Revelation Exegetical Commentary - 2 volume set

Contents of Set

Revelation 1–7: Volume One

Revelation 8–22: Volume Two

© 1992 by

ROBERT L. THOMAS

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are the author’s translation.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Thomas, Robert L., 1928–

     Revelation 1-7 / Robert L. Thomas.

        p. cm.

     Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

     ISBN-10: 0-8024-9265-7

     ISBN-13: 978-0-8024-9265-4

     1. Bible. N.T. Revelation I-VII—Commentaries. I. Title. II. Series.

   BS2825.3.T46 1992

   228′.07—dc20                                                                       91-45740

                                                                                                     CIP

We hope you enjoy this book from Moody Publishers. Our goal is to provide high-quality, thought-provoking books and products that connect truth to your real needs and challenges. For more information on other books and products written and produced from a biblical perspective, go to www.moodypublishers.com or write to:

Moody Publishers

820 N. LaSalle Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60610

Dedicated to my children,

Barbara

Bob

Jon

Mark

Mike,

five overcomers whose faith in Christ has been a great encouragement

Written especially for the informed layman, student, and scholar, all exegesis and exposition is based on the original languages of the Bible books. Translations used are those of the author. Textual criticism and word study are included where appropriate.

This in-depth commentary also includes extended excursuses on important topics of theological, historical, and archaeological interest.

The text is interpreted according to a historical, critical, grammatical hermeneutic and propounds a conservative, evangelical theology. But the reader will not get a narrow view of problem passages. This commentary interacts with a range of major views, both evangelical and nonevangelical.

General Editor

Kenneth L. Barker (B.A., Northwestern College; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning) is executive director of the NIV Translation Center (a ministry of the International Bible Society) in Lewisville, Texas, and former academic dean and professor of Old Testament literature and exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland.

Special Editor

Moisés Silva (B.A., Bob Jones University; Ph.D., University of Manchester, England; B.D., Th.M., Westminster Theological Seminary) is chairman of the New Testament department and professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

REVELATION 

Through the centuries since its writing, the book of Revelation has captured the fascination of the Christian church. Earliest Christians were unanimous in understanding its prophecies as descriptions of events surrounding the premillennial second advent of Jesus Christ, but alongside their exclusively futuristic and premillennial view other hermeneutical approaches to the book began to emerge in the third century. These clouded, and added complexity to, the task of explaining the book’s meaning. For most of the Christian era, consequently, many readers have viewed this last of the NT writings as though it were hopelessly embedded in an aura of deep mystery. An avalanche of interpretive literature has evidenced remarkable interest in the book’s contents, but along with the interest has come widespread bewilderment.

In post-Reformation times detailed commentaries on the Greek text of Revelation from a futurist and premillennial perspective have been scarce and perhaps even nonexistent. This first of two volumes commences the filling of that void with its exegetical analysis of the first seven chapters of the Apocalypse. It reaffirms the basic framework of eschatology espoused by ancient Christianity, but with added help from centuries of maturing thought and doctrinal progress in the Body of Christ.

About the author

Robert L. Thomas (B.M.E., Georgia Institute of Technology; Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament language and literature at The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, California. He has written Understanding Spiritual Gifts and 1, 2 Thessalonians in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary and has edited A Harmony of the Gospels (NASB) and The NIV Harmony of the Gospels. He is also general editor of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance.

Table of Contents

General Editor’s Introduction

Preface

Abbreviations

Selected Bibliography

Introduction to the Commentary

Authorship of the Apocalypse

Dionysius of Alexandria

Personal background

Dionysius’s case against apostolic authorship

Summary of Dionysius’s evidence

Principles derived from examining Dionysius

Additional Evidence for Apostolic Authorship

Vocabulary

Syntax

Style

Concepts

Differences Between the Apocalypse and John’s Other Writings

Date of the Apocalypse

Prophetic Style of the Apocalypse

Hermeneutics for Interpreting the Apocalypse

Language of the Apocalypse

Other Scripture in the Apocalypse

Text of the Apocalypse

Structure of the Apocalypse

Part 1—The Preparation of the Prophet: His Past Vision (1:1-20)

1. The Prologue of the Apocalypse

A. Prologue (1:1-8)

1. Preface (1:1-3)

2. Address and doxology (1:4-6)

3. Theme (1:7-8)

2. John’s Vision of the Glorified Christ

B. John’s Commission to Write (1:9-20)

1. The first commission to write (1:9-11)

2. The source of the commission (1:12-16)

3. The commission restated and amplified (1:17-20)

Part 2—The Preparation of the People: Their Present Condition (2:1-3:22)

3. Church of Loveless Orthodoxy

A. The Message to Ephesus (2:1-7)

4. Church of Martyrdom

B. The Message to Smyrna (2:8-11)

5. Church of Indiscriminate Tolerance

C. The Message to Pergamum (2:12-17)

6. Church of Compromise

D. The Message to Thyatira (2:18-29)

7. Church of Complacency

E. The Message to Sardis (3:1-6)

8. Church of Promised Deliverance

F. The Message to Philadelphia (3:7-13)

9. Church of Lukewarmness

G. The Message to Laodicea (3:14-22)

Part 3—The Publication of the Prophecy: Its Future Expectation (4:1-22:5)

10. The One Sitting on the Throne

A. The Opening of the Seven-sealed Scroll (4:1-8:1)

1. The source of the scroll (4:1-5:14)

a. The one sitting on the throne (4:1-11)

11. The Seven-sealed Scroll of the Lamb

b. The seven-sealed scroll of the Lamb (5:1-14)

