Gordon Fee on Revelation

At ETS/SBL Gordon Fee's Revelation commentary in the NCCS will be available. To wet your appetite here is an excerpt from the preface:

"Stepping into Revelation from the rest of the New Testament is to enter into a strange, bizarre world; and this is true even in the days of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Instead of narratives, arguments, or plain statements of fact, the Revelation is full of angels, trumpets, and earthquakes; of strange beasts, dragons, and bottomless pits. Most believers, therefore, take one of two extremes: some simply avoid it in despair; others take an exaggerated interest in it, thinking to find here all the keys to the end of the world. Both of these positions I would argue are simply wrong. On the one hand, in the providence of God, it is Holy Scripture, a part of the twenty-seven document canon of the New Testament. Indeed, it serves as the ultimate - and marvelous - conclusion to the whole of Scripture. On the other hand, a great deal of what has been written about it, especially at the popular level, tends to obscure its meaning rather than to help the reader understand it. In fact many years ago, when I was teaching a course on the Revelation at Wheaton College, one of the options for a term paper was to analyze the exegesis of Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth. Two of the students took me up on this alternative, both of whom independently came to the conclusion that the task was altogether impossible, since there is not a single exegetical moment in Lindsay's entire book. John himself would surely have found Lindsay's book as 'apocalyptic' as most modern readers do John's".

Interview with Gordon Fee on Revelation

Forthcoming is Gordon Fee's Revelation commentary in the NCCS. There is a video interview with Gordon Fee at Grace Communion International where he talks about his Revelation book.

Alan Bandy on Revelation

My good friend Alan Bandy has had his Ph.D thesis on Revelation published by Sheffield Phoenix Press. It is called, The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation, with more details available here.

Book Notice: Revelation by Brian K. Blount

Brian K. Blount

Revelation: A Commentary

NTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2009.

$32.97 at Amazon.com.

This volume is an exegetical commentary on Revelation with liberationist sympathies. Blount defends Revelation against those who think it is sub-canonical because it is too violent. In dialogue with Miroslav Volf and Allan Boesak, he responds that those who criticize Revelation as violent do so from a perspective of a "suburban ideology" that is detached from those who experience pain, evil, and terror in their living rooms. Or as I would say, we can only be Pacificists if God isn't one. A good summary of Blount's approach can be found in the preface: "While Mark's Jesus asks his disciples to take up their crosses and follow, John's Christ demands that they witness to the same testimony to which Jesus testified the very declaration of the lordship that took Jesus to his own cross. Both are asking the Jesus/Christ followers to emulate their Lords' defiant belief that he, and not any human power, was master and Lord of human history. All the many visions of the Apocalypse testify to this single revelation, which was declared by Jesus and demanded by Jesus of his followers: Jesus Christ is Lord! That declaration of faith has powerful implications for the construction and maintenance of social and political life. In other words, what is revealed in and from heaven dramatically alters how humans should expect to conduct life here on earth" (ix-x). On the millennium (since that is what everyone is interested in as a test case for Revelation commentaries), Blount starts with the observation that "too much has been made of a concept to which John gave very little attention" (366). The main function of the millennium in Revelation 20 is, according to Blount, that it is symbolic of a transitory period of time that precedes God's reward of the faithful. It looks forward to God's vindication and that believers will rule over the very world that has persecuted and destroyed them (367).

I confess that I still like Beale, Witherington, Aune, and Caird as my top Revelation commentaries, but this one is very well written and thought provoking at several points to deserve consultation.

Jim Hamilton on Revelation 20

My buddy Jim Hamilton preaches up a storm on Revelation 20 about the millennium. If you are amillennial, only listen to it with proper protective equipment covering your groin because Hamilton will sock it to you at your most vulnerable point.

Book Notice: Baker Books on Revelation and Apocalyptic Thought

Baker has a couple of cool books out on Revelation and Apocalyptic thought:

James L Resseguie
The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009.
Available at Amazon.com.

