The Book of Revelation
Rex Banks
Lesson 29
Authorship
Internal
evidence
(1)
In four different places the
author calls himself John (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8).
On the first occasion, he describes himself as the one “who testified to the word of God and to the testimony
of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw” (1:2). Some are convinced that here we have a reference
to the Gospel of John the apostle (Jn
(2)
Although there are thirteen men
with the name “John” mentioned in the NT, only the apostle of this name
(see notes on the fourth Gospel, 1, 2 & 3 John) was so well known that he
need not further identify himself.
Internal evidence is consistent with this identification. The writer speaks of himself as a prophet
(1:3; 22:6-10, 18-19) and claims to be a prisoner on the
(3) The writer of Revelation employs many terms and expressions which are found in the Gospel of John:
|
The Word |
Jn 1:1; |
|
The Lamb |
Jn 1:29, 36; Rev 5 (Although the
words are different) |
|
The Shepherd |
Jn 10; |
|
The Bridegroom |
Jn.3:29; Rev 19:7, 21:2 |
|
The Living Water |
Jn.4:10; |
|
The Bread or Manna |
Jn. 6:32-58; |
“Other typically Johannine expressions in
Revelation include: “keep…from” (John 17:15; Revelation 3:10), and a particular
Greek form of the word for “true” (alethinos,
which appears nine times in John, four times in 1 John, and ten times in
Revelation, but only five times elsewhere in the New Testament. The concepts of the “first resurrection” (John
External evidence
(1) “Early tradition is unanimous in its opinion that the Apocalypse was written by John the apostle” (R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation). Consider the following:
·
Ireneaus (active in the late
second century): “John also,
the Lord’s disciple, when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent
of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse: ‘I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And,
being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; etc…’… But when John could not endure the sight…the
Word (revived) him and (reminded) him that it was He
upon whose bosom he had leaned at supper” (Against Heresies
4.20.11). (Ireneaus repeatedly
ascribes the Apocalypse to John).
· Barnes points out that Ireneaus was the personal friend of Polycarp and on this basis argues:
“Now Ireneaus, as we
shall see, on all occasions, and in the most positive manner, gives his clear
testimony that the Apocalypse was written by the apostle John. It is impossible to suppose that he would do
this if Polycarp had not believed it to be true; and certainly he would not
have been likely to hold this opinion if one who was his own friend, and the
friend of John, had doubted or denied it.”
·
Justin Martyr (d 165): “And further, there was a
certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the
apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to
him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in
Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal
resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place” (Dialogue
with Trypho chpt 81). Eusebius also says that Justin “mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly
that it was the apostle’s” (Church History 4.18.8).
·
Hippolytus (ca 220):
“These things does Isaiah prophesy for thee. Let us see now whether John has spoken to the same effect. For he sees, when in the isle Patmos, a
revelation of awful mysteries, which he recounts freely, and makes known to
others. Tell me, blessed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord, what didst thou see and hear concerning
·
Victorinus (ca 270 AD): “‘Seven thunders
uttered their voices.’ The seven
thunders uttering their voices signify, the Holy Spirit of sevenfold power, who
through the prophets announced all things to come, and by His voice John gave his testimony in the world;…but he was charged
to leave them sealed, because he is an apostle,
nor was it fitting that the grace of the subsequent stage should be given in
the first” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John 10.3).
Elsewhere (
· Tertullian (ca 160s-ca 220): “Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as “a doubly sharp, two-edged one” (Against Marcion 3.14). “This (city in heaven) both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld” (3.25).
· Origen (ca 185-ca 254): “What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus’ breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? But he wrote also the Apocalypse, being commanded to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders” (Commentary on John 5.3).
·
Jerome (d 420): “John is an
Apostle… John is both an Apostle and an
Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle,
because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he
composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew,
did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been
banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse
containing the boundless mysteries of the future” (Against Jovinianus Bk 1. 26).
(2)
In view of this early
widespread acceptance of Revelation as a work of the apostle, it is not
surprising that other early writers simply refer to the author as “John.” For example, Clement of Alexandria (ca 155-ca 220) says: “And although here upon earth (the righteous
man) be not honored with the chief seat, he will sit down on the
four-and-twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Apocalypse” (Stromata
6.13). Concerning Melito,
bishop of
“With regard however to the inspiration of the
book (i.e. the Apocalypse) we hold it superfluous to speak at length; since the
blessed Gregory (I mean, the Divine) and Cyril, and men of an older generation
as well, Papias, Ireneaus, Methodius and Hippolytus,
bear testimony to its genuineness.”
Revelation is listed in the Muratorian Fragment as one of the canonical books. Tradition about the authorship of the book of Revelation is earlier and stronger than that of most NT books.
