Some thoughts on Revelation’s Message One of the earliest commentaries on
Revelation was that of Methodius. In his day already there was a trend to
interpret Revelation allegorical rather than literal and this method was very
popular at the Alexandrian School of interpretation in North Africa. As opposed
to this was the Antiochian School of interpretation that held that to apply a
verse from Revelation as spiritual is fine as long as it is based on a literal
reading as well and not on pure imagination absent from the text. This means
that even if one is very excited by the thought that Christ is in Revelation,
and He is, one cannot extend His presence in the text where it is not
text-supported that He is there. The Alexandrian allegorical loving scholar
will say it does not matter but the Antiochian literal loving scholars will say
it does. Oecumenius was the first Father to
write a Greek commentary on the Book of Revelation in the late sixth century
just after 538 kicked in. It is more in the time concurrent with pope Gregory
the Great, who also loved eschatology, that Oecumenius wrote. Oecumenius felt that the Book of
Revelation was focussed more on Christ in the past and wished to link many
phrases to His work on earth. Methodius said already in 300 that
“Remember that the mystery of the incarnation of the Word was fulfilled long
before the Apocalypse, whereas John's prophetie message has to do with the
present and the future." Methodios Symp. 8.7. The Symposium: A Treatise on
Chastity, trans. Herbert Musurillo, Ancient Christian Writers series, vol. 27
(Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958), 112; op. cit. Eugenia Scarvelis
Constantinou, (2008) Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient
Church of the East. Doctoral Dissertation at the Faculte de Theologie et des
Sciences Religieuses Universite Laval, Qubec, footnote 49. See online. Oecumenius differed with him by saying
that Revelation is past, present and future meanings, but Methodius said it was
only present and future since the incarnation is already a past event. Andrew
of Caesarea wrote his commentary on Revelation before 612 and he agreed with
Methodius against Oecumenius. The Sabbath School lesson dealing with
End-Time in 2018 second quarter does not want to push Christ into roles that He
was not described with in the Book of Revelation. It will be a sidetracking if
Christ role is diminished or replaced with something else or even left out. At
the same time, a hyper-interpretation can limit cardinal points brought within
the frame or frames of the text of Revelation that cannot be just brushed off
the table within the context of an imaginatory zeal for emphasis on Christ. A healthy balance is that of the
Adventist view of Revelation but some interpreters at Loma Linda are trying to
Christologize nearly every symbol of Revelation within the context of the
Incarnation and that, according to Methodius and Andrew (cited above) is a
no-no.
The Christology of Revelation is Christ within the frame of the
corridors of historical prophetic events stretching out from John in 97 CE to
the New Earth. Spending most of the time on the Incarnation detail of Christ
would distract from the nuances that John received from Christ through angels
about the prophetic charts.