Revelation 1:1.
I, John: “And he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.”
I, John: “And he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.”
The “I” and the “me” of the Book of
Revelation is John, the writer of the Book of Revelation, not the Church or any other entity, but John the writer
except when it is Christ speaking.
The
internal testimony of the Book is that “John“ wrote it. Who was this “John”? The only reason for
questioning the authorship of the Apostle John, disciple of Christ and author of the
Epistles and Gospel of John, is the
proposed date of the writing. If the Book were not written until Domitian’s reign, (AD 81-96), it would
be unlikely that John lived to write it. However, if the date is placed in the
reign of Nero, some twenty-eight years earlier, then it is more
probable that the Apostle John wrote it. Even so, it would seem that there was
a tradition that the Apostle John lived to a great age as indicated by the
saying in John 21:23:
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that
that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I
will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?
One
reason for assigning the authorship to John the apostle is
that there was a rumor that he would live to the coming of Christ, (John 21:22-23). Christ also taught that some of His
disciples would “see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom,” (Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). He also
said that some of those living when He uttered His prophecy of the fall of
Jerusalem would be alive to
see the fulfillment, (Matt. 23:36; 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). The fact
that John lived to write the Book of Revelation is proof of the
truth of Christ’s words.
Eusebius believed that
there were two “Johns” named in his source, (the historian Papias): one the apostle, and the other a presbyter in Asia in later years.
However, it can be demonstrated that Eusebius’ reasoning concerning this is
faulty. The source does not clearly determine that there were two separate “Johns.”[1]
Eusebius also quotes
Justin, (100-165?): “He refers to the Revelation of John, stating explicitly that it was the work of the Apostle.” (ibid. 4.18.7)
In the
true tradition of the Old Testament, God revealed what He was doing through His
true prophet, John. Consistent with Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord does nothing, without
revealing His secret to His servants the prophets.” The Book of Revelation is the revealing
of the secret to John.
Historical context requires knowledge of the time
factor. If we are to understand the Historical Context of the Book, we must identify the approximate date of its writing.
Those
who favor a date in the reign of Domitian, (AD 81-96), do so on
the basis that Mystery Babylon depicts the Roman
empire and that this date more accurately depicts the conditions of the empire
at that time than at the time of Nero and that the
later date gives more time for the decline of the churches shown in the letters
in chapters two and three.[2] It is clear from these facts that the dating
of the Book, as well as the attribution of authorship, depend upon the
interpretation of the symbols of the Book; and the interpretation of the
symbols depend upon the dating of the writing, a circular process.[3]
Dating the Book of Revelation
Dating the Book of Revelation
The date of the writing of the Book
of Revelation is crucial to its interpretation. There are two main views of the date of the writing: (1) in the time of Nero, before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and (2) in
the time of the reign of Domitian during the
persecution of 96 AD. My view is that the Book was written in 68 AD during the brief
reign of Galba, immediately following the death of Nero. (See my commentary at 17:10 “Roman Appointed Kings of
Judea.“) Some of the evidence that favors this earlier date for
the writing of the Book of Revelation is that the
temple is mentioned as if it were literally extant in 11:1-2 which favors a
date in Nero’s reign. The numerical value of Nero’s name, Neron Caesar, can be calculated to equal the cryptic number of the
Beast, 666.[4]
Following is the evidence for dating the Book before 70
AD:
Internal Evidence:
Apostolicity:
One of the criteria for canonization of a writing in
the early Church was apostolicity, that is, that it was
written by or was based upon the witness of an apostle.[5] The
fact that it was accepted into the canon is evidence that the early Church believed it to be
the work of John the Beloved
Apostle, (ibid.).[6]
The
internal evidence of the Book itself, if we take it to be the inspired Word of
God, should be determinative. The witness of the inspired writing itself is
that it was written by the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel and the Epistles of John.