Resseguie opens with a primer on narrative analysis and examines John's usage of metaphors [my NT101 students might find that useful for their essay], verbal threads, chiasms, inclusios, two-step progressions, and other rhetorical devices like use of numbers, geography, etc. The book proceeds chapter by chapter on Revelation providing a narrative over view and description rather than a verse by verse commentary. He treats John as an organic and unified narrative (e.g., the issues facing the churches in Revelation 2-3 are developed and elaborated in Revelation 13 and 17). Resseguie also focuses on the literary and theological complexities of the text. He comments on Rev 20:4-6, "Throughout the Apocalypse the call to endure, persevere, and hold fast to the faith of Jesus is embedded with narratives of distress (e.g., 13:10; 14:12). Christians have lost their lives because they have held fast to the faith of Jesus (6:10), and from a below point of view the beast appears to be victorious. But from an above point of view God's are vindicated adn the martyrs are victorious. This is the meaning of the millennium" (pp. 245-46). This is a good book and would a good counter-point to a source critical book on Revelation like David Aune's.

Robert J. Daley, SJ (editor)
Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009.
Available via Amazon.com.

This volume in the Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History Series, explores how early Christian understandings of apocalyptic writings and teachings are reflected in the theology, social practices and institutions of the early church. The highlight for me wasBernard McGinn's piece on "Turning Points in Early Christian Apocalypse Exegesis" where he notes ambivalence towards the Book of Revelation by many groups (eastern churches thought it flirted with Montanism and Marcionites considered it a Jewish book). A critical turn comes with Hippolytus as his christological and ecclesiological reading of Revelation 12, i.e. he read it about the present and not about the future, became the baseline of "orthodox" readings of the Apocalypse. Brian Daley also thinks that the Apocalypse ceased to be read as "a revelation of unknown things to come [and more as] an affirmation of the victory of Christ and a representation of the life of the church, his body, in its present time of struggle".

Last Disciple Series

Over at the SBL Forum is a good article by Margaret E. Ramey (Messiah College) on 'Left Behind' No More? An Evangelical Preterist Interpretation of Revelation in 'The Last Disciple' series, which Hank Hanegraaff's Last Disciples Series which is a preterist alternative to the Left Behind Series. She evaluates the books, pro and con, and concludes:

"Hanegraaff provides a helpful counterbalance within evangelicalism to the predominant premillinial dispensationalism encapsulated in the Left Behind series. Most importantly, he attempts to shift the evangelical focus from rapture to resurrection. Hanegraaff states on his website: "In our view the great and glorious hope of believers is not found in rapture but in the blessed hope of resurrection."[13] If nothing else, perhaps his readers will be encouraged to re-center their faith on what has historically been the hope of Christianity rather than remain captivated by this more recent fixation on being left behind."

Maybe this is something for me to use my Amazon.com gift voucher on.

Leaving Behind the "Left Behind" series

Michael Gorman has a must-read post criticizing the Left Behind series (and many of the points could be applied to American dispensationalism as a whole).

Revelation Bonanza - Part 4: Stuckenbruck on the Millennium

There are some very good Revelation commentaries out there: Beale is near encyclopedic, Caird is an oldie but a goodie, Keener is great on application, and I'm also partial to Witherington. In terms of short commentaries in one volumes whole Bible commentaries, I am a great admirer of Loren T. Stuckenbruck in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. This is what he says about Revelation 20:

The scenarios in 20:1-3 and 4-6 are patterned, respectively, after two Jewish apocalyptic traditions: (1) the notion of a temporary abode for evil powers in anticipation of the final judgment (cf. Isa 24:21-22; 1 Enoch 10:12; 21:1-10; Jub. 5:10; 4Q203 7, 8) and (2) the expectation of a period of messianic rule before the final judgment (cf., eg., 1 Enoch 91:12-16; Sib. Or 3:635-701; 4 Ezra 7:27-35; 2 Bar 29:3-30:5). The combination of these traditions allows John to split up the eschatological judgment into two stages or resurrections, one which stresses the reward of the martyred righteous ("first resurrection") and another which stresses the judgment of the wicked ("the second resurrection"). This, in turn, throws the spotlight on the privileges afforded to loyal Christians during a millennial reign.