Objections
(1)
Although there is evidence that
Marcion and certain heretical groups assigned the book to Cerinthus
(see notes on 1 John), it is not until the time of Dionysius of
Alexandria in the third century that serious objections were raised to
the traditional position. In considering
these objections, it is important to keep in mind that Dionysius was “laboring
with a strong anti-chiliastic bias” (Berkohf). Chiliasm
is the teaching that Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years. Since several earlier Christian writers held
that Rev 20:1-6 taught just that, this may explain Dionysius’ reluctance to
acknowledge Johannine authorship. Eusebius
preserves the following from Dionysius:
“Therefore that (the
writer of Revelation) was called John, and that this book is the work of one
John, I do not deny. And I agree also
that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the
apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John
and the Catholic Epistle were written” (7.25.7).
Elsewhere Eusebius himself says:
“Among the rejected writings must be reckoned
also the Acts of Paul and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter,
and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called
Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if
it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject but which others class with the
accepted books” (3.25.4).
Again it is important to keep in mind
that Eusebius too was firmly opposed to Chiliasm. For
example, he affirms that Papias preserved “certain strange parables and teachings of the
Saviour, and some other more mythical things” adding:
“To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some
thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the
Eusebius goes on to say that “it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion” and it is not unlikely that the historian’s opposition to this teaching coloured his views on Revelation.
(2)
Eusebius records that Dionysius
raised the following objections to the traditional view:
· Unlike the writer of the fourth Gospel and 1, 2 and 3 John, the writer does not identify himself. “But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person. But the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning…the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle…neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear” (7.25.9-11).
· The writer of Revelation “did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or the one who lay on his breast, or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly”
(7.25.12, 13).
·
Allegedly theological
differences are evident. Dionysius
points out that both the Gospel and 1 John begin by affirming the reality of the
incarnation “in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not come in the
flesh” (7.25.18, 19). Dionysius continues:
“(The writer of the Gospel and 1 John) holds
to this and does not digress from his subject, but discusses everything under
the same heads and names some of which we will briefly mention. Any one who examines carefully will find the
phrases, ‘the life,’ ‘the light,’ ‘turning from darkness,’ frequently occurring
in both; also continually, ‘truth,’ ‘grace,’ ‘joy,’ ‘the flesh and blood of the
Lord,’ ‘the judgment,’ ‘the forgiveness of sins,’ ‘the love of God toward us,’
the ‘commandment that we love one another,’ that we should ‘keep all the
commandments’; the ‘conviction of the world, of the Devil, of Anti-Christ,’ the
‘promise of the Holy Spirit,’ the ‘adoption of God,’ the ‘faith continually
required of us,’ ‘the Father and the Son,’ occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and
the same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout. But the Apocalypse is
different from these writings and foreign to them; not touching, nor in the
least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even a syllable in
common with them” (7.25.20-22).
·
“Nay more, the Epistle - for I
pass by the Gospel - does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the
Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some
indication of his revelations, though he has not written them out by
themselves” (7.25.23).
· “Moreover, it can also be shown that the, diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse, - that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression, - as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him” (7.25.24, 25).
(3)
Many students of scripture
today agree with Dionysius that the writer of the fourth Gospel and 1, 2, 3
John did not pen the book of Revelation. Most regard stylistic differences as decisive
in this matter. Typical is James
Moffatt who opines:
“While the data of vocabulary, style and
thought suggest that both writings (i.e. Revelation and the fourth Gospel)
originated in a school or circle of Asiatic Christians, they differentiate the
one book from the other unambiguously (Expositors Greek Testament).
Moffatt, like many others since the time of Dionysius, points to “exceptionally numerous and glaring irregularities of…syntax” in Revelation (in contrast with the Gospel of John which is held to be correct as to grammar), the unique vocabulary of the book, the failure of the author to employ “many favourite and characteristic terms of the Fourth evangelist” and such like.
In response, others have pointed out that although the writer of Revelation does in some places violate certain rules of Greek Grammar, he also obeys those same rules in other places, suggesting that “the author has deliberately chosen to write Greek as he has perhaps because of the immediacy of the visionary experience” (Carson et al). According to Randall:
“The writer gives ample proof that he was
acquainted with the rules and even the subtleties of Greek grammar; yet he
departs from those rules and neglects those subtleties with such apparent
carelessness that he has been accused of the grossest ignorance of the Greek
language. But to students acquainted
with Hebrew, the style of the Apocalyptic Greek presents very little
difficulty, and its so-called roughnesses occasion
little surprise” (Pulpit Commentary).