Blood
Guilt:
The internal evidence is also that Babylon the Great was not
Rome but rather the wicked city of Jerusalem which had been
persecuting the Church of Jesus Christ and whose
destruction had been predicted by Christ to be within the generation that heard
Him. (See Commentary at 1:1 “Must.”) The identity of Babylon must be seen in
relationship to the referent in Matthew 23:34-35. In the context of His
condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees and His description of the predicted
destruction of Jerusalem, Christ said:
(34)Wherefore,
behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them
you shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your
synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zecharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the
temple and the altar (emphasis added).
The fact that it was the fallen Jerusalem who was to bear
the guilt of “all the righteous blood
shed on earth,” and the fact that it is Mystery Babylon in whom is found the blood of “all who have been slain on earth,” conclusively shows that Mystery
Babylon symbolizes the
fallen Jerusalem. Mystery Babylon is clearly said to have slain “the saints and martyrs of Jesus,” (Revelation 17:6). In the
context of the Scriptures, this can be none other than the fallen Jerusalem
under the rule of that division of “Jews” who followed the Pharisaical
religion. If Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem, then the Book would have been
written prior to70 AD.
Jewish
Persecution:
The entire New Testament witnesses to the fact that it
was the Pharisaical sect of the Jews that persecuted and killed Christ and His Church, the Christian branch of the Jewish race. [7]
On the other hand, there are no references in the Scriptures to Roman
persecution of Christians as such. Although the Romans did get involved
in the legal disputes, that should not be called persecution. Secular
historians show that the Roman government did not recognize that there was a
difference between the Christians and other “Jews” until after the great fire
in approximately 64 AD.[8]
The Jewish nation as a
politico/religious state was ruled by a class of priests, Pharisees and scribes who curried the
favor of Roman power in a love/hate relationship. On one hand, they coveted the
power and economic gain from Rome; on the other hand, their conscience forbad
them to neglect halakhah, their
religious law. Therefore, the people who observed their traditional
religion, the Pharisees, were in rebellion, either overtly or covertly, against
Rome throughout the New Testament era. Although the Pharisaic Jews considered
themselves persecuted by Rome, they were not persecuted as followers of Christ. Neither were the Christians persecuted by Rome as followers of Christ. Persecution of
Christians by Rome was because they were perceived to be Jews who were in
rebellion against Rome, not because they were followers of Christ. If the
persecutor of the saints was Jerusalem, not Rome, then the Book of Revelation was written
prior to 70 AD.
External Evidence:
The Book of 2 Esdras has many
parallels to the Book of Revelation and is believed
to have been written very near the same time, i.e., near the close of the first
century AD.[9]
In 2 Esdras 12:18, Metzger believes a
reference is made to the time following the death of Nero, 68 AD, (ibid., n. 18, p. 52). The writer of 2 Esdras, however, is recounting a vision he has seen revealing
events which were to come. If this is indeed a reference to the time following
Nero’s death, then 2 Esdras would have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The
parallels to the Book of Revelation would serve as a second witness that the
Revelation was written prior to 70 AD.
[2] The Muratorian Fragment, dated at AD 170, which is the earliest extant list of
books accepted as canonical by the Church, lists the Book
of Revelation. As for the "decline of the churches," the Gospel message was new to the world in that era and the churches were in their infancy, not in decline.
[3] Kee, Young, Froehlich, Understanding the New Testament, 449.
See also the discussion in Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ
to Constantine, trans. G. A.
Williamson, ed Betty Radice, with an introduction by Williamson, Penguin Books,
the Penguin Classics, ed. E.V. Rieu. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, and New
York. (Made and printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay, The Chaucer Press,
Suffolk, 1965, 1981 Reprint).
Justin Martyr (AD 135) believed the author of the Book of
Revelation was the Apostle John. Dionysius of Alexandria (AD 231-65) questioned the authorship of the
Apostle John on the basis of grammatical style and the fact
that the author clearly states his name, whereas in the Gospel of John he never mentions his own name.