12. The First Six Seals, The Beginning of Birth Pains

2. The opening of the first seal: peaceful conquest (6:1-2)

3. The opening of the second seal: warfare and bloodshed (6:3-4)

4. The opening of the third seal: widespread famine (6:5-6)

5. The opening of the fourth seal: death to a fourth of earth’s inhabitants (6:7-8)

6. The opening of the fifth seal: prayers for divine vengeance (6:9-11)

7. The opening of the sixth seal: cosmic and terrestrial disturbances (6:12-17)

13. The Slaves of God

8. The slaves of God (7:1-17)

a. Those on earth: the 144,000 (7:1-8)

b. Those in heaven: the innumerable multitude (7:9-17)

Excursus 1: The Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2-3

Excursus 2: The Imprecatory Prayers of the Apocalypse

Revelation 8-22, the second volume of this commentary, contains four indexes, each of which covers both volumes. These deal with subjects, ancient literature, modern authors, and Scripture.

General Editor’s Introduction

While the various areas of biblical criticism receive at least brief treatment in this volume, the principal emphasis of the commentary is exegesis. By exegesis we mean the application of generally accepted hermeneutical principles to the original (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) biblical text with a view to unfolding (lit. leading out, Gk. exēgeomai) its correct, contextual meaning. The method followed is commonly referred to as grammatico-historical exegesis. A more complete designation would be the grammatical-historical-literary-theological method.

This is a commentary on the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, not on an English translation. Consequently Greek and Hebrew words and phrases appear in their original scripts, but with English transliterations and translations provided at their first occurrence. After that, transliterations alone normally suffice. However, only the original scripts are employed in the Additional Notes and footnote discussions, since scholars and specialists would be the ones most interested in that more technical material (e.g., word studies, grammatical or syntactical points, etymologies, textual variants in the original languages, specialized bibliographies, etc.). Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture translations are those of the authors of the individual volumes.

This commentary stresses the development of the argument of a given book and its central theme(s). An attempt has been made to show how each section of a book fits together with the preceding and following sections. We do not want the reader to become so preoccupied with the trees (analysis) that he fails to see the forest (synthesis).

Most of the abbreviations and transliterations follow the guidelines of the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL). The only abbreviations listed are those not found in JBL.

Asterisks in either the Translation or the Exegesis and Exposition section refer the reader to discussions of text-critical problems in the Additional Notes section, though these are not the only kinds of discussions one will encounter in the Additional Notes sections (see above).

I trust and pray that this commentary will be used by God to advance the cause of a more exegetically-based, and so more accurate, biblical interpretation and biblical theology. Paul’s parting words to the Ephesian elders seem apropos here: Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified (Acts 20:32, NIV).

KENNETH L. BARKER

General Editor

Preface

This commentary on Revelation results from a pilgrimage of over thirty years. It started with a doctoral dissertation tracing the book’s logical development, The Argument of the Book of Revelation, under the mentorship of S. Lewis Johnson at Dallas Seminary in the late 1950s. It has continued through a continuous ministry of teaching and specialized research ever since. It is satisfying now to be able to make available some of those results.

My appreciation extends to the staff of Moody Press and to General Editor Kenneth L. Barker for allowing me two volumes to try to do justice to this, the climactic and most question-provoking book of the NT. I am indebted to many students whose research on the Apocalypse has facilitated my own. The thorough work of colleague Dennis A. Hutchison on Revelation 2-3 has been especially helpful.

I must express apprehension about publishing separately the first of a two-volume set, being unable to foresee future developments while the second volume is in production. Literature dealing with the Apocalypse and apocalyptic-type issues is multiplying at an almost unbelievable rate. Who knows what will eventuate? Perhaps an extroduction at the end of volume 2 will be needed as a counterpart to the introduction in this volume.

Fifteen chapters of Revelation remain to be covered in volume two. This may seem unbalanced with the seven discussed in volume one, but many of the foundational issues are handled in volume one and need not be treated again.

We owe much to teachers of past generations, people whom Christ has given to instruct His church. We dare not break ranks with these Christian soldiers of the past, or we will in large measure impoverish our understanding of the text. At the same time, much is happening on the current scene in the maturing Body of Christ that causes us to sharpen our focus on interpretive issues more closely than ever before. We must hear and evaluate as many voices as possible as they clamor for our attention, recognizing the utter impossibility of citing all the countless works done on the Apocalypse through the centuries.

Limitations in this work are inevitable. Besides the many personal ones, there is the enigmatic nature of biblical prophecy. Not even the biblical prophets themselves understood the full import of their prophecies. Thorough comprehension of predictive Scripture awaits the arrival of the generation of its fulfillment. The best the contemporary student can do is to draw broad parameters within which the consummation will fall.

With these matters in mind, the following is offered with prayer that it will contribute to the further growth of the Body of Christ.

Abbreviations

In addition to those standard abbreviations found in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Instructions for Contributors, please note the following:

EBC—The Expositor’s Bible Commentary

EDT—Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

GTJ—Grace Theological Journal

NA—Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed.

GEL—Greek-English Lexicon, ed. J. Louw and E. Nida

NIDNTT—New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown

TrinJ—Trinity Journal

Selected Bibliography

Bibliographical resources have been limited to those in English. This allows access to documented sources for a wider audience. The works marked by an asterisk (*) are ones cited most frequently. Often in the comments on the text, references to these after their first mention in each chapter will be noted (without page numbers) in parentheses in the body of discussion rather than in footnotes. Whenever this occurs, the comment cited is at the same chapter and verse location as the relevant point under discussion in this commentary.

