What is the Book of Revelation about?

[Mailman]

From a Catholic perspective, you’re free to believe that if you want to. However, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

And what, may I ask, does the Catholic Church teach about the Book of Revelation? I would appreciate it if you could explain the prophecies in that book to me.

 

[diggerdomer]

And what, may I ask, does the Catholic Church teach about the Book of Revelation? I would appreciate it if you could explain the prophecies in that book to me.

The Church teaches it’s inspired, it’s the word of God, it’s true. Just like all books in the Bible. The Church doesn’t teach that certain passages necessarily mean one and only one thing.

As for what individuals (teachers, scholars, theologians) might teach about the book, you can find any number of Bible study books, spiritual writings, etc., that offer interpretations.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It is important to apply the principles concerning the senses of Scripture to all the books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation. That means the literal and the spiritual senses. Revelation is more complex than most other books of the Bible because of the vast uses of symbolic language. But just because there is symbolic language does not mean that you automatically interpret it spiritually, you can interpret something spoken symbolically in a literal sense by identifying that it is something in particular and not meant to be taken only in a broad generalization or allegorically. Only interpreting Revelation in generalizations is the easy way out and never has satisfied me with answers.

Symbolic language should be dealt with much like metaphors, an example of a metaphor in Scripture would be “the right hand of God” or “I am Alpha and Omega.”

 

[pipper]

The Book of Revelation is about prophecies of things which must happen in the future – PERIOD. That is what I said the Book of Revelation is all about. I never said anything about these things already happening in our day. Please do not color my statement to say something it doesn’t. Do you agree with me that the Book of Revelation is a prophecy of things which must happen in the future?

You are saying that attempts to interpret the prophecy as already happening in our day are misguided and not to be trusted. What do you think about attempts to interpret the prophecy as having already happened years ago? Would those be misguided as well and not to be trusted?

Whether there was such an implication or not is irrelevant. The point is this: If God’s purpose for His Revelation is to show to His servants things which must happen in the future, could His servants be those who have no understanding of that Revelation? Of course, not! How could God SHOW what must happen in the future if His Revelation is not understood?

Ergo, His servants must be those who understand His Revelation!

And you are right, the Church Jesus established have that understanding and is the one entrusted with the commission of preaching to all creatures. If then we see a church that admits to having no understanding of the Book of Revelation and so is not preaching the prophecies contained in that book, we can be sure that that church IS NOT the one established by Christ.

I hate to dissagree with you mailman, but I must. The book of Revelation and the book of Daniel are Apochalyptic literature those two books were written with specific audiences in mind, the people whom those books were written for.

They are not intended to be fortune-telling books “for the ages” although they apply to us in a way as well. But we are not the primary audience being addressed.

Likewise the interpretation of prophecy as fortune predicting is far from the point. The prophets were primarly people who God gave messages to tho convey to the Hebrew people, fortune predeicting although it occurs is not the point of those two books, far from it.

Can I assume that you are a literalist, fundamental Christian? One who assumes that the “rapture” and millenial “teachings” are correct?

That kind of thing, and implying the Catholic church is a false church are not likely to fly on Catholic Answers, this is not even in the non-Catholic section.

 

[beeliner]

I hate to dissagree with you mailman, but I must. The book of Revelation and the book of Daniel are Apochalyptic literature those two books were written with specific audiences in mind, the people whom those books were written for.

They are not intended to be fortune-telling books “for the ages” although they apply to us in a way as well. But we are not the primary audience being addressed…

Most - unfortunately not all - of the posts to this thread are pretty much on the ball. The one excerpted above is VERY well put.

Revelation is a book of encouragement to Christians persecuted by pagan Rome. Like Daniel, it is a book of LITERATURE, not prophecy. It is prophetic only in that in the end, the Lord will be victorious and the faithful will be rewarded, but as Christians, we already knew that!

Claims that it refers specifically to events of OUR time and/or OUR future are nonsense.

 

[COPLAND_3]

.