In view of the fact that the writer
sometimes observes and sometimes violates the same rules of grammar, we cannot
conclude that the writer of Revelation demonstrates an ignorance of the Greek
language that the writer of the fourth Gospel does not show. Surely it should not surprise us if a man
caught up in visionary experiences on a desolate rocky island does not describe
those experiences in the same calm measured language which he employs in
writing a document like the fourth Gospel.
What’s more, as James Orr points out, we cannot
overlook the fact that there are “subtle affinities in the Greek usage of the
two books, and some of the very irregularities complained of are found in the
Gospel” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). Hendriksen well says:
“We feel
certain that the transcendent nature of the subject matter, the deeply
emotional state of the author when he received and wrote these visions, and his
abundant use of the Old Testament - Hebrew and Greek - are responsible to a
large extent for the differences in style which remain after the striking
similarities have been taken into account” (More than Conquerors).
Finally, there is the question of the
possible influence of an amanuensis or some other kind of editorial involvement
in John’s other writings. We recall that
the
Gospel concludes: “This is the disciple
who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his
testimony is true” (Jn
The other
objections raised by Dionysius have little force.
Interpretative
Framework
Although just
about everyone agrees that Revelation describes the victory of God’s people
over their enemies, the details of the book have been and continue to be,
variously interpreted by Bible students.
John claims to be writing predictive
prophecy and those
who take this claim seriously fall into four basis camps:
The Continuous Historical view
This school of interpretation views
Revelation as a blueprint of world history from the time of John to the end of
the world. It is generally held that the
victory of Christ’s church over pagan
The Futurist view
According to this view, most
Revelation remains unfulfilled. Supposedly
chapters 4-22 describe events associated with the Lord’s
second coming. “This view includes pre millennialism
and dispensationalism” (Moffatt), positions which minimize the
church and confuse literal and figurative language. (The notion of a future millennial kingdom is
not found in scripture). The Futurist
view does not appear to give due weight to the fact that John says: “the time is at hand” (Rev 1:3;
The Idealistic or Philosophy of History view
Advocates of this view maintain that
the Book of Revelation simply symbolizes the eternal struggle between good and
evil, righteousness and sin - a struggle in which good is always victorious
over evil. No specific historical
situation is under consideration according to this view. The weakness of this position is that John
certainly seems to have a particular scenario in view.
The Preterist view
According to this school of
interpretation, Revelation deals with the past, the struggles of the early
church. Some preterists date the book of
Revelation to the 60s of the first century and find fulfilment in the 70 AD destruction of
Many sound conservative scholars belong
to the preterist camp. However, some
forms of this position are dangerous. For
example, some preterists who do not have a high view of scripture think that
John also incorrectly predicted the end of the world in the
not-too-distant future. Others have
embraced the radical view that “all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled; nothing remains on the prophetic calendar” (Wayne Jackson Christian Courier August 1999). A
prominent proponent of this position was the Congregationalist Stuart Russell,
and although I quote him below in another context, his view of the “prophetic
calendar” is decidedly unscriptural.
“Russell set forth the
idea that the second coming of Christ, the judgment day,
etc., are not future events at the end of the current dispensation.
Rather, prophecies relating to these
matters were fulfilled with
Addressees
(1)
The book was primarily
addressed to seven congregations in the Roman province of
(2) Clearly too the churches addressed manifest conditions which are to be found, at least in principle, in every church, in every age. The number seven is associated with completeness, and clearly John writes with the needs of the entire church in every age in view. A blessing is pronounced upon the one who heeds the “things written” in this prophetic book (1:3) and a curse pronounced upon anyone who adds to or takes away from “the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:18-19).
Date, Place and
Circumstances
(1)
John was on the
(2) Just when John wrote the book of Revelation has long been a matter of considerable debate. This is understandable because our conclusion concerning the date of the book may well influence our understanding of its primary theme. In his commentary upon the book, Foy Wallace states:
“The argument
on the chronology of the apocalypse is cantered on the choice between two dates
that have been assigned to it - first the latter part of the Domitian reign
about 96 AD; second the pre-destruction of
This is generally true although other suggestions have been made. For example, based upon their understanding of Rev 17:7-14 and Dan 7, some suggest that Revelation was written during the time of the emperor Vespasian (69 AD). Epiphanius (d 403) complicates matters by saying that Revelation was written under “Claudius Caesar” (Heresies 51.12). Claudius reigned between 41 and 54 AD. However, as Wallace points out, most date the book to the latter part of the Domitian reign (about 96 AD) or to the reign of Nero (about AD 58-64).
(3)
Clearly, unless we deny the
writer’s own claim that Revelation describes future
events, only the early date is compatible with the position that the
focus of the book is the destruction of
External
Considerations
Included among
the relevant testimonies of the early church fathers are the following:
·
The
testimony of Ireneaus (born ca 115-125 AD):
“(If) it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed
in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the
apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our
day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (Against Heresies 5.30.3).
Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John, so his testimony is important. “Most scholars have been inclined to follow Ireneaus in his dating of Revelation at the close of the reign of Domitian (emphasis added)” (Carson et al) but not all are convinced.
“The meaning of Ireneaus’ statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign? Was it the vision which John ‘beheld’? or was it the apostle himself, who was ‘seen…face to face’ by those who testify? The phrase ‘That was seen…’ may be a corruption of an original that read, ‘He was seen.…’ If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domitian, though he may have written the Apocalypse much earlier…
Since the text is admittedly “uncertain” in
many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin
translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty
upon our preferred reading of the statement of Ireneaus” (Steve Gregg Revelation
Four Views).
There has been a great deal of debate about
this passage, and it features prominently in the arguments of those who favour
the late date for Revelation. However,
in view of the difficulties, we need to be cautious about attaching too much
weight to testimony which is ambiguous and open different interpretations. Many who favour the early date insist
that the ambiguity of this Ireneaus passage also weakens the testimony of later
patristic writers because those writers simply derive from Ireneaus. Philip Schaff says “It is
indeed difficult to set aside the clear testimony of Ireneaus, who, through
Polycarp, was connected with the very age of John” but he adds:
“But we must remember that he was mistaken
even on more important points of history, as the age of Jesus, which he
asserts, with an appeal to tradition, to have been above fifty years” (History of the
Christian Church).
Wallace has the following from Robert
Young’s Commentary on revelation:
“Ireneaus) says (Revelation) happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date.”
·
In discussing the Pauline
Epistles, The Muratorian Fragment (ca 170 AD) says:
“It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence etc.”
Clearly the Johannine writing referred to here
is Revelation, addressed to the seven churches of
·
Tertullian (160-220) makes a statement which has been variously understood. Speaking of
“How happy is its church, on which apostles
poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a
passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the
Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted
to his island-exile!” (Prescription Against Heretics 36).
Some take this statement to mean that Peter, Paul
and John all experienced persecution. They
deny that Tertullian places John’s banishment in the days of Nero when Peter
and Paul were executed. However, others
insist that Origin has temporal proximity in view, and that John’s
banishment took place at the same time as the martyrdom of
Peter. Paul Schaff has:
“If there is some foundation for the early
tradition of the intended oil-martyrdom of John at
·
Clement of
“And that you may be
still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure
hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and
committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of
Patmos, he went away, being
invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops,
there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out
by the Spirit” (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? Chapter 42).
Clement does not name “the
tyrant” and clearly either Nero or Domitian could own the title. However, Clement proceeds to describe how
John, at a later date, mounted a horse and rode to a robbers den to remonstrate
with a young man who had left the faith.
This suggests that Clement was purporting to give an account of John’s
activities in his earlier years rather than in his 90s (despite the fact that
John’s advanced age is mentioned). If
this is the case, a Neronic
imprisonment is suggested. Moreover, Clement elsewhere writes that “the
teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was
completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul ends with Nero” (Stromata 7.17).
· Hippolytus (ca 170-236 AD) supports the later date:
“John,
again, in Asia, was banished by
Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and
saw the apocalyptic vision;
and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where
his remains were sought for, but could not be found” (On the Twelve Apostles
3).
Some who defend the early date are
convinced that Hippolytus simply repeats the testimony of Irenaeus.
·
Victorinus (d ca 304) also supports the later date:
“And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy
to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to
many kings. He says this, because when
John said these things he was in the
Again some insist that Victorinus simply repeats the testimony of Ireneaus. They also question the reliability of this account by Victorinus because John is said to have been sentenced to work in the mines. It is argued that a man in his 90s would not have survived such treatment.
·
Eusebius is considered by some to provide strong support for the later date,
while others argue that since he relies upon Ireneaus, his
testimony has no independent value. He
writes:
“Domitian…finally became a successor of Nero
in his hatred and enmity toward God. He
was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his
father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. It is said that
in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was
condemned to dwell on the
Ireneaus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies,
where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the
so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:
“‘If it were necessary
for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been
declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at
the end of the reign of Domitian’” (3. 17, 18.1-3).
Elsewhere Eusebius makes
a statement which some cite in support of a Neronian
date. Allegedly in his Theophania, Eusebius links John’s banishment to the deaths of Peter
and Paul in such a way as to suggest that all three events occurred during the
reign of the same Emperor (Nero). He
writes:
“Simon Peter too, was, after his Head (i.e.