Books

Abbott, Edwin A. Johannine Grammar. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906.

_____. Johannine Vocabulary. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1905.

Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950.

*Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. London: Longmans, Green, 1903.

Archer, Gleason L. The Case for the Mid-Seventieth-Week Rapture. In The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Essays by Reiter, Feinberg, Archer, and Moo. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Arndt, W. F., and F. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 2d ed. Walter Bauer’s 5th ed. revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1979.

Aune, D. E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.

_____. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Barclay, William. Letters to the Seven Churches. New York: Abingdon, 1957.

_____. The Revelation of John. 2d ed. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Barnes, Albert. The Book of Revelation. New York: Harper, 1851.

*Beasley-Murray, G. R. The Book of Revelation. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

*Beckwith, Isbon T. The Apocalypse of John. New York: Macmillan, 1919.

Biederwolf, William E. The Millennium Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967.

Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Edited and translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1961.

Bowman, John Wick. The Drama of the Book of Revelation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971-85.

Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. Vol. 30 of AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.

_____. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Vol. 29 of AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988.

Bruce, F. F. The Revelation to John. In A New Testament Commentary. Edited by G. C. D. Howley. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1969.

_____. The Spirit in the Apocalypse. In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1974.

Buchanan, George Wesley. John of Patmos and the Angel of Revelation. In vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Avigdor Shinan. Jerusalem: Academic, 1977.

*Bullinger, E. W. The Apocalypse or "The Day of the Lord." London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, n.d.

Bultmann, R. The Johannine Epistles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

*Caird, G. V. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Carpenter, W. Boyd. Revelation. Vol. 3 of A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.

*_____. The Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. ICC. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1920.

Chilton, David. The Days of Vengeance. Fort Worth, Tex.: Dominion, 1987.

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Translated by William Urwick. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

Düsterdieck, Friedrich. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John. In Meyer’s Commentary. Translated and edited by Henry E. Jacobs. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts. In Apostolic History and the Gospel. Edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Epp, Theodore H. Practical Studies in Revelation. 2 vols. Lincoln, Neb.: Back to the Bible, 1969.

Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Translated by Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Leonard Oulton. London: SPCK, 1954.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Feinberg, Charles L. Millennialism, the Two Major Views. 3d ed. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Feinberg, Paul D. The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position. In The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Essays by Reiter, Feinberg, Archer, and Moo. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Feine, Paul, Johannes Behm, and Werner Georg Kümmel. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A. J. Mattill, Jr. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. The Book of Revelation, Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

*Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation. Vol. 38 of AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975.

Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.

Glasgow, James. The Apocalypse. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872.

Glasson, Thomas F. The Revelation of John. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1965.

*Govett, Robert. The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture. London: Charles J. Thynne, 1920.

Grant, F. W. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. New York: Loizeaux, n.d.

Green, Oliver B. The Revelation. Greenville, S.C.: Gospel Hour, 1967.

Grudem, Wayne A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988.

Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990.

_____. The Relevance of John’s Apocalypse. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

*Hailey, Homer. Revelation, an Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Harrison, Norman B. The End. Minneapolis: Harrison Service, 1948.

Hellholm, David. The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John. In SBLSP. Edited by Kent Harold Richards. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982.

*Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: U. of Sheffield, 1986.

Hendriksen, William. More Than Conquerors. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944.

Hengstenberg, E. W. The Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. New York: Carter and Brothers, 1852.

Hill, David. New Testament Prophecy. Atlanta: Knox, 1979.

*Hort, F. J. A. The Apocalypse of St. John. London: Macmillan, 1908.

Houlden, J. L. The Johannine Epistles. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Ironside, H. A. Lectures on the Book of Revelation. New York: Loizeaux, n.d.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.

Jennings, F. C. Studies in Revelation. New York: Publication Office, Our Hope, n.d.

*Johnson, Alan F. Revelation. In EBC. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Kaiser, Walter C. Legitimate Hermeneutics. In Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Revelation. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

_____. The Revelation. London: Thomas Weston, 1904.

*Kiddle, Martin. The Revelation of St. John. HNTC. New York: Harper, 1940.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

*Ladd, George E. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Lang, G. H. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: Oliphants, 1945.

Lange, John Peter. The Revelation of John. Lange’s Commentary. Edited by E. R. Craven. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968.

Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Revelation. Philadelphia: Clarence Larkin, 1919.

*Lee, William. The Revelation of St. John. In The Holy Bible. Edited by F. C. Cook. London: John Murray, 1881.

*Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1935.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.

Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

Loenertz, R. J. The Apocalypse of Saint John. London: Sheed and Ward, 1947.

MacArthur, Jack. Expositional Commentary on Revelation. Eugene, Ore.: Certain Sound, 1973.

Makrakis, Apostolos. Interpretation of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Chicago: Hellenistic Christian Education Society, 1948.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.

Mickelsen, A. Berkley. Daniel and Revelation: Riddles or Realities? Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

Milligan, William. The Book of Revelation. Vol. 25 of The Expositor’s Bible. New York: George H. Doran, 1889.

Moo, Douglas J. The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position. In The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Essays by Reiter, Feinberg, Archer, and Moo. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

*Moffatt, James. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.

*Morris, Leon. The Revelation of St. John. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1960.

_____. The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments. In The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1954.

Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Prolegomena. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908.

Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

*Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Mulholland, M. Robert. Revelation, Holy Living in an Unholy World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John, A Study in Bilingualism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Newell, William R. The Book of Revelation. Chicago: Moody, 1935.

