Podcast: Q&A: A Bible Scholar Answers Your Questions about the Book of Revelation (Tom Schreiner)

November 29, 2021 by: Crossway

This article is part of the The Crossway Podcast series.

How to Interpret the Book of Revelation

A few weeks ago, we asked readers to submit their questions about the book of Revelation and surrounding topics for New Testament scholar, Tom Schreiner. Many of you sent questions from around the world, with questions such as how we should read and interpret the book in the 21st century, whether the COVID vaccine is the mark of the beast, and how much we should care about the specific images presented in the book.

The Joy of Hearing

The Joy of Hearing

Thomas R. Schreiner

In this installment in the New Testament Theology series, trusted scholar Thomas Schreiner walks readers step-by-step through the book of Revelation, considering its themes, symbolic imagery, and historical context.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS

Topics Addressed in This Interview:

01:02 - Did the COVID-19 Vaccine Give Me the Mark of the Beast?

Matt Tully
Tom, thank you for joining me again on The Crossway Podcast.

Tom Schreiner
Matt, it’s good to be with you. It’s always a delight.

Matt Tully
We’re going to be talking about the book of Revelation again today, and as we all know, this book is one that many of us—all of us—at least think we know something about it. It’s a pretty controversial book at times, a really interesting and difficult book to understand at times; so naturally, we thought it would be worth asking our listeners to submit questions for you to answer about this book. In total, we received over two hundred questions related to a whole host of topics in this book, so we’ve boiled it down to some of our favorites and we’re excited to talk with you today.

Tom Schreiner
I’m looking forward to it. I’m glad I don’t have to answer all two hundred.

Matt Tully
We’ll try not to pitch all of them at you that way. A lot of the questions that we got circled around a number of key repeated topics that came up. One of the topics that had the most questions, as you might guess, was the mark of the beast. That’s one of these issues that has a certain cultural presence beyond even the Christian church and tradition. You and I had an entire interview focused on this question that we released a couple of years ago, so listeners can check that out if they’re interested in that. But I thought it would be worth returning to briefly here today. Here’s an example question: a listener from Lawrenceburg, Kentucky wrote in and asked, “I have a brother who thinks that I received the mark of the beast when I got the COVID-19 vaccine. How should I think about that and respond to him?” So, let’s start off with that question, Tom. How would you respond?

Tom Schreiner
I don’t think receiving the vaccine is the mark of the beast. I compromise myself with this answer, but I received the vaccine as well and I don’t think in getting the vaccine I was receiving the mark of the beast. It’s just so interesting! Even today I’m reading about Tudor, England and their understanding of the Antichrist. I’m reading a book by Richard Bauckham, and you’re not surprised that in those days they linked it especially with the papacy and with Islam. I’m not here to adjudicate that question, but I think we have to be careful to too quickly assign the mark of the beast to some contemporary controversy or whatever is going on in society. I taught Revelation years ago to the youth in our church—I was one of the teachers for our high school group—and they were worried (this was the 1970s) that they could receive the mark of the beast through credit cards.

Matt Tully
What’s behind that impulse? We can come up with a lot of examples from history where there is this desire to associate this mysterious mark with very current issues that are happening.

Tom Schreiner
I think in one sense that sentiment is good. The church of Jesus Christ has always said the scriptural prophecies will be fulfilled. I think the prophecies are given in such a way that every generation rightly thinks, This may be the end. It’s somewhat natural that we look for signs or indications that it is the end. As I said, I was reading some about what was happening in English circles and it’s very interesting because William Perkins—some of your listeners may know that name; he’s a very famous Puritan—there were many people predicting the end, and Perkins kept saying to be careful. He was very wise. He was a great pastor and scholar and he said, Be careful! Yes, this may be the end, but don’t go too far. I think that’s the other side of it. We’re rightly saying, This may be the end; but then we can jump too quickly to a particular event or person or phenomenon in society and identify that with the fulfillment of the prophecy. We always have to remind ourselves that everyone so far in history who has made such specific predictions, every single person has been wrong.

Matt Tully
That should humble us a little bit.