Revelation is a book of encouragement to Christians persecuted by pagan Rome. Like Daniel, it is a book of LITERATURE, not prophecy. It is prophetic only in that in the end, the Lord will be victorious and the faithful will be rewarded, but as Christians, we already knew that!

.

That is a liberal school of thought that has only been popular within the last 150 years among non-traditional Catholic scholars. In my opinion it is a dangerous way of thinking because it tends to look at Scripture as nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories, whereas a traditional thinking Catholic looks at Scripture through the eyes of 2000 years of understanding.

 

[pipper]

That is a liberal school of thought that has only been popular within the last 150 years among non-traditional Catholic scholars. In my opinion it is a dangerous way of thinking because it tends to look at Scripture as nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories, whereas a traditional thinking Catholic looks at Scripture through the eyes of 2000 years of understanding.

Do you deny that Revelation and Daniel are apochalyptic literature?

Why?

I am unconcered about “liberal” and “conservative”, but i never read anything from the Holy Father or Magesterium that says: “In order to be Catholic you MUST be conservative”, it just is not there.

My main concern is the truth, and most Catholic scripture scholars agree that those two books are in fact apochalyptic literature. It is not “nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories”. Biiblical scholarship (Catholic) is searching the scriptures and the time and circumstances they were written in, in search of thier real meaning.

Frankly I am surprised, I would expect literalism from a fundamental Protestant, more than a fellow Catholic.

 

[puppypatrol]

Of course, all Scripture has applications for us now or it wouldn’t be Scripture, yes?

I’m just trying to stave off the notion that all one has to do is read Revelation to come up with one’s own interpretation of its meaning vis a vis the end times and all that. A lot of very well meaning but misguided people think that because they believe themselves to be “spirit led” they can do that.

The early Church fathers have already given us the interpretation. The problem is that too many people read Revelation and do not take it #1 in context, and #2 without looking at the Book of Daniel and history and #3 knowing how to understand prophetic language used in the time this book was written.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Do you deny that Revelation and Daniel are apochalyptic literature?

Why?

I am unconcered about “liberal” and “conservative”, but i never read anything from the Holy Father or Magesterium that says: “In order to be Catholic you MUST be conservative”, it just is not there.

My main concern is the truth, and most Catholic scripture scholars agree that those two books are in fact apochalyptic literature. It is not “nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories”. Biiblical scholarship (Catholic) is searching the scriptures and the time and circumstances they were written in, in search of thier real meaning.

Frankly I am surprised, I would expect literalism from a fundamental Protestant, more than a fellow Catholic.

I too am a slave to truth, so at least we have a good start!
Actually the approach that you appear to support was established by liberal Protestants. But I did not say anything about having to be conservative in order to be a Catholic, only that the Church has taken a more orthodox approach for 2000 years. Liberal theology does not have a monopoly on Catholic scholarship, in fact it is a phase that I hope continues to fade away. There has been a renewed approach to orthodoxy by Catholic scholars.

As for apocalyptic writings, that is prophetic, unfulfilled prophecies to be precise. Not stories that were writen for the sole purpose to pep up ancient Jews and Christians who were down in the dumps.

 

[pipper]

I too am a slave to truth, so at least we have a good start!
Actually the approach that you appear to support was established by liberal Protestants. But I did not say anything about having to be conservative in order to be a Catholic, only that the Church has taken a more orthodox approach for 2000 years. Liberal theology does not have a monopoly on Catholic scholarship, in fact it is a phase that I hope continues to fade away. There has been a renewed approach to orthodoxy by Catholic scholars.

As for apocalyptic writings, that is prophetic, unfulfilled prophecies to be precise. Not stories that were writen for the sole purpose to pep up ancient Jews and Christians who were down in the dumps.

Let me start with a compliment, I really enjoy your Literal Library and Bible commentary!

