Does the Book of Revelation Predict our Future?(vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 168 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman. Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

This episode explores one of the New Testament's most misunderstood books: Revelation. Bart Ehrman argues that the key to understanding the book is recognizing its original historical context. Rather than predicting events thousands of years in the future, Revelation was written in the late first century as a response to the power and oppression of the Roman Empire. Its terrifying beasts, cosmic battles, and violent imagery were aimed at Rome and its emperors—not modern geopolitics.

The discussion traces how Revelation has been interpreted throughout Christian history. Early Christians generally expected its prophecies to be fulfilled soon, but as time passed, later church leaders increasingly read the book symbolically. Augustine's interpretation—that the "millennium" represented the era of the Church—dominated Christianity for over a thousand years.

Misquoting Jesus

Never Miss an Episode of Misquoting Jesus

Get key insights, episode summaries, and exclusive content you won't hear on the podcast.

By signing up, you agree to receive marketing emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

PLUS: Get our free course:

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Actually Write the Gospels?

PLUS: Get our free course:

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Actually Write the Gospels?

The conversation then shifts to modern end-times theology, focusing on Hal Lindsey and dispensational premillennialism. Ehrman explains how Lindsey popularized the idea that Revelation predicts contemporary events by claiming John described future technology using first-century language. The famous example of Revelation's "locusts" being interpreted as attack helicopters is examined in detail, with Ehrman arguing that the passage itself contradicts this reading.