The Book of Revelation - what's your take?

Before I get underway, I'd like to point out that anyone who has nothing to add but 'God doesn't exist and/or Revelation is made up', has nothing to add. This is not to say that Atheists aren't welcome to comment (I don't even know whether I believe in God), but keep it constructive, please. With that said...



I was raised a Catholic and have done my share of reading the Bible (I've even read some of the more obscure books of the Old Testament). However, the one book that perplexed me (and probably everyone else who read it) was Revelation. The one book that deals in prophecies of things to come is also the most incomprehensible, full of indecipherable metaphors. I was just wondering what everyone made of it? In particular chapter thirteen (which is probably where the superstitions about the number thirteen have come from):

Originally Posted by Revelation 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

What's YOUR interpretation of this? It seems like the last line is saying that we should already know. And please be respectful of other people's opinions.

Well, we did some study of this, actually. I believe, that Revelations is to be taken symbolically, as most Apocalyptic Literature is supposed to.

John, the author of the book, wrote the book differently then the other books of the Bible. While most others written over a period of time, or were letters to certain peoples. But, the book of Revelation, was written as John was receiving the visions. he was receiving a rush of images and feelings, and had to write it down in the best way possible. It's very likely that most of it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't make sense, or didn't make sense to John at the time. (ex: something that he describes could be something from the future, and he wouldn't recognize it.)

Yeah, I suppose if he saw a train he'd write it down as a metal snake. Still though, some of what's written is familiar: people needing a number to buy or sell? That's a credit card, right there. Though John describes people wearing them in their hands.

*Is worried people will think he's a conspiracy freak*

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Yeah, I suppose if he saw a train he'd write it down as a metal snake. Still though, some of what's written is familiar: people needing a number to buy or sell? That's a credit card, right there. Though John describes people wearing them in their hands.

*Is worried people will think he's a conspiracy freak*

And then there are the people who see Obama as the Anti-Christ because he "fits the description from Revelation" I don't have an exact verse about the Anti-Christ but he comes after the great dragon is killed, and falls upon the earth. I don't think anything like that has happened yet.

I also heard a theory that he was seeing a view of the past, and that the giant beast that took control of the people was actually portraying the Roman Empire. It makes sense I guess, a lot of them weren't fond of the Romans.

The theory I've heard that made the most sense to me was that it was, essentially, revolutionary propaganda against emperor Nero, who was...unkind to the Christians.

Of course, coming right out and denouncing the Roman emperor was a quick way to end up painfully dead, so Revelation hid it's message in obtuse metaphors that Christians of the time and other suppressed groups would understand (quite a few of the images apparently relate to common code-words for Nero, say).

It could, of course, be an actual prophecy; but if so it's ludicrously vague and doused so heavily in metaphor that it's completely useless to use in actually telling what's to come.

One idea that seems at least a bit unlikely is that the John who wrote it (Not to be confused with John the Baptist or the Disciple John) was on hallucinogenic drugs at the time. It's not impossible, especially given some of the imagery, but there are apparently some very subtle and very clever references to other parts of the Bible in it, something that would be at least difficult to pull off if you weren't thinking clearly.

I tend to assent to what John described; it's a prophecy about the tyrannical emperors of the time. I would actually be interested in studying all the symbolism. I am sure it meant much more to the people of the New Testament era than to us.

Originally Posted by John

The theory I've heard that made the most sense to me was that it was, essentially, revolutionary propaganda against emperor Nero, who was...unkind to the Christians.

Of course, coming right out and denouncing the Roman emperor was a quick way to end up painfully dead, so Revelation hid it's message in obtuse metaphors that Christians of the time and other suppressed groups would understand (quite a few of the images apparently relate to common code-words for Nero, say).

It could, of course, be an actual prophecy; but if so it's ludicrously vague and doused so heavily in metaphor that it's completely useless to use in actually telling what's to come.

One idea that seems at least a bit unlikely is that the John who wrote it (Not to be confused with John the Baptist or the Disciple John) was on hallucinogenic drugs at the time. It's not impossible, especially given some of the imagery, but there are apparently some very subtle and very clever references to other parts of the Bible in it, something that would be at least difficult to pull off if you weren't thinking clearly.

My interpretation of Revelation is similar to this one by GDwarf, but with some notable differences.

1. It's not so much a propaganda piece. For one thing, propaganda is imposed from the top down. Christians at this time (late 1st century/early 2nd century), being on the bottom themselves, were definitely in no position to do this. Instead, it was a document written by a Christian leader for a specifically Christian audience to inspire hope and faith in the midst of political turmoil and repression.

2. Revelation isn't necessarily a cryptic coded message that Christians were hiding from the Romans. Rather, it's more like political commentary using vivid, almost cosmic imagery (think modern-day political cartoons here). Consider, for example, Rev. 17:9, which refers to the "seven hills" of Rome. As my seminary professor was known to sarcastically say, "Well, no Roman would've been able to figure that out!" Also of perhaps greater import are the numerous doxological passages such as Rev. 4:11, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power," as well as 19:16, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"--all such honorifics were those ascribed to Caesar! Now they're applied to Christ. So if anything Revelation is more like open defiance against an unjust empire.

3. (This one's more an elaboration than a disagreement.) I agree with you in asserting that he's very likely not on drugs. John is using the literary genre of apocalyptic in this book, something that was a quite common literary device among the ancient Jewish people going back to about the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. Indeed, it's such a masterful mingling of both Jewish apocalyptic elements, OT elements, and pagan Roman elements that Revelation becomes a brilliant literary work on its merits regardless of religious application to the modern age--which thus enhances the argument against the book being the product of a really intense acid trip.

A load of drug-induced hallucinations John of Patmos had!

No, really, I agree with John. It was a way of getting Christians to be even more pissed at Rome. He paralleled Rome with Babylon (the Whore of Babylon sitting on "seven hills," like Rome), referred to Nero as the Antichrist (Nero = 666 when using Hebrew numbers) and talked about the persecution of Christians, which was going on at the time it was written.

It was a rallying cry against the tyranny of Rome presented as a prophecy despite the fact that it was written at the same time it describes. It offered some hope to Christians that their deity would judge Rome, and was probably made partially in response to Jesus' prophecies about the "end of the world" happening in that generation not coming true.

Is John of Patmos the same as John the Apostle? I've always been confused about that.

There is no definitive answer, some say they were the same, others say they weren't.

I lean towards "different people", myself, but I'm no expert.

Originally Posted by Lincoln Osiris

Is John of Patmos the same as John the Apostle? I've always been confused about that.

Unknown, but very likely not.

I identify three distinct but very influential Johns in the NT canon: John one of the Twelve apostles, John the Evangelist (whom I believe was probably linked in some way to the Apostle John), and John of Patmos, who is completely different from and likely unaffiliated with the first two Johns.