TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION
Our times, more than any before us, are "apocalyptic." It has become realistic politics to speak of the possibility of the annihilation of whole countries and even the whole of humanity, whether by nuclear weapons or by the production of the modern "monsters" of pollution, chemical and biological experiments, and the like.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the book of the Apocalypse [Revelation] has attracted widespread interest today as never before. However, much of the interest in it is very superficial, as may be seen in a popular book of our times, Hal Lindsay's The Late Great Planet Earth. Someone interested in world affairs and a believer in the truth of the Bible can read this book [which has sold over a million copies in the United States] in a single sitting and be extremely impressed about how everything "fits together," how the prophesies of the Apocalypse seem to apply directly to our own times. Identifications are made of Scriptural personages and symbols: the "king of the south," the "king of the north," "Gog," "Magog," and many others; and the events associated with these names in Scripture are applied to contemporary history and future projections based on it with regard to Russia, China, Europe, Israel, the Arab countries, etc. In such books as this one is told to "watch what Russia does next, "look at Iran," "a tenth nation will join the Common Market" of Europe, etc. All this can make one very excited, almost dizzy, in an agony of suspense over what apocalyptic event will occur next.
But this is not the way we should be reading the book of the Apocalypse. Some of these identifications may turn out to be accurate; others will turn out to be the product of a fevered imagination. But it us all on a superficial level which does not help us to save out souls; we should approach Biblical prophecy , and in particular the book of the Apocalypse, in a quite different way.
AIDS TO THE INTERPRETATI0N OF THE APOCALYPSE
The difficult images and symbols of the Apocalypse are best examined separately in a reliable Orthodox commentary like that of Archbishop Averky, who has taken as his chief source the 5th century commentary of St. Andrew of Caesarea, who in turn sums up the earlier Patristic commentaries on this book [some of which no longer exist]. But it will also help us, in approaching this book to keep in mind the general aids to the interpretation of Scripture which have been utilized in such commentaries>
1. In some cases, the Scripture itself interprets its own difficult images. In the Apocalypse, for example, when our Lord Jesus Christ was seen in the first vision in the midst of seven golden candlesticks with seven stars in His right hand, He Himself explained the meaning of these two images to St. John [Apoc. 1:20]. Similarly, the angels who appeared to the Prophet Daniel explained for him some of the symbols seen in his visions [Daniel 7:16-27; 8:16-26] -- symbols which themselves are related to the content of the Apocalypse.
2. Parallel passages in other books of Scripture often shed light on or even directly explain some of the difficult images in the Apocalypse. The book of Daniel and other Old Testament prophets are especially helpful in this regard, as are the New Testament books that describe the coming of Antichrist. The fact that there are a number of Orthodox commentaries on these books helps to make up for the fact that there are so few on the Apocalypse itself.
3. A knowledge of Orthodox doctrine in general -- and in particular of Orthodox eschatology, [the doctrine of the last things, including the end of the world] -- is an indispensable part of any study of the Apocalypse. Without it, Protestant interpreters have gone astray into a multitude of fanciful opinions about the Apocalypse [for example, notions of the "millennium," the "rapture," etc.] which only lead readers astray and, in many cases, actually prepare them to accept Antichrist in place of Christ. The general account of the events preceding and accompanying the end of the world contained in the other New Testament Scriptures [Matthew chs. 24-25, Mark ch. 13, Luke ch. 21, II Peter ch.3, II Timothy ch. 4, I Thessalonians chs. 4-5, II Thessalonians ch. 2, Romans ch. 1, I Corinthians ch 15 -- all interpreted, of course, in accordance with the commentaries of the Holy Fathers] gives an outline of the Church's eschatological teaching which places the events described in the Apocalypse in their proper dogmatic historical context.
4. Also helpful is an historical examination of the book itself -- the author, time and place of writing, and most of all, its purpose -- all within the context of Orthodox tradition and piety, and not in the spirit of the rationalistic criticisms of modern times, which often destroys the meaning of he book in its concern to be in harmony with academic fashion. Archbishop Averky's Introduction supplies this examination for Orthodox readers.
5. A knowledge of ancient languages, geography, history, archeology, etc. can sometimes throw light on various passages of Scripture.
6. More important than any specific scientific knowledge, however, is a general view and philosophy of history and culture. To understand some of the visions of the Apocalypse [and the Old Testament book of Daniel to which it is so closely related], one must have a grasp of the meaning of the succession of world monarchies and of the one unending monarchy of Christ which replaces them. Further, one can better understand Antichrist by studying ancient tyrants [such as Antiochus, Epiphanes] and the modern rulers [truly forerunners of Antichrist] who attempted world conquest -- Napoleon, Hitler, Communism.
With these aids the context of the Apocalypse, difficult as it sometimes is, may be fairly well understood. However, since the book is so much composed of symbols and figurative images, we should make a special note on the different levels of meaning in the Holy Scripture.
