Towards a new
spatio-temporal
macrostructure for Revelation - literary context
3) Macrostructures and literary structural context
The term ‘structure’ is used here to describe the organisation of discrete passages or groups of verses that have identifiable subjects in common. They are the building blocks that form the framework of the narrative which traces John’s visionary journey through Revelation’s cosmos (the book outline) and the shape of the story itself (the vision outline). Within the text, there are literary complications (repetitions, paradoxes and abrupt transitions) and this study uses a spatio-temporal analysis to reconcile the two outlines and the complications. The outcome is the proposed macrostructure (see the Macrostructure Model).
The term ‘macrostructure’ refers to the unified structure of the whole of Revelation and there are two main types: the first one considers each verse as a piece of a literary jigsaw puzzle and the second one emphasises topics, ideologies, philosophical literary theories, theological or linguistic structural features. Today, chronology tends not to be important in either case, but repetitions, paradoxes and abrupt transitions in the text need to be accommodated in any model – as later explanations, anticipatory statements, duplicated visionary events or in some other way.
3a) A literary jigsaw puzzle
The first type of macrostructure considers each verse like a piece of a literary jigsaw puzzle and patterns appear when the pieces are put together. For example: seven seals are opened; seven trumpets sound; and seven bowls are emptied – one after another, either in a ‘classic pattern’ that is described next, or in another pattern. Other models consider the text as 3- or 7-act dramas (Osborne, 2002: 29) or particular recurring phrases are recognised, such as ‘being in the Spirit’ (Filho, 2002: 215) or the ‘seven victor sayings’ (Wilson, 2007: 30). The possibility that the structure of Revelation reflects the compilation of separate ‘vision reports’ or stories perhaps has the most support in the literature quoted in this study so this is also described shortly. ‘Framework’ is a good descriptive term for a macrostructure that defines the skeleton of the book using the subject matter of the verses as building blocks. The proposed macrostructure is a Framework model.
Published structural models for Revelation considered in this study have similar book outlines and structural models which often emphasise the ‘series of sevens’ and ‘interludes’ or ‘intercalations’ (i.e. changes of subject matter, usually between the sixth and seventh events of the seal, trumpet and bowl series; Bauckham, 1993a: 9-22, 258). There are four classic literary patterns in Revelation: (a) linear; b) recapitulation, i.e. repeated or patterned repetitions; c) telescopic, developed or encompassed, i.e. several events occur in one time-line during the time in which one event happens in another; d) chiasms, i.e. a description is repeated immediately in reverse order, for example: text A-B-C-B-A, with text C as the focal point in the story or group of verses.
3b) Ideological and topical puzzles
There is another type of macrostructure that is outside the scope of this study because they emphasise ideologies, topics, philosophical literary theories, theological or linguistic structural features. Alan Bandy suggests these structures are ‘as diverse as the images found within the book’ (Bandy, 2009: 470). This diversity is particularly noticeable when comparing literary layers (Bandy, 2009: 474, 481, 487), multi-dimensional layers of meaning (Thompson, 1990: 188), or descriptions of the main characters or events. Chronology may be less important in this approach than in the Framework approach, so that repetitions, paradoxes and abrupt transitions can be accommodated as later explanations, anticipatory statements or duplicated descriptions of visionary events.
The two types of macrostructure complement one another. For example, Babylon is a key character in Ideological/ Topical macrostructures and repeated descriptions of her fall are key markers in the Framework macrostructures. Explanations are usually given to John in Revelation’s story (rather than John always asking for them) and the message and meaning of Revelation are enhanced within the images. For example, in 17:1-18, Babylon is described as both a great city and a harlot, and she embodies power and corruption within hedonistic society. As one of three magnificent women in Revelation, she is very important in Ideological/ Topical macrostructures. Explanations can highlight the underlying construction of the text, so they are also important for Framework macrostructures. For example, Babylon’s fall is recorded three times in Revelation ((14:8, 16:17-21, 18:1-3) and it is celebrated in heaven (19:1-4). Stephen Smalley suggests that 14:8 is a ‘proleptic’ (anticipatory) announcement (Smalley, 2005: 363) but the repetition has structural significance. To overcome the complication that a unique event such as Babylon’s fall cannot happen at two different times in a single space (14:8, 16:17-21), this study used a spatio-temporal analysis to investigate Babylon’s role in Revelation’s macrostructure.
