When was the Book of Revelation Written? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

John wrote from the Mediterranean island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9), a rugged, rocky island about 40 miles (24 kms) southwest of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea, used by the Romans as a place of exile (see Pliny, Natural History 4.23). The document was written to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1–3:22).

Why does it matter when the book was written? It claims to be a book of prophecy  (1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20), foretelling future events, particularly “things to happen quickly” (1:1; cf. v. 19) [Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author's own translation]. The typical preterist proposal is that the Jewish War (66-70) fulfilled most if not all of these predictions. Therefore, in order for full-preterism to sustain itself, the book of Revelation must date before Jerusalem’s destruction in the summer of 70, and as predictive prophecy, somewhat earlier. For eschatological futurists, it does not really matter other than responding to false claims.¹

The two main proposals for dating Revelation center on the respective reigns of Nero (54-68) and Domitian (81-96). Nero began his reign at age 16 when his adopted father Claudius died 13th October 54, then Nero committed suicide 9th June 68 by stabbing himself in the throat at age 31. Domitian, the month before his 30th birthday, was inaugurated emperor 14th September 81, the day after his brother Titus died of illness, and Domitian was assassinated 18th September 96, stabbed to death by assailants at age 44.²

External Evidence

Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) was originally from Smyrna in the province of Asia, the location of one of the seven churches of Revelation. He was a disciple of Polycarp, also from Smyrna, who was discipled by the apostle John himself.³ Irenaeus’ literary work was originally in Greek under the title Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (“On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis”), written around 180. It has been preserved in Latin translation under the title Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies”). In book 5, Irenaeus devotes chap. 30 to the number of the beast in Rev. 13:18, which Eusebius (ca. 260-339) has preserved in the original Greek in his Ecclesiastical History (3.18.1-3; 5.8.6). Eusebius reports: “In this persecution … the apostle and evangelist John … condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, in his fifth book against heresies [Adv. haer. 5.30.3] … in the above-mentioned revelation of John …. [quote] ‘declared by him who saw [ἑορακότος] the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen [ἑωράθη], but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign’” (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.1-3, trans. C. F. Cruse).

The question is whether Irenaeus’ use of the third person singular verb ἑωράθη is to be understood as masculine (“he was seen”) in reference to John, or neuter (“it was seen”) in reference to what John saw. If the former, nothing can be deduced either way about the dating of Revelation. However, contextually the preceding use of ὁράω (“he saw” - ἑορακότος) concerns what John saw, not John having been seen. In fact, the subject of the chapter is the revelation of John, and the verbal ὁράω is consistently used in Revelation of what John saw (cf. 1:2; 4:1; 5:1-2, 5-6, 11; 6:1-2, 5, 7-8, 12; 7:1-2; 12:1, 3; 17:6; et al.). Irenaeus had already reported that John lived into the reign of Trajan (98-117) (Adv. haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.3-4), so why point out that he was living at an earlier time? No reputable translation of Irenaeus’ words has rendered this as a reference to John having been seen, and the Latin version is not ambiguous at all. 

The Domitianic date was almost universally accepted throughout most of church history, and nothing in the book of Revelation contradicts it. No other tradition relevant to dating was proposed in the region where the document was originally sent. Significantly later, in the sixth and seventh centuries in different places, other traditions developed but not in Asia Minor.⁴

Internal Evidence

The key pieces of evidence involve (a) persecution of Christians; (b) emperor worship; (c) condition of the churches; (d) the temple of God; (e) succession of kings (7:9-11).

Persecution of Christians

The Christians to whom Revelation is addressed were apparently suffering severe and widespread persecution that would eventually worsen (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Nero’s persecution is well documented and lasted from mid-64 to mid-68, but it was primarily confined to the city of Rome. In fact, there is no record of a Neronian persecution outside of Rome. 

