Interpretations of the Book of Revelation

Since the 3rd century, many exegetes have believed that the Book of Revelation presents the same issues multiple times under different symbols.

By the end of the Middle Ages, a historical-philosophical interpretation emerged, relating the symbols of the Apocalypse to the history of the church.

[2] Origen (d. 254) did not write a commentary on the Apocalypse, but his hermeneutical principles left a strong mark on the exegesis of this book, especially in the East.

[2] A significant role in the development of exegesis (particularly Eastern) of the Apocalypse was played by the work of the millenarian Methodius of Olympus (d. 311), Convivium Decem Virginum.

Methodius opposed Origen's views on apokatastasis, resurrection, and others, but used the allegorical method of interpretation derived from him.

[4] He also associated the seven heads of the dragon with the seven deadly sins: lack of self-control, lust, cowardice, weakness, unbelief, foolishness, and everything that benefits evil.

[4] Andreas of Caesarea (6th century) applied a triple sense of Scripture: literal, moral, and allegorical.

[5] Andreas of Caesarea went to great lengths to reach ancient Greek manuscripts and compile all significant interpretations of the Apocalypse of John (Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, etc.).

He combines the allegorical method (influenced by Methodius) with the literal one, and recapitulation with a continuous, uninterrupted exposition of the Apocalypse of John.

He calculated that two hundred years after his time, the fall of Rome would occur, followed by the rise of ten kingdoms.

[15] Augustine of Hippo did not write a commentary on the Apocalypse, but in the 20th book of De Civitate Dei, he elaborates on the Antichrist, the false prophet, the thousand-year kingdom, Gog and Magog, and the great tribulation.

[17] The next important period in the history of exegesis is associated with Bede, the creator of the quadruple sense of biblical interpretation.

This was further developed by subsequent exegetes (such as Rupert of Deutz), and especially by Joachim of Fiore, a Calabrian Cistercian abbot, who is considered the creator of this interpretative method.

[27] The historical method of interpretation completely dominated exegesis in the late Middle Ages, and the reformers later adopted it.

It is now believed that historical interpretation stemmed from a misunderstanding of the literary genre of the Apocalypse and a limited understanding of the nature of prophecies.

[28] During this period, commentaries by the following authors were also published: the Dominican Jordan of Saxony (d. 1237),[29] William of Auxerre, Bernard of Trilia (d. 1292),[30] and Juan de Torquemada (d.

[31] By the end of the Middle Ages, the Apocalypsis Nova appeared – a kind of dialogue with the archangel Gabriel discussing the truths of the faith.

Protestant exegesis until the 18th century largely followed the paths laid out by Nicholas of Lyra and Joachim of Fiore, adding an anti-papal interpretation of chapter 13.

His interpretation derived from Ticonius, Bede, Haymo, and Walafrid, with the addition of anti-papal readings of chapters 13 and 17.

[35] Subsequent German-speaking Protestant commentators included Melchior Hoffman (1530), Sebastian Meyer (1534), Theodore Bibliander (1547), Petrus Artopoeus [pl] (1549), Heinrich Bullinger (1557), and Franciscus Junius (1591).

They adopted a modified version of Nicholas of Lyra's system, incorporating Luther's interpretation of chapter 13.

[36] John Foxe published the first English Protestant commentary in 1587, influenced by Sebastian Meyer and polemicizing against Jesuit Francisco Ribera.

His philological and critical insights laid the groundwork for future exegesis, pioneering a historical interpretation of the Apocalypse.

His 1733 work Observations... demonstrated his erudition and cautious approach to interpreting the book's imagery and symbols.

[41] By the 19th century, historiosophical interpretations of the Apocalypse had nearly disappeared[23] but continued to be maintained by Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses to this day.

[42] The first, associated with Hentenius and Salmerón, related the visions of the Apocalypse to the early centuries of Christianity (referred to in German exegesis as Urkirchengeschichtliche Deutung) and was merely a narrowing of the historiosophical system.

The second, associated with Francisco Ribera and Cornelius a Lapide, was an eschatological system with certain historiosophical elements (Endgeschichtliche Deutung).

[23] At the end of the 19th century, a debate arose regarding the literary unity of the Book of Revelation (Daniel Völter, Eberhard Vischer, Erbes, Friedrich Spitta, Weiss, and others) and the origins of its symbols (Hermann Gunkel, Albrecht Dieterich, Wilhelm Bousset).

Using the eschatological concept of the Antichrist as an example, Bousset demonstrated that the symbolism of Revelation is primarily rooted in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions, with any potential influences from Babylonian mythology being secondary.

Following the contributions of Bousset, Charles, and Lohmeyer, many exegetes believed that little remained to be done, and only sporadically engaged with the exegesis of this book.