Payne, J. Barton. The Imminent Appearing of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.

* Ramsay, W. M. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia. New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1904.

Randell, T. Revelation. The Pulpit Commentary. Chicago: Wicox and Follett, n.d.

Rienecker, Fritz. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Edited and translated by Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman, 1933.

Rosenthal, Marvin. The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Nashville: Nelson, 1990.

Ryken, Leland. Words of Life: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Revelation. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1968.

*Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n.d.

*Seiss, J. A. The Apocalypse. 3 vols. New York: Charles C. Cook, 1909.

*Smith, J. B. A Revelation of Jesus Christ. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1961.

*Simcox, William Henry. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1893.

Sproule, John A. In Defense of Pretribulationism. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH, 1980.

Stonehouse, Ned Bernard. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. Goes, Holland: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929.

Stott, John R. W. What Christ Thinks of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Strauss, Lehmann. The Book of Revelation. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, n.d.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Apocalypse. Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart, 1847.

*Sweet, J. P. M. Revelation. Philadelphia: Westminster, Pelican, 1979.

*Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St. John. London: Macmillan, 1906.

Tatford, Frederick A. Prophecy’s Last Word. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1947.

*Tenney, Merrill C. Interpreting Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: American Book, 1889.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

_____. Will the Church Pass Through the Tribulation?. New York: Loizeaux, 1941.

Thomas, Robert L. Understanding Spiritual Gifts. Chicago: Moody, 1978.

Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1985.

*Trench, Richard Chenevix. Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1861.

_____. Synonyms of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1966.

*Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1966.

Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated by John Moore Trout et al. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1953.

Journal Articles

Achtemeier, Paul J. An Apocalyptic Shift in Early Christian Tradition: Reflections on Some Canonical Evidence. CBQ 45, no. 2 (April 1983): 231-48.

Aune, David E. The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic. NTS 33, no. 4 (October 1987): 481-501.

_____. The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre. Semeia 36 (1986): 65-96.

_____. The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2-3). NTS 36, no. 2 (April 1990): 182-204.

_____. The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John. Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research 28 (1983): 5-26.

Barr, David L. The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment. Int 40, no. 3 (July 1986): 243-56.

Bauckham, Richard J. The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse. EvQ 52, no. 2 (April-June 1980): 66-83.

_____. Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse. NTS 23 (1977): 162-76.

Beale, G. K. A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse. Bib 67, no. 4 (1986): 539-43.

Bell, Albert A., Jr. The Date of John’s Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered. NTS 25, no. 1 (October 1978): 93-102.

Blevins, James L. The Genre of Revelation. RevExp 77, no. 3 (Summer 1980): 393-408.

Blomberg, Craig L. New Testament Genre Criticism for the 1990s. Themelios 15, no. 2 (January/February 1990): 40-49.

Boring, M. Eugene. The Theology of Revelation, ‘The Lord Our God the Almighty Reigns.’ Int 40, no. 3 (July 1986): 257-69.

Boyer, James L. Are the Seven Letters of Revelation 2-3 Prophetic? GTJ 6, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 267-73.

Brown, Schuyler. The Hour of Trial, Rev. 3:10. JBL 85 (1966): 308-14.

Callan, Terrance. Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Roman Religion and in 1 Corinthians. NovT 17 (1985): 125-40.

Charlesworth, J. H. The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice. SJT 39, no. 1 (1986): 19-41.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century. Int 40, no. 3 (July 1986): 229-69.

Collins, Adela Yarbro, ed. Semeia 36, Early Christian Apocalypticism. Decatur, Ga.: SBL, 1986.

Collins, John J., ed. Semeia 14, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1979.

Crutchfield, Larry V. The Apostle John and Asia Minor as a Source of Premillennialism in the Early Church Fathers. JETS 31, no. 4 (December 1988): 411-27.

Deer, Donald S. Whose Faith/Loyalty in Revelation 2.13 and 14.12? BT 38, no. 3 (July 1987): 328-32.

Edgar, Thomas R. Robert H. Gundry and Revelation 3:10. GTJ 3, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 19-49.

Fackre, Gabriel. Evangelical Hermeneutics. Int 43, no. 2 (April 1989): 117-29.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and Paul. JBL 92 (1973): 565-81.

_____. The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. NTS 23, no. 4 (July 1977): 402-27.

Geyser, Albert. The Twelve Tribes in Revelation: Judean and Judeo Christian Apocalypticism. NTS 23, no. 3 (July 1982): 388-99.

Gunther, John J. The Elder John, Author of Revelation. JSNT 11 (1981): 3-20.

Hill, David. Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John. NTS 18 (1971-72): 401-18.

Hurtado, L. W. Revelation 4-5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies. JSNT 25 (1985): 105-24.

Kirby, John T. The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1-3. NTS 34, no. 2 (April 1988): 197-207.

Kvanig, Helge S. The Relevance of the Biblical Visions of the End Time. HBT 11, no. 1 (June 1989): 35-58.

Ladd, George E. New Testament Apocalyptic. RevExp 78, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 205-9.

_____. Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic? JBL 76 (1957): 192-200.

Longman, Tremper, III. The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif. WTJ 44, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 290-307.

Mazzaferri, Fred. MAPTYPIA IHΣOY Revisited. BT 3 (1988): 114-22.

Mackay, W. M. Another Look at the Nicolaitans. EvQ 45 (1973): 111-15.

Mendham, Peter. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Saint Mark’s Review 122 (June 1985): 23-28.

Mueller, Theodore. ‘The Word of My Patience’ in Revelation 3:10. Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (April-June 1982): 231-34.