Is there evidence that Domitian persecuted Christians? No extant secular writings of antiquity explicitly accuse Domitian of widespread hostilities against Christians, leading a number of modern critics to claim it never happened.⁵ Domitian’s persecutions, reportedly most intense near the end of his regime (95-96), are primarily attested by later Christian writers,⁶  although the imposition of emperor worship during this time (see next post) adds more credence to this potential setting than do the alternatives.

Domitian was far less popular than his father Vespasian and brother Titus, who ruled before him. He sought to establish himself as absolute monarch, which ultimately led to his assassination in September 96.⁷ After he was killed, the Senate immediately passed the motion of damnatio memoriae (“condemnation of memory”) to remove him from official accounts.⁸  Accordingly, the silence of secular historians provides no solid basis for what Domitian may or may not have done.

At the time Revelation was composed, John was exiled on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). Nero’s reaction to Christians involved violent executions (Tacitus, Annals 15.44) that purportedly included the deaths of the apostles Paul and Peter.⁹ There is no evidence that Nero ever banished Christians, so if John’s punishment was under his rule, we have to wonder why John was exiled rather than killed? Banishment of alleged dissidents was much more common during Domitian’s reign.¹⁰

Both Tacitus (ca. 56-120) and Suetonius (ca. 69-122) describe Domitian’s final years as a reign of terror, and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) calls him a “tyrant.”¹¹ Those who opposed Domitian were either exiled or executed and their properties confiscated; the names of at least twenty political foes who were killed by Domitian have been preserved.¹²

Not only did Domitian suppress political opponents, he condemned those charged with the crime of atheism, i.e., rejecting the Roman pantheon, including the Imperial Cult.¹³ Justin Martyr wrote, “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God …” (I Apology 6, trans. P. Schaff). In 110 Pliny the Younger examined those charged with being Christians in Asia Minor, some of whom had recanted their faith two decades earlier (Epistles 10.96.6), implying oppression during Domitian’s reign. 

Eusebius (ca. 260-399) more specifically reports the persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians in Domitian’s fifteenth year (96), having been documented by non-Christian writers known to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4). Melito of Sardis (ca.100-180) speaks of persecutions in Asia in his day, then recounts Nero and Domitian having been “stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a disposition to slander our faith” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.3-9, trans. C. F. Cruse). Tertullian (ca. 155-220) compares Domitian’s cruelty, before he allegedly eased off, to what Nero had done to Christians (Apol. 5.4; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-9). Clement of Rome, a contemporary of Domitian, refers to “sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities that have befallen us” (I Clement 1.1, trans. F. J. A. Hort). Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420) later reported that Domitian issued edicts for a general and cruel persecution (Hist. adv. pag. 7.10.5). 

In our next post we will consider other evidences relevant to the dating of Revelation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Preterism: What’s the Big Deal?” (Part 1), Moore Perspective (3 June 2020), <Link>.

     ² Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Nero 6.49, 57; Domitian 14.16.

     ³ Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.20.5-6; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.4; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 32.2. 

     ⁴ “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line superscription in two Syriac versions of the New Testament in the sixth and seventh centuries. If the Neronic date were the original date of Revelation, one would expect a witness to this fact in Asia Minor, where the book of Revelation originated, and a witness much earlier than the sixth century” (M. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary [Dec. 2005] 74).

     ⁵ E.g., F. G. Downing, “Pliny’s Prosecution of Christians,” JSNT 34 (1988): 105-123; E. T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History 148-73.

     ⁶ See Eusebius (ca. 260-339), Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4; Sulpicius Severus (ca. 363-425), Chronicle 2.31; Paulus Orosius (ca. 375-420), Book 7 of Historiarum lib. Vii, adv. paganos (“History Against the Pagans”). Even though the most definitive information comes from Orosius in the year 417, his history is substantially based on the much earlier works of Justin and Eutropius (see M’Clintock and Strong 7:455-56), and he also had access to other documentation that is no longer extant.

     ⁷ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 14.16.

     ⁸ B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 160.