Dionysius is quoted by Eusebius (Historia
Ecclesiae, 7.25; 3.39), but Eusebius suggests that there were two 'Johns'
in Ephesus, and one may
have written the Gospel and another the Revelation. Eusebius, (3.39.1
and p. 150 n.1), gives reasons why Dionysius' reasoning concerning 'two Johns'
is faulty.
[4] Merrill C. Tenny, ed., Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1968) 721. Hereafter referred to in text as ZPBD.
“Grammatical mistakes are chiefly
unidiomatic translations of Hebrew or Aramaic expressions which would be impossible to
render literally into Greek. Even though
Irenaeus (AD 180) named ‘John’ as the author, he yet
favored the date of the writing as in the reign of Domitian, (AD 81-96).
A second view, better substantiated by the early interpreters of the book,
places it in the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96),...Irenaeus [AD 180]...,
Victorinus..., Eusebius (c. AD 328), and Jerome (c. AD 370) all agree on this date” (ZPBD 721).
[5] Although Irenaeus dated it in the reign of Domitian, Irenaeus
wrote more than one hundred years after the writing of the Revelation, (about AD 180),time enough for much confusion and loss
of memory. Irenaeus may have been following the earlier historian Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the early second century. Papias'
account actually differentiates between John the Elder who lived in Ephesus at the time of Domitian's reign, and the
Apostle John, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. We do not
know when the Apostle John died. There is some evidence that he was martyred in
AD 44 along with his brother James.* However,
there is the tradition evidenced in John 21:22, 23 that the Apostle John lived
to a great age. It is possible that he lived until the reign of Nero and was martyred along with many others during
that time of persecution. Before his death, he may have seen the Revelation, or
‘the coming’ of Jesus in glory over the city of Jerusalem. The
historical writings are, therefore, not conclusive as to who wrote the Book of
Revelation, nor the date of its writing.
The other early
church writers, Eusebius (of Caesarea, historian, 260?-340?) and Jerome, (Eusebius
Hieronymus, AD 340-420(?), Latin Church Father), may have been following Irenaeus either directly or indirectly on this point.
The historical line, then, would have been Papias, who was
misunderstood by Irenaeus, then Eusebius and Jerome, who followed Irenaeus’
mistaken interpretation. This could be a typical example of how errors come to
be perpetuated.
Eusebius quotes Papias: “He says that after the resurrection of the
dead there will be a period of a thousand years, when Christ's kingdom
will be set up on this earth in material form. I suppose he got these notions
by misinterpreting the apostolic accounts and failing to grasp what they had
said in mystic and symbolic language. For he seems to have been a man of small
intelligence to judge from his books. But it is partly due to him that the
great majority of churchmen after him took the same view, relying on his early
date; e.g. Irenaeus and several others, who clearly held the same
opinion’ (3.39.11 and p. 152).
Eusebius discounts Papias as “a man of small intelligence,” but the
editor's note says: ‘We shall need more evidence before accepting this contemptuous
dismissal of Papias.’
*See also Kee, Young,
Froehlich, Understanding the New
Testament, 70, 247-8.
[6] The Book is listed as part of the canon in the Muratorian Fragment circa AD 170 (ZPDB, 721).
[7] Before 70 AD there was an
identifiable Jewish race. However, after 70 AD, so many were killed and others
assimilated, and many became Christians, that those who identified themselves
as “Jews” after that time did so on the basis of their religion not their race.
The official genealogical records had been burned by Herod,
[8] M. Cary, and H. H. Scullard, A
History of Rome, (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1975, Third Edition reprint
1983), 359 and 364 notes 26 and 27. Hereafter cited in text.
[9] Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, Revised
Standard Version, translated from the Greek and Latin tongues, being the version set forth AD 1611, revised AD 1894, compared with the most
ancient authorities and revised AD 1957 with introductions, comments, cross
references, tables of chronology, and index, (New York, N. Y., Oxford
University Press 1965, and 1977), p. 23. Hereafter referred to in text as OAA,
containing the following apocryphal books cited: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.
No comments:
Post a Comment