Muse, Robert L. Revelation 2-3: A Critical Analysis of Seven Prophetic Messages. JETS 29, no. 2 (June 1986): 147-61.

Newport, Kenneth G. C. Semitic Influence in Revelation: Some Further Evidence. AUSS 25, no. 3 (Autumn 1987): 249-56.

_____. Semitic Influence on the Use of Some Prepositions in the Book of Revelation. BT 37, no. 3 (July 1986): 328-34.

_____. The Use of EK in Revelation: Evidence of Semitic Influence.

AUSS 24, no. 3 (Autumn 1986): 223-30.

Owens, John J. The Imprecatory Psalms. BSac 13 (July 1856): 551-63.

Parker, Harold M., Jr. The Scripture of the Author of the Revelation of John. The Iliff Review 37, no. 1 (Winter 1980): 35-51.

Peterson, David. Worship in the Revelation to John. Reformed Theological Review 47, no. 3 (September-December 1988): 67-77.

Porter, Stanley E. The Language of the Apocalypse in Recent Discussion. NTS 35, no. 4 (October 1989): 582-603.

_____. Why the Laodiceans Received Lukewarm Water (Revelation 3:15-18). TynBul 38 (1987): 143-49.

Poythress, Vern Sheridan. Johannine Authorship and the Use of Intersentence Conjunctions in the Book of Revelation. WTJ 47, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 329-36.

Rosscup, James E. The Overcomer in the Apocalypse. GTJ 3, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 261-86.

Rowland, Christopher. The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. i. 13 ff.: The Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology. JTS 31, no. 1 (April 1980): 1-11.

Rudwick, M. J. S., and E. M. B. Green. The Laodicean Lukewarmness. ET 69 (1957-58): 176-78.

Russell, Emmett. A Roman Law Parallel to Rev. V. BSac 115 (July 1958): 258-64.

Satre, Lowell J. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. WW 4, no. 1 (Winter 1984): 57-69.

Smalley, Stephen S. John’s Revelation and John’s Community. BJRL 69 (Spring 1987): 549-71.

Spinks, Leroy C. A Critical Examination of J. W. Bowman’s Proposed Structure of the Revelation. EvQ 50, no. 3 (July-September 1978): 211-22.

Staats, Reinhart. The Eternal Kingdom of Christ, The Apocalyptic Tradition in the ‘Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople,’ Patristic and Byzantine Review 9, no. 1 (1990): 19-30.

Strand, Kenneth A. The Eight Basic Visions in the Book of Revelation. AUSS 25, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 107-21.

Swanson, Theodore N. The Apocalyptic Scriptures. Journal of Dharma 8 (July 1982): 313-30.

Thomas, Robert L. The Glorified Christ on Patmos. BSac 122 (1965): 241-47.

_____. John’s Apocalyptic Outline. BSac 123 (1966): 334-41.

_____. Tongues … Will Cease. JETS 17 (1974): 81-89.

Thompson, Leonard. A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalypse of John. Semeia 36 (1986): 146-74.

Townsend, Jeffrey L. The Rapture in Revelation 3:10. BSac 137 (1980): 252-66.

Trudinger, Paul. The Apocalypse and the Palestinian Targum. BTB 16, no. 2 (April 1986): 78-79.

VanderKam, James C. Recent Studies in ‘Apocalyptic.’ WW 4 (Winter 1984): 70-77.

van Unnik, W. C. A Formula Describing Prophecy. NTS 9 (1962-63): 86-94.

Vassiliadis, Petros. The Translation of MAPTYPIA IHΣOY in Revelation. BT 36 (1985): 129-34.

Vos, Johannes G. The Ethical Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms. WTJ 4 (1941): 123-38.

Wilkinson, Richard H. The ΣTYΛOΣ of Revelation 3:12 and Ancient Coronation Rites. JBL 107, no. 3 (September 1988): 498-501.

Winfrey, David G. The Great Tribulation: Kept ‘Out of’ or ‘Through’? GTJ 3, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 3-18.

Wood, P. Local Knowledge in the Letters of the Apocalypse. ExpTim 73 (1961-62): 263-64.

Introduction to the Commentary

The first-century churches in the Roman province of Asia were distinctive in several ways. They were the only ones outside Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christianity to benefit from the extended personal ministries of two major apostles. Paul spent three years in Ephesus, the major city of the province (Acts 20:31, probably A.D. 52-55). This was the longest span of ministry devoted to any city during his extensive missionary tours. According to reliable tradition,¹ John the apostle arrived in this city at about the time of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome and spent the remainder of his life, approximately thirty years, overseeing churches in the same general area. These churches were also the first recipients of a considerable number of NT books. Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Timothy to this general region. He also wrote 1 Corinthians while ministering in Ephesus, so the church there presumably had opportunity to know its contents before it was dispatched. John wrote the gospel of John, three epistles, and the Apocalypse primarily for the benefit of churches in this territory. It is not surprising, therefore, that several prominent church leaders of the second century such as Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus had ties to this region. It was an important sector of the cradle of Christianity.² Valuable traditions have been preserved from this area regarding the Apocalypse and other parts of the NT, but a general attitude of skepticism regarding ancient traditions preserved from here and elsewhere pervades NT scholarship of the last half of the twentieth century.³

AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE

Hesitancy by modern scholarship to accept the ancient church’s strong support for apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse is slightly less startling than for some other books, however, because of an early minority opinion that questioned the mainline tradition. The primary discussion disputing apostolic authorship is traceable to a certain Dionysius of Alexandria. The following will sketch some biographical data about Dionysius, outline his relevant theological leanings, and investigate more thoroughly his case against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse. We are indebted to Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History for what we know of Dionysius in this connection.⁴

DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Personal background. Dionysius was an outstanding Christian leader of his time, a man of great influence. He served as overseer of the Alexandrian church from A.D. 247 to 264 (Eusebius 6.35; 7.18), having been a distinguished pupil of Origen in that same city. He was devout in his loyalty to Christ as proved by the severe persecutions he underwent (Eusebius 7.11). He was staunch in his insistence on correct doctrine. This was demonstrated when he spoke out strongly against the Novatian heresy (Eusebius 7.8). In short, he possessed outstanding Christian qualities and was highly respected.

