LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

an excuse to charge some of them, Christians would still have viewed this as persecution, especially those that were charged. Beale notes further that later Christian tradition supports the idea that Domitian’s persecution may have focused on Christians in the higher classes. Eusebius writes that members of Jesus’ family were brought before Domitian because “they were reported as being of the family of David”18 and because they were identified with the movement of Christians. This also shows that Christianity, as a sub-set of Judaism and acknowledged as a religion in the Roman Empire, was beginning to be set apart.

Clement, writing in 96 AD, alludes to “the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves”19. What is clear is that from both secular and religious sources, there is some evidence of a hardening of Roman policy and persecution toward Christians who chose not to participate in the political and religious life of Greco-Roman society—in particular, the imperial cult. There is no evidence that the Neronian persecution in Rome extended to Asia Minor, the location of the seven churches in Revelation. This was a local persecution of the Christians in Rome that did affect other Christians in the empire, but not extensively in Asia Minor. And though emperor worship could have been an issue in Nero’s time, it fits more closely with what was happening during the reign of Domitian. In Ephesus, for example, a giant statue of Domitian was erected that may be what Revelation 13 references, where believers are put to death for not worshipping the “image of the beast” (13:15). This kind of local evidence in Asia Minor of imperial cult pressure does not exist for the pre-70 AD date.

The conditions of the churches in Asia Minor also point to a later date. The spiritual condition of Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea was low. The Laodicean church, for instance, is described as quite wealthy. But the city experienced a devastating earthquake in 60–61 AD, and the city and church would have needed time to recover from this economic loss. The “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9) best fits a Domitian context. And the church of Smyrna may not have been established yet in the sixties.20

      If it is true that 13:3–4, 17:8, and 17:11 refer to the myth of the reappearance of Nero (Nero redividus), which speaks of the demise of the beast and his later revival, only a later date makes sense. Nero died in 68 AD. Surely two years would not have been enough time for the myth to take hold.

      The reoccurring “Babylon” theme in Revelation is another date indicator. In Jewish literature, Babylon refers to Rome after 70 AD because the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, just as Babylon had done in the sixth century BC.

The earliest testimonies of church leaders date Revelation at the time of Domitian as well. These include Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Eusebius, and possibly Clement of Alexandria and Origen.21

Aune also notes that the use of the phrase “the twelve apostles” in Revelation 21:14 is not attested before 80 AD.22

      Evidence for an Earlier Date

Beale’s list of arguments for an early date (pre-70) are not as convincing.23 Yes, the temple seems to be still standing in Revelation 11:1–2. But this assumes a literal reading of the text, referring to the first-century Herodian temple. Like the rest of Revelation, chapter 11 is rich with symbolism based on Ezekiel 40–48. Some in favor of an early date have identified the seven hills in 17:9–10 that are described as kings as specifically Roman emperors, the last being Nero. But I don’t think John is referring to seven literal kings of the Roman empire. For a further discussion, see my exegesis of chapter 17.

      Some suggest that, together, the name values of Nero and Caesar in Hebrew letters add up to 666, which, in conjunction with 13:18, would mean an earlier date. But should we be playing number games? Was John that familiar with gematria (giving numerical value to letters) that he would hide the meaning of who 666 is? (I include more on this in my discussion of chapter 13.)

      Final Thoughts on the Date

According to Thomas and Macchia, John seems to be intentionally concealing the date he was writing. If this is so, they say, it is in keeping with the spirit of the text to respect John’s intentional ambiguity and look more closely at the intention within the text.24 I don’t see a compelling reason why John would purposefully want to conceal the time of his writing. I think it’s clear that the evidence points to a later date, written by John when he was quite old. If he was a teenager when he joined Jesus as a disciple, that would put him in his eighties or so in 95 AD.

      Recipient

The list of churches in chapters 2–3 helps us to know the audience. It seems like the letter was meant to be read and then circulated to each church. Beale believes the “focus of the book is exhortation to the church community to witness to Christ in the midst of a compromising, idolatrous church and world.”25 I think Beale is mostly right. He emphasizes the apostate believers too frequently as the recipients of some of the rebukes and warnings. But there is definitely a presence in the churches of those who have fallen away or have compromised.

      Methods of Interpretation

Osborne provides a helpful summary of some of the historical methods of interpreting Revelation. I will explain them below, and then explain the position of this commentary.26

      1. Historicist: This is the classic dispensational view, that the seven churches represent different periods of history. The historicist view is also associated with the prophesy movement that sees every detail of Revelation fulfilled in current events. This view was held by Joachim of Fiore (twelfth century). Franciscans followed him. The Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin) saw the Pope as the antichrist in the sixteenth century.

      2. Preterist: In this view, the details of the book relate to the present situation in which John lived, rather than a future period. Three main options of interpretation fall in this category: 1) those who say the situation related to the Roman Empire and the book is written about Roman oppression and the fall of the Roman Empire (R.H. Charles, Leonard Sweet, Jurgen Roloff); 2) those who say that the persecution was a perceived crisis rather than a real one, but the church was still called to follow God. The problem of the book is compromise, and the solution is true worship of Christ (Adela Yarbro Collins, John L. Thompson, Gerhard Krodel, James Barr); 3) those who think the book was written before 70 AD and prophesies the fall of Jerusalem as God’s judgment upon wicked Israel for rejecting the Messiah and persecuting the church (Kenneth Gentry, D. C. Chilton), and that the beast is Rome, and the kings of the east are Roman generals.

      3. Idealist: In this view, the symbols do not relate to historical events but to timeless spiritual truths. The millennium is not a future event, but more conceptual. This view is part of the amillennial position. The final cycle of the book encourages the church to carry on (William Hendriksen, Anthony Hoekema, and Philip Hughes are Idealists).

      4. Futurist: In this view, chapters 4–22 refer primarily to events in the future that will take place at the end of history and usher in the end times and the return of Christ. There are two branches to a futurist view: dispensationalism, the belief that there are seven dispensations (or periods in history), and we are currently in the sixth (the church age). Revelation, according to dispensationalism, describes the seventh age, where the church is taken out before the travail of the last days, and Israel is reinstated. The second branch is classic premillennialism, which holds that there is only one return of Christ and the church must endure and be faithful through suffering and persecution before Christ’s return.

      5. Eclectic: This view combines more than one of the views above, avoiding the weaknesses of particular

Скачать книгу