The Book of Revelation

First-century Christians thought that Jesus was going to return at any moment. 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 time frames, speaks of a time frame of that which is coming soon. Late in Jesus' earthly ministry He said, Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. He had just been discussing the end times and when He would come back, so you can imagine how the people of that day waited eagerly for His return, only to have their hopes dashed.

Welcome to Renewing Your Mind on this Monday, I'm Lee Webb. Skeptical scholars have often used those words of Jesus to object to the reliability of Scripture, and that's why Dr. R.C. Sproul felt it was necessary to teach a series we call The Last Days According to Jesus.

We're picking up today midway through the series, so let's join Dr. Sproul now. 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's 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. There are 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, okay, 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 70 A.D. Now, the question is, what bearing does the book of Revelation have on that theory? Because that's what it is. It's a theory. This is not a dogmatic assertion on my part.

I want to labor that. But 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 90s, probably during the reign of the emperor Domitian, 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 90s, 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 60s rather than in the 90s or even after the year 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, any time 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 are 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 infancy narratives of Jesus placing Him 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 will help 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 famous book, Against Heresies.

In fact, it's book five of Against Heresies. He says, and I quote, 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. 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 Antichrist 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 Antichrist, 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 the mission'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 is 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 Antichrist. 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. 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 68, which would make it prior to the fall of Jerusalem. 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 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 of 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 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 119, write these things that are about to take place.

Chapter 3, 10, the hour is 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 that 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 illusions 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 90s and if it was the only New Testament book that was written after 70 AD, one would certainly expect some statement about the destruction of Jerusalem had it been a past event. 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. Now, in Revelation chapter 17, there is a segment of the text which is critical to 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. Then 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, it 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.

Now, 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 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, it'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 70. So, if Galba is the sixth king that is referred to here, then obviously the book was written before 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 Vespasian, who also comes too early.

He's not into the 90s. His reign finishes in the decade of the 70s. Now, there's a third option, and that is that you start counting, not 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. 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 and 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, Tiberius three, Caligula four, Claudius five, Ussus, Nero, 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. Well, there's no question that the book of Revelation is difficult to understand, and even after Dr. R.C. Sproul's careful explanation today here on Renewing Your Mind, there are still some unanswered questions. But that doesn't keep us from studying and pursuing what we can about the end times. Our series this week is Dr. Sproul's response to Jesus' words that we find in Matthew chapter 24, where he says that this generation will not pass away until his end-time predictions come to pass.

And the question remains, did they come to pass? Critics are quick to say that Jesus was wrong, and that's why Dr. Sproul taught this 12-part series titled The Last Days According to Jesus. It's an in-depth study, and I recommend that you take your time with your Bible open as you make your way through each of the lessons. We'll be happy to send you the two-DVD set when you contact us today with a donation of any amount.

You can give your gift and request the series online at renewingyourmind.org or when you call us at 800-435-4343. For 50 years, Ligonier Ministries has been a source of answers for theological questions, and we always want to be available when you have a question, so we developed the online service Ask Ligonier to make the process as easy as possible. Well-trained team members around the world are standing by to offer answers 24 hours a day, Monday through Saturday. If you have a theological question or just want to find out more about this resource, just go to ask.ligonier.org. Well, tomorrow we'll continue this series on The Last Days According to Jesus, and R.C. will address an often asked question, who is the antichrist? If it merely means anti, then the antichrist is defined in terms of his opposition to Christ.

The term, if used in its secondary sense of anti, would be somebody who subverts or seeks to replace Christ as a false messiah. I hope you'll make plans to join us again tomorrow for Renewing Your Mind.