Some literary structures are superimposed upon both types of macrostructure, such as: Revelation’s genres; John’s style and how he expresses himself in the text; and the literary arrangement, such as Revelation perhaps being an example of one of Umberto Eco’s ‘open works’ (Mach, 2015: 26-28) i.e. open to interpretation by the reader. If a macrostructure is part of a study (regardless of which type), repetitions, paradoxes and abrupt transitions need to be accommodated within it in some way.
3c) Published macrostructures
Revelation’s first macrostructures were linear and the first major interpretation of this pattern was the three trinitarian ages described by Joachim of Fiore (c. A.D. 1135-1202). These divide historical events in three trinitarian ages from Adam: Abraham to the birth of Christ (Father/ Law); the age of the Gospels to Joachim’s own time (Son/ Gospel); ending with the millennium and return of Christ (Spirit), (Woodman, 2008: 28-29). This was developed into seven ‘days’, i.e. divine responses (‘dispensations’) to human failure by John Nelson Derby (A.D. 1800-82) (Woodman, 2008: 30).
Patterned repetitions (recapitulations) were noted in Revelation from the end of the third century (Giblin, 1994: 81) and these evolved into quite complex models. The ‘progressive parallelism’ model, introduced in 1940 by William Hendriksen, is a form of recapitulation and it divides Revelation’s text into seven ‘vertically’ parallel sections. Each section spans the story in ‘ascending, climactic order’ from Christ’s first coming to his second appearance, culminating with the Final Judgement and New Order in the seventh section (Hendriksen, 1940, 1998 edn: 34-36).
The complicated source-critical models of over 100 years ago combined into redaction-critical theories, which in turn changed to simpler models that emphasise Revelation’s language and its structural unity (Bauckham, 1993b: x, Osborne, 2002: 27-29). Changes from complex to more simple structures in the past 25 years are illustrated by the ‘vision report’ model (Aune, 1997: lxxxii) compared with the separate ‘stories’ approach suggested by Roman Mach (Mach, 2015: 397-401). David Aune entitles his analysis ‘diachronic composition criticism’, rather than source criticism (Aune, 1997: cxviii) but it is complex. Aune proposes a composition that combines an early first draft with a later final edition (Aune, 1997: lvii-lviii) which includes twelve independent shorter units in 4:1-22:9 (Aune, 1997: cxx-cxxiii); Mach includes nine transitional sections within four stories (Mach, 2015: 383-393). Separate reports or stories macrostructures accommodate repetitions, abrupt transitions and paradoxes within the separate literary units or subdivisions.
James Resseguie describes Revelation as ‘a literary progression with one event folding into another until the end is reached and everything and everyone is in their proper place and the messianic repairs of the cosmos are complete’ (Resseguie, 2009: 59). Eugene Boring describes the pictorial language as a ‘gestalt of simultaneous images’ (Boring, 1989: 58). The proposed macrostructure illustrates ‘their proper places’ and how the ‘messianic repairs’ are/ will be accomplished and the structural significance of of the simultaneous images.
3d) Classic literary patterns
Published structural models for Revelation considered in this study have similar book outlines, but structural models which often emphasise ‘series of sevens’ and ‘interludes’, interruptions or ‘intercalations’ (i.e. changes of subject matter, usually between the sixth and seventh events of the seal, trumpet and bowl series; Bauckham, 1993a: 9-22, 258). There are four classic literary patterns in Revelation: (a) linear; b) recapitulation, repeated or patterned repetitions; c) telescopic, developed or encompassed, i.e. several events occur in one time-line during the time in which one event happens in another; d) chiasms). These patterns were investigated using the proposed spatio-temporal analysis:
a) Linear models were the original structural choices, and linear plot progression in Revelation is recognisable (Resseguie, 2009: 59) but not as the overall macrostructure. The many repetitions, abrupt transition and paradoxes in the text make a linear macrostructure untenable. Some scholars propose a linear progression for the seals, trumpets and bowls. For example, Marko Jauhiainen suggests the seals correspond to events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Jauhiainen, 2003a: 557-559) – as does the proposed macrostructure (see Towards … 6). However, Jauhiainen suggests the seventh seal ‘ushers in’ the ‘Day of the Lord’ (8:1) and this interpretation is not fully supported by this study because it proposes that it is the censer which begins the Day (8:3-5). None of the eighteen time-parallels noted in the proposed macrostructure model are recognisable in a simple linear model.
b) Recapitulation is the most common pattern suggested for the series of seven seals, trumpets and bowls, with each series describing different aspects of the same seven torments. Each torment is described in three different ways and with heightening ferocity.
