Revelation (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series)

www.zondervan.com

Table of Contents

Foreword

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

§1   Prologue (Rev. 1:1–3)

§2   Greetings from John of Patmos to the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4–20)

§3   Greetings from Christ to the Seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 2:1–3:22)

§4   Thanksgiving for God’s Reign: The Ground of Christian Faith (Rev. 4:1–11)

§5   The Exaltation of God’s Lamb: The Penultimate Event of Salvation’s History (Rev. 5:1–14)

§6   The Lamb Breaks Six Seals of God’s Scroll (Rev. 6:1–17)

§7   Interlude: Reminder of God’s Faithfulness to God’s People (Rev. 7:1–17)

§8   God’s Lamb Opens the Seventh Seal (Rev. 8:1–5)

§9   Angelic Trumpets Sound Six Judgments of God (Rev. 8:6–9:21)

§10   Interlude: Two Reminders of God’s Faithfulness (Rev. 10:1–11:14)

§11   The Seventh Angel Sounds the Final Trumpet (Rev. 11:15–19)

§12   Flashback: The Genesis of the Current Crisis (Rev. 12:1–12)

§13   The War in Heaven Continues on Earth (Rev. 12:13–13:18)

§14   The Eschatological Outcomes of the Conflict: The Vindication of the Faithful (Rev. 14:1–5)

§15   The Eschatological Outcomes of the Conflict: The Judgment of the Faithless (Rev. 14:6–20)

§16   The Third Sign in Heaven: Bowls of Eschatological Plagues Poured Out on Babylon (Rev. 15:1–16:16)

§17   The Seventh Bowl: The Final Destruction of Babylon (Rev. 16:17–17:18)

§18   The Aftermath of Babylon’s Destruction (Rev. 18:1–19:10)

§19   The Return of the Exalted Lamb: the Ultimate Event of Salvation’s History (Rev. 19:11–20:15)

§20   The City of God: Entering God’s Promised Shalom (Rev. 21:1–22:6a)

§21   The Epistolary Benediction (Rev. 22:6b–21)

For Further Reading

Subject Index

Scripture Index

Foreword

Although it does not appear on the standard best-seller lists, the Bible continues to outsell all other books. And in spite of growing secularism in the West, there are no signs that interest in its message is abating. Quite to the contrary, more and more men and women are turning to its pages for insight and guidance in the midst of the ever-increasing complexity of modern life.

This renewed interest in Scripture is found both outside and inside the church. It is found among people in Asia and Africa as well as in Europe and North America; indeed, as one moves outside of the traditionally Christian countries, interest in the Bible seems to quicken. Believers associated with the traditional Catholic and Protestant churches manifest the same eagerness for the Word that is found in the newer evangelical churches and fellowships.

We wish to encourage and, indeed, strengthen this worldwide movement of lay Bible study by offering this new commentary series. Although we hope that pastors and teachers will find these volumes helpful in both understanding and communicating the Word of God, we do not write primarily for them. Our aim is to provide for the benefit of every Bible reader reliable guides to the books of the Bible—representing the best of contemporary scholarship presented in a form that does not require formal theological education to understand.

The conviction of editor and authors alike is that the Bible belongs to the people and not merely to the academy. The message of the Bible is too important to be locked up in erudite and esoteric essays and monographs written only for the eyes of theological specialists. Although exact scholarship has its place in the service of Christ, those who share in the teaching office of the church have a responsibility to make the results of their research accessible to the Christian community at large. Thus, the Bible scholars who join in the presentation of this series write with these broader concerns in view.

A wide range of modern translations is available to the contemporary Bible student. Most of them are very good and much to be preferred—for understanding, if not always for beauty—to the older King James Version (the so-called Authorized Version of the Bible). The Revised Standard Version has become the standard English translation in many seminaries and colleges and represents the best of modern Protestant scholarship. It is also available in a slightly altered common Bible edition with the Catholic imprimatur, and a third revised edition is due out shortly. In addition, the New American Bible is a fresh translation that represents the best of post-Vatican II Roman Catholic biblical scholarship and is in a more contemporary idiom than that of the RSV.

The New Jerusalem Bible, based on the work of French Catholic scholars but vividly rendered into English by a team of British translators, is perhaps the most literary of the recent translations, while the New English Bible is a monument to modern British Protestant research. The Good News Bible is probably the most accessible translation for the person who has little exposure to the Christian tradition or who speaks and reads English as a second language. Each of these is, in its own way, excellent and will be consulted with profit by the serious student of Scripture. Perhaps most will wish to have several versions to read, both for variety and for clarity of understanding—though it should be pointed out that no one of them is by any means flawless or to be received as the last word on any given point. Otherwise, there would be no need for a commentary series like this one!