Tom Schreiner
Yes, and caution us about drawing conclusions too quickly. I think one helpful way of thinking about the mark of the beast is that I take it you don’t get it accidentally. When you’re receiving the vaccine, is it so clear—and I would say no; I’m putting it as a question—is it so clear that you’re worshiping the beast and the antichrist? Are you repudiating God and his Christ and his salvation?* Certainly, people wouldn’t say that, as far as I know, about other vaccines.

Matt Tully
So you think that’s inherent to this idea of the mark that there is this explicit, intentional repudiation of God that people are doing when they receive the mark?

Tom Schreiner
Absolutely. But then someone might say, Well, is it possible that some people who receive the mark don’t know that they’re receiving it? I would say yes—actually, I don’t think that mark is literal at all (per our previous conversation)—but I would say yes, some people probably aren’t conscious of it, but that’s because they’re so far from the Lord. They’re not following him, they don’t care about him, they’ve given themselves entirely to the things of this world and fulfilling their own selfish desires. So what I would say is I don’t think a Christian who is in church, following the Lord (as far as they know; none of us is perfect), and doing as well that you signed up for the wrong credit card or you got the vaccine—it doesn’t work that way. At the end of the day, you know what you’re doing. You know at some level (of course, you can suppress the truth—the Bible says that—and your conscience can become hardened) you know the decisions that you’ve made in your life. For a well-meaning Christian trying to follow the Lord, the mark of the beast isn’t getting the vaccine or getting the wrong credit card or using Apple Pay or whatever.

08:30 - How Is the Number 666 Associated with the Beast? Why Is That Number Significant?

Matt Tully
There are all kinds of theories that have been thrown out for what that is. Another issue that often is associated with this mark of the beast is this number—666. I wonder if you could explain. A listener from Malaysia asks, “How is the number 666 associated with the beast, and why is that number significant?”

Tom Schreiner
The number is really, at one level, only significant because John talks about it in Revelation 13:18. He tells us here is the mind who has wisdom, and we’re to calculate the number of the beast. He says it’s a number of a person, or a number of a man, and it is 666. Of course, there’s been intense controversy over what that means. Most scholars today, if you look at the scholarly commentaries, they associate it with Nero. If you put Nero Caesar in Hebrew, out comes 666. So that is probably the majority view, that Nero, as the head of the Roman government, represented the beast—the Roman Empire—which was opposed to Christians. In a way it makes a lot of sense because we know Nero persecuted Christians and put Christians to death. The advantage of that reading is it’s rooted in a historical situation in which Revelation was written. Revelation was written to the first readers; it would speak to them. So that’s a very plausible reading and may well be right. I, myself, follow Greg Beale—some of your listeners know that name—who has written a massive commentary on Revelation and then a shorter one that is not that short.

Matt Tully
It’s maybe short for a commentator.

Tom Schreiner
Yes, it’s short for Greg Beale. You could argue that numbers are used symbolically in Revelation. For example, the seven spirits of God—I think that refers to the Holy Spirit. So, I would argue that 666, following Beale, refers to that which is imperfect, that which is evil. The number 777 stands for perfection; 666 stands for everything that is opposed to God. In using 666, I think John is saying this is an empire that is man-centered not God-centered. It’s focused on the worship of human beings; it’s the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. That’s what the fundamental sin is. What is the mark of the beast? It’s fundamentally the worship of self and the creature instead of the Creator. That’s the root sin. That’s the sin Adam and Eve committed in the garden. They trusted in themselves rather than trusting in God. I’d like to emphasize that because it’s not so strange. It fits with the rest of the Bible.

12:01 - Were the Symbols and the Predictions of Revelation Fulfilled around the First Century?

Matt Tully
You mentioned a minute ago that Nero is often seen as the reference for this number and the beast is often interpreted as the empire of Rome, and that gets to the question of what some of the symbolism and some of these images and prophecies are actually referring to and when they may have been fulfilled. One listener from Avon Park, Florida asks, “Were the images and the symbols and the predictions of Revelation fulfilled around the first century? If not, do they have a future fulfillment, or can it actually be both?” How would you answer that?