Read in sequence, 20:4-6 and 11-15 could be read as an eschatological judgmnt occurring in two stages. What may seem to be successive stages could actually be a literary device used by John to focus singly on the vindication of the righteous martyrs and on the eradication of the wicked and evil. It is, therefore, misleading to insist that John was simply interested in chronology. Many have deliberated whether the millennial reign precedes or follows the final judgment. So formulated, this question has produced traditions of interpretation which, respectively, are labeled "premillennial" and "postmillennial". Whereas the former [I think "latter" is meant] regards the millennium as the culmination of a gradual improvement brought about by the church in the world, the latter [I think "former"] expects that the world will only be changed decisively when God's activity intervenes in a world in a downward spiral of evil. While it might be possible to read 19:11-20:15 either way, the passage in its prsent form is inconsistent. The impression is left that John, rather than being concerned primarily with the order of events to be, was attempting to draw attention to the ultimate destinies of the righteous and the wicked that is, to show in sharprest relief that God will vindicate the faithful ones and annihilate those who are allies of Satan.

Revelation Bonanza - Part 3: Gospel and Apocalypse

What relationship does the Apocalypse have to the Fourth Gospel? Both are clearly in the Johannine "school" (if such a thing existed) as they share a similar christology on Jesus as the Messiah, Son of Man, Lamb of God, etc. Yet obviously the Apocalypse is fully into apocalyptic eschatology while the Fourth Gospel emphasizes a distinctively realized eschatology. The links between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John are probed by Jorg Frey in an appendix to the revised edition of Martin Hengel's Die Johanneische Frage. John's Gospel is not necessarily a rejection of apocalyptic thinking since the main thrust of it has an affinity with an apocalyptic theology. In both books the revelation of heavenly mysteries is found in Jesus. Likewise, the Gospel's emphases on dualism, determinism, election, messianism, revelation, hostility with the world, wisdom, and judgment all have points of contact with apocalyptic writings like the Apocalypse of John.

Revelation Bonanza - Part 2: Reception History

I have a copy of Judith Kovac and Christopher Rowland's book The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ in the Blackwell Bible Commentaries. It is a commentary on reception-history and it is one of the more interesting things about the Apocalypse that I've read in recent years. What was genuinely new to me was that the first commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus of Poetovis (ca. 260 AD) took a chiliastic interpretation (this is in addition to Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian), while the first amillenialist interpretation appears in the fourth century with Tyconius and Augustine (although symbolic interpretations are as early as Origen and Cyprian). I have to recommend this volume as a good read on the Apocalypse. Kovacs/Rowland also cite the admonitory opening words of the Geneva Bible's comments on the Apocalypse: "Read diligently; judge soberly and call earnestly to God for the true understanding hereof" - probably good advice!

Revelation Bonanza - Part I: Angel-Christology

I'm having a Revelation bonanza this weekend. In the first installment I look at angelomorphic christology in Revelation 10. That chapter reads in the TNIV:

¹ Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. ² He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, ³ and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. ⁴ And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

⁵ Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven. ⁶ And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay! ⁷ But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."

⁸ Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: "Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."

⁹ So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but 'in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.' " ¹⁰ I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. ¹¹ Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

-------

Bob Gundry asserts the presence of an angelomorphic christology in Revelation 10. He argues for a theophany with Jesus appearing in angelic form. He notes the similarity between ch. 10 where the angel has a scroll in his hand and ch. 5 where Jesus the Lamb took a seven-sealed scroll in his hand. Also, the description of the angel's feet as likened to pillars of fire recalls the divine theophany that led Israel in the wilderness. He then states:

"The great variety of Christologies in Revelation makes the presence there of angelomorphic Christology unsurprising; and the role of Yahweh's angel in the Exodus-narrative and later Jewish literature concerning it combines with the prominence of Exodus-typology throughout Revelaltion and with the promiennce of angelology elsewhere in apocalyptic literature to provide multiple impetusues for an angelomorphic Christology in Revelation comparable to angelomorphic theology in the OT and later Judaism. Inasmuch as such Christology provides an angelic connection for the saints on earth with God in heaven, a further impetus may be found in the felt need of such a connection, due to the original audience's having suffering ostracism from Jewish synagogues, Greco-Roman civic life and culture, the Roman government and its agents ... and the rich and powerful elite."