His unusual theological preferences included a strong opposition to the teaching of a thousand-year kingdom on earth (Eusebius 7.24; 7.25). In keeping with this outlook, he actively campaigned against a literal understanding of the Apocalypse, being self-characterized in his approach to the book as an allegorist. He spoke out in opposition to the teachings of a certain Nepos, who before his death had served as overseer of Christians in another part of Egypt. Nepos had written a book entitled Refutation of the Allegorists in which he advocated interpreting the Scriptures after a more Jewish fashion. This work followed the assumption that there would be what Eusebius calls a kind of millennium on earth devoted to bodily indulgence (Eusebius 7.24). Dionysius pictures the followers of Nepos as relying greatly on a work of Nepos as proving indisputably that the kingdom of Christ will be on earth (Eusebius 7.24).

His approach to these allegedly misguided followers is quite patronizing. He first praises Nepos in the following words: I approve and love Nepos, for his faith and devotion to work, his diligent study of the Scriptures and his abundant psalmody, by which many of the brethren have till this day been cheered; and I am full of respectful regard for the man, all the more for that he has gone to his rest already (Eusebius 7.24). He then goes on in the same treatise to recount how over a period of three days he successfully persuaded a group of Nepos’s followers to reject his teaching.

Later on in the same treatise, Dionysius tells of those who had rejected the Apocalypse because they held its teaching to be Cerinthian. Dionysius differs with them on this point, saying, But for my part I should not dare to reject the book (Eusebius 7.25). After demonstrating that the book cannot be understood in a literal sense, he moves to a discussion of its authorship. He grants that the book was written by a holy and inspired person named John, but he is not ready to agree that this John was the apostle. He furnishes only scant external evidence to support his premise, but is more extensive in discussing internal factors.

Dionysius’s case against apostolic authorship. The extent of Dionysius’s external support for rejecting apostolic authorship is revealed in the following statement: But I think that there was a certain other [John] among those that were in Asia, since it is said both that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each of the two is said to be John’s (Eusebius 7.25). This statement follows a lengthier discussion of how common the name John was toward the end of the apostolic period. This highly theoretical conclusion was to play a significant role in influencing Eusebius in his later interpretation of a statement of Papias (cf. 3.39). Furthermore, this conclusion could in no way be classified as reliable tradition received by Dionysius; it was only vague hearsay that may or may not have had anything whatever to do with the John who wrote the Apocalypse.

Turning to Dionysius’s more detailed discussion of internal evidence, one observes four categories of evidence: (1) the writer’s self-identification; (2) the general construction of the Apocalypse as compared with the authentic writings of John the apostle; (3) the character of these writings; and (4) the nature of the language in these writings.

Speaking of the apostle, he writes, The evangelist nowhere adds his name, nor yet proclaims himself, throughout either the Gospel or the Epistle. (Eusebius, 7.25. This discussion will assume, along with Dionysius, the authorship of the gospel of John and the three epistles of John by John the son of Zebedee.) In contrast, he points to the triple mention of John’s name in Revelation 1 and to its fourth mention in chapter 22. Dionysius makes this difference a big part of his proof that John the apostle did not write the Apocalypse.

He does not, however, allow for the obvious difference in character between the two sets of writings. The strategic importance of a reference to some authoritative figure in apocalyptic/prophetic writing is widely illustrated in similar works coming from this era of history. Furthermore, one may question Dionysius’s objectivity and his credentials for deciding such an issue in view of his endorsement of Paul as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Eusebius 6.41). It apparently never occurred to him that Paul is careful to give his name in thirteen epistles, but fails to do so in Hebrews, about which there was a dispute over authorship long before Dionysius’s time. The same principle applied to Hebrews as to the Apocalypse would have led him to deny Pauline authorship of Hebrews, which he was unwilling to do.

In regard to the general construction of the recognized Johannine apostolic writings, Dionysius notes that the gospel and the first epistle of John begin in similar ways: In the beginning was the Word and That which was from the beginning. In their early verses, both books also bear witness to the author’s eyewitness vantage point. Dionysius then contrasts the Apocalypse with these two books, saying that it is utterly different from and foreign to them and scarcely has even a syllable in common with them. On the other side, he notes that the epistle and the gospel contain no mention or thought of the Apocalypse.

As we will point out, Dionysius radically overstates the case in order to try to make his point. There is actually an interesting parallel between the structure of the Apocalypse and that of the gospel and first epistle. Commenting on the prominence of

μα

τυ

ία

(martyria, testimony) in 1 John 5:6-11, Haupt has written,

The idea of

μα

τυ

ία

[(martyria

ς

μα

τ

ησεν

τ

ν

λ

γoν

τo

θεo

α

τ

ν

μα

τυ

αν

ησo

X

ιστo

,

σα

ε

δεν

[(hos emartyrēsen ton logon tou theou kai tēn martyrian Iēsou Christou hosa eiden, who testified the Word of God, even the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things as he saw)].⁵

Haupt observes that it is a mark of the apostle to introduce a guarantee of his veracity by the mention of his eye-witness-ship: as many things as he saw. So again at the close of the book, in Revelation 22, "its contents are summed up again and again as a

μα

τυ

ία

[(martyria)] of our Lord," Haupt continues.

