Surely in any study of New Testament eschatology
and anyone who's concerned about what the Bible teaches regarding the future, that concern
inevitably leads us to a consideration of the content and significance of the New Testament
apocalypse, or the book of Revelation. I don't think there's any book in the Bible
that has been subjected to more scrutiny than that book and about which there is a wider
diversity of interpretation than with respect to the book of Revelation; and part of the
reason for that, of course, is the very nature of the literary forms that we find in it. It is so imaginative and symbolic, with all
kinds of graphic images that seem somewhat at times bizarre to us. Some people think that even when it was written
it was written in a kind of code to conceal its exact message from the Roman authorities
of the day. But, of course, that remains a matter of speculation. There're all kinds of arguments and debates
about what this symbol means or what that symbol refers to and so on. But there is a very pressing question about
the book of Revelation that is widely ignored among Christians, and that is the question
of when the book was written, because when we're seeking to understand any book of the
Bible we have to do our homework and look at the setting, the life-setting in which
it was first penned, and the dating of a book at that level becomes very important. We also want to know who wrote it and to whom
it was written. Well, we know who wrote the book of Revelation. It is attributed to the apostle John who tells
us that he was in exile on the isle of Patmos and that he received this direct revelation
from Christ and was commanded to write down these things for the instruction and benefit
of the church. And so, the question is OK, John says he was
at Patmos, he was in exile, he was the author of this, and the source of the information
came from Jesus, but when was it written? Now, why is that question so important? Well, in our discussions of trying to understand
the Olivet Discourse and its references that Jesus made about these things that were about
to transpire within the timeframe of the present generation in which He prophesied the destruction
of the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, and His coming at the end of the age, which
we've been wrestling with. And the moderate preterist position is, of
course, as we've seen that all of these things that Jesus predicted would come to pass within
the timeframe of one generation did in fact come to pass coincidental with the destruction
of Jerusalem in the year AD 70. Now, the question is, what bearing did the
book of Revelation have on that theory? That's what it is; it's a theory. This is not a dogmatic assertion on my part. I want to labor that. This is just one view of understanding these
difficult questions. Well, the majority report in New Testament
scholarship for a long time has been that the book of Revelation was written during
the decade of the 90's, probably during the reign of the emperor Domitian, which would
have made it appearing well after the fall of Jerusalem. And so that would make it extremely unlikely
that the prophecies contained within the book of Revelation had any reference immediately
to these catastrophic events that Jesus had predicted on the Mount of Olives. But then the question comes up, what if it
wasn't written in the 90's but was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Then that would put a whole new cast on understanding
the immediate application of the content of the book of Revelation to the contemporaries
of John who received that revelation. And there have been reputable scholars in
the past who have argued for a much earlier date of Revelation placing it in the decade
of the 60's rather than in the 90's or even after the year AD 100 as some higher critics
have placed it. That is to say that it was written before
the fall of Jerusalem and with specific reference to those events that were going to come to
pass in and around these catastrophic moments that had been predicted by the Mount of Olives
discourse. So I want to take some time today to look
at this question about the dating of the book of Revelation. Now, anytime we face the question of dating
a book in the Bible, we pay attention to two basic sources, or two areas. First of all we talk about the external evidence,
and then we're concerned with the internal evidence. For example, when we look at the book of Romans
and it begins where the author says, "Paul, an apostle called by God," and so on, he identifies
himself as the author, and we know when he died and so on. We can get some information about the dating
of Romans by the internal evidence of what Paul says about what's going on at the time. Luke talks about the narrative, the infancy
narratives of Jesus placing them during the reign of Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was
governor of Syria and so on. And so you have internal statements in various
books that give you a clue as to when they were written. But the church has always been concerned historically
for external references. And what we mean by the external evidence
are references to the works by extra-biblical writers. For example, the early church fathers would
frequently quote from Scriptures that obviously had appeared before they did; and if we know,
for example, when Clement of Rome lived and we find Clement quoting the Apostle Paul from
the book of Corinthians, we know that the book of Corinthians was written before Clement
died. And so if we know when Clement died that'll
help us, give us some parameters for judgment. And sometimes even the extra-biblical writers
will even be more specific and tell us the year or so on that the tradition holds to
the appearance of a certain book. Now, one of the most formidable arguments
for the late date of the book of Revelation comes by way of the testimony of the church
father Irenaeus, who is one of the most respected fathers of antiquity, because he makes a specific
reference to the apocalypse in his book, his famous book, 'Against Heresies.' In fact, it's Book V of 'Against Heresies.' Now, before I read this quote from Irenaeus
let me remind you that his original work was written in the Greek language and that the
Greek manuscript of his book has been lost, but we do still have Latin translations, and