On the one hand, in the NT there is clearly a critique of christologies that venerated Jesus as merely a supreme angel (Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1.15-20, 2.18 come immediately to mind). And yet, angelomorphic christology evidently manifested itself without necessarily undermining other facets of a christology of divine identity. For case in point, the "I have come" (ἦλθον) sayings in the Gospels (e.g. Mk. 2.17) with coming + purpose have their most analogous background in the coming of angels for specific purposes (e.g. Dan. 10.11). According to Simon Gathercole, these sayings function to demonstrate Jesus' pre-existence, his heavenly origins, and his transcendence of the heaven-earth divide.

Revelation-fest

Some stuff on Revelation to mull over:

1. D.A. Carson preaches a stirring sermon on “The Strange Triumph of a Slaughtered Lamb” (Revelation 12) [HT: Any Naselli].

2. Interpretation 63/1 (January 2009): Revelation as a Critique of Empire [HT Mark Goodacre] with articles by Craig Koester and Warren Carter.

3. Those wanting an introduction to Revelation should read Craig Koester's book.

4. Alan Bandy rethinks the meaning and application of Rev. 3.20.

5. Check out how close we are to the second coming by reading the Rapture Index (ecumenism, Barack Obama elected President, UN calling for a truce in Gaza - the end is nigh).

Lamb Christology in Revelation

My NT 101 students (whom I haven't had a chance to actually instruct yet) have been set an essay on the Christology of the Book of Revelation. Central to that subject must obviously be the Lamb Christology in the book. Steve Moyise has a good section on this in ch. 8 of his Evoking Scripture. Moyise summarizes Thomas Slater's summery (Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation [1999]) of the Lamb image in the book:

• The Lamb is worthy to open the scroll by virtue of its sacrificial death;
• The Lamb inaugurates the events that lead to victory and salvation for the people of God;
• The Lamb makes war on the enemies of God's people and defeats them;
• The Lamb holds the book of life with the names of the 'saved';
• The Lamb protects the community from harm; and
• The Lamb shares divine honours with God.

The theme is introduced in Rev. 5.6 and occurs a further nine times in Revelation 5-7 and seven times in Revelation 21-22. For those interested in the theme further, they should consult Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John (2003).

Review of S. Smalley's Revelation Commentary

David deSilva offers a short review of Stephen Smalley's The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse from BTB.

Book Review: God and History in the Book of Revelation

Michael Gilbertson
God and History in the Book of Revelation:

New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann (SNTS 124; Cambridge: CUP, 2003).

See google books for a quick read.
See Amazon.com for purchase.

Blurb from Cambridge: "This is an interdisciplinary study which constructs a dialogue between biblical interpretation and systematic theology. It examines how far a reading of the Book of Revelation might either support or question the work of leading theologians Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann on the theology of history, exploring the way in which the author of Revelation uses the dimensions of space and time to make theological points about the relationship between God and history. The book argues that Revelation sets the present earthly experience of the reader in the context of God’s ultimate purposes, by disclosing hidden dimensions of reality, both spatial - embracing heaven and earth - and temporal - extending into the ultimate future. Dr Gilbertson offers a detailed assessment of the theologies of history developed by Pannenberg and Moltmann, including their views on the nature of the historical process, and the use of apocalyptic ideas in eschatology".

My Review (forthcoming in EuroJTh 17.1)

Summary: This volume represents a cross disciplinary study between biblical interpretation and systematic theology. The author examines to what degree a reading of the Book of Revelation supports or undermines the theologies of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann on the theology of history. He does this by exploring the way in which the Book of Revelation employs the dimensions of time and space in order to establish a conception of God’s relationship to history. The author concludes that Pannenberg and Moltmann’s theologies are both continuous and discontinuous with the Book of Revelation and its approach to God and history.

The objective of Gilbertson’s study is to examine the relation of the divine reality to the world of historical events. In chapter one, Gilbertson opens with discussion of twentieth-century debates about the relationship between history and faith. He surveys the work of Ernst Troeltsch who argued that the historical-critical method could not accommodate divine interaction with the world, Rudolf Bultmann who posited a strict dichotomy between history and God via his neo-Kantian dualism that separated fact from value, Wolfhart Pannenberg who advocated that the divine self-communication occurs through historical events, and finally he surveys Jürgen Moltmann who endeavoured to draw the horizons of God’s ultimate future and the human present together in order for their to be real hope in Christian thought.

