To Whom Was Revelation Written?
"John to the seven churches that are in Asia..."
Revelation 1:4
I am going to make a bold statement, and say that the greatest source of misunderstanding in interpreting and applying of the Book of Revelation, is in assuming that these seven are historic Christian churches.
One clue of this can be found in the New Testament itself. We read the epistles to the churches by the apostle Paul, and see that believers are welcomed into the body of Christ by grace alone.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
not as a result of works lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9
Then we turn to Revelation chapters 2 and 3, and are confronted with different language; language that refers not to our standing in grace and the seal of the Holy Spirit, but rather to works and deeds.
There is great dilemma in trying to reconcile the two. To begin with the premise that the 7 churches are historical, requires jumping through theological hoops that are not necessarily supported by the text. Literal interpretation falls short in this case, so an allegorical approach is more commonly used. The most widely accepted interpretation of Revelation chapters 2 and 3, is that these are are churches of John's day, and/or represent a timeline of church history. Revelation chapter 4 is assumed to be the rapture of the church. Yet if John is told to write all that he sees (all 22 chapters) in a book and send it to those churches, what purpose does the book serve if the church is not present.
The word church in the book of Revelation, is the Greek word ecclesia. It simply means an assembly; any assembly of people who are called out from other people.
In Genesis 28:3 & 35:10-11, Israel was a nation and a people called out. In the Old Testament, the word is cahal from which we get our English word, "call." It means to call together, to assemble, or gather together. It is used of any assembly gathered together for any purpose. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament renders cahal as ecclesia. Kenneth Wuest5, in his expanded translation of the New Testament translates Rev. 1:4,
"John, to the seven assemblies, the ones in Asia..."
The Jewish New Testament, translated by David H. Stern, translates Rev. 1:4,
"From Yochanan, to the seven Messianic communities in the province of Asia..."
Young's Literal Translation,
"John to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia..."
And the Amplified Bible, which parenthetically tries to clarify for the reader,
Early English translators chose to translate ecclesia as "church." Consequently, we assume this means the Christian church, and that they must have been churches during the writer John's time. But was that always the assumption?
"John to the seven assemblies (churches) that are in Asia...."
Early English translators chose to translate ecclesia as "church." Consequently, we assume this means the Christian church, and that they must have been churches during the writer John's time. But was that always the assumption?
Present day Bible teachers and theologians interpret the seven churches in Asia as the historic Christian Church, but what do those closer to the source have to say? The writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers not only helped to canonize the Bible, but they also had much, and sometimes little, to say about the text. Our "who, what, when, where, why and how" hermeneutical process of study insists that we look at those who were historically closer to the source. How did they view Revelation and what were their methods of interpretation?
Polycarp (70 - 178) was a disciple of the Apostle John and the Bishop of Smyrna. Very little of his writing has been preserved, but what we do have makes no mention of Revelation. Another interesting fact, is that in his list of canonical books, the Apocalypse of John is not one of them.4
Ignatius (110), also a disciple of John, does not include Revelation in his list of canonical books.1
Clement of Rome (95 - 97) does not include Revelation in his list.4
Irenaeus (AD 130 - 202), accepted Revelation as an authentic book, but tried to calculate the number 666, giving some possible names as to who it could be. He also went on to say that the Antichrist would probably arise after the fall of Rome.1
Origen (AD 185 - 254), viewed the Revelation as scripture, and interpreted it allegorically.1
Dionysius (AD 265) also used the allegorical method of interpretation, which he believed could bring to light what he thought were the book's hidden and wonderful truths. These however, were too high for even his own comprehension.1
Marcion (AD 100 - ?), is the first person known to have published a fixed collection of what we would call New Testament books. His teachings and theology are strongly in error and rejected by his contemporaries, however I include him here because of a comment made about him by Tertullian2 (AD 145 - 220?). Tertullian says Marcion rejected the Apocalypse on the grounds that it could not have been written by John because (among other reasons) there was no Christian church in existence at Thyatira in the time of John.1
Epiphanius (writing about AD 367), is confronted with the same argument with a sect called the Alogi. They too disputed the genuineness of the Apocalypse on the same grounds. "Moreover, some of them (the Alogi) again seize on this passage in this same Apocalypse (Rev. 2:18), 'write to the angel of the church which is in Thyatira', saying there was no Christian church in Thyatira during John's time. How could he write to a church that did not exist?"2
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263 - 340), a church historian, was commissioned by Emporer Constantine to make 50 copies of the Scriptures. Eusebius was reluctant to include the Apocalypse of John, but Constantine attached high importance to it.1
Eusebius' primary reason for not wanting to include it was the question of authorship; i.e. which John. Citing Dionysius of Alexandria that the author was not John the Apostle, but another John, also associated with Ephesus. "That it is a John that wrote these things we must believe him, as he says it;" Eusebius writes, "but what John it is, is uncertain." He goes on to note that "the writing styles of the gospel writer and the writer of the Apocalypse differ greatly. The gospel writer is it regards the Greek language, are but most elegant indication in the arguments and the whole structure of style. I don't deny that the writer of the Apocalypse saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. His dialect and language is not very accurate Greek. I am only trying to point out the great difference between the two writings of these men and the derision of the two."
Eusebius admitted that he did not understand Revelation. The words had a deeper meaning and were "too lofty" to be comprehended. He did not reject what he read, only the fact that he could not interpret it.3
The Council of Laodicea (AD 363), was attended by 32 bishops of Asia Minor, one of which was the bishop of Ephesus. Their list of canonical books did not include the Apocalypse. It is interesting to note that two of the seven churches mentioned by John the Revelator in the Apocalypse, were represented at this council. Yet the council still rejected John's book as part of Canon.1, 2
Martin Luther (1518), said, "As for Revelation, it lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic." Luther mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. "A revelation should be revealing," he said.1
In Summary - We have established to whom the book was written, defined the word "church," and looked at what some of the Apostolic and Church Fathers, and others had to say.
In Summary - We have established to whom the book was written, defined the word "church," and looked at what some of the Apostolic and Church Fathers, and others had to say.