Christ), crucified at
The 18th century scholar Nathaniel Lardner responds that “(Eusebius) does not say that all these things happened in the time of one and the same emperor” adding:
“It is plain, that it is not his design to mention exactly the time of the sufferings of all these persons. Nothing hinders our supposing, that the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death by order of Nero, and John banished by Domitian, many years afterwards, agreeably to what himself writes in his Chronicle and History.”
·
Epiphanius (d 403) complicates matters by saying that Revelation was written
under “Claudius Caesar” (Heresies 51.12).
Claudius reigned between 41 and 54 AD. Guthrie thinks that
Epiphanius is referring to Nero, using another of his names.
· Jerome (d 420 AD) has:
“In the fourteenth year
then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, (John) was banished to the
· A contemporary of Jerome, Sulpitius Severus (d 420-425) leaves us the following in his Sacred History:
“Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the
Christians. At this date, he banished
John the Apostle and Evangelist to the
·
In an early commentary on
Revelation, Andreas of Cappacodia (probably 5th cen BC) wrote:
“And I saw, when he had opened the sixth
seal, and behold there was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black
as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood. And the stars from heaven fell upon
the earth, as a fig-tree casteth its green
figs when it is shaken by the wind.” “There
are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege
and destruction of
Commenting upon 7:1, Andreas wrote: “These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews.”
·
Although the Peshitta, the original Syriac version, did not contain the
book of Revelation, in the Syriac Versions from the 6th and 7th
century, the Apocalypse carries the following title: “The Revelation which was made by God to John
the evangelist in the island
Schaff expresses the view that “External evidence points to the reign of
Domitian, A.D. 95” and according to Carson et al, “Most
scholars have been inclined to follow Ireneaus in his dating of Revelation at
the close of the reign of Domitian.” However, armed with the same facts, many
conservative scholars favour a Neronian date. The evidence based upon early tradition is
inconclusive. (Interestingly Schaff goes
on to say that “internal evidence [points] to the reign of Nero, or soon after
his death, A.D. 68.” He adds that this
is “the most probable view”).
Internal
considerations
Although some are confident that important
clues to the date of Revelation are to be found in the pages of the book, the
fact that the relevant passages have been variously interpreted by different
commentators and scholars suggests that conclusions are often influenced by a
particular interpretative framework. The
following passages are among those which usually feature in any discussion of internal
evidence for the date of Revelation:
Revelation 1:1,
19;
The book of Revelation takes the form
of a letter to the seven churches of
About 550 BC Daniel received a vision
describing events which were to be fulfilled within 400 years (Dan 1, 13-14,
26) and he was told that the scope of that vision was “many days in the
future.” In contrast, the events of
Revelation were imminent when the letter was written, and since Nero
reigned on the eve of
“The exhortation to “read, hear and keep” the
contents of the book, and the reason stated for so doing in the phrase ‘for the
time is at hand,’ is manifestly based on the imminence of these events ; and if
they were not to occur in their own time there was no point for such urgency of
exhortation” (Wallace).
In answer to the objection that “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years,”
J. D. Michaelis
says:
Some find an
important chronological note at
“Josephus, the Jewish historian who was
contemporary with John, counted Julius as the first. He identified Augustus and Tiberius as the
second and third Emperors, and Caligula as the fourth (
·
Others who identify the beast as
“(In) the East a notion had taken hold of the mind of the people that
Nero was still alive... Thus the
contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized
it for his own purpose... The Christians
in particular had reason to dread him. Under
him the first persecution took place. The second occurred under Domitian. But unlike the previous one, it was not
confined to
The matter is
further complicated by the fact that some do not identify the seven heads as
Roman Emperors. For example, some take
the seven kings to be seven periods of Roman history under different forms of
government, while others find here a symbolic number representative of all
kings or kingdoms which would oppose the
Some who
favour the early date find a reference to Nero in
Numerous alternatives have been suggested. Ireneaus pointed out that “there are many names found possessing this number” and mentions Lateinos which is Greek for Latin. The pope’s official Latin title (Vicarius filii Dei - “Vicar of the Son of God”) has been offered as a candidate along with numerous other suggestions. Some point out that there is no indefinite article here and that the text reads “for the number is that of man.” In their view, “The number 666 signifies man’s day and man’s defiance of God under Satan’s power in its culmination” (Gaebelein). According to this view, we are simply being told that the beast is human not divine.