In chapter two, Gilbertson examines the relationship between scripture and systematic theology. He draws attention to Krister Stendahl’s two-stage model which begins with the descriptive task of biblical theology followed by the practice of a normative systematic theology in order to prevent theological commitments from damaging the interpretation of the text. Gilbertson questions, however, whether ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ are really antithetical and whether the differentiation between what the text ‘meant’ and what it ‘means’ is really straightforward. Instead, Gilbertson prefers Nicholas Lash’s dialectic model of a more dynamic interface between exegesis and theology. On the role of scripture in theology, he accepts Alister McGrath’s defence of the cognitive-propositionalist approach which maintains an external referent in the story of Jesus.

Gilbertson addresses the overall perspective of Revelation in chapter three by focusing on Revelation’s representation of history, the rhetorical situation of the text, and the genre of Revelation. He examines preterist, historicist, and salvation-historical accounts of Revelation’s representation of history and finds fault with all three. Instead, Gilbertson argues that the framework of Revelation is temporal (= not about abstract principles) yet not chronological (= not about speculative future events). He locates the text in an environment that was not necessarily in crisis but the Seer aims to reveal the true nature of the situation to his readers. Accordingly, Gilbertson rejects seeing the symbology of Revelation as functioning as a psychological mechanism designed to induce certain states. He maintains that due regard should be given to the truth claims that the text makes. Thus, however the rhetorical function of the book is construed it must remain rooted in the truth-claims that the book itself makes about reality. On genre, Revelation is an apocalypse, though lacking some features of an apocalypse (e.g. pseudonymity), and the Seer attempts to influence his audience by locating the earthly present in the context of ultimate spatial and temporal horizons.

Chapters four and five deal with the spatial and temporal dimensions of Revelation. Gilbertson argues that Revelation is concerned with ‘the expansion of spatial horizons to include a transcendent spatial reality and the expansion of temporal horizons include transcendent temporal reality’ (p. 82). He finds that the juxtaposition of 2:1–3:22 and 4:1–11 create a dissonance between the crisis situation of John’s audience and the absolute sovereignty of God. This dissonance is resolved, spatially, by the future descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth, and temporally, by the everlasting sovereignty of God being manifest on the earth at the same time. Although, as he points out, this imagery can also intensify the dissonance since the spatial and temporal transitions are yet to take place.

Gilbertson then compares his findings about Revelation with the theologies of Pannenberg and Moltmann in chapter six. He focuses on the dynamics of history, proleptic revelation, eschatological consummation, and the relationship of the present to the eschatological horizon. He notes the differences between Pannenberg and Moltmann not the least of which is that Pannenberg emphasizes the unity and coherence of history with God’s self-revelation, while Moltmann emphasizes discontinuity and contradiction between the present historical reality and the coming of God. Beyond this, Gilbertson adds a caveat that the conceptual worlds of John of Patmos and twentieth century theologians such as Pannenberg and Moltmann are very different, but what they have in common is a theology whose orientation is towards the ultimate future and the impact of this ultimate future upon the present. Where Pannenberg and Moltmann appear to depart from Gilbertson’s analysis of Revelation, is that the Seer can identify God’s rule as a hidden reality, whereas for Pannenberg and Moltmann, God’s rule is of the future.

In his conclusion, Gilbertson finds Pannenberg and Moltmann’s theology as being continuous and discontinuous from his analysis of Revelation. In line with the intention of the text, Moltmann and Pannenberg both posit a vision of the ultimate power of God that will ultimately shape the future but such power is for the moment hidden and not publicly manifest. Overall, a theological reading of Revelation is both a welcomed and profitable exercise if done with historical sensitivity and theological acumen. Gilbertson does both fairly well and succeeds in bringing the disciplines of biblical and theological studies together. The only misgiving I have is that while Gilbertson rejects Stendahl’s two-stage model for biblical and systematic theology, in the end his monograph is a perfect example of it as he moves from analysis of the text of Revelation (chapters 3–5) to systematic observations (chapter 6). Apart from that, this volume is a good example of how biblical interpretation and systematic theology can and should be brought together.