We have chosen to use the New International Version as the basis for this series, not because it is necessarily the best translation available but because it is becoming increasingly used by lay Bible students and pastors. It is the product of an international team of evangelical Bible scholars who have sought to translate the Hebrew and Greek documents of the original into clear and natural English … idiomatic [and] … contemporary but not dated, suitable for "young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen [sic]." As the translators themselves confess in their preface, this version is not perfect. However, it is as good as any of the others mentioned above and more popular than most of them.

Each volume will contain an introductory chapter detailing the background of the book and its author, important themes, and other helpful information. Then, each section of the book will be expounded as a whole, accompanied by a series of notes on items in the text that need further clarification or more detailed explanation. Appended to the end of each volume will be a bibliographical guide for further study.

Our new series is offered with the prayer that it may be an instrument of authentic renewal and advancement in the worldwide Christian community and a means of commending the faith of the people who lived in biblical times and of those who seek to live by the Bible today.

W. WARD GASQUE

Preface

No writing of any commentary is a private project—especially writing one on John’s Revelation. Not only have I depended upon the work of many other scholars, I have benefitted enormously from four conversation partners. Two of these partners are Mercer Island Presbyterian Church and First Covenant Church, both in Seattle, where I taught the book of Revelation to adult classes of mature believers during the past year. Their hard questions and perceptive comments during our study together forced me to relate Revelation’s message to everyday life in practical ways. If I have succeeded at all in providing readers with a sensible commentary on Revelation, it is a debt I owe in part to them.

Two other conversation partners are classes of students, one graduate and the other undergraduate, whose completed assignments and class discussions were stimulating and enriching. No doubt my students will claim the best parts of this commentary for themselves, finding here the precipitates of new insights that were jointly achieved by shared research and reflection upon the biblical text. Teachers everywhere depend upon their students for those ideas that focus their scholarship, and they draw from their students the required energy and excitement to see their work to completion.

I am indebted as well to the dean of the School of Religion at Seattle Pacific University, Dr. William L. Lane, and to my other colleague in New Testament, Dr. Eugene E. Lemcio, for their help during this project. Sitting in with Gene’s class in Apocalyptic Literature in the spring of 1989 provided a stimulating reintroduction to Revelation, and Bill’s unfailing support both spiritually and intellectually provides a gracious setting in which to work as scholars for the church. Thanks are also due Mr. Patrick Alexander, Academic Editor of Hendrickson Publishers, for his helpful suggestions and steadfast encouragement throughout the preparation of this commentary.

I am most thankful to God for Carla, my dearest friend and spiritual mentor. Without her love and wisdom, I would certainly fail more than I do to know God’s gospel and to find it in our shared life and common faith. Even though she was not directly involved in editing this commentary (as she has been in much of my other work), the maturity I absorb from her as her husband has no doubt produced a better work.

Finally, this commentary is dedicated to my beloved parents, Elizabeth E. and Robert R. Wall. Not only did they lead me as a young lad into God’s salvation by their teaching, and keep me there through my youth by their example, Dad was the first to call my attention to the power and importance of Revelation’s message for today. His life-long interest in the prophetic books of Scripture was passed on to me, my two sisters, and my Mom around the dining room table, and it now has born some fruit—although still too meager for its source—in this commentary.

Robert W. Wall

Lent, 1991

Abbreviations

Introduction

The purpose of this series is to produce commentaries for students and for pastors and their parishes. The technical discussions of biblical scholarship have been considered but not included in this commentary. Of primary interest is the relationship of what St. John of Patmos wrote some two millennia ago with today’s church—a somewhat presumptuous interest! On the one hand, the interpreter’s ability to discern fully what John intended to convey to his first readers is limited by time and place. The variety of historical and literary methods biblical scholars use to reconstruct John’s world and the meaning of his Revelation issue important but imperfect results. Especially when interpreting this complex composition, one is wise to draw upon the expertise and insight of many others, past and present, for help and understanding: Charles, Caird, Beasley-Murray, Ladd, Mounce, Schüssler Fiorenza, Morris, Collins, Ford, Boring, Krodel, and still others who belong to this cloud of witnesses. They are often mentioned in this commentary in gratitude. While this commentary presents a distinctive perspective on the meaning of Revelation for today, many other perspectives are consulted in search of the text’s full meaning. The interpreter is well advised to use a number of commentaries on Revelation and to draw upon other studies that treat more specific aspects of John’s composition.