now what I'm going to read from is an English translation, that is, a translation from the
Latin text which was a translation from the Greek text. But in any case, let me read to you what Irenaeus
says with respect to these things. He says, and I quote, "We will not, however,
incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of anti-Christ. 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." Now, Irenaeus was born in the year 130 and
died in the year 202. So he's a second century church father. And now he's talking about the mysterious
character of the anti-Christ and of the apocalyptic references to him, that he said, "If it were
necessary that his name should be known by us, that it would be distinctly revealed in
this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision." Now, what's he saying there? If we needed to know the name of the anti-Christ,
John would have told us, because he's the author and the one who beheld the apocalyptic
vision. Now, here is the critical sentence. "For that was seen no very long time since,
but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign." Let me say it again. "For that was seen no very long time since,
but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign." So here is the chief reason, in terms of external
evidence, because most of the later church fathers who dated Revelation late and during
the reign of Domitian did so on the basis of Irenaeus' testimony. And the first glance at these words would
suggest that what Irenaeus is saying was that the apocalyptic vision that John received
took place during the reign of Domitian. And that obviously would have been after the
fall of Jerusalem. Now, on the other hand Irenaeus could be wrong. He's not an inspired writer. He could have his dates and times mixed up. However, there's a grammatical and literary
question about this translation. And the question has to do with the antecedent
of 'that.' "That which," again, "was seen almost in our
day toward the end of Domitian's reign." Is he saying that John's vision was seen during
the reign of Domitian? Or is he saying that John, who received the
vision, was seen as late as the reign of Domitian? Now, again, church history indicates that
of all of the disciples of Jesus the one who lived the longest was John. In other words, if you do a technical analysis
of this statement, the statement can mean either one -- either that the vision John
received took place during the reign of Domitian or that John was seen during the reign of
Domitian, the one who could answer the question for us as to who was the anti-Christ. Now, if we look further at the writings of
Irenaeus some other interesting facts emerge. One is that Irenaeus himself makes reference
to quote, "Ancient copies of the book of Revelation." Now, you don't talk about something that was
written in your own lifetime as an ancient manuscript. But had it been written a hundred years earlier
than he was writing then obviously that appellation could justly be applied as he does here. So he makes references elsewhere in his own
writings to ancient copies of the Revelation. Also, Clement argued, another very highly
respected early church father, that all of the apostolic revelation that we received
in the text of Scripture ceased during the reign of Nero. So that the external testimony of Clement
is that everything that is found in the canon of the New Testament and all of the apostolic
revelation, which would include the book of Revelation, had ceased by the death of Nero,
which means all of the New Testament documents were completed by the year AD 68, which would
make it prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Now, those are a couple of the key points
of external evidence -- there are other minor considerations, and I won't take the time
to go into them here. I do give more of that information in my book,
but not only that, but Ken Gentry has written a magnificent book on this subject entitled
'Before Jerusalem Fell,' in which as part of his doctoral dissertation he researched
all of this and tries to make the case -- and I think me makes a powerful case -- for the
early dating of the book of Revelation. But let's turn our attention now, at least
for the meantime, away from the external evidence and look at the internal evidence, because
that can be very important. Now, we've been concerned all along in this
series with the timeframe references in the New Testament. Let me remind you how the book of Revelation
begins. Chapter 1, verse 1 reads as follows: "The
Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His servants things which must
shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel
to His servant John who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Jesus
Christ to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear
the words of this prophecy and keep those things which are written in it, for the time
is near." Over and over again in the book of Revelation
we have references to timeframes of nearness. Let me just give you a quick summary, as I've
already mentioned those things which must shortly take place: chapter 2, "Repent or
I will come to you quickly." Chapter 3, "Behold I come quickly." Chapter 22 speaks of the "things which must
shortly take place." Chapter 22, "Surely I am coming quickly." Chapter 1, verse 3, "The time is near." Chapter 22, verse 10, "The time is at hand." And verse 1:19, "Write these things that are
about to take place." Chapter 3:10, "The hour of trial which is
about to come on the whole world." Now, the Greek terms that are used there to
talk about soon, near, at hand, all are timeframe references in the language that have a very,
very short time span. It's really stretching it to say that the
Bible says that we have a revelation here that is given about things that are near at
hand and are going to take place shortly, that you would expect a period of over 2,000
years to elapse after those timeframe references are given. So the point is this: that the contemporaries
who received the first edition of the book of Revelation note the several references
in it that point to the radical nearness of the fulfillment of the things that are being
unfolded in this prophecy. That is to say there's a reason why the first
generation of believers had this urgent sense of expectancy of the nearness of the crisis