     ⁹ Cf. I Clement 5.4-5; Tertullian, De praes. haer. 36.3; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.5-8 (citing second-century Dionysius as added confirmation).

     ¹⁰ Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.3, 13, 14; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.20.7-8; 3.32.1; Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum 1.26; Victorinus, Comm. Apocalypse 10.11.

     ¹¹ Tacitus, Agricola 45; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.10; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.23.5-19.

     ¹² R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 806; B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian 169, 182-88; cf. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 21.

     ¹³ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Domitian 8.15; Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.2.

*Prepared for the 2024 FHU Lectures.

Related Posts: When was Revelation Written (Part 2), Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 1), Ancient Dating Systems

Image credit: https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1208739/view/emperor-nero-statue- and https://www.thecollector.com/misjudged-roman-emperors/

Textual Variation: An Angel Stirring the Water (John 5:3b-4)

A textual variant is found among the extant Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel at 5:3b-4, where the NKJV reads: “…waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had” (also ASV, HCSB, ISV, JUB, KJV; bracketed in NASB). But these words are omitted in other versions. Most NT scholars consider this text a gloss (inserted by a later copyist) because (a) it is absent from the earliest and what many regard the better manuscripts; (b) in more than twenty manuscripts the words are marked as spurious by asterisks or obeli; (c) the occurrence of non-Johannine expressions; and (d) the wide variety of variant forms.¹ On the other hand, Zane Hodges observes that the absence of the text is essentially limited to the minority of manuscripts representing the Alexandrian text form (the superiority of which is not universally conceded), while the alleged non-Johannine vocabulary is disputable, v. 7 demands its inclusion, and its excision from some witnesses is due to theological aversion.²

Gordon Fee offers a full assessment of the textual data, as well as intrinsic probability and external evidence.³ His study concludes that the weight of evidence shows the disputed text was not in John’s original, and its depiction of a clear advantage of the least disabled over those who needed healing the most seems at variance with divine grace affirmed elsewhere in scripture. The text is most likely an explanatory note, whether inserted by John or a later copyist, to clarify the sick man’s superstitious thinking and otherwise obscure statement in v. 7.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 179.

     ² Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5.4,” BibSac 136 (1979): 25-39.

     ³ Gordon D. Fee, “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4,” EQ 54:4 (1982): 207-18.

Related Posts: Pericopae Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)

Related articles: Dave Miller, Stirring of the Water

Image credit: https://www.entrustedtoteach.org/2015/08/14/when-jesus-hangs-out-by-the-pool

Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 3 of 3)

Literary Genre and Structure

     Three different genres are apparent. First, Apocalypse (1:1)¹ – a genre characterized by extensive symbolism, visions, strong contrasts between this world and the world to come, and victory over evil. Second, Prophecy (1:3) – combined with apocalyptic elements, it carries on the tradition of OT books like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. Third, Epistle (1:4) – with an opening address and greeting, it functions as a circular letter to the seven churches of Asia (1:4-5, 9-11), including a specific message for each one (2:1–3:22).² “The complicated character of Revelation therefore suggests that we should not place it neatly into one genre category. Elements of prophecy, apocalypse, and letter are combined in a way that has no close parallel in other literature” (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 716-17).  

     As for the structure of the book, Revelation is logical in sequence rather than chronological. It begins and ends in physical reality but includes a panoramic view of heaven and the future. The introduction (chaps. 1–3) is followed by three series of concurrent judgments (seals, trumpets, bowls) and depictions of worship in heaven (chaps. 4–16), concluding with a declaration of triumph (chaps. 17–22).

Methods of Interpretation

     1. The Preterist View (lit. “that which has gone by”). This interpretation method holds that everything in Revelation was fulfilled not long after it was written (either at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, or the legalization of Christianity in 313, or the fall of Rome in 476). The problem with this view is the great difficulty of interpreting some things in Revelation as having already been fulfilled (e.g. 20:10-15; 21:4).