On the other hand, the interpreter presumes to know something about the situation of today’s church. Especially this commentary, written by a believer, is written for the church. The questions asked of Revelation address those concerns which are meaningful to God’s people. Indeed, John’s emphasis on worship both in heaven and on earth commends his work to the worshiping community. Further, he writes as a pastor to nurture a people-at-worship, a community-at-faith. He did not write an esoteric thesis, ciphered only by academics with proper credentials and requisite skills. The point is that Revelation was written by John for the church; the ongoing interpretation of Revelation must continue to make sense of what John wrote in ways which address the concerns of the church.

Of course, the greatest danger facing the student of Scripture is provincialism—finding only those meanings in biblical texts which justify what one already believes and values. In my case, interpretations of biblical texts can easily become too American, too middle class, too male, and too irrelevant for many believers. Therefore, my confidence must reside in the continuing community of interpreters, where one interpretation of Revelation checks and balances another. Further, insofar as these partners-in-dialogue are believers, God’s Spirit points the Christian community to meanings which nurture and challenge life and faith. In fact, at the very center of Revelation the good interpreter will always find the simple (not simplistic!) gospel of God. In this way, any interpretation worthy of the gospel will bear witness to the slain, yet exalted, Lamb through whom the salvation of God breaks into and radically transforms those who depend upon his dependable work; it will celebrate the triumph of God’s kingdom, which is already realized in the Lamb’s shed blood and which will be fully realized at his return.

General Considerations

The status of Revelation within the church has always been somewhat marginal. Most believers feel threatened by this book of visions; its apocalyptic language seems strange and its language of harsh judgment too violent for a loving God. The church’s natural response to Revelation is to neglect it or dismiss it as irrelevant. More conservative believers, who have always recognized the importance of Revelation, scrutinize its visions as the prediction of a declining culture and its imminent destruction. Regrettably, their interpretations are often colored by religious fanaticism or ideological rhetoric, which only heightens the suspicion of others concerning the book’s usefulness in forming a people who love God and neighbor.

In recent years, perhaps stimulated by the popularity of books like Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, mainstream Christianity has become more interested in the study of Revelation. Liberation and feminist theologians have applied sociopolitical models of interpretation to Revelation to find there a timeless message of God’s retribution against society’s injustices. The learned societies of biblical scholars have also taken to Revelation, producing fresh insights into the historical and spiritual circumstances which first occasioned its writing. Even outside the worshiping community, artists and literati are continually fascinated with the shapes and images found in John’s book of visions. The history of art and music is marked by a body of creative work that has been stimulated by Revelation. Some biblical scholars find this interest apropos, since in their view Revelation was composed as a liturgical drama. In addition, at a time when many Christians still hesitate to embrace the vitality of an apocalyptic faith, cultural critics like Christopher Lasch (The Culture of Narcissism) or literary critics like Walker Percy (The Second Coming) have pointed to Revelation as a work of uncommon power which speaks directly to the peril of societal selfishness.

While the history of the church’s interpretation of Scripture may slight Revelation, especially when compared with the attention other books of the Christian Bible have received, we would suggest that there is considerable evidence both inside and outside the church that John’s Apocalypse has a certain galvanizing power. In fact, the cumulative evidence is that this NT book continues to attract serious readers, rarely evoking the cynicism of the playwright, G. B. Shaw, who once called it a curious record of a drug addict’s visions, or even the verdict of Luther, who dismissed it as unedifying for the ordinary believer (Krodel, Revelation, pp. 14–23). We would argue that the variety of positive responses to Revelation commends its usefulness. Perhaps even the mistaken interpretations call attention to the need to build a solid structure within which to interpret and apply its meaning to the life and faith of today’s church. We believe that Revelation can be studied with great profit. There are certain clues, however, to which we must be attentive, for they guide the reader to appropriate meanings for life and faith.

