Revelation belongs to a class of chiefly Jewish (and later Christian) literature called "apocalyptic." In fact, the word "apocalypse" has been borrowed from Revelation and applied to these other writings.

Apocalyptic refers, in a broad sense, to a group of writings found in the biblical world between 200 B.C. and A.D.100. Two specific historical markers are usually given for the span during which the Jewish apocalyptic works were written and edited. They are the persecution of the Jews by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes (167 B.C.) and the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Roman emperor Hadrian (A.D. 135).

Apocalyptic writings usually had certain characteristics in common. Writers generally claimed that a divine disclosure had been given through an angelic intermediary. God's secret purpose was said to have been revealed through a dream or vision in the heavenly realm. Almost all apocalypses are pseudonymous. Writers of apocalyptic works usually wrote in the name of heroes from Israel's history. There are books ascribed to Enoch, Abraham, the Twelve Patriarchs, Moses, Ezra, Enoch and Elijah, among others.

These apocalyptic writings claimed to reveal God's purpose in history. These writings tried to explain why the Jews, who thought of themselves as God's people, were part of a vassal nation suffering under ungodly political institutions. In the words of Robert H. Mounce:

A major role of the apocalypse was to explain why the righteous suffered and why the kingdom of God delayed. Prophecy had dealt primarily with the nation's ethical obligations at the time when the prophet wrote. Apocalyptic focused on a period of time yet future when God would intervene to judge the world and establish righteousness (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, "The Book of Revelation," p. 19).

Apocalyptic writing is usually dualistic in that two opposing supernatural powers, God and Satan, do battle. The outcome of the conflict is rigidly determined—everything moves forward according to a divinely preordained time schedule and purpose. Writers of apocalyptic speculated that the power of Satan controls this evil age and afflicts the righteous through his human and demonic agents. But he will be defeated by the direct intervention of God, who will create a perfect new world order in which the good will flourish.

The writers of apocalyptic works looked upon their days as the worst of times—filled with suffering and pain for God's people. These writings were what commentators call "tracts for hard times." To save the day, apocalyptic writing included a promise that God would intervene in human history, destroy evil and bring the troubles of his people to an end. This hope centered on the swift return of the Messiah, who would usher in the end of the age and bring in his kingdom. The end was near, and God was going to judge the world and reward his faithful and suffering people.

These basic threads are woven through the fabric of apocalyptic thought. When one studies the book of Revelation, these same issues are also discussed: the meaning of history, the suffering of God's people, the coming of the Messiah and God's kingdom.

Apocalyptic writers did not generally speculate about the end-time as coming in some far-off future time. This would have held little meaning for the people to whom they wrote. The apocalyptic writers were interested in the here and now. God's Messiah was coming very soon to take away the burdens of the Jewish people, and lift them on high over the gentile nations. Writers of apocalyptic, says M. Eugene Boring:

Addressed their own generation with the urgency of those who cry out for meaning in their struggle and suffering. Their question was not "When will the End come?" but "What is the meaning of our suffering?" It was not speculative calculation but the tenacity of faith which came to expression in their conviction that the End must be near (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, "Revelation," p. 43).

G.B. Caird explains in a clear summary the purpose of those who wrote apocalyptic pieces. Their writings were produced:

...to encourage Jewish resistance to the encroachments of paganism, by showing that the national suffering was foreseen and provided for in the cosmic purpose of God and would issue in ultimate vindication. It is characteristic of these writings that they portray the present crisis. . .against a background of world history, the present struggle as part of the age-long struggle between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, and victory over the immediate enemy as the embodiment of the final victory of God. It is also characteristic of them that they are written in symbolic language (Black's New Testament Commentaries, "A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine," 2nd edition, p. 9).

Most people of the first-century Mediterranean world were familiar with the apocalyptic literary form. The book of Revelation reflected both the form and content of apocalyptic writings so that it seems almost a parody of these writings. That meant the original Christian readers of Revelation—especially those who had come out of a Jewish religious background—would have immediately recognized it as an apocalyptic work. The language, thought content and symbols would have been familiar.

The thought and content of apocalyptic, of course, was based on themes found in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament. The church as a whole had contacts with the Jewish community and was quite aware of what the Hebrew Scriptures said. Christians probably felt familiar with apocalyptic literary style.

Even non-Jewish Christians with no prior contact with Judaism would have recognized the apocalyptic form because it was used among other peoples as well. Robert W. Wall concludes: "When John began his composition as an apocalypse, he was in effect locating it within a familiar literary tradition known to his readers who were able to make meaning of what he wrote" (New International Biblical Commentary, "Revelation," p. 12).

John helped his readers to understand what to expect by immediately calling his work, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. . ." (1:1). The very first word of the book identifies its general purpose and content. The book will reveal the purpose of God in history for his people and explain their situation in the world, as well as their glorious future.

Of course, for 20th century readers such cues are not so readily apparent, if at all. We live in a world rather different from the one John and his churches lived in. As we read and study Revelation, then, we must try to think of ourselves as John's parishioners. This will require some imaginative thinking. In the words of J. Ramsey Michaels:

To make sense of the Book of Revelation the student must try to understand, and even cultivate, the apocalyptic frame of mind. This means putting away certain twentieth-century biases and reserving judgment about the religious experiences that underlie this book and the images with which it is filled (Interpreting the Book of Revelation, p. 15).

