman in the basket (Zech 5:5–11) had nothing to do with women or baskets. Amos’ vision of summer fruit (Amos 8) concerned neither summer nor fruit. And Peter’s vision had nothing to do with unclean food any more than it did with sheets."
Bruce Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999): "This book contains a series of word pictures, as though a number of slides were being shown upon a great screen. As we watch we allow ourselves to be carried along by impressions created by these pictures. Many of the details of the pictures are intended to contribute to the total impression, and are not to be isolated and interpreted with wooden literalism."
Bruce Metzger and David A. deSilva, Breaking the Code Revised Edition: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2019), 17-18: "Such accounts combine cognitive insight with emotional response... In reporting his visionary experiences, John frequently uses symbolic language. Sometimes he explains the meaning of the symbols... [I]n attempting to understand John’s symbolism, we must consider not only the book itself but also his use of the Old Testament... In any case, it is important to recognize that the descriptions are descriptions of symbols, not of the reality conveyed by the symbols."
Alan Bandy, The Hermeneutics of Symbolism: How to Interpret the Symbols of John’s Apocalypse SBJT 14/1 (Spring 2010) 46-58: "In other words, if Revelation is prophetic or apocalyptic, ascribing literalism to its numbers, proper nouns, and other images may prevent adjudicating John’s intended meaning— the literal sense. A more profitable hermeneutical approach is to reverse the interpretive order by placing the symbolic in the foreground while shifting the literal into the background."
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 4, 11, 13, 22: "Although, as we will see, applying the literal-where-possible maxim to prophetic literature is problematic, its inadequacy does not mean that Revelation is a wax nose, to be manipulated into any shape we choose... The literal meaning of symbolic language is the symbolic correspondence between the imagery of the language and the referent that it describes... We dare not tackle the symbolism of Revelation without immersing our minds in the rich imagery of the Old Testament... Revelation makes sense only in light of the Old Testament. Not only the visions of such prophets as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah but also historical events such as creation, the fall, and the exodus provide the symbolic vocabulary for John’s visions."
G. K. Beale, John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, (England: Sheffield, 1998), 23: "Bauckham observes that John uses the Old Testament in a careful and not haphazard way throughout, so that an understanding of these Old Testament texts is crucial to the interpretation of the Apocalypse at every point along the way and is necessary for understanding his literary strategy. Consequently, the Old Testament 'forms a body of literature which John expects his readers to know and explicitly to recall in detail while reading his own work'. Furthermore, a study of Jewish exegetical tradition of various Old Testament texts can also shed light on John's own understanding of the same texts."
Richard Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, (Edinburgh: T&T, 1993), xi: "It is a book designed to be read in constant intertextual relationship with the Old Testament. John was writing what he understood to be a work of prophetic scripture, the climax of prophetic revelation, which gathered up the prophetic meaning of the Old Testament scriptures and disclosed the way in which it was being and was to be fulfilled in the last days. His work therefore, presupposes and conveys an extensive interpretation of large parts of Old Testament prophecy. Allusions are meant to recall the Old Testament context, which thereby becomes part of the meaning the Apocalypse conveys, and to build up, sometimes by a network of allusion to the same Old Testament passage in various parts of the Apocalypse, an interpretation of whole passages of Old Testament prophecy."
Wei Lo, Ezekiel in Revelation: Literary and Hermeneutic Aspects, 222: "[John's] profound knowledge of the OT in general and of Ezekiel in particular, noticed already in the past, is confirmed in this study. Our investigations, however, have shown that the depth of John's knowledge of the book of Ezekiel is to be perceived not only in his heavy use of the materials from Ezekiel, but in his following the hermeneutics of the prophet. This aspect of analogy between John and Ezekiel, then, confirms what has been observed by Fekkes from the book of Revelation, i.e., John, as a Christian, is the heir of the prophets of Israel."
I. Prologue (1:1-20)
II. Address to the Seven Churches (2:1-3:22)
III. God's Majesty, Conflict, Judgment (4:1-16:21)
IV. Final Judgment and the Eschaton (17:1-20:15)
V. The New Heavens and Earth (21:1-22:5)
VI. Epilogue (22:6-21)
I. Prologue (1:1-20)
A. Introduction, Purpose, and Blessing
(1:1-3)
B. Epistolary Opening (1:4-6)
C. Announcement of the Coming King (1:7-8)
D. John’s Commission (1:9-20)
II. Address to the Seven Churches (2:1-3:22)
A. To Ephesus (2:1-7)
B. To Smyrna (2:8-11)
C. To Pergamum (2:12-17)
D. To Thyatira (2:18-29)
E. To Sardis (3:1-6)
F. To Philadelphia (3:7-13)
G. To Laodicea (3:14-22)
III. God's Majesty, Conflict, Judgment (4:1-16:21)
A. Christ Seated on the Throne (4:1-5:14)
B. Seven Seals (6:1-8:5)
C. Seven Trumpets (8:6-11:19)
D. Seven Visions of Deeper Conflict
(12:1-15:4)
E. Seven Bowl Judgments (15:5-16:21)
IV. Final Judgment and the Eschaton (17:1-20:15)
A. Destruction of Babylon (17:1-19:21)
B. The Millennium (20:1-15)
V. The New Heavens and Earth (21:1-22:5)
A. Dwelling in the Midst of God (21:1-8)
B. New Creation (21:9-22:5)
VI. Epilogue (22:6-21)
1. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 5.30.3.
2. John Sweet, Revelation, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979, 27).
Brooky Stockton, A Commentary on Revelation: Standing Firm in our Time, 2020.
R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, (Edinburgh: T&T, 1920).
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Grant R. Osborne, Revelation Baker Exegetical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
Ralph G. Bowles, Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell, EQ 73:1 (2001), 21-36.
G. K. Beale, Carey Conference 2015 - Dr Greg Beale - Revelation 1, 2, 3.