So what if the appoach I do support had it’s genesis with those horrible “liberal” Protestants, it has been adapted by Catholics as well, as you can see in the notes for the Jerusalem Bible. Those Catholic scholars are Catholics in good standing with the church, their writting appears with the approval of the church, they contain the Nil Obstat (sp) which certifies that they are following church teachings.

I dissagree with your hateful statement they “As for apochalyptic writing, that is the prophetic unfullfilled prophecies to be precise. NOT STORIES THAT WERE WRITTEN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE TO PEP UP ANCIENT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WHO WERE DOWN IN THE DUMPS”

The part that is objectionable and rude, and condenscending is that which I have placed in all caps. (not intending to shout.)

Let me say that since the ill advised “marriage of convience” between some Catholics who are very conservative, and the Protestant Religous Right for the reasons of opposing abortion (as I do as well, but without allying myself with Protestants), opposing homosexual “marriage”. Many Catholics have taken a huge step to the far right. This I oppose, and revolting from the religous Right is one of the reasons I converted to Catholicism from a fundamental sect many years ago. In fact the sect I coverted from used the same condenscending language against the true Church of Christ, that you used in your reply. (the same one I quoted)

Let’s just say I did not expect that sort of langugue used against me by a fellow Catholic.
When I converted from all of that, the last thing I expected was literal fundamental teachings to follow me into the Catholic church. and I oppose it from Catholics as much as I opposed it from the hyper-conservative Catholic hating church I left.

You failed to answer where in the Holy Father, or Magesterium is it required that all Catholics be conservative.

BTW, I am an orthodox Catholic, I follow the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium to the tee, I also beleive in the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, and the ressurection…literally.

Orthodox is not the same as conservative as you seem to imply.

 

[beeliner]

1. That is a liberal school of thought that has only been popular within the last 150 years among non-traditional Catholic scholars.
2. In my opinion it is a dangerous way of thinking because it tends to look at Scripture as nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories, whereas a traditional thinking Catholic looks at Scripture through the eyes of 2000 years of understanding.

1. I think you have it turned around here. The readers of John’s time knew exactly what he was referring to. As time passed, the message became more mysterious to those who weren’t fully aware of its context.
2. Well, I’m not sure it’s a matter of danger vs. tradition, or of tradition, no matter how questionable, being right and scholarship automatically wrong as you seem to be implying. The book is, after all, clearly presented as a series of visions. Whether the visions actually occurred or were merely a literary device employed by a creative mind can only be surmised. In either case, the book’s purpose was clearly as I and other posters have stated, encouragement in times of persecution. As an historical artifact, it certainly deserves its place in the NT canon.

Wild claims that it is what it is not, nor ever intended to be, are just that. Catholics, and for that matter mainline Protestants, should leave those where they belong, on the outer fringes of Christianity.

 

[StrawberryJam]

John’s vision.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is a liberal school of thought that has only been popular within the last 150 years among non-traditional Catholic scholars. In my opinion it is a dangerous way of thinking because it tends to look at Scripture as nothing more than fables and cute little didactic stories, whereas a traditional thinking Catholic looks at Scripture through the eyes of 2000 years of understanding.

Nonsense, understanding these books as apocalyptic literature has been around since the books were written. And, this is by both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. Not all of them, certainly, but that’s not the point.

It’s not part of the Catholic Church’s 2000 years of understanding to consider the Bible nothing more than fables or cute little didactic stories. It is well within this same tradition to consider parts of the Bible to be fables and/or didactic stories. And, apocalyptic literature. pipper’s comments are entirely in accord with Catholic teaching.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Let me start with a compliment, I really enjoy your Literal Library and Bible commentary!

So what if the appoach I do support had it’s genesis with those horrible “liberal” Protestants, it has been adapted by Catholics as well, as you can see in the notes for the Jerusalem Bible. Those Catholic scholars are Catholics in good standing with the church, their writting appears with the approval of the church, they contain the Nil Obstat (sp) which certifies that they are following church teachings.