In particular, there are four moments in the history of any biblical text where the careful student finds clues to guide the interpretation of Scripture. In this introduction, these four moments will be described and discussed in chronological order, with an eye to those clues important for a proper interpretation of John’s Revelation. Naturally, the critical point of departure is the moment of origin, when John wrote down his visions for seven congregations of southwest Asia. A careful consideration of the historical and theological crises which occasioned this correspondence will help one discern how this book was first heard as word of God. In this sense, the interpreter considers Revelation as a historically conditioned document; its message must be understood in light of its original historical setting, and its messenger as one whose convictions about God shaped what he wrote down. To the extent the evidence allows, then, the interpreter’s first task concerns the question: what circumstances prompted this author to write this particular book for those particular congregations? In response, the interpreter functions as a historian, concerned to attend to the evidence in a neutral manner.

Of course, the neutrality of the interpreter is limited by the ultimate value of the historical task, which is to help form the believing community’s understanding of God. Only when John’s context of life and faith is related by the interpreter to the current context of life and faith can the Spirit of God point the believing community in a direction leading to truth and love.

Additional clues are found at the moment of composition. The author’s second decision, after receiving the commission to write down his visions for the seven congregations, was to format and frame his visions in a specific way. John writes a literary composition whose coherence is known by its form (genre) and its function. The interpreter must study Revelation in literary terms, recognizing that the author’s intended meaning is conveyed by the very way in which he has put together and written down the visions he received. Literary considerations are especially essential for interpreting Revelation, since many distortions of John’s intended message have resulted from the interpreter’s neglect of the composition’s literary apocalyptic forms and epistolary format. If the meanings interpreters properly continue to assign to biblical texts must be in continuity with the author’s intended meanings, and if the author’s intended meanings are clarified by his choice of genre, then the very literary structure of a composition helps to focus what a text means. Common sense tells us that we should read poetry as poetry, not prose; tragedy as tragedy, not comedy; and so on. Likewise, the Apocalypse must be studied in a manner congruent with the forms of apocalyptic literature rather than discursive or narrative works of history.

One who interprets Revelation for the church must also pause at the moment of canonization to consider why the early church formed a NT and included Revelation in it. To recover all the clues found at this moment in the history of Revelation, the interpreter must consider its status during the long process which ultimately led the church to include Revelation in the NT canon. Any interpretation of Revelation must be in continuity not only with the author’s intentions but also with the church’s intention in forming the Christian biblical canon: to guide the formation of the worshiping community’s ongoing witness to the reigning God. More specifically, the interpreter should also pay close attention to those reasons for placing Revelation as Scripture’s concluding book.

The final point in the history of Revelation which yields important information for the interpreter is the ongoing moment of interpretation. Sharply put, today’s interpretations must be informed by the ways our forefathers and foremothers used Revelation to nurture their faith. Time and time again believers have picked up Revelation to find meanings which function as the spiritual rule for this congregation or that communion of believers. Their interpretations of Revelation have reflected different theologies and different crises.

In retrospect, the cash-value of knowing this history of interpretation is to provide a system of checks and balances by which current interpretations are measured. The profound depth of this composition’s inherent ambiguity has only extended the range of its possible meaning, which in any case should yield the requisite humility—a necessary attribute for biblical interpretation.

The Moment of Origin

The clear consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that Revelation was written during the first century to address a spiritual crisis threatening the faith and witness of Christian congregations along the coastline of southwest Asia.[1] Most still accept Irenaeus’ dating (mid-90s), although a minority of historians contends that an earlier Neronic dating (late 60s) is more likely.[2] In our view, the letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2–3), together with the vision of Babylon’s destruction (Rev. 17–18), reflect the Sitz im Leben (life setting) of the Asian church during the Domitian period (A.D. 81–96). Whatever the interpreter finally decides about the date of Revelation’s composition, however, it is neither a blueprint for future history nor one person’s poetic understanding of faith written without reference to a particular point in time. In fact, we are inclined to accept the author’s own statement of purpose that his book intends to relate the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ to his first readers, in an effort to call them to a more disciplined faith when challenged by real threats to it.

The exegetical task of reconstructing the basic ingredients of the first conversation between congregations and author has continuing relevance, since the church’s situation is always more or less analogous to the situation Revelation first addressed and interpreted by its author. In stating the historical problem in this manner, we do not deny the importance of explaining, whenever possible, the book’s symbol systems by the historical events and places known to its first-century readers. Especially the great commentaries by W. Bousset and R. H. Charles are helpful in this regard. Our sense, however, is that such efforts are of little help theologically and too often freeze Revelation’s significance in the late first or early second century—a tacit rejection of its subsequent role as canonical literature, which intends to shape the witness of the ongoing church.