Using this spatio-temporal analysis, a recapitulation macrostructure requires three earth and two heaven’s throne-room time-lines to avoid most of the spatio-temporal paradoxes that it creates. In this option: the seals, the Lamb appearing on Mt Zion and the harvests are part of the physical-spiritual earth; and the celestial mother, beasts and bowls are part of the biblical earth; and the trumpets sound and the two witness appear in a third earthly dimension. Only six of the eighteen time-parallels noted in the proposed macrostructure model are recognisable. Despite this, the beast rises before the abyss opens and the heavenly sanctuary opens twice so recapitulation is structurally unsound from this spatio-temporal perspective.
c.i) Telescoping within the sixth seal implies that the sixth seal heralds the true Day of God’s Wrath (6:12-17) and it encompasses the seventh seal and all the trumpets and bowls, but this option creates unresolved spatio-temporal complications. The abrupt change in the text at 12:1 cannot be part of the telescoping sixth seal time-line so it requires three earth time-lines: physical-spiritual earth for the first four seals, trumpets, the Lamb appearing on Mt Zion and the harvests; the biblical earth for the beasts and the bowls; and a third earth for the sixth seal. It is unlikely that ‘silence in heaven’ (seventh seal) is possible in this option. Only ten of the eighteen time-parallels noted in the proposed macrostructure model are recognisable in this model.
c.ii) Telescoping the trumpets and bowls within the seventh seal creates a paradox because the text indicates the trumpet and bowl preparations (from 8:2) occur after the silence of the seventh seal ends (8:1) – not within it. In this option, there would be no silence in heaven. This paradox can be avoided by introducing a second heavenly throne-room space so that the seventh seal’s silence continues in one time-line whilst the trumpet and bowl preparations occur in the second one.
c.iii) Seventh trumpet/ bowls telescoping requires the trumpets and bowls to be in separate spaces because all the bowls are encompassed within the seventh trumpet (as the third woe, which is imminent when the seventh trumpet sounds; 11:14-15). In this option, the Lamb appears on Mt Zion on one earth (14:1-5) and the bowls are part of a second earth time-line. This option is technically viable if the Lamb appears on the physical-spiritual earth after the trumpets, and the bowls empty onto the biblical earth. In this model, the bowls are the third woe – which is also true in the proposed macrostructure but as a linear structure. The seventh trumpet/ bowls telescoping option is considered again when the last three bowls are emptied (Framework 4A.d).
Analysis of the structural integrity of other similar models (such as 3- or 7-act dramas, the series of ‘sevens’, webs, separate reports or story compilations) are often destroyed using the spatio-temporal analysis but some literary and linguistic patterns are important surface textural features that provide additional layers of meaning to the text. Sometimes a text parallel uncovers a time-parallel, for example: time-parallel 6 (11:11-18/ 15:2-4; see Figure 3; Bauckham, 1993a: 101).
This study suggests that the comprehensive and cohesive nature of Revelation, as illustrated in the proposed macrostructure, argues against later text modifications or significant redaction within it. Uncovering the chosen spatio-temporal macrostructure was an iterative process and the chosen model was the simplest option available that was without temporal paradoxes (i.e. all eighteen time-parallels were recognised) or spatial paradoxes (i.e. there were no unexplained extra cosmic spaces). The chosen model was validated by comparison with the Gospels, specifically Lk. 17 and Lk. 21/ Mt. 24/ Mk. 13 because these describe sequences of events, and Acts 1 (see Towards … 6).
The proposed macrostructure raised a key question: why are there two earths in John’s visionary cosmos? In the interpretation in this study, the first earth is the physical-spiritual earth (John describes these two dimensions together and it describes what happens on earth). The second earth reflects the biblical narrative and it describes why events happen – the ‘messianic war’ is underway (Bauckham, 1993a: 94) and Scripture will be fulfilled. The new spaces in the options analyses above appear to have no theological or cosmological justification.