As for the gospel of John, after its prologue it continues with the martyria of John the Baptist (John 1:19ff.; Haupt, pp. 196-97). In the body of the gospel Jesus appeals repeatedly to the witness of God to His mission (cf. John 5:32; 8:18; 15:26). It ends with the testimony of the evangelist himself in 21:24 (Haupt, p. 197).

The epistle of 1 John begins with the testimony of John the apostle (1 John 1:1-4) and ends with that of God Himself (1 John 5:6-11; Haupt, p. 197).

Without pursuing this investigation further, one is impressed with how similar the Apocalypse is to the other two works by John. The author of all three writes from the perspective of one who was personally involved in and a witness to the things he writes about.

The fondness of the Apocalypse for triplets (e.g., Rev. 2:2, 9; 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18) and for sevenfold arrangements (e.g., seven messages, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls) is another characteristic that shows authorial inclination similar to that of the gospel of John.⁶

Dionysius’s third piece of internal evidence against apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse deals with the character of the authentic writings of John the apostle. Here he apparently has in mind similarities in vocabulary between the gospel and the epistles that are not shared by the Apocalypse. His list includes the following: the life (John 1:4 et al.; 1 John 2:25; 3:14 f., etc.), the light (John 1-12; 1 John 1:7; 2:9, etc.), turning from darkness (John 12:46; 1 John 1:5), the truth (John 1:14 et al.; 1 John 1:8; 3:19, etc.), the grace (John 1:14, 16, 17; 2 John 3), the joy (John 3:29, etc.; 1 John 1:4; 2 John 12; 3 John 4), the flesh (John 1:13, 14; 6:53, 56, etc.; 1 John 4:2) and the blood (John 6:53-56; 19:34; 1 John 1:7; 5:6, 8) of the Lord, the judgment (John 3:19, etc.; 1 John 4:17; cf. 2:18, etc.), the forgiveness of sins (cf. John 20:23; 1 John 1:9; 2:12; cf. 3:5), the love of God toward us (John 3:16; 14:23; 17:23; 1 John 3:1; 4:11, etc.), the commandment that we should love one another (John 13:34; 15:12, 17; 1 John 3:23, etc.), that we should keep all the commandments (John 15:10; 1 John 2:3; 3:22 ff., etc.), the conviction of the world (John 16:8; 1 John 2:16 f.), of the devil (1 John 3:8; cf. 2:14, etc.), of the Antichrist (1 John 2:18 f.), the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, etc; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; cf. 2:20), the adoption of the sons of God (John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, etc.), the faith (John 1:7, etc.; 1 John 5:4) that is demanded of us throughout, the Father and the Son (John 3:36 et al.; 1 John 4:14, etc.). These, he says, are to be found everywhere in John’s gospel and epistles, but the Apocalypse has scarcely a syllable in common with them (Eusebius 7.25).

One cannot help but question the accuracy of Dionysius’s research at this point. Of course, he did not have the advantage of modern NT concordances or of computer technology, but one wonders why he should make such sweeping generalizations when he did not have facts to base them on.

To give a specific response, twelve of the nineteen terms or expressions with which Dionysius says the Apocalypse has no connection or affinity (Eusebius 7.25) are found in the book, some of them with great frequency. Life (ζωή, zōē) is found fifteen times, including among others such expressions as the book of life, the water of life, and the tree of life (Rev. 2:7, 10; 3:5; 7:17; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:6, 27; 22:1, 2, 14, 17, 19). The blood

(α

μα,

haima) of Christ also has prominence in Revelation, being referred to five times (Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 19:13). The same is true of judgment

(

σις,

krisis) which is found four times (Rev. 14:7; 16:7; 18:10; 19:2). Reference to the devil (διάβoλoς, diabolos) by that name is made five times (Rev. 2:10; 12:9, 12; 20:2, 10). To complete the list of words introduced by Dionysius, the Father

(

πατ

,

ho patēr) is found five times (Rev. 1:6; 2:27; 3:5, 21; 14:1), the Son

(υ

ς,

huios) four times (Rev. 1:13; 2:18; 12:5; 14:14), faith (πίστις, pistis) four times (Rev. 2:13, 19; 13:10; 14:12), the Spirit

(πνε

μα,

pneuma) seven times (excluding references to the Seven Spirits; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), the commandment

(

ντoλ

,

entolē) twice (Rev. 12:17; 14:12), love

(

γ

πη,

agapē

γαπ

ω,

agapaō) three times (Rev. 1:5; 2:19; 3:9), grace

(χ

ις,

charis) twice (Rev. 1:4; 22:21), and light

(ϕ

ς,

phōs) three times (Rev. 21:24; 22:5).

Of the other seven terms mentioned by Dionysius, three are not found in the gospel of John. These are forgiveness

(

ϕεσις,

aphesis), antichrist

(

ντ

χ

ιστoς,

antichristos), and adoption

(υ

oθεσ

α,

huiothesia). One additional word is not used in 1 John: conviction

(

λεγχoς,

elenchos).