Finally, it is worth noting that some Oxyrhynchus Papyri published recently have
renewed discussion of a textual variation at
“Of some interest is the early support given
by this manuscript to the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18) being 616 (here
given in alpha-numeric form as XIV [with bar], the other early witness C has it
written in full: ecakosiai
deka ec). Manuscripts bearing this reading were known to
Irenaeus. He
affirmed that 666 stood ‘in all the most approved and ancient copies’ (…Against
Heresies V.30.1), and argued that 616 arose as a scribal error. The reading of P115 does not actually add much
to the available evidence, except to confirm one side of Irenaeus’
account, and to add some early weight to the 616 reading. Recent studies suggest that there may not be
any significant exegetical difference between 616 and 666. The consensus is firmly in favour of viewing
this number as an example of gematria, in which the
number stands for the name of a person (‘the number of his name’, Rev. 13:17;
15:2), and the person in mind would be Nero. It is likely that 666 arose from a Hebrew
transliteration of Neron Caesar from Greek into
Hebrew… It is notable that an equivalent
transliteration from Latin into Hebrew results in 616... We might also note that two possible
transliterations of ‘beast’ into Hebrew could produce either 616 or 666” (Tyndale Bulletin 51,
2000).
The
Generally,
dispensationalists take the “temple” and “city” to refer to a rebuilt temple in
·
Most who identify the great
city as
·
In
Ø Some
Ø Some
Ø
Some
·
The depiction here of the great
city as the harlot is considered significant by some who see
·
In the great city “was found the
blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth” (
“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets
and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of
them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so
that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of
Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (cf Lk 11:50; Acts 7:52,53).
·
The fact that the harlot is
hated by “the ten horns” and destroyed by them (
·
For some the identification of
the woman as “the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth” (
“Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such
delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: it was parted into eleven portions, of which
the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighbouring country, as the head does over the body” (Wars 3.3.5).
·
Opponents of the
·
Some find convincing evidence
that that
Ø
Some who deny that Rev 17:9
identifies the great city as
Ø
Others are certain
that the number seven here is not used arithmetically. They argue that
in view of its use elsewhere in Revelation, the number seven “should have a moral, or political, rather than a topographical
sense, indicating the pre-eminence of the city in power or in privilege… Like
Some insist that even if the number seven is
used arithmetically “
Ø
Some
We have only touched on a few relevant points,
but clearly our identification of “the great city” will influence our approach
to the book of Revelation.
The state of the
seven churches
One argument in favour of the later
date has to do with the apparent state of the seven churches of
Others find such arguments
unconvincing. They remind us that the
church in Ephesus was having many problems when 1 Timothy was written (see our
notes) and that Paul was amazed at how quickly the Galatians had succumbed to
error (Gal 1:6). Little time was
required for the church at
Emperor worship
Some late date proponents
argue that emperor worship appears to have been widespread by the time
Revelation is written (13:4, 12, 15 ff; 14:9, 11; 15:2;
“With the
exception of the mad Caligula, he was the first Emperor to take his divinity seriously and to demand Caesar worship... When he arrived in the theatre with his Empress, the crowds were urged
to rise and shout: ‘All hail to our Lord
and his Lady’. He enacted that he
himself was a god” (Stewart Perowne -Caesars
and Saints).
In response, some point out that “many
scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no
historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even
in Domitian’s reign” (Steve Gregg Revelation Four Views A Parallel
Commentary). Another suggestion
is that “If Nero persecuted Christians in
Jewish
persecution of Christians
Jewish persecution of Christians (eg 2:9; 3:9) is sometimes cited in support of the early date.
“Did not this annoyance from Jewish and Judaizing teachers continue down to the age of Domitian? -
I answer, All existing historical evidence is strongly
against it… The fall of
Is this conclusion warranted? In Gregg’s view, “It is…not
evident that Jewish persecution of Christians came to a grinding halt with the
overthrow of the Jewish state. In fact,
the Jews in
Much more could be said about the internal evidence for the date of Revelation, but from what has been discussed, it is clear that the interpretation of this evidence has presented a challenge to students of every age.
Purpose, Theme
and Characteristics
(1) “Persecuted
believer, this Book of Revelation seeks to impart comfort to you. That is its main purpose; to comfort the
militant church in its struggle against the forces of evil... The theme of this book is: the victory of Christ, and of His church over the Dragon (Satan) and
his helpers” (Hendriksen).
Certainly the assurance of the
ultimate victory of God’s people over their persecutors is central to this
book. In
It is clear that a key word in the
book is “overcome” (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21;
·
Read, hear and heed the things which are
written in Revelation (1:3).
·
Die in the Lord (
·
“(Stays)
awake and keeps his clothes” (
·
“(Are
Invited) to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (19:9).
·
“(Has) a
part in the first resurrection (20:6).
·
“(Wash)
their robes.”
Throughout Revelation, victory is
associated with newness, and the word “kainos”
occurs repeatedly.