Tom Schreiner
That’s an excellent question. I would say it can be both, and it is both. Yes, there are dimensions of the prophecy. Let’s take an example. He speaks of Babylon as the harlot, or the prostitute, and I think Revelation 17:18 makes it pretty clear that he’s thinking of the city of Rome. So, who is the harlot? Who is the prostitute? It’s Rome, with all its glitter and excitement, but Rome is putting to death the saints. John mentions this several times. She has a cup and she’s drinking the blood of the saints. Not literally, but she’s killing Christians. That’s a first century fulfillment, but John does say Babylon and not Rome, so I think there’s a sense in which it is also true all through history. Augustine, in the late 300s and early 400s, he wasn’t wrong to say you have an opposition between the city of man and the city of God. That’s still true today. The City of Man, so to speak, is opposed to the City of God. There are still prostitutes and harlots today in the cities of this world. We have to appropriate these images wisely, because obviously there were Christians in Rome. When he says the city is a harlot, he doesn’t mean everybody in the city is wicked. So, any contemporary city you choose, there’s a sense in which there’s the City of Man there, but there’s also a sense in which there’s the City of God there because in every city there are also Christians.

Matt Tully
There’s some nuance to how we interpret some of these things. We need to be reading in the broader context of Scripture and understanding of how language is often used.

Tom Schreiner
Especially since Revelation is symbolic and rather impressionistic. You don’t want to press those images too far because John’s not writing a philosophical treatise; it’s an apocalyptic genre, so he gives us pictures. He saw a vision, after all.

15:21 - Does Revelation 20 Refer to a Literal Thousand Year Earthly Reign of Christ?

Matt Tully
A lot of people also had questions about the millennium. A listener in Georgia asks, “Does Revelation 20 refer to a literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ, or is it allegorical for the Church Age?”

Tom Schreiner
That is an excellent question, and Christians have disagreed on this all through history. Do you want me to give you a brief typology of the different views out there?

Matt Tully
Yes, maybe give us the short, concise version of that.

Tom Schreiner
You have a premillennial view. A premillennial view is that Jesus Christ will return—this is why it’s called pre-millennial—before the millennium, and he will reign on earth. There are different views about whether or not he will reign literally in Jerusalem, but he will reign on earth—we’ll just keep it simple. Most premillennialists believe he will reign literally for a thousand years. Actually, that’s not necessary for the premillennial view; you could just say the thousand years are symbolic for a long period of time. What is necessary for the premillennial view is that Jesus will reign on this earth when he returns, but most premillennialists think those thousand years are a literal period of time. Then we have a view called postmillennialism, and that means after the millennium. That means that Jesus will come at the end of the millennium. For postmillennialism, the millennium could start right at the time of the resurrection—some postmillennialists say that—some say maybe it started at a particular point in history. But for evangelical postmillennialists, by the power of the gospel the world is gradually transformed so that by the end of history things are getting better and better—by the power of the gospel. Most of the Puritans were postmillennialists. Jonathan Edwards was a postmillennialist. It was very popular in the 1700s and 1800s especially, and in the United States for instance. And then there’s amillennialism. That is not a very good name because literally, amillennialism means no millennium.

Matt Tully
It also sounds like you’re just trying to figure out how to pronounce the word.

Tom Schreiner
Right! You could call it realized millennialism. Amillennialists believe that the millennium started at the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. I didn’t say this with postmillennialists, but for most postmillennialists the thousand years is symbolic of a long period of time. That’s definitely true of amillennialists—the thousand year period isn’t a literal amount of time, but Christ reigns in heaven. Maybe the most popular view today is that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is the intermediate state—when saints die they immediately go to be with Christ and reign with him in heaven. There’s a new view out there (a fourth view), by the way, called new creation millennialism. This view argues that the millennium is the first stage of the new creation. It’s sort of a via media between premillennialism and amillennialism. I’m kind of attracted to that right now, but no one should trust me on the millennium because I’m constantly changing my mind.

Matt Tully
That’s an interesting comment because you’re a Bible scholar who has done a lot of work and written commentaries on the book of Revelation. Explain the fact that you’re constantly changing your mind on this issue. Does that speak to inherent ambiguity in the biblical text about this, or is it something else?