The Rhetorical Setting of Revelation

I am currently reading Michael Gilbertson God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann, and it includes this quote about the rhetorical setting of Revelation in light of recent scholarship:

Yarbro Collins stresses the phenomenon of relative deprivation and perceived crisis; Thompson argues rather for a conflict between two different views of reality; Fiorenza is more ready to assume an element of actual persecution in the background. Ultimately, however, it may be misleading to seek to tie the genesis of the text to one particular social setting. The text itself suggets strongly that the book was addressed to a variety of different settings. The messages to Smyrna, Pergamum and perhaps hiladelphia suggest an atmosphere of oppression, while those to Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea do not appear to refer to any existing persectuion. The book's message of judgement against Babylon (and hence the need to avoid compromise), the expectation that Christian witness will provoke hostility, and the assurane of ultimately vindication are relevant to a variety of different situations (p. 60).

Outline of Revelation 2-3

Craig Koester provides a useful outline of Revelation 2-3 and the letters of the seven churches:

1. The Problem of Assimilation: Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira.

2. The Problem of Persecution: Smyrna and Philadelphia.

3. The Problem of Complacency: Sardis and Laodicea

This would make a good sermon outline for Revelation.

Craig Koester on Dispensational Views of Revelation

Craig Koester in his excellent book, Revelation and the End of All Things (see the side bar for the link), offers this critique of the Dispensational reading of Revelation.

1. The system has a mechanical view of prophecy and fulfillment that is foreign to Revelation.

2. Niether Daniel nor Revealtion refers to the rapture.

3. The sharp distinction between Israel and the church is unwarranted as the NT writers assume that the story of Israel continues within the Christian community.

4. The system confuses literal and symbolic imagery.

I largely concur with this, but one thing we should note is that critics of Dispensationalism usually fail to differentiate between the diverse strands of Dispensationalism that exist. Ben Witherington's book The Problem with Evangelical Theology is guilty of this as well. In Dispensationalism there is the "Classic Dispensationalists" like Darby and Scofield, the "Revisionist Dispensationalists" like Charles Ryrie and the late John Walvoord, and the "Progressive Dispensationalists" like Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising. Criticisms made against Darby do not necessarily apply to the Progressive Dispensationalists like Bock. And Revisionists like Ryrie have suspicions about whether the Progressives are even remaining true to the core of Dispensationalism. Graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary would probably be able to tell you more about the finer nuances within this theological movement.

Bishop Dionysius on Revelation

Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century), one of Eusebius' heroes in his History of the Church, was a great bishop who led the church in times of plague and persecution. He was also a capable biblical scholar (a rare trait among bishops these days) and wrote about Revelation.

A certain Nepos, a bishop of Egypt, argued that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a more Jewish fashion and he took the hope for a millennium in Revelation 20 quite literally. Dionysius wrote a response to Nepos in a book called On Promises. I find two interesting things about what Dionysius says concerning the canonicity of Revelation and its authorship.

1. In contrast to some who attributed Revelation to Cerinthus, Dionysius says:

I, however, would not dare reject the book, since many brethren hold it in esteem, but since my intellect cannot judge it properly, I hold that its interpretation is a wondrous mystery. I do not understand it, but I suspect that the words have a deeper meaning. Putting more reliance on faith than on reason, I have concuded that they are too high for my comprehension. I do not reject what I have failed to understand, but am rather puzzled that I failed to understand.

That probably sums it up for many of us!

2. On authorship, Dionysius says this:

That, therefore, he was named John and that this book is by a John - some holy, inspired writer - I will not deny. But I do not agree that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel according to John and the general epistle. From the character of each and on the style and format of [Revelation], I conclude that the author is not the same. For the Evangelist nowhere names himself in either the Gospel or Epistle in either the first or third persons, whereas the author of Revelation announces himself at the very beginning: "The revelation of Jesus Christ which he ... sent by his angel to his servant John."

(Eusebius, H.E.7.25)