     2. The Futurist View. This perspective argues that most of Revelation has not yet been fulfilled, interprets much of the symbolism literally, and is generally held by those advocating the theory of premillennialism. Problems with this view include the following. It literalizes symbols that were almost certainly intended to represent other things (e.g. 7:4; 14:1; 20:4, 6). It fails to appreciate the relevance the message needed to have for the Christians to whom it was originally addressed (e.g. 2:1 ff.).⁴ It ignores the fact that much of Revelation was to be fulfilled relatively soon after it was written (cf. 1:1, 3; 22:6).

     3. The Idealist View. This view suggests that Revelation is not related to specific historical events but merely symbolizes the general, ongoing struggle between the Lord’s church and evil forces. The problem with this view is that it overlooks Revelation’s claim that it does address actual historical events and circumstances and prophecies to be fulfilled (e.g. 1:1-3, 19; 22:10-19).

    4. The Historical View. This interpretation argues that Revelation deals with actual historical events, many of which were fulfilled by the time the Roman Empire fell, but some of which are yet to be fulfilled in the future (e.g. 20:11 ff.). While each of the above interpretive philosophies has its merits, the last one seems to be least problematic.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The opening self-identification is: Apokalupsis Iēsou Christou (“a revelation/apocalypse of Jesus Christ”). See B. M. Metzger, The NT: Its Background, Growth, and Content 302-303; C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the NT 536-41.

     ² Revelation is regarded as having an epistolary frame (see E. S. Fiorenza, “Composition and Structure” 367-81; J. M. Lieu, “Grace to You and Peace” 172-73; J. L. White, “Saint Paul” 444).

     ³ See C. S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary 759; B. M. Metzger, Breaking the Code 11-19; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, Introduction to the NT 697-700; S. L. Harris, Understanding the Bible [7th ed.] 519.

     ⁴ “Some prophecy teachers have interpreted and reinterpreted Revelation according to the whims of changing news headlines.  But John’s images would have meant something in particular to their readers …. Whatever else his words may indicate, therefore, they must have been intelligible to his first-century readers …” (C. S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary 760-61).

Related Posts: Introducing Revelation Part 1, Part 2

Image credit: http://irfanyang.com/2016/09/12/the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse/

Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 2 of 3)

Provenance and Destination

     John writes from the Mediterranean island of Patmos (1:9), a rugged, rocky island about 40 miles (24 kms) southwest of Ephesus in the Aegean Sea, used by the Romans as a place of exile (see Pliny, Natural History 4.23). The document is written to the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1–3:22).

Date of Writing

     The two main proposals for dating Revelation center on the respective reigns of Nero (54-68) and Domitian (81-96). The key pieces of evidence are as follows:

     1. Persecution of Christians. The Christians to whom Revelation is addressed seem to have been suffering severe and widespread persecution that would eventually worsen (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2; 20:4). Nero’s persecution lasted from 64 to 68, but it was primarily confined to the city of Rome. The persecution of Domitian was most intense from 95 to 96, and though the strongest evidence for it comes from later writers,¹ the imposition of emperor worship during this time (see below) adds more credence to this potential setting than do the alternatives.

     2. Emperor Worship. Christians in the book of Revelation were being pressured to worship the secular ruling power (13:4, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The seeds of emperor worship were to some degree evident in Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Caligula, but it was not until Domitian that the imperial cult was enforced.²

     3. Condition of the churches. A Christian named Antipas had already suffered martyrdom in Pergamum (2:13) and members of the church at Smyrna were soon to face imprisonment and potentially the death penalty (2:10). Spiritual stagnation was a problem in many of the Asian churches (2:4, 5; 3:1-3, 15-17), and the church of Laodicea was wealthy at the time (3:17).³ These conditions are more conducive to the period of Domitian’s reign.