Tom Schreiner
I think it’s a difficult question. Some people wouldn’t say that. I’ve talked to a lot of people who say it’s easy and simple, but I don’t think so. I think it’s difficult to tell. It’s the only passage in the Bible that specifically speaks of a thousand year reign. I think it’s instructive if you go back to the earliest history of the church, there were pre-millennialists and there were amillennialists. I think it’s so interesting that Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, says about Papius—Papius is a pre-millennialist and Eusebius is an amillennialist—says, basically, that Papius is stupid. He doesn’t have very much intelligence that he interpreted in pre-millennial terms. I just want to say that this debate has been going on a long time. Good Christians who love the Lord have disagreed on it. The other thing I always like to say about the millennium is sometimes evangelical Christians get more interested in the millennium and the new creation than eternity. But whatever your view of the millennium, it will end! It will not be forever. It can’t be the most important thing. You might say, Why wouldn’t God reveal it so clearly? Well, it’s a temporary period. Anything that is temporary can’t be the most important thing.

Matt Tully
Maybe that’s a clue that we’re not supposed to be too concerned about it.

Tom Schreiner
Or too dogmatic about it.

21:03 - Who Are the Two Witnesses?

Matt Tully
Another issue that we got some questions about are the two witnesses that are mentioned in Revelation 11. A listener from Essex, England asks, “Will the two witnesses be actual, physical beings of some sort (humans), or are they merely symbolic of God’s protection of his church?”

Tom Schreiner
Again, that’s a great question and something that’s been debated all through history. When you look at those two witnesses, many have taken them to be two individuals. It could be Enoch and Elijah. A lot of people have been attracted to that because—

Matt Tully
Because they never died.

Tom Schreiner
Yes, because they never die, and then they do die in Revelation 11 if you hold that view. Another view that is attractive is that it’s Elijah and Moses because of the things they do. They stop up the heavens, turn water to blood, and things like that. There have been some really bizarre choices in this, some that would even make you laugh—people that you’ve never even heard of have been identified as the two witnesses. I believe pretty strongly—I could be wrong—that the two witnesses represent the church. When you come to Revelation 11 it’s sort of a parting of the ways in terms of how you interpret the book. Some people say you ought to interpret the book as literally as possible, but my response to that is how do you know that? If you say that in advance, you’re deciding in advance how it should be interpreted, but what if the author wanted you to interpret it symbolically? How can you say in advance, No, that can’t be? I would argue that’s cheating hermeneutically. You can say that, but I don’t think you can say that convincingly, that it ought to be interpreted as literally as possible. It’s apocalyptic literature. Again, it’s just a parting of ways. He says that fire comes out of the mouth of the two witnesses. Is that literal? Is he literally saying fire flows out of the mouth of the two witnesses? I would say you see in the Old Testament—and even Jeremiah says, “My words are like fire.” They’re words of judgement. I think John is clearly saying, Look, they speak a word of judgement. Fire comes out of their mouths. They strike the earth with plagues. Those plagues stand for judgement. Why are there two witnesses? Because in the Old Testament we read that the credibility of an account is verified by two witnesses. John pulls on all kinds of things here. In Zechariah 4 and the two witnesses there; in Joshua with Zerubbabel. I think he’s talking about the church—the church that proclaims. This is one of the things that excites me about this chapter. One way of reading it is to say, Yeah, this is going to take place at the end of history. Isn’t that fascinating? God will fulfill his purposes. But if I’m right, the two witnesses represent us—the church of Jesus Christ today. It represents our story, and what is John saying? He’s saying the church of Jesus Christ proclaims God’s word of salvation and judgement, that the church will be persecuted, and that the church will finally be vindicated by God. He will raise us from the dead. Therefore, those who hear the message of the witnesses need to repent. That’s a very mainstream Christian message clothed in apocalyptic garb.

25:19 - How Do You Know When to Interpret a Passage Literally or Figuratively?

Matt Tully
This all connects to this broader question of literal vs. figurative language and how we interpret those things. Many listeners, like one in San Antonio, Texas, asked us, “How do you know when to interpret a passage literally or figuratively?” What are the guidelines for that as we approach a book like Revelation?