3e) The proposed macrostructure and the classic patterns
Richard Bauckham considers Revelation’s literary structure to be a unified whole that is ‘virtually impossible adequately’ to put into a diagram (Bauckham, 1993b: 21; so Mach, 2015:384), so the proposed spatio-temporal macrostructure is a fresh perspective on Revelation’s structure which may be unique. It demonstrates an underlying, single, chronologically-linear Creation to New Order story that reflects the biblical meta-narrative. Within the vision, the story steps back in relative time at 4:2, 12:1, 12:13 and 15:1 (see Towards …4f). This enables John to see again events that he has already witnessed, but from different perspectives, as two linear dramas (4:1-11:19 and from 12:1). This is the primary structural layer and the eighteen time-parallels bind the dramas and cosmic spaces together.
There is a secondary layer which consists of a literary spiral which describes events leading up to Babylon’s fall and thereafter (16:12-21:9). The spiral is created by an interweaving of text passages which record contiguous events in multiple spaces in a few consecutive verses. It is like an eddy in the overall flow of the vision and it may trace the path of John’s eyes as he watches these events unfold from visionary vantage points (see Towards … 4g).
Both the primary and secondary layers follow the spacetime rule, so there are no temporal paradoxes. There is no recapitulation in the structure because each cosmic space/ dimension tells its own story and some events are viewed from different perspectives but they are not repeated; each time-line ‘possesses its own content’ (a phrase borrowed from Lambrecht, 1998: 205).
A major difference between ‘progressive parallelism’ as envisaged by Hendriksen (see 3c) and the structure in this study is that Hendrikson’s model is a form of recapitulation but the new macrostructure is a modified linear pattern. Also, in the new model consecutive verses are not always part of the same (vertical, cosmic space) time-line and contemporaneous events in the time-lines are linked by (horizontal) time-parallels. There are one-to-one correlations between events in the time-lines, and these are recognised as the time-parallels in this study. For example: 14:1-20 (on the biblical earth) outlines events and the other spaces infill the details (16:12-19:21) (time-parallels 9-15; see Framework 4 and 5).
There is some telescoping (a one-to-many correlation): while everybody is marked on the biblical earth (13:16-18), John interacts with the ‘mighty angel’ and he measures the temple, he sees the two witnesses, hears the seventh trumpet and sees the heavenly sanctuary open, on the physical-spiritual earth (10:1-11:19) (see Framework 3). The many chiasms in the text are surface, literary features.
Given that the relationship between the two dramas is not recapitulation, telescopic, chiasms or Hendrikson’s progressive parallelism, this study proposes that “parallel progression” is a good term for it because of its greater emphasis on chronological progression.[1] The parallel progression in this study is illustrated by the eighteen time-parallels.
[1] The term “parallel progression” is used in other disciplines (especially medical), but its use in a theological spatio-temporal study is unlikely to cause confusion between the disciplines. ‘Two-step progression’ is a much more localised repetition that is not on the scale recognised in this study (Resseguie, 2009: 23-25).
3f) A waking vision
Whether John envisioned, dreamt or imagined one or several separate visions or if he compiled vision report(s) is the subject of scholarly debate (see 3a). This study proposes that John experienced a single waking vision. It is possible that John knitted multiple visions together but if he designed the structure of Revelation and imagined the events, this would contradict John’s own words. John wrote that he experienced a ‘revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, apocalypse) of Jesus Christ’ (1:1) and:
‘I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, ‘Write in a book what you see (… turning I saw) one like the Son of Man (…), saying ‘Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive for ever and ever (…). Now write what you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this.’ (1: 9-20)
John was praying when he heard the voice behind him and he was able to turn around, which implies he was standing. John’s experience was written down while it was happening, because he is told not to write down the message of the seven thunders: ‘And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down’ (10:4). This indicates that either John or a scribe was recording the words at the time – rather than the words being transcribed afterwards. Using the services of a scribe was a common practice at the time and the personal pronoun (I was…, I heard …, I saw …) does not preclude this. The Apostle Paul used a scribe for at least four of his letters and the only indication of this is when he states that he is ending them in his own hand.[1]
Local tradition tells that John lived with a servant on Patmos who acted as his scribe. This recording process would explain the abbreviated descriptions of the fall of Babylon (which is a major event, described in very few verses) and the simple, repetitive pattern of the text of the septets (seals, trumpets, bowls). Revelation follows a common New Testament letter pattern, with an introduction that contains the main themes of the body of the letter in ‘seed form’ (1:1-3:22, or ‘even’ 1:1-20, Beale, 1999: 39) and it closes with an epilogue (22:16-20a) and then the letter ends very abruptly (22:20b-21). John may have done the same as Paul, and perhaps the abrupt ending was written in his own hand.