that was at hand, because of the language of the book of Revelation itself, which whenever
it does speak in timeframes speaks of a timeframe of that which is coming soon. Now, in addition to that there are other internal
references that we pay attention to, not the least of which is that so much of the language
of the symbols of the book of Revelation is borrowed from the temple itself. It's replete with temple allusions throughout
the book. And yet there's not the slightest hint anywhere
in the book of Revelation that the temple is no longer standing. Now, this is an argument of silence, but it's
one of those pregnant silences, that certainly an event as catastrophic to Christian Jewish
history as the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple would be mentioned
by an apostolic writing that took place after the event. And if Revelation was written in the 90's,
and if it was the only New Testament book that was written after AD 70, one would certainly
expect some statement about the destruction of Jerusalem had it been a past event. But there's not a word. And the background, the illustrative background,
that shapes the whole character and content of the book is of a present temple. It's already there. It's still there. But again that's an argument from silence,
and is not something that would be absolutely conclusive, but it certainly is corroborative
to the theory of an earlier date. Now, in Revelation chapter 13 we have a section
that is -- I'm sorry, chapter 17 -- there is a segment of the text which is critical
to the pinpointing the dating and the timing of the book with respect to internal evidence,
and let me call your attention to chapter 17 where we read these words. "But the angel said to me, 'Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and
of the beast that carries her which has the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that you saw was and is not and
will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel
whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world when
they see the beast that was and is not and yet is. Here is the mind which has wisdom." Now, here we get an internal translation or
explanation of the symbols. "The seven heads are seven mountains upon
which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has
not yet come. And when he comes he must continue a short
time." And he goes on to describe the beast and so
on. Now, the question, two questions here. First of all, what is the city of seven hills? It's possible that that is an obscure reference
to Jerusalem itself. But in all of antiquity the most famous nickname
for Rome was the city on the seven hills. And so if the author of Revelation is describing
Rome here, he goes on to speak of the kings of Rome, and some scholars object to that
saying that the Romans didn't call their emperors kings, they called them emperors rather than
kings, but in any case we read here in the text that there are seven kings; five have
fallen, one is, the other has not yet come. What does that tell you? It tells you that the book is being written
at the time of the sixth king, because five have gone, there's another one that is to
come, but the sixth is now. That is there's a present reference to the
sixth king, and the sixth king who reigns over the city with the seven hills. Now, the question is who is the sixth king? And we would ask that question by saying who
is the sixth emperor of Rome. Now, we have a problem here. Julius Caesar, he's called Caesar, did not
receive the title emperor. The first one to receive the formal title
emperor was Caesar Augustus. So if we start with Caesar Augustus he would
be number one; Tiberius would be number two; Caligula, three; Claudius, four; Nero, five;
and Galba would be number six. Remember Galba just lasted a short time and
he was murdered, but Galba died before the year AD 70. So if Galba is the sixth king that is referred
to here, then obviously the book was written before AD 70. Now, some people say that because of the civil
war and the rapid elimination of Galba, his successor Otho, and Vitellius, that those
three aren't included in the list; they don't count. So now beginning with Augustus, the sixth,
if you skip Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, would be Vespatian, who also comes too early. He's not into the 90's. His reign finishes in the decade of the 70's. Now, there's a third option. And that is that you start counting not with
Augustine -- or with Augustus -- but you start with Julius Caesar, who by the way in ancient
Roman lists of rulers, he is the George Washington. He really is the first. Now, and I might just add to you the other
problem of calling them kings. Do you remember when the Jews were interrogated
about Jesus and so on in His political aspirations, what did they say? "We have no king but Caesar." There's ample evidence to indicate that the
Jewish people called the Roman rulers kings. So, if we start with Julius Caesar as number
one; Augustus, number two; Tiberias, three; Caligula, four; Claudius, five; who's six? -- Nero. It would indicate that the book was written
during the reign of Nero, which explains a ton of questions with respect to the internal
significance of the content of this book. I think that's a powerful, internal reference
to the dating of the book which any one of these options precludes a writing after the
year -- sorry, at least during the reign of Domitian. Also, in conclusion, the writer Clement has
an interesting anecdote where he talks about the apostle John while in exile chasing an
apostate and running down this apostate on a wild horseback chase. Kind of like a Roy Rogers chase, where you
can John galloping across the plain racing to catch this bad guy. Now, let's assume that he was exiled during
the reign of Domitian. That means that John would have chased this
apostate down on this vigorous horse race when John was well into his 90's; where, that's
really stretching it. I mean, it's possible, I guess, that a 90-some-year-old
person could engage in that kind of vigorous activity, but it's unlikely, and it's just
one more allusion by the church fathers that would place the writing well before the time
of Domitian, and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In our next session we will examine the New
Testament content with respect to the anti-Christ.
