For those reading the blog that attended the class, you all discussed well. Here are some follow-up notes.
The four views of Revelation
(1) Past -- sometimes referred as Preterist. This views that virtual all the end times prophecies took place around 70 AD at the fall of Jerusalem. There are two versions of this view, the Full Preterist, and the Moderate or Partial Preterist. The Full Preterist says that even Christ's second coming occurred at 70 AD. The Moderate or Partial Preterist says that many of the end times prophecies took place at 70 AD, but Christ did not return. That is a future event. Famous Partial Preterists include: R.C. Sproul Senior, and Hank Hanegraaff (the Bible Answer Man).
(2) Historicism -- This views that Revelation has been largely fulfilled during the course of history after Christ's ascension. Various events, such as the Islamic invasion of Middle East in 900 and later in Europe are viewed as actual fulfillment of particular sections of Revelation.
(3) Futurist -- This views that the bulk of Revelation has yet to be fulfilled. This is the most popular view in American Christian culture at the moment, and is exemplified by Hal Lindsay in the Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye in the Left Behind series.
(4) Idealist -- This is the "all the above" view. This view says that Revelation tells of things that will happen throughout the age between Christ's ascension and his second coming. There are some things that Revelation speaks to that happened during the lives of the original audience of Revelation, things that happened throughout the centuries, and things yet to occur. The tribulation, for instance, happened in the early church with the persecution of the Roman Emperors, during upheavals, such as the Islamic invasion, or during the Reformation struggle against a corrupt church. These tribulation events even occur today in many parts of the world, in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere where state law prohibits people from converting to Christianity. Further, all these tribulations may point to a time of great tribulation just before Christ's return.
Authorship and Date
Revelation identifies the author as John. Given that John as the last surviving apostle and well known, it would appear he would need no other qualification for identification. Further, the early church fathers identify the apostle John as the author of Revelation.
The date of Revelation could be in the 60's or around 90-96 AD. I prefer 96 AD for the following reasons:
(1) Early church fathers put a date of Revelation during the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian. Domitian died in 96AD.
(2) Emperor worship. The book of Revelation indicates there was emperor worship. There were three emperors who insisted on worship during their lifetimes: Caligula (37-41 AD), Nero (54-68 AD), and Domitian (81-96 AD).
(3) The state of decline of the seven churches in Asia Minor. They were strong, robust churches in the 50's and it would take time for the churches to decline. Ephesus, a strong church in the 50's and 60's was in decline. The city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 or 61 AD would take some time to rebuild before it could take pride over its riches.
(4) The allusions to the New Testament. Revelation is steeped in references to the New Testament. This would call for a later date than the 60's Revelation.
Are there any questions or comments?
16 comments:
An internal case for a pre-A.D. 70 date for Revelation. Two considerations:
1. Looking at the style that Revelation and the gospel of John are written in (i.e., as a chiasm), one could very well argue that St. John wrote both books at the same time. The traditional dates for the gospel and Revelation work to this effect as well since traditional scholarship places the date of John's gospel at the same time as his Revelation. For a more scholarly approach, see the papers that have been drawn up by a couple of the professors at Knox Seminary. Whatever date we give to one of these books, we must also give to the other. This isn't a convincing consideration in and of itself, but...
2. It is unthinkable that John, who was with the others when Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, would not have written something about it in either of these books. It also makes Revelation 11 a little confusing because there wouldn't be a temple for John to measure. What sense does it make for there to be one in John's vision if there wasn't one at the time he supposedly had the vision? Dispensationalists understand the significance of this fact and, thus, their theology requires a rebuilt temple to come sometime in the future.
It seems to me that these two points bring together a case that is far more convincing than any external evidence which might be presented. Nevertheless, here's what I would make of what you do present here:
(1) The Fathers are not as reliable as the internal evidences of John's gospel and Revelation.
(2) Nero fits the bill of being a tyrant far better than Domitian does. He was known as a tyrant according to Rome's own historicists. His name also fits with the number of the beast given in Revelation 13; Domitian's does not.
(3) The rise and decline of cities (and churches) does not take so much time as one might think. The Galatians were slipping away from Paul's teaching shortly after he left them! The church in Laodicea, I think, would thrive all the more after something like an earthquake in those days; it would not take them 20+ years to go from rubble to riches.
(4) Revelation has a close (chiastic) relationship with one of the gospels, so of course it's going to sound like it is steeped in NT theology. It, however, is far more steeped in OT scripture and theology. These two items would not be enough evidence to warrant a later date.