Tom Schreiner
I would say the first broad category is to think in terms of genre. What are we reading? Are you reading a narrative? Are you reading a story? Is it a historical account? We all recognize that if you’re reading a fairy tale—once upon a time—we immediately shift into that genre. Are you reading poetry? Are you reading an epistle? Obviously, if you’re reading a historical account, you’re going to take that language and those descriptions literally. But in Revelation, almost all agree you have an apocalyptic genre. Apocalyptic genre is very symbolic. Even the word John uses in Revelation 1:2 is a word indicating that he’s speaking symbolically. So, how do we know when to take it symbolically? Let’s take a really simple example (well, maybe nothing is simple). The beast in Revelation 13. I don’t know of anybody who thinks the beast is literally a beast. If somebody says, I take everything literally, is it an animal? Nobody thinks that. We all know that’s a symbol. What’s it a symbol of? Unless you’re going to say, Okay, that’s literal, I think it’s clearer that that is a symbol. Yes, some passages are harder than others.

Matt Tully
Right. It’s not always that clear.

Tom Schreiner
It’s not always that clear, but we see when we read Revelation that look, this language is clearly symbolic. It’s the seven spirits of God. Well, if you take it to be the Holy Spirit as I do, there’s not seven Holy Spirits, so we have a clue that the number seven is symbolic of one—fullness, completion. Or take the vision of Christ in Revelation 1. We’re told he has white hair, his eyes blaze like coal, he has a double-edged sword in his mouth—literally? Is Jesus literally walking around with white hair and a two-edged sword in his mouth? Does he literally have feet of bronze? What does that mean if he’s a human being? I think the normal reader would say, Oh no, of course, these are symbols. What are they symbols of? That’s always the question. Are there some passages that are clearly literal? Yes. John says, I’m on the Isle of Patmos because of persecution. I don’t think it’s hard for us to say, Okay, that’s a straightforward description of a literal event.

28:55 - What Does Revelation Teach about the Nation of Israel?

Matt Tully
Another issue that we got a number of questions about relates to the nation of Israel. How would you summarize what the book of Revelation teaches us about Israel?

Tom Schreiner
That is, again, very disputed. Some commentators and friends that I love see a lot about Israel in the book; I basically don’t see anything. A lot of it turns on who you understand the 144,000 to be in Revelation 7: twelve tribes, 12,000 from each tribe, and he lists these various tribes. Many commentators—and I’m among them—take that to be symbolic of the church. I could give you reasons for that, and I don’t know if you want to discuss that, but at least what I would say is that when I look at the rest of the book, I don’t think the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel. I think that represents the church. I don’t think John concentrates at all on Israel. I think this is interesting: in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9 he says to the church at Smyrna and to the church at Philadelphia that the synagogue in their town is the synagogue of Satan. John’s not anti-Semitic; he’s Jewish himself after all. But why is he saying that? I think he’s saying that because most scholars agree—and I think this is right—that the Jews are probably telling the Roman authorities that the Christians are seditious and are not to be trusted. The Jewish leaders and the people in the Jewish synagogue who aren’t Christians are informing against the Christians. I think that bothered the Christians—Who’s right here? Are we right or are they right? So I don’t think John is intending to be harsh, but I think John is saying, They are the community of Satan. What’s interesting here is that John picks up Psalm 86 and says these Jews who oppose you will come and bow down before you. In that passage it’s cited, in the Old Testament it’s the Gentiles who will come and bow down before the Jews. John flips it!

Matt Tully
So he’s inverting that.

Tom Schreiner
He’s inverting it. I think what he’s saying is this: Look, church of Jesus Christ, you’re the true Israel. You’re not a replacement of Israel because the church is made up of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. They’re the true people of God.

Matt Tully
The pickup on Paul’s language of you are the true heirs of Abraham.

Tom Schreiner
Exactly. You’re the true circumcision. You’re the sons and daughters of Abraham.

32:19 - Are the Letters to the Seven Churches to Be Read as Prophecy?