In this introduction, we will be content to concern ourselves with questions of authorship and audience, especially as they relate to what occasioned the writing and first reading of the book. Our handling of these issues, however, will be different in emphasis from their traditional formulation in modern commentaries on Revelation. In our discussion of the issues relating to the book’s authorship, we are primarily interested in the book’s (rather than the author’s) apostolicity—a more theological than historical concern. In addition, our interest in the historical crisis which occasioned this composition will finally be more theological than historical. This orientation derives from our canonical perspective, which places premium on the ongoing religious function of biblical texts and their theological importance for today.

Authorship. Virtually all modern historians admit that the problems relating to Revelation’s authorship are difficult to resolve. There are disagreements on particulars even among those who otherwise agree on final matters. The unsettled status of this question might seem odd at first, since the author identifies himself as John (1:4), a seer (1:1) and Christian prophet (1:3), currently living in exile on the Roman penal island of Patmos (1:9). Apparently John belongs to the Asian church (1:9), with whose situation he is familiar and to which he now writes. Because of the large number of Hebraisms in his Greek text and his familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures and their rabbinic midrashim, one might also speculate that he is a Jewish convert to Christianity. This may explain his special sensitivity to the conflict between the Asian church and Jewish synagogue, apparent in the messages to the faithful congregations in Smyrna (2:9) and Philadelphia (3:9).

Ancient tradition identifies this John as the beloved apostle of Jesus, the presumed author of the Fourth Gospel and the three Johannine letters of the NT. Indeed, only a few courageous commentators assumed otherwise until the modern period (1800 to present), when the compositional unity of Revelation came under closer scrutiny and its Johannine authorship was questioned. The early church fathers are virtually unanimous in their verdict that the Apostle John wrote Revelation, although such a strong and singular external witness may well reflect the apologist’s compensation for Revelation’s difficult and provocative content.[3]

In addition, one finds thematic and linguistic similarities between Revelation, the Fourth Gospel, and 1 John that would seem to justify this ancient consensus (Morris, Revelation, pp. 27–35). Several have also noted that this corpus of Johannine writings shares a body of common phrases and that all speak in similar and distinctive ways about Jesus as Messiah: he is the executed and exalted Lamb, and he is the word of God. To be sure, most would reasonably allow that their different literary fields (Gospel, letter, apocalyptic) highlight different dimensions of their polyvalent meaning, so that an apocalypse will always provide new meanings to old themes. Perhaps the same point can be made to explain any stylistic or grammatical difference between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, or between 1 John and the Apocalypse. Moreover, both the Gospel and Revelation contain citations, allusions, and echoes of a particular body of OT texts, comprised mostly of prophetic oracles and priestly themes. Finally, as E. Stauffer has contended, both the evangelist and the seer share common liturgical sensibilities.

On the other hand, more recent arguments against attributing Revelation’s authorship to the Apostle John constitute a considerable challenge to the ancient consensus. Most scholars now agree that the John of Revelation is neither the author of the Fourth Gospel nor the Apostle John. We agree with this conclusion (although the evidence on both sides of the issue remains inconclusive). The internal reasons seem clear and persuasive: (1) the John of Revelation does not identify himself as the apostle, but as a servant of Jesus Christ (1:1). (2) His vocation and the authority of his composition derive more from his prophetic task (cf. 1:10; also, 22:18–19) than from an apostolic office (cf. 21:14; although see Morris, Revelation, p. 35). (3) Some cite stylistic differences (Charles, Revelation, vol. 1, pp. xxix–xxxvii), while others contend that the theological disagreements between the writings of the Johannine corpus, especially in matters of eschatology and Christology, make it impossible to think of them as coming from a single pen. And Beasley-Murray, who otherwise argues for the theological continuity between the teaching of Jesus and Revelation, seems to have in mind the teaching of the synoptic Jesus rather than John’s Jesus.