“Kainos is what is new in nature, different
from the usual, impressive, better than the old, superior in value or
attraction… In the NT kainos means ‘not yet used’…and ‘unusual’
or interesting’…but especially ‘new in kind…
(It) is a leading theological term in apocalyptic promise: a new heavens and a new earth, Rev 21:1…the
new Jerusalem, Rev 3:12, 21:2…the new name, Rev 2:17, 3:12…cf. 19:12; the new
song 5:9; 14:3…; ‘Behold I make all things new’ 21:5” (Johannes Behm Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol 3).
Our identification of Satan’s
helpers, the sea beast (13:1-10), the earth beast (
Clearly “there are truths set forth in
the Book which are eternal and therefore speak to us of warning and comfort
today” (McGuiggan).
(2)
The
victory of God’s people is assured because the Lord, rather than some earthly power (e.g.
God’s incomparable greatness is
stressed throughout the book. He claims
to be “the Alpha and the Omega…who is and who was and who is to come, the
Almighty” (1:8) and is acknowledged as such (4:8b; 19:6). Some nine times in the Book of Revelation God
is called the “Almighty” (pantokratōr - 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 16:14; 19:6;
19:15; 21:22). Apart from 2 Cor
Jesus
bears the title “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (
(3)
In
light of all this, it is hardly surprising that Revelation presents us with a
strikingly powerful portrait of Jesus Christ, without whom scripture would have
no meaning, no revelation, no subject, and the course of human history, no
purpose.
·
In
chapter 1, Jesus is pictured in language which emphasizes His absolute purity,
His priesthood (He wears the garments of the priest), His omniscience and His
readiness to do battle against His enemies. He is in the centre of the candlesticks (the
churches) moving among them in intimate fellowship as their head.
·
In
chapters 2 and 3, the letters to the churches emphasize His authority over the
church (eg “But I have this against you...” - 2:4;
“Repent therefore...” -
·
In
chapters 4 and 5, we have the vision of the Throne of God and the Lamb and the
Book, wherein assurance is given that despite appearances to the contrary, God
not
·
From
chapter 6 ff, Jesus’ right to judge the world and the certainty of His victory
over His enemies is emphasized.
Among the terms and titles used to
describe Jesus, we have the following: “the
faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the
earth” (1:5); “the first and the last” (1:17); “the living One” (1:18); “the
Son of God” (2:18); “He who searches the minds and hearts” (2:23); “He who is
holy, who is true, who has the key of David” (3:7); “The Amen, the faithful and
true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God” (3:14); “the Lion that is
from the tribe of Judah, The Root of David” (5:5); “the Lamb with the marks
of slaughter upon Him” (5:6 - NEB); “Faithful and True” (19:11); “The Word
of God” (19:13); “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (19:16); “Alpha and Omega,
the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (22:13); “The Bright and
Morning Star” (22:16); “the Lord Jesus”(22:20-21).
(4)
The
message of Revelation is couched in language and form which differ markedly
from that which we encounter in other New Testament books. It has much in common with a class of
non-canonical literature which is often called apocalyptic, which flourished in the last two
centuries BC and the first century AD (eg The Book of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Book of Jubilees, The
Sibylline Oracles, The Assumption of Moses). Leon Morris says:
“But normally
an apocalypse purports to be a revelation, made by some celestial personage
(like an angel) to a great figure of the past (such as Abraham or Moses or Ezra). The message is usually expressed in vivid
symbolism, sometimes of a bizarre kind. It
appears in difficult times and conveys to its readers the author’s profound
conviction that the troubles in which they find themselves are not the last
word. God in His own good time will
intervene catastrophically and destroy evil” (Revelation).
Morris points out that in some areas, Revelation differs markedly from typical apocalyptic. For example, apocalyptic is usually distinguished from prophecy yet the writer of Revelation calls his book a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19); apocalypses are pseudonymous while John identifies himself; John looks to the future in the manner of a true prophet while apocalyptists “characteristically retrace history in the guise of prophecy” and so on.
On the other hand, like many other
apocalyptic writings, Revelation was written during a time of intense
persecution (1:9;
·
By
symbolism we mean figurative language which employs
objects as symbols. The symbols used
stand for or suggest something else that they resemble in some way. Sometimes the symbols in Revelation are
explained but the explanations themselves remain enigmatic. Most symbols however, are not explained, and
of course this creates difficulties for the modern reader.
·
An
important point to notice is that most of the symbolism in Revelation has an
Old Testament background. Now clearly, symbols
must be interpreted and unless we are careful, we can become involved in the
most fantastic and distorted interpretations imaginable. Thus, some knowledge of Old Testament
symbolism (especially that found in such books as Ezekiel, Daniel and
Zechariah) is invaluable for our understanding of Revelation. Evidently some 265 of the 404 verses in the
book contain Old Testament references.