Matt Tully
That actually connects into a really interesting question we received from a listener from Vermont. This person writes, “I’ve heard it said that the letters to the seven churches [which you’ve just referenced] are actually a prophecy showing the evolution of the church, with the last letter to Laodocea highlighting the church’s eventual apostasy.” This person adds, “Given the state of the world and the church today, this seems plausible to me. Is this a valid perspective?”

Tom Schreiner
That is called the historicist view of Revelation. It has been very popular, especially in the Middle Ages through maybe the 1800s. You’ll still find it here and there today. It will say that the seven letters are a prophecy. The church started off well (the letter to Ephesus) and then they lost their first love—

Matt Tully
There does seem to be a bit of a progression in the way that these churches are portrayed in those seven letters, making this seem plausible because of that.

Tom Schreiner
Yes. Some people would say that, but basically no one who studies the letters today believes that because at the end of the day, it’s arbitrary. Let me put it another way. That reading actually robs the book of what it’s intending to do. It was written to people who actually lived in Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamum and Thytyra, etc.

Matt Tully
Would this be an example of maybe not taking it literally enough?

Tom Schreiner
Yes, it’s almost like an allegorical reading. Laodeicea doesn’t really stand for Laodicea anymore; it stands for the end of church history. But it also becomes very arbitrary. The church at Philadelphia—the fifth church—is a very good church. Sardis and Laodicea—the sixth and seventh letter—are bad. So, when was that good period? Is that the Reformation? But then when did it turn bad? When did it become the dead church (Sardis)? It can seem plausible because we can look around and say, Well, I think our churches are lukewarm. I would say yes, there’s some truth in that. But there’s also some truth that there are good churches too. There are Philadelphia churches around. There are churches like Smyrna—another good church. It’s interesting because every letter says, This is the message of the spirit to all the churches—in John’s day and to us today. All the churches need to hear all the letters. There are laodicean churches now, there are Philadelphian churches now, there are Ephesian churches now, but they’re not chronological.

35:31 - Is It Possible—or Necessary—to Understand the book of Revelation?

Matt Tully
All of this—the different opinions that we often have, the tricky interpretive questions that we have to face with the book of Revelation—might lead someone to ask, Is it actually possible for us to understand what this book is really teaching? Is it actually that important to know the details of some of these things, or could a Christian flourish with a very unlimited understanding of the end?

Tom Schreiner
First, I would say that God put it in the Bible, so it’s important for us. He thought it was important. I think it’s very significant that this is the last book in the New Testament. It’s the culmination. The message is vital. That doesn’t mean that we need to understand every detail, but the big picture in Revelation is important. There’s a cosmic conflict between the dragon (Satan) and Jesus. We need to know this. It is taught in other places in the Bible, but Revelation makes it very clear: we will triumph. We will win. It’s not just information in our heads; it’s also very important practically because Revelation says do not compromise with the world. Endure to the end. You will be rewarded. But you won’t be rewarded if you side with the beast and the false prophet, if you turn against God. Revelation teaches us very clearly that Jesus will come again. I’ll just share my own experience. I became a Christian at seventeen. I wasn’t a person who read the Bible before that. The first time I read Revelation I thought, Wow! That’s amazing. There’s a lot of things I didn’t understand in that. But I understood that we win. It made an impact on me, even at the level of my imagination. We win! We win this battle. Jesus triumphs, and we need to put our trust in him. Also, Revelation is very strong—I don’t want to say too much more here—on the cross of Christ. How do we get in? Our robes are washed by the blood of the Lamb. Some of the most beautiful pictures of what it means to be redeemed are in the book of Revelation. Come drink of the water of life freely he says.

Matt Tully
We so often think of Revelation as this picture of judgement and wrath, but you’re right; there is such beautiful redemptive imagery there as well.

Tom Schreiner
Yes, come drink of the water of life! And it offers a beautiful picture of the new creation. We don’t have anything else in that kind of detail other than Revelation 21 and 22.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Podcast: Help! I Hate My Job (Jim Hamilton)

January 06, 2020

Jim Hamilton discusses what to do when you hate your job, offering encouragement for those frustrated in their work and explaining the difference between a job and a vocation.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.