     4. The temple of God. John is called upon to measure “the temple of God” (11:1-2). If this is taken as a reference to the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem, a date before 70 would be implied. However, since the book of Revelation is filled with signs and symbols, the most natural interpretation of this passage is metaphoric, not literal. Some see a prophecy of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem in the allusion to the “holy city” being trampled for “forty-two months” (Rev. 11:2). However, when Ezekiel saw his vision of the temple being measured (Ezek. 40:1–42:20), the temple and the city had already been destroyed by the Babylonians fourteen years earlier (Ezek. 40:1).

     5. The succession of kings. In 17:9-11 eight kings are mentioned, and the one that appears to have been reigning at the time of writing was number six. If this passage is taken literally and the succession of kings begins with the first recognized emperor, an earlier date is then suggested. However, this argument is not decisive. Are the kings in this vision past, present, or future? Is the count to begin with Julius Caesar (the first dictator), Augustus (the first emperor), or Caligula (the first persecutor)? Should the comparatively insignificant rulers, who were in power for only brief periods (e.g. 68-69), be counted or not? Should the respective numbers be interpreted literally or symbolically?

     Internal evidence places the most probable context of Revelation toward the end of the reign of Domitian, i.e., 95-96. This conclusion is supported by the weight of early testimonies, viz. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.30.3; Victorinus, Apoc. 10.11; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.18; Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. 42; Origen, Matt. 16.6.

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.18.4; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.31; Paulus Orosius, Book 7 of Historiarum lib. Vii, adv. paganos. Even though the most definitive information comes from Orosius in the year 417, his history is substantially based on the much earlier works of Justin and Eutropius (see M’Clintock and Strong 7:455-56), and he also had access to other documentation that is no longer extant. 

     ² According to the Latin writer Suetonius (Dom. 13.1-2), Domitian required his subjects to address him as dominus et dues noster (‘our lord and god’). See also Dio Cassius 67.4.7; 67.13.4; and Pliny the Younger, Pan. 33.4; 52.2. The first imperial cult temple in Ephesus was established in the year 89 under Domitian’s rule. In fact, it was during this period that “in some areas – especially in Asia Minor – governors and other local officials demanded public participation in the cult as evidence of citizens’ loyalty and patriotism” (S. L. Harris, Understanding the Bible [7th ed.] 518).

     ³ Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 (cf. Tacitus, Annals 14.26-27), and it is commonly assumed that an extensive period of time would have been necessary for the city to be rebuilt and become prosperous. This assumption, however, is tentative at best, since the residents of Laodicea were wealthy enough to rebuild the city without aid from the Roman government. Nevertheless, the fact that a congregation was in existence in Smyrna may be suggestive of a later date (see D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 710).

Related Posts: Introducing Revelation Part 1, Part 3

Image credit: https://notesfromtheparsonage.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/600-johnwriting8874.jpg

Introducing the Book of Revelation (Part 1 of 3)

Distinctive Features

     The title of the last book of the NT comes from the opening line: Apokálupsis Iēsou Christou. The term apokálupsis refers to an uncovering, a revelation, a disclosure of knowledge, thus “A Revelation of Jesus Christ,” or simply “Revelation” or “The Apocalypse.” It is probably the last document of the NT canon to have been written. As the OT book of Genesis is the book of beginnings, the NT book of Revelation is the book of consummation. Revelation is the only NT document that deals primarily with prophetic events, and its message is presented with more symbolism than any of the other NT writings. The theme of the book is VICTORY! (see 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7).

Authorship

     The author simply identifies himself as Iōannēs or “John” (1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8). He is clearly known to the seven churches of Asia, his authority is recognized, and he communicates as a spokesman for God (cf. 1:1, 11, 19; 10:10; 22:9, 18-19). The composition is in a Semitic style, and the author writes as if Greek were his second language, indicative of a native of Palestine (see S. L. Harris, Understanding the Bible [7th ed.] 517).