I dissagree with your hateful statement they “As for apochalyptic writing, that is the prophetic unfullfilled prophecies to be precise. NOT STORIES THAT WERE WRITTEN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE TO PEP UP ANCIENT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WHO WERE DOWN IN THE DUMPS”

The part that is objectionable and rude, and condenscending is that which I have placed in all caps. (not intending to shout.)

Let me say that since the ill advised “marriage of convience” between some Catholics who are very conservative, and the Protestant Religous Right for the reasons of opposing abortion (as I do as well, but without allying myself with Protestants), opposing homosexual “marriage”. Many Catholics have taken a huge step to the far right. This I oppose, and revolting from the religous Right is one of the reasons I converted to Catholicism from a fundamental sect many years ago. In fact the sect I coverted from used the same condenscending language against the true Church of Christ, that you used in your reply. (the same one I quoted)

Let’s just say I did not expect that sort of langugue used against me by a fellow Catholic.
When I converted from all of that, the last thing I expected was literal fundamental teachings to follow me into the Catholic church. and I oppose it from Catholics as much as I opposed it from the hyper-conservative Catholic hating church I left.

You failed to answer where in the Holy Father, or Magesterium is it required that all Catholics be conservative.

BTW, I am an orthodox Catholic, I follow the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium to the tee, I also beleive in the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, and the ressurection…literally.

Orthodox is not the same as conservative as you seem to imply.

Its too late for me to touch all the things that I intend on, but I do want to apologize for what you preceived to be disrespectful to you. I did not mean to make it sound like I was referring to you, but I was directing that towards the teachings that I was criticizing, and that is the same school of thought found in footnotes of the NAB and similar works.

I understand the ill feelings you have towards “hyper-conservativism”, but too often I see that Catholics will try to lean the opposite direction and adopt something just as bad in reverse. Kinda like how some Protestants will nearly disrespect the Blessed Virgin in order to try to be as non-Catholic as they can. We as Catholics don’t need to find out what Protestants are believeing and take the opposite position any more than they need to find out what we Catholics believe and take the opposite position.

Also, I do want to also apologize for the way I came across, I know it sounded bad, but I did not mean to sound personal.

 

[Mailman]

The Church teaches it’s inspired, it’s the word of God, it’s true. Just like all books in the Bible. The Church doesn’t teach that certain passages necessarily mean one and only one thing.

But don’t you think that approach [of treating the passages in the Bible as not teaching just one truth] is contrary to reason as well as to biblical teaching? There could only be one truth, not two and most certainly not many. For example, when the book of Revelation speaks of a “woman” it could only mean one thing. If God used “woman” to symbolize a church, it could not be anything but a church, right?

 

[Mailman]

I hate to dissagree with you mailman, but I must. The book of Revelation and the book of Daniel are Apochalyptic literature those two books were written with specific audiences in mind, the people whom those books were written for.

They are not intended to be fortune-telling books “for the ages” although they apply to us in a way as well. But we are not the primary audience being addressed.

Likewise the interpretation of prophecy as fortune predicting is far from the point. The prophets were primarly people who God gave messages to tho convey to the Hebrew people, fortune predeicting although it occurs is not the point of those two books, far from it.

Can I assume that you are a literalist, fundamental Christian? One who assumes that the “rapture” and millenial “teachings” are correct?

That kind of thing, and implying the Catholic church is a false church are not likely to fly on Catholic Answers, this is not even in the non-Catholic section.

No problem there, pipper. I’m used to it. In fact, practically everyone here disagrees with me.

So, you believe Revelation was not meant to be written for you but only for the people of John’s time? How did you know that? What is the basis of your belief?

The Revelator tells us plainly what the book is all about: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book… if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy…” (Rev. 22:18-19). The book of Revelation is a prophetic book. That’s what it clearly says. It is a book that foretells events – events that will happen in a future time.

Now, up to what future event in history do the prophecies in the book cover? Are these prophetic sayings only for the people in John’s time and to be fulfilled only in their time? (By the way, Christ’s followers were not all Hebrews then. Many were Gentiles). Let’s examine what John wrote.