LITERAL VS. SYMBOLICAL OR MYSTICAL MEANINGS
Many would-be interpreters of Scripture go astray precisely on this point, whether by a too-literal understanding [as in the case of the Protestant Fundamentalists who come close to believing that everything in the Bible is literally true] or a too-free interpretation [as in the case of the liberals who dismiss everything difficult to believe as "symbolic" or "allegorical"]. In the Orthodox interpretation of Scripture these two levels of meaning, the literal and the symbolical, are often intertwined.
There are many passages to be sure, that are only meant to be understood literally: such are the strictly historical parts of Scripture [for example: "I John .. was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" -- Apoc. 1:10 Theoretically, every point in such historical statements could be checked for accuracy by means of eye-witnesses, primary documents, early church historians, etc. Metaphorical statements, as when natural things are spoken of in poetic images ["The sun knoweth his going down" -- Ps. 103] may also be classed under the literal sense of Scripture, as are those cases of actions or qualities of God are spoken of in earthly terms, or when bodily members or passions are ascribed to God [God grew angry, or repented, or walked in Paradise]. These kinds of meaning can still be classed as "literal" [even though they are not strictly so] because they only attempt to describe reality as it is [whether earthly or Divine] and not to refer to something else entirely.
Symbolic meanings, on the other hand, can be of several kinds. There are, for example,prefigurations, when historical persons or events are used as types or foreshadowings of events in the life of Christ [for example, Jonah's 3 days in the whale, prefiguring Christ's three days in the grave -- Matt. 12:40]; symbols, when Divinely inspired actions indicate God's will or revelation [for example, the bonds and yokes which Jeremiah put on, signifying the Babylonian captivity -- Jer. ch. 27; or the girdle of St. Paul which the prophet Agabus wound around himself, indicating the Apostle's imprisonment in Jerusalem -- Acts 21:11]. In both these kinds of symbolical meaning the literal, historical meaning of the text is also true.
In what one might call mystical images, when a deeper, spiritual meaning is given to some earthly person, thing or event, the literal sense is also retained -- as, for example, with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Paradise, which St. Gregory the Theologian interpreted as "contemplation" without thereby denying that it was also a tree; or the tree of life which besides being a prefiguration of the Cross of Christ is also an image of the future eternal life, without ceasing to be a literal tree in a literal garden, as Patristic tradition makes clear.
There is also allegory, in which a fictitious story is used as symbolizing a higher reality; this is rather rare in Scripture, and is chiefly limited to such forms as parables and apologies -- instructive stories and fables in which the literal story itself need not be true [although in some parables it may be true]. Even the Song of Songs, a kind of allegory of the love between Christ and the Church, has a historical reference to the love between Solomon and his Egyptian bride.
The visions of the Apocalypse, on the other hand, make use of symbols of a little different kind from all the above. Sometimes they present heavenly realities in forms adapted to the understanding of the seer [the vision of Christ in chapter 1; of heaven in chs. 4-7; of the future age in chs.21-22]; sometimes they present allegorical pictures of the Church and her life [the "woman clothed with the sun" in ch. 12, the "thousand years" of the Church's existence in ch. 20], or of specific beings that war against the Church [the dragon in ch. 12, the two beasts of ch.13], or of future events, whether general [the four horsemen of ch. 6] of specific [the seven last plagues of ch. 15].
The interpretation of all these images -- to the degree that is accessible to us now, before all the prophecies have been fulfilled -- is set forth in the text of the commentary. Here we shall give only a few final words of warning and preparation for the reader.
1. We should not be over-definite or overly narrow in our interpretation of these images and visions. Many of the symbols of the Apocalypse are s sweeping in heir application that no simple prose formula can encompass them; a man of richer experience and knowledge will see more in them than someone who lacks these. Too, as history proceeds to its end, the meaning of some of the images will become clearer. Archbishop Averky himself notes that some of the images simply cannot be understood yet while others [for example, the "locusts" and "horses" of ch. 9] he hazards interpretations based on the 20th-century experience of warfare.
2. We must be careful to distinguish between the passages that refer to realities of this fallen world of earth, and those that refer to the other world, heaven. Misinterpretations of the Apocalypse invariably confuse these two spheres by trying to apply prophetic visions about the other world [where and sorrow have an end, there is no death, and "the leopard shall lie down with the kid" --Is. 11:6] to this earthly world; this is the fatal mistake of the chiliastic interpretation which prevails among Protestants today, which understands the "thousand years" of chapter 20 as a kind of "heavenly" historical epoch and applies to the earthly Jerusalem prophecies which can refer only to the heavenly Jerusalem in the age to come.
Sometimes even Orthodox commentators will have varying interpretations of the visions with their images. We should not, however be quick to look for "contradictions" in this fact. With symbolic language, it often happens that images have multiple meanings and levels of interpretation. Thus, the strange creatures of chapter 9 may indicate frightful modern weapons, but they may also symbolize demons and the actions of human passions; the "great star" of chapter 8 may be a meteor or missile or some physical cause of destruction, but it may also symbolize the devil.