Jared,
Thanks for your comments. Your comments show that the date of Revelation is not a slam-dunk issue. While I think Revelation is written in the 90's, there are good arguments to consider the 60's. But the 60's date has problems too. This is where I confess that while I think it's the 90's, I don't know. I think you're comments are very useful in providing another perspective.
The chiasm issue is interesting, but as you note, it does not give a strong case for when Revelation was written. This is because the early church fathers give a traditional date for the Gospel of John as the 90's. Thus, if we grant the tight structure between John and Revelation, as the papers you cite indicate, it does not establish a date for Revelation.
I don't think it is as unthinkable that John would not mention the destruction of the physical temple. The Holy Spirit may had other purposes (assuming Revelation was written in 90's) than to mention the Temple destruction. Further, given the rich images and symbols, I don't see that there had to be a physical temple in Jerusalem present for John to measure in the vision given to him. But, I can understand it is something you don't see as possible, and I see how it would drive to your conclusions. I personally see it differently.
I think the church fathers, being closer to the situation, and given Irenæus relationship to Polycarp, where Polycarp was a disciple of John, to me provides some weight to their comments on the date of Revelation. Granted, Nero is recognized, even by Roman historians as being a butcher and tyrant, Irenæus did not entertain the possibility of Nero being the Beast.
About the time for churches to slip into decline, that is a very imprecise argument either way. I tend to see it supports a 90's date, but I can see others seeing this has no weight at all.
About being steeped in NT scripture, I'll have to refer you to Dr. Doriani's class notes at Covenant Seminary. Doriani indicated, from class notes (which I wish I had) there was a list from allusions from a wide variety of the NT.
earl,
You say that the fact that John is instructed to measure the temple is not significant enough to warrant an earlier date. You posit the style of Revelation as a compelling justification for thinking that the temple in Revelation 11 doesn't refer to the actual temple. And it doesn't matter in the least that John further reveals that this temple will be trampled for three years? It is coincidence, perhaps, that the Roman-Jewish war started about the middle of 66 and was decisively finished with the Temple's destruction in 70, taking approximately 42 months?
But you're right. There didn't have to be a physical temple in John's vision, after all, it was a vision; I don't suppose many of them are tangible. Nevertheless, it doesn't make sense, historically or theologically, for John to have a vision of something that no longer exists and, thus, would no longer have covenantal significance. The Temple's destruction is not unimportant and, in fact, is a central theme of biblical eschatology; not just in the NT, but in the OT as well.
This, in turn, is why I say it is unthinkable that John would neglect to mention it in any of his writings. It astounds me that the only people who seem to give any real weight to the passing of the Temple are preterists and their sympathizers. It makes more sense to posit that the Holy Spirit is clearly teaching, through John, that the destruction of the Temple and Israel's judgment for being breakers of the covenant was about to take place. It makes sense because John heard the prediction and understood the warnings that came straight from the mouth of Jesus and the Revelation given to him is replete with references to the relevant OT passages.
Again, the early church fathers are not as reliable as the internal evidence in determining the date of Revelation. Irenaeus may have been a student of Polycarp who, in turn, was a student of John, but it is certainly not without dispute that the John Polycarp was a student of is the same John who wrote the gospel and Revelation. Also, the work in which we find the quote from Irenaeus for the later date was written more than a century removed from the destruction of the temple and almost a century removed from the reign of Domitian. It also isn't conclusive as claiming that the Revelation was seen around the reign of Domitian, it doesn't mean (or imply) that it was written at that time. Another unresolved issue with Irenaeusis what was seen; John or his work?
I would say that the date of Revelation is a slam-dunk issue in favor of the early date...
Jared,
Thanks again for the comments. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. What you see as a slam dunk for 60's date for Revelation, I don't see it.
For instance, I think Beale’s comments that the structure of Irenæus comment about Revelation appearing in the time makes the most grammatical sense (Revelation being closer in the sentence structure to Domation than John). I also think there is plenty of theological sense to be made from a 90's date for Revelation. But you're mileage will vary. :o)
As I teach the course, this won't be the only thing we'll see differently.
earl,
You understand that Irenaeus can be made out in support of the early date, yes? The thought process of Irenaeus here flows more naturally if "it" is translated as "he" and refers to John rather than Revelation? Here's the passage cited from Against Heresies:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for 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."