“These sayings are faithful and true; and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (Rev. 22:6-7).

Christ hasn’t come back yet. But He said He will “come quickly.” And that whoever “keepeth” – that is, watches, guards, keeps an eye on – the prophecies written in the book is “blessed.” This clearly tells us that the prophecies there are not just for John’s time because we are to be watchful of its unfolding even up to the second coming of Christ.

And is it your contention that it is not the purpose of prophecy to foretell events? If so, what do you think is the purpose of prophecy?

I take it you also think Revelation is not intended to foretells events. But how do you explain its opening and closing statements? In introducing the book, the first chapter says its purpose is “… to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” In closing the book, it says the same thing: “These sayings are faithful and true… to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done” (last chapter).

 

[murtad]

I have heard some people including Michael Voris and Scott Hahn that the Book of Revelation is about the Catholic Mass. I am reading a book called The Apocalypse: Letter by Letter and it was written by a Catholic but his interpretation which he gives a good argument for is more in line of an apocalyptic future event than a resemblance to the Catholic mass. Does the Church have any official teaching on the Book of Revelation?

The book of Revelation is not consider canonical by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Great See of Babylon.

The obvious reason would be because of the slur “Whore of Babylon” which is why the Persian Nestorian Church does not regard this book as part of their New Testament canon. His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV has stated “The Holy Synod regards this book as a pious forgery aimed to defame the Nestorian race. We believe its author is not St John but rather a Monophysite monk”.

Babylon is capital of Persian Empire, and See of Mar Thoma, Mar Addai, and Mar Mari. It is the only patriarchate outside the Roman Empire’s pentarchy.

 

[Della]

The book of Revelation is not consider canonical by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Great See of Babylon.

The obvious reason would be because of the slur “Whore of Babylon” which is why the Persian Nestorian Church does not regard this book as part of their New Testament canon. His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV has stated “The Holy Synod regards this book as a pious forgery aimed to defame the Nestorian race. We believe its author is not St John but rather a Monophysite monk”.

Babylon is capital of Persian Empire, and See of Mar Thoma, Mar Addai, and Mar Mari. It is the only patriarchate outside the Roman Empire’s pentarchy.

I can understand the sensitivity about the whole WoB thing, but the reference was a Jewish idiom for paganism and not really aimed at any geographical area. It’s from the OT times when the Jews were carried off to Babylon and all that.

If we want to take things too literally there are all sorts of “slights” and “slurs” in the Bible. The Catholic Church has been called the WoB ever since Luther (I believe) called Rome that in his battles with the pope. Fundamentalist Christians refer to Catholicism as the WoB because of it, but the Church isn’t going to “de-canonize” Revelation due to that.

I’m not making any judgments here, I just find it interesting the things people will take offense at–things that mean nothing of the kind to others .

 

[pipper]

Its too late for me to touch all the things that I intend on, but I do want to apologize for what you preceived to be disrespectful to you. I did not mean to make it sound like I was referring to you, but I was directing that towards the teachings that I was criticizing, and that is the same school of thought found in footnotes of the NAB and similar works.

I understand the ill feelings you have towards “hyper-conservativism”, but too often I see that Catholics will try to lean the opposite direction and adopt something just as bad in reverse. Kinda like how some Protestants will nearly disrespect the Blessed Virgin in order to try to be as non-Catholic as they can. We as Catholics don’t need to find out what Protestants are believeing and take the opposite position any more than they need to find out what we Catholics believe and take the opposite position.

Also, I do want to also apologize for the way I came across, I know it sounded bad, but I did not mean to sound personal.

I’ts OK Copeland. I hope to get back to you as I can. Right now I have a terrible cold and I feel like duckey.

Not up to posting or having serious thoughts at the moment.

Sorry

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’ts OK Copeland. I hope to get back to you as I can. Right now I have a terrible cold and I feel like duckey.

Not up to posting or having serious thoughts at the moment.

Sorry

I know how you feel. Again, I am sorry for coming across the way I did.