·
In
this context, it is worthwhile taking a few moments to compare the following
passages by way of example:
|
Rev 1:12-15 |
Dan 7:9 ff;
10:5-6 |
Ezek 1:7, 26
ff; 43:2 |
|
|
Rev 4:5-8 |
|
Ezek |
|
|
Rev 5:1 |
|
Ezek 2:9, 10 |
|
|
Rev 6:1-5 |
|
|
Zech 1:8;
6:3 |
|
Rev 7:3 |
|
Ezek 9:4 |
|
|
Rev 11:1-2 |
|
Ezek 40:3 |
Zech 2:1 ff |
|
Rev 13:1-2 |
Dan 2:31;
7:3 |
|
|
Echoes of the Exodus from Egypt (11:8; 12:6, 14; 15:3), the Tabernacle (1:12; 2:17; 8:3-5; 11:1, 19), the siege of Jerusalem (20:9), the fall of Babylon (16:12) and such like are to be found, along with images drawn from the life of Christ (1:18; 2:8; 5:6, 9;11:8-13).
·
Many numbers in Revelation have
a symbolic significance. For example,
one may represent unity (17:13); two may suggest strength, Eccl 4:9-11; three
often means “a complete and ordered whole” and is used of God; four often
symbolizes the world or creation; seven (used 54 times in Rev) is used
frequently of that which is complete or perfect. Ten and its multiples indicate fullness of
power or rule; twelve and its multiples are used of God’s people. Also, fractions are important. For example, 3½, (half of seven -completion)
is used of a period of oppression, opposition and trial.
·
Since
there are special challenges involved in the interpretation of apocalyptic
language, it is important to keep some basic principles in mind when dealing
with Revelation. For example: we need to be on the lookout for the writer’s
own explanation of the symbols which he employs (eg
the meaning of “many waters” in 17:1 is explained in 17:15); interpretation of
a particular symbol must be in harmony with the clear, literal, non-figurative
passages of scripture (which means, for example, that Revelation does not speak
of a future 1,000 year reign of Christ); the main
point of the
symbolism must always be kept in mind, and we should avoid the temptation to
find some symbolic significance in every single detail and thus miss the forest
for the trees. (For example, in 9:1-11
we meet locusts who come out of the abyss, and while the general meaning of the
picture is clear, it would be a mistake to assign a separate meaning to their teeth,
breast-plates etc which are just part of the picture). In a word, we need to apply these and other
common sense rules which will enable us to avoid the weird, fanciful
speculations which often accompany the study of this book.
(5)
Because of the apocalyptic and
prophetic nature of the book of Revelation (1:1-3), it is easy to overlook the
fact that it is also an epistle in the form of a circular letter to “the seven
churches that are in
·
Salutation.
·
Self
description by Jesus (based upon the language of chapter1).
·
Praise
(except in the case of
·
Condemnation
and criticism (except in the case of
·
Warnings,
exhortations and promises of blessings.
Although it is not possible to go into
details here, many commentators point out that:
·
The
churches addressed manifest conditions which are to be found, at least in
principle, in every church, in every age (eg lukewarm
ness -
·
Each
church addressed tends to reflect the characteristics of the city in which it
is located.
Not only do chapters 2 and 3 provide
valuable material on the condition of the churches of
Outline
(The following is an abbreviated and slightly altered form of the outline contained in Homer Hailey's Commentary upon Revelation).
Part One: Conflict and Judgment Within and Without the
Church –
Chapters 1-11
(1) Christ among the lamp stands (Chapter 1).
(2) Letters to the Churches (Chapters 2 and 3).
(3) The Throne Scene (Chapter 4).
(4) The Lamb and the Book (Chapter 5).
(5) The Opening of the First Six Seals (Chapter 6).
(6) An Interlude (Chapter 7).
(7) The Seventh Seal and the First Four Trumpets (Chapter 8).
(8) The Beginning of the Woes (Chapter 9).
(9) The Angel and the Little Book (Chapter 10).
(10)
The Vision Continues (Chapter
11).
Part Two: War and Victory - Chapters 12-22
(1) The Woman and the Dragon (Chapter 12).
(2) The Two Wild Beasts (Chapter 13).
(3) Righteous Judgment (Chapter 14).
(4) The Seven Bowls of Wrath (Chapter 15).
(5) The Bowls of Wrath Poured Out (Chapter 16).
(6)
The Infamy and Fall of
(7) The Fall of the Harlot (Chapter 18).
(8) Victory (Chapter 19).
(9) The Thousand Years and the Final Judgment (Chapter 20).
(10) The Eternal Glory, New Jerusalem (Chapter 21 and 22).