The myriad Hebrew Bible allusions (over 400, or even over 600, have been suggested by others) in Revelation indicate John’s use of Scripture was intentional and ‘exegetical’ (Mach, 2015: 175), i.e. it is a skilled, analytical analysis of Scripture. This suggests John was aware that he was witnessing biblical history unfolding in his vision. Revelation does not include John’s own explanations on what he was seeing and there are only a very few explanations given to John by characters in the vision. Literary enhancements, such as allusions and literary patterns, may have been added or embellished as John wrote, remembered, reflected and prepared his apocalyptic, prophetic letter for distribution. This, and the nature of the ‘not accurate’ Greek used in Revelation,[2] supports the idea of an educated man (John) using a less educated scribe. Familiarity with the Hebrew Bible does not necessarily mean fluency in Greek, but Dionysius (c. A.D. 200-265), Bishop of Alexandria, expected an educated man to have good Greek. He used the poor Greek in Revelation to dismiss the Apostle John as its author – but the services of a scribe clouds this argument.
This study proposes that Revelation’s deep, controlling structure is a relatively simple, linear, two-drama structure and its chronology is consistent with the meta-narrative of the Scriptures. If John had re-ordered the visionary events, the time-parallels in the proposed model would be un-recognisable. It seems most likely that John experienced his vision as a single unit, perhaps like being enveloped in a tremendous, thunderous, sky-filling electric storm. During which time, events were recorded as his focus moved from one cosmic space to another, creating a surface literary spiral in the process that begins after the Lamb appears and when evil forces gather (16:12-21:9). John’s attention to detail, consistency in structure and references to several visionary vantage points suggests he experienced a waking vision in which he remained aware of his surroundings. This is comparable to the way that Hildegard of Bingen experienced her visions before describing them in art, text and music.[3]
The complexity of the content within a relatively simple structure (as illustrated by the proposed macrostructure) and Revelation’s simple Greek endorses the proposal that John described his waking vision to someone, while the waking vision was happening. However, the precise nature of John’s experience is less important in this study for Revelation’s macrostructure than its setting in the cosmos, its consistent internal chronologies and how John chose to describe it. Afterwards, John added a very short prologue (1:1-9) and epilogue (22:20b-21). The proposed model is independent of John’s identity as Apostle, Elder or as an otherwise unknown prophet (see the Who is John? webpage).
[1] 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians (Paul wrote all of Philemon in his own hand).
[2] Dionysius was probably the first extant church leader to comment on the Greek of Revelation, stating that ‘I do not deny that the other writer (John, and not the Apostle John) saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.’ (Dionysius in Eusebius VII.25.24-26).
[3] Anne H. King-Lenzmeier (2001) Hildegard of Bingen: An Integrated Vision. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, p. xvii.
3g) New views on an old mystery
This study proposes that the cosmic setting and a single, underlying cosmos-based Creation to New Order story-line underlies the separate reports or stories models, literary layers or webs, frameworks or dramas, literary and linguistic patterns, and ideological or theological interpretations. Both Ideological or Topic based macrostructures and structural (Framework) models describe literary structures and both are unified, in their own ways. The proposed macrostructure is a spatio-temporal analysis which follows the second approach because it is a unified, non-ideological, non-topical model that accommodates the literary features.
The literary or linguistic patterns are surface textural features that provide additional layers of meaning to the text. The text spiral (16:12-21:9) suggests that John may have experienced a waking vision but the proposed macrostructure is independent of the nature of John’s experience (vision(s)/ dream(s)/ imagination/ solely theological insight). The macrostructure is illustrated in the Macrostructure Model chapter, described in the shorter Repetitions chapter and detailed descriptions of the construction and interpretation of the macrostructure are published in the Framework chapter.
It is reasonable to suppose that every theological interpretation and doctrinal implication will be dependent to some degree upon the perceived structure of the book. How a macrostructure accommodates repetitions, abrupt transitions and paradoxes is a major criterion for defining any model. It is expected that every macrostructure investigated in this study contains elements that are of value; Ecclesiastes reminds us that ‘what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun’ (Eccl. 1:9b.
Page updated 22 February 2026