     There is a close relationship between Revelation and John’s Gospel and epistles, i.e., common ideas, theology, and vocabulary. For example, descriptions of Jesus as a lamb, as a shepherd, and as ho logos (“the word”); frequent use of antithesis (light vs. darkness, truth vs. falsehood, power of God vs. power of the world, etc.); common use of technical terms, e.g., alēthinos (“true”), marturia (“testimony”), nikaō (“conquer”), and tērein tas entolas  (“keep the commandments”);¹ symbolic use of the number seven; replacement of the temple; metaphoric allusions to water and to manna;² the highest concentration of the word menō (“abide”) in the NT; etc.

     Early testimony, attributing Revelation to the apostle John, includes the following: Justin [Martyr] (Dial. 81; cf. Apol. 1.28), who for a time lived in Ephesus – location of one of the seven churches of Revelation; Melito (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.2) of Sardis – location of one of the seven churches of Revelation; Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.11.1; 4.14.2; 4.20.11; 4.35.2) of Smyrna – location of one of the seven churches of Revelation. Irenaeus makes mention of “John in the Apocalypse” (Adv. Haer. 4.14.2; 4.17.6; 4.18.6; 4.21.3; 5.28.2; 5.34.2), further described as “John the disciple of the Lord” (Adv. Haer. 4.20.11; 5.26.1), who leaned on Jesus’ breast and later published his Gospel while living in Ephesus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1). Further affirmation is found in the Muratorian canon, Theophilus of Antioch (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.24), Tertullian (Adv. Marcion 3.14), and Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.119; Quis dives 42; Strom. 6.106, 107).

Arguments Against the Apostle John’s Authorship

1. There is no apostolic claim; the writer professes to be a prophet, not an apostle.

2. There are considerable linguistic differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation. “The writer seems on the surface to be unacquainted with the elementary laws of concord. He places nominatives in opposition to other cases, irregularly uses participles, constructs broken sentences, adds unnecessary pronouns, mixes up genders, numbers and cases and introduces several unusual constructions” (D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 940).

3. The theology of Revelation differs from that of the Johannine writings: (a) The God of Revelation is a God of majesty and judgment; the God of the Johannine writings is a God of love. (b) In John’s Gospel Jesus is revealer and redeemer, while in Revelation he is a conquering warrior and king. (c) In John’s Gospel “the last things” are realized in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, yet in Revelation the focus is on the Lord’s return at the end of history.

Responses To These Objections

1. If John’s apostleship was accepted and respected by his readership, there was no need for an explicit claim to be made. Paul asserted his apostleship when it was called into question (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1), but at other times this was unnecessary (i.e., 1-2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon).

2. The vast distinction between the genres of the respective documents would easily account for variations, with special consideration for the highly symbolic (apocalyptic) nature of Revelation, the special circumstances under which it was written, and the importance of concealing its true meaning from the enemies of the Lord’s people. Further, if an amanuensis were employed to pen the Gospel, and John alone transcribed the book of Revelation, linguistic and grammatical differences would be understandable. At the same time, Revelation has a closer affinity to the Greek of the Johannine writings than to any other NT documents.

3. Placing emphasis on separate aspects of the divine nature, function, and purpose to achieve different objectives does not constitute conflicting theologies. D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo correctly point out: “But the contrasts are both overdrawn and incapable of proving much. Both the fourth gospel and Revelation teach that God is both loving and judging, that Christ is both redeemer and sovereign Lord, and that ‘the last things’ have both been realized in Jesus’ death and resurrection (at least in principle) and await the end of history for their consummation” (An Introduction to the NT 703).

     In future posts we will address other introductory matters pertaining to the book of Revelation.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, English translation is the author’s own.

     ² See D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 938-40; F. L. Godet, Gospel of St. John 1:182-90.

Related Posts: Introducing Revelation Part 2, Part 3

Helpful Resources: G. Goswell, "Johannine Corpus," JETS 61.4 (2018): 717-33.

Image credit: https://vineyardlifejournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/hqdefault.jpg