The history of interpretation demonstrates that concerns about authorship are usually vested with theological or ideological commitments and apologetic interests. This seems especially true for Revelation, where the historical and grammatical evidence, which properly determines judgments of this sort, is inadequate and often leads to conjecture upon conjecture (Beasley-Murray, Revelation, pp. 36–37). For example, those who queue up behind the Apostle John usually link their conclusions about authorship to notions of apostolicity and authority: that is, an apostolic writing, which has continuing authority for the church, must be written by one of the first apostles (Johnson, Revelation, pp. 404–5). R. H. Charles makes the opposite point in following the same premise. His influential commentary on Revelation follows the lead of Dionysius in rejecting the Apostle John’s authorship on stylistic grounds and then the credibility of the book’s theological vision by that conclusion (Revelation, vol. 1, xxi–xxiii). In my opinion, Charles exemplifies the dangerous tendency of modern scholarship to confuse historical quests after apostolic authors with the church’s recognition of a book’s apostolicity and canonicity. The assumption that the Apostle John must have written Revelation since its inspiration and canonicity depend upon it is simply wrong. The apostolicity or trustworthiness of the content of a NT writing (many of which are anonymous or quite possibly pseudonymous) is determined by a theological rather than historical perspective. In applying the criterion of apostolicity, earliest Christianity was fundamentally concerned with the congruence of a book’s message with its memory of the apostles’ witness to Christ. In this sense, the issue at stake, whether to include Revelation in the NT canon, was not a question of authorship; rather, at issue was whether its message comported well with the theological tradition the Apostle John founded. Each of the compositions that make up the NT Johannine corpus transmits a particular understanding of the significance of Jesus Christ that no doubt originated with the ministry of the Apostle John. Even if Revelation were not written by the apostle, its content continues to be trusted because its message is true to the witness of the Apostle John.

There is a sense in which Revelation represents the best illustration in the NT of a book whose authority derives from its revelatory content rather than from its author’s status.[4] Clearly the author’s self-introduction intends to subordinate the author to the visions he has received from God through Christ, who then commissions him to write them down. The authority of Revelation does not derive from an apostle who writes his visions down; rather, it derives from their source, God, and from the one who commissions their writing, the Risen Christ.

Therefore, although he follows the teaching of the Apostle John, the John who wrote Revelation is not John the beloved apostle of Jesus. Nor does the author use a pseudonym to disguise his real identity and legitimize his writing by giving credit to John the Apostle; he simply uses his real name to identify himself to his audience. Some scholars have suggested that John belongs to a school consisting of Christian teachers or prophets.[5] The most one can suggest in this regard is that John belongs to a school of Christian prophets which sought to preserve and transmit to others the Apostle John’s unique witness to the risen Lord Jesus. Even if one concludes that the evidence does not support this particular conclusion, the ongoing authority of Revelation is not ultimately determined by the ideology which equates an apostolic writer with an apostolic writing. The church’s recognition that John’s Revelation belongs to the Christian biblical canon and continues to serve the "one holy catholic and apostolic church stems from its confidence that this composition constitutes a normative witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ" (cf. Rev. 1:2).

Audience.[6] The believers for whom John of Patmos writes are members of Christian congregations located along the coastline of southwest Asia, an ancient Roman province which is now Turkey. The general experience of faithful Christians to whom John writes was one of real hardship and heartache; the costs of remaining Christian were great. Irenaeus wrote toward the end of the second century that Revelation was written late in the first century during the reign of Domitian (Against Heresies 5.30.3), whose official repression of Christianity as a politically and religiously deviant movement is well attested. John himself was exiled to Patmos, a Roman penal colony, as a result of his prophetic ministry (1:9).

Recent research, however, suggests that Rome did not single out Christianity for persecution; neither is there much evidence to confirm an empirewide effort to repress Christian worship (Boring, Revelation, pp. 13–18). In the first century, martyrdom was still exceptional. No doubt, various forms of persecution were commonplace; the suffering was therefore quite real. This persecution precipitated ideological tensions between Rome and Christianity. Rome’s cultural myths and mores tended to subvert both the worship and the witness of earliest Christianity. For example, the church’s conflict with the emperor cultus, an important background element for understanding parts of Revelation, does not center on the worship of the current Caesar. Supposed tensions between the Roman ruler and the Lord Jesus were those not of personal rivalry but of ideological disagreement: the Roman Caesar symbolized the imperial and secular Roman culture whose commitments and values were utterly contrary to the kingdom of God. Of course, to the extent that anyone participates in the social order—at work, at play, in school, as a member of various communities and associations—one comes under the influence of secular society’s myths and ideals. This more ordinary reality was more central to John’s pastoral purposes. For him, the experience of powerlessness and helplessness within the Roman world was the cost exacted because of Christianity’s refusal to submit to Rome’s secular vision.

No doubt the persecution of many believers was sponsored by local Jewish leadership (2:9; 3:9). The church should expect greater sympathy from the synagogue: Christianity began