For us, Revelation may seem strange because (with parts of Daniel) it is the only apocalyptic piece of literature we have read. However, were we to read the apocalyptic works of the time when Revelation was written and before, we would come to see the book in a totally different light. M. Eugene Boring says, "Revelation will never look the same once one has seen even a small sample of the category of thought to which it belongs" (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, "Revelation," p. 39).

For those interested, a typical apocalyptic work is Second Esdras (or Fourth Ezra). It is readily available in editions of the Bible that include the Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. A good scholarly work on apocryphal writings is The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth.  For one translation of 2 Esdras, see http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/2ES/2ES0.HTM   and for the book of Enoch, another apocalyptic work, see http://www.nazarene.net/enoch/enoch.html

While there are great similarities between apocalyptic writings and Revelation, we should also note their important differences. Revelation radically reinterprets the Old Testament in an almost contradictory way to the Jewish apocalyptic writings. In a sense, we can view those writings as a challenge to the church—and Revelation as the rebuttal.

Revelation, for example, transforms the nation of Israel into the church. Revelation claims the Old Testament prophecies about the salvation of Israel, the peace of Jerusalem and restoration of the temple do not refer to the nation—but to a church perfected and glorified. The people of God is not composed of a remnant of national Israel but people from all nations who have put their faith in Christ. The true Exodus is the spiritual and eternal salvation of the faithful church. In the words of Robert W. Wall:

John's constant allusions to biblical stories suggest that he composes his book of visions in conversation with the Old Testament. . . .His message corresponds to the prophetic promise of the triumph of God's reign within history. For him, the new Israel has experienced a new exodus from sin and death and has set out on a journey for a new Jerusalem (New International Biblical Commentary, "Revelation," p. 17).

Revelation challenged the claims of the apocalyptic writers, their ideas of history, where God was working, who the people of God were and the nature of the end-time. These challenges were set down in the very format of apocalyptic—and they turned the Jewish apocalyptic writings on their head.

The various apocalyptic writings, of course, depended on the Old Testament prophecies, visions, examples and types. The Jews took God's promises of the liberation of Israel and his intervention in the affairs of man, and applied them to themselves, as well as their time and circumstances.

Revelation radically reinterpreted the Jewish explanation of the Old Testament. That is perhaps the book's most important feature and points up an important contrast with apocalyptic writings. Says G. B. Caird: "We shall expect, then, to find that John's symbols do not mean exactly what they would have meant to a Jewish writer. We shall expect what Farrar has called 'a rebirth of image'" (Black's New Testament Commentaries, "A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine," 2nd edition, p. 11).

Another vital difference between Jewish apocalyptic and Revelation is what we might call the key to history. To the Jews, the return of the Messiah and his intervention in the affairs of mankind was the fulcrum point of history. Revelation, however, fixes the crux of history in another place—on the cross of Christ. That is why Revelation 5, the vision of the Lamb opening the scroll, is the pivot point of the book.

Of course, the Messiah's return will be vital to God's working out of history. Revelation looks to this event with anticipation as well. But Revelation says Christians need not depend on some saving event in the future. God has already acted decisively in history through himself as incarnate in Jesus.

Revelation is different from Jewish apocalyptic writings in several other ways as well. Apocalypses were pseudonymous; John writes in his own name. Apocalypses were written in the name of a dead hero of ancient Israel; John wrote in the name of the living Christ.

John's work is also a prophecy as well as a revelation (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19). He even calls his book a prophetical work and tells us the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (19:10). Thus, it is the word of God—given through John—to the church.

Besides being prophecy and revelation, John's work is grounded in current history. Revelation is a pastoral letter written to the church at large—to real people then living (1:4, 11). Since Revelation was at least part letter, it was clearly meant to be read in the churches (Colossians 4:16). We know this from the book's introduction (1:3) and conclusion (22:6), as well as chapters 2 and 3, which are specifically written to individual churches.

Revelation, then, is a unique kind of writing. It is a combination and blend of three distinct literary types of writing—apocalypse, prophecy, and letter. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says:

The author clearly indicates that he intends to write a public pastoral letter to seven churches in Asia Minor and that he understands this letter as the "words of prophecy." Nevertheless, Revelation does not read like a letter or homily. It is difficult to identify which complex literary type the author had in mind in writing the book. Did he intend to create a liturgy or a drama, a cosmic myth, a prophetic book, or an apocalypse? Or did he use all of these genres to fill out the epistolary framework which reflects his true literary intention? (The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, p. 166).

Our understanding of Revelation is also complicated by the fact that the apocalypse as a literary form does not exist in our time. John's original readers knew how to understand such a writing but we have more difficulty with it because it is outside of our experience.

However, if we cultivate a knowledge of the Old Testament and gain some understanding of the culture in which Revelation was written, our ability to understand the book will be greatly enhanced. The most important thing is to approach Revelation on its own terms, as a writing of its time which was well understood by its original readers—and had a vital message for them.

Paul Kroll, 1999