Notice that Irenaeus says that the name of Antichrist would have been announced by the one who saw the apocalyptic vision. What does it matter if the vision was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign if it was John who could reveal the name if it were necessary? What makes more sense:
1. If we, now, needed to know the name of the Antichrist then John would have announced it for his vision was seen near the end of Domitian's reign.
or
2. If we, now, needed to know the name of the Antichrist then John would've announced it for he was seen near the end of Domitian's reign.
John, in fact, did announce the name in his vision; "his number [which is his name] is 666." Irenaeus, then, is saying in this passage that John could explain his own vision concerning this name for he had recently been seen.
Also, what are we to make of Irenaeus' statement at the very beginning of book 5 chapter 30 about "all of the most approved and ancient copies" of John's Revelation? How could these copies be ancient and "seen no very long time [ago]... almost in our day"? If anything, Irenaeus seems to lend himself to the early date advocate by maintaining that there were already ancient copies circulating; enough even to warrant the qualification of "approved."
This is a solid, historical and academically backed arguement based on the same passage you are using as your primary reason for going with a later date. The other three areas that you cite in support of the later date work equally well, if not better, within an early date framework too. The date of Revelation is important because if it was written before 70 then it is a profoundly illuminating book describing and warning it's original readers of impending covenantal judgment which, as it happens, is a central theme of biblical eschatology throughout the NT (especially in the gospels). If it was written after 70, the sense of imminence disappears completely and even seems misplaced given the content of the book. It also loses a great deal of covenantal significance and lends itself more to the futurist's whims and newspaper eisegetics.
But I digress and agree to disagree, which, as you say, I'm sure we'll be doing more often than not as you proceed through this book.
Jared,
You read too much in identifying my primary reason. I think there are a variety of reasons for the late date as I've listed in my previous notes. Also, Irenæus' comment about old manuscripts of Revelation, old is a relative term, which fits just as well with 90's or 60's.
A major distinction with our views is that I see Revelation fits well in an idealist sense of interpretation. Even if 666 refers to "Kaiser Nero", I would still see Nero and Domition as types of antichrists and that there was not a main fulfilment in either of the emperors.
If you want to comment further on this thread you may, but I'm going to move on. Also, I'd like to orient the discussion for others in the class. The depth of our discussions may go beyond the interest of the class participants. This particular blog is an experiment to see if this helps the Sunday adult class I'm teaching. You, Gary, and me may be the only ones reading this class blog.
earl,
I apologize for barging in on the the forum set up for class discussion when I'm not even participating in the class ;-) I just want the early date to get a fair hearing; especially since it doen't matter which date is correct in the Idealist framework.
After doing quite a bit of research on when Revelation may have been written I have three points to make and consider on this topic.
1. I repeatedly found that scholars and theologians reference a single statement from [Irenæus Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3]
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for 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.”
I also discovered that Irenæus apparently taught or at least believed that Jesus was more than fifty years old before he was crucified. [Irenæus Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 2]
"Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."
I have yet to find anyone that agrees with the 50-year plus lifespan of Christ. At most some think Christ may have been 37 or 38 at the time of His crucifixion. I don’t question the accuracy of Irenæus’ statement regarding the apocalyptic vision. However assuming Christ died, at a minimum, before He was 40 does raise a question in my mind as to whether we should tie the closing words of the statement “…towards the end of Domitian's reign.” to the date of the writing or to the last time the book of Revelation containing the vision was last seen. At any rate the 50 plus lifespan bothers me especially when I have yet to find any other ancient writings referencing that date.
2. The city of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 or 61 AD. Some historians say 66 AD but what’s a couple of years among friends. I agree that it would probably take some time to rebuild a city of Laodicea’s stature, 10 maybe even 20 or more years. In researching the rebuilding of Laodicea I found references crediting Roman emperors’ Vespasian (built a large stadium around 79 AD, Hadrian (built the Baths of Hadrian) after becoming emperor 117 AD and Marcus Aurelius. I haven’t been able to find a whole lot about what or how extensive his involvement was in the reconstruction but quite a number of references seem to imply that he played a significant role in the rebuilding. Perhaps, because there is no mention of anything spectacular like a stadium or gardens or baths, he simple made it inhabitable to the common people. Lastly, Caracalla was credited with completing the rebuild during his reign 211-217 AD. I also found several reference indicating the Laodiceans, refusing Romes offer to assist, rebuilt the city themselves. My take, at this time, is that most of the credit goes to both Hadrian and Aurelius.