3. The chiliastic interpretation of the Apocalypse proceeds also from another basic mistake of most Protestant interpreters: to take the text of the book in strict chronological order instead of seeing it as it is: a series of visions quite distinct in nature from each other -- some of heaven, some of earth; some very general and symbolic, some quite specific and literal; some of the past, some of the future, and some of the present. To identify each of these visions for what it is requires a precise Orthodox commentary and not simply reading the text as it appears to our modern understanding. The present book is an attempt to supply this much-needed 0rthodox commentary.
4. Our reading of the Apocalypse should be one not of fevered excitement but of sober awareness. 0ur first concern should be to gain an understanding of the Orthodox doctrine and world view which are contained in the book; about specific applications of prophesies to contemporary events we should be slow to form a judgement and not be carried away by our own opinions and fantasies.
5. It is very important that the reading of this book should be done together with regular spiritual nourishment -- the Church's services and sacraments, regular reading of Scripture and spiritual books. If this is done, and our Orthodox Christianity is a conscious struggleconducted daily and constantly -- then we will be not overwhelmed by some new catastrophe or some new fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy.
6. With all this in mind, we must understand that the Apocalypse is a book of mysteries -- the deep things bound up with the beginning and end of thins, the ultimate purpose of the world and man, the opening of the eternal Kingdom of Heaven; and so we must read it with fear of God, and with a humble distrust of our own wisdom.
THE APOCALYPSE -- A BOOK FOR OUR TIMES
The subject of the Apocalypse is a mystical depiction of the future fate of the Church of Christ and of the whole world; it describes the battle of the Church against all its enemies and its final triumph over them. Thus, the reading of this book is a great consolation especially in times of persecution and discouragements for Christians -- such as our own times. Historical events we see about us are placed in the context of the whole battle of the Church against the powers of evil, and the final victory of the Church and the opening of the unending Kingdom of Heaven.
Members of the Catacomb Church in Russia today invariably see themselves in terms of the persecuted woman in the wilderness [Apocalypse, ch. 12] and thereby gain strength from God for their most difficult struggle. When the powers of evil take such a strong form as that of a totalitarian atheist government, it is very easy to give up the battle if one does not have a picture of the meaning of this seeming triumph of evil, and a knowledge of the eventual triumph of good and Christ's Church.
Much interest was shown in this book in the Church of the first Christians centuries, when it seemed that the events depicted there might be close to fulfillment. However, the temptation of chiliasm,into which even some of the early teachers of the Church fell [St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Justin the Philosopher], together with the peace and stability of the age of Constantine, when the empire itself became Christian -- led to a waning of apocalyptic thinking in the Church and a general neglect of the book. Even its place in the New Testament canon was uncertain until the 4th century, and some of the great Fathers of the Church hardly mention it. As Archbishop Averky states, it is the one New Testament book which has no regular place in the Scripture readings during church services, even though the Typicon does give it a place in a part of the services which is seldom if ever performed in our days. [At the Saturday night Vigil, all the New Testament Epistles and the Apocalypse are appointed to be read in order between Vespers and Matins, beginning with the Sunday of All Saints.]
Some great Fathers, however, did make use of the Apocalypse: among the 3rd and 4th-century Fathers one can name St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Blessed Augustine. Some of their interpretations of the book will be given in the footnotes.
The one main Patristic commentary on the book is that of St. Andrew of Caesarea in the 5th century, which rejects the main misinterpretations of earlier centuries and gives the Orthodox understanding of such points as the "thousand years" of Christ's reign with His saints ch.20]. In the present work, inn addition to St. Andrew's commentary, Archbishop Averky has made use of 19th and 20th-century Russian Orthodox scholarship on the Apocalypse, as well as his own observations on the apocalyptic events of our times.
We do seem, indeed, to be living in the last times of this world's existence, when the prophecies of the Apocalypse relating to the end of the wold are beginning to be fulfilled. The time surely is ripe -- especially in view of the numerous false interpretations of this book which fill the contemporary air -- for a fully Orthodox commentary on it.
Many Orthoxdox Christians gain from it a sober awareness of the signs of these times and learn to prepare themselves to endure to the end the trials and tribulations which are coming upon us!
The text of the Apocalypse used in this book is that of the King James Version of the New Testament. Since the understanding of the Apocalypse is so dependent upon the text of other books of Scripture, the parallel olaces in other books which are cited in Archbishops Averky's commentary are given more fully at the end of each chapter, in the order in which they appear in the text. These citations are taken: the New Testament, from the King James Version, the Old Testament, also from the King James Version; the Old Testament, also from the KJV, unless indicated as being from the Septuagint [published by Bagster & Sons].
The text of Archbishop Averky did not include the whole text of the Apocalypse which he was interpreting. In this translation, this whole text has been furnished, so that the translation proceeds verse by verse. In some cases, explanatory material from St. Andrew's commentary which Archbishop Averky did not cite has been added in order to provide a commentary on every verse. The aim of Archbishop Averky, however, and of this translation, has been not to make an exhaustive interpretation of the text of the Apocalypse [which would require a book many times longer], but rather to provide a brief and practical understanding of the book for serious Orthodox Christians of these latter times.
The footnotes, which chiefly attempt to give explanatory material from other books of Scripture and from the Holy Fathers, are those of the translator and are so identified.