It is important to know when the city was rebuilt as John writes specifically to the church in Revelation. If the city had been rebuilt between 66 and 95 AD then John was writing to a viable church. If it had not been rebuilt, where did the church of Laodicea reside during the time of reconstruction and the writing of Revelation?
If we assume, dangerous I know, that all of the findings are accurate and all parties I’ve mentioned had some role in the rebuilding of Laodicea, then depending on the level of each party’s involvement, then one could comfortably take either position namely that Revelation was written before or after 70 AD which I’m sure is why there is still debate if for no other reason from a purely archeological perspective.
If the town folk began the reconstruction shortly after it was destroyed and Vespasian kicked in support in 79 AD it is possible there was some vestige of the city and even a church prior to 90 AD. I for one am not yet convinced this to be the case as Vespasian is only credited with building a stadium. The bottom line is that to support a date of 90-96 AD for the writing of Revelation the displaced residents would have to rebuild the city with Vespasian throwing in the stadium and the church would have to had time to regroup and be back in full swing. Assuming they could have rebuilt the city prior to 90 AD, I believe there are still some potential complications. John mentions that Laodicea was a wealthy church lacking in nothing. Rev. 3:17 How could they have attained wealth and prosperity so soon after spending their own money rebuilding the city? Also, Christ says they are lukewarm. So here’s how it looks. The city was destroyed in 66 AD and between the destruction but before Domitian’s death in 96 AD they rebuilt the city with their own money, regained their wealth and prosperity and became lukewarm. It seems a bit far fetched to me but I certainly wouldn’t say it couldn’t have happened that way.
If we take the position that the reconstruction effort did not really get underway until Hadrian came on the scene in 117 AD and was continued by Aurelius, Hadrian’s adopted son, after Hadrian’s death in 138 AD then it is obvious that there was no Laodicea for John to write to if he wrote the book in the 90-95 AD timeframe.
The only option left for dating Revelation is prior to the destruction of Laodicea, i.e. before 66 AD.
3. This last point is more a question of curiosity for me.
Jared, you make a good point when you state “It is unthinkable that John, who was with the others when Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, would not have written something about it in either of these books”
And Earl, I agree with your statement “The Holy Spirit may had other purposes.
While I don’t think it’s unthinkable because the Holy Sprit may indeed have had other purposes I am totally baffled as to why the Holy Spirit would not have taken any advantage, not that He needs an advantage, of mentioning a single word regarding of the destruction of the temple in Revelation. Seems to me it would have been a good opportunity to mention Christ’s prophecy of it’s destruction being fulfilled, the fact that now there was no way and no need for Jews to atone for their sin through animal sacrifice and that Jesus was God’s lamb slain once and for eternity which is in part why the temple was destroyed in the first place.
Needless to say I tend to lean toward the early date for Revelation
Jared,
No need for apologies. Your comments are always welcome. These class notes and discussion is an experiment. It is quite probable the only ones willing to discuss are you, Gary, and me.
Gary,
Both you and Jared make a good case for the early date for Revelation. Thanks to you and Jared for your comments.
By the way, the textbook for the course is available for free online.
Jared,
Thank you very much for pointing out the textbook for the class online!
I always wondered why people thought that the re-building of the temple was so important, escpicialy since I could never find it explicitly stated anywhere in Revelation.
I was wondering why we need to know when it was written. Interesting, yes, but does it affect the content of the message?
That is a good question about why people thought rebuilding the temple was important.
In terms of the importance of the date of revelation, for most views discussed (futurism, historicism, idealist) the time when Revelation was written does not matter so much. It is more critical for the pretersist (or "past") view where they view either that Christ made a visitation in 70AD (moderate or partial preterists) or fully returned in 70AD. In the preterist view, Nero was the anti-Christ. This would mean Revelation had to be written by 68 AD (before Nero's death).
In the idealist view, an early date could see some fulfillments in with Nero being a type of anti-Christ, foreshadowing other anti-Christ preceding the return of Christ, and 70 AD as a type of great tribulation, foreshadowing other tribulations.
What a great idea to post all this information on the web! I think your class will exceed all expectations. I'm certain my wife and I will learn a great deal.
Your class notes are much better than mine; please continue to provide them with each class!
Thanks for your efforts!
Anonymous James
Anonymous James,
Thanks! I will keep adding notes to this blog. Feel free to continue to comment as you are able.
Post a Comment