This leaves three of the nineteen words unaccounted for. One of them, truth

(

λ

θεια,

alētheia), is not in the Apocalypse, but genuine

(

ληθιν

ς,

alēthinos) is. Darkness

(σ

τoς,

skotos) and joy

(χα

,

chara) are the other two not used in Revelation, but the latter of these is used only once apiece in the three epistles of John.

The fourth argument that Dionysius uses against assigning the Apocalypse to the son of Zebedee is drawn from the writing style of the gospel and epistle in contrast with that of the Apocalypse. These are his words:

The former [John and 1 John] are not only written in faultless Greek, but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete absence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems, both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy; nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate, but that he employs barbarous idioms, in some places committing downright solecisms. (Eusebius 7.25)

Dionysius is certainly not alone in his observations regarding the style of the Apocalypse. The irregularities in grammar have been noticed frequently.⁷ As Guthrie summarizes, "He places nominatives in opposition [sic] to other cases, irregularly uses participles, constructs broken sentences, adds unnecessary pronouns, mixes up genders, numbers and cases and introduces several unusual constructions."⁸

Without any question there are unusual grammatical features in the Apocalypse, but what about John’s other writings, his first epistle, for example? Are there not extreme grammatical irregularities here, too? They may be somewhat different in kind, but they are still quite difficult to follow. Houlden characterizes the epistolary Prologue of 1 John (1:1-4) as bordering on incoherence and sees these verses as a lapse into grammatical impossibilities.⁹ In regard to 1 John 3:19-21, Brown writes the following: "We have already seen that the epistolary author is singularly inept in constructing clear sentences, but in these verses he is at his worst. Most commentators kindly call the passage a crux interpretum

ν

τo

τ

γιν

σ

ειν

(en

tout

ginōskein) in 1 John 5:2, Bultmann says the expression is almost incomprehensible.¹¹

Unusual grammatical phenomena are by no means limited to the Apocalypse in the apostle John’s canonical writings. If John deviated from the normal usage in 1 John, why could he not have done so in the Apocalypse? No writer can be put into a straitjacket and required to have no deviations or to practice the same kinds of grammatical deviations in everything he writes. It is shallow thinking, therefore, on the basis of this aspect of writing style to exclude the last book of the canon from among those written by the apostle John.

Summary of Dionysius’s evidence. Because both the external and the internal evidence adduced by Dionysius is so weak, his case against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse is practically nonexistent. Stonehouse summarizes the situation well when he writes, In spite of this apparently pious regard for the Apocalypse and endeavor to be objective in his criticisms, it is admitted on all sides that Dionysius’s entire criticism is motivated by dogmatic considerations and his arguments are one-sided and overstated.¹²

Stonehouse goes on to say, There can be no doubt that Dionysius was first of all interested in destroying the influence of this work, that is, the Apocalypse (Stonehouse, p. 127). He adopted two tactics to do this. First, he fought the literalist, chiliastic interpretation of the book, the earliest accepted orthodox interpretation (Stonehouse, p. 4). Nepos’s Refutation of the Allegorists had been an attack on Origen’s principles of interpretation. Dionysius had been a pupil of Origen and, hence, felt compelled to defend him in this way.

His second tactic was to raise questions about apostolic authorship, but in such a way as to avoid bringing the wrath of the rest of the church upon him. He knew the widespread acceptance of the Apocalypse as canonical and dared not reject the book outright.

One might anticipate that the personal influence of Dionysius and that of his ecclesiastical position would carry much weight in this matter, but the only direct evidence that remains is in the writings of Eusebius, himself a Christian leader of great influence.¹³ His Ecclesiastical History shows how deep his regard for Dionysius was. He devotes one entire book to this Alexandrian leader and quotes from his writings extensively. Specifically, he championed Dionysius’s criticism of the apostolic authorship (Stonehouse, pp. 129, 131-32). However, Eusebius stopped short of an outright denial of canonicity because he knew he was at odds with the church in this matter.

Evidence of Dionysius’s impact on Eusebius is found in the way the latter followed the former’s theory about two Johns in Ephesus when he interpreted a certain statement of Papias.¹⁴ Eusebius also endorsed Dionysius’s strong antichiliastic viewpoint. In citing Papias’s chiliastic views (i.e., that there would be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead with a kingdom of Christ set up in material form on the earth), Eusebius characterizes them as the result of a perverse reading of the apostolic accounts without proper allowance for those accounts having been spoken mystically and symbolically. He even went so far as to call Papias a man of very little intelligence (Eusebius, 3.39).

In spite of the questions raised by Dionysius and Eusebius, the broader judgment of the early church prevailed to give the Apocalypse a place in the NT canon. This recognition was assuredly based on the book’s apostolic authorship (Stonehouse, p. 153) and possibly on the doctrine of the future millennium presented in the book.¹⁵ Athanasius is generally given credit for saving the book. He valued the historic position of his church above the critical judgments of Dionysius and Eusebius (Stonehouse, p. 3).

Even though in modern times R. H. Charles has adduced a case against apostolic authorship that is more sophisticated than that of Dionysius, Charles still follows the same general lines of evidence as Dionysius did.¹⁶ The fact remains that the external evidence for authorship by John the apostle is earlier, clearer, more definite, and more positive for Revelation than for the traditional authorship of any other NT book.¹⁷ Testimony of the earliest Fathers is unanimous in favor of the apostolic authorship and authority of the book. These include Papias, Justin Martyr, the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Methodius.¹⁸

Principles derived from examining Dionysius. At the conclusion of such a historical survey as this, it seems appropriate to draw several conclusions.

(1) Theological bias can affect one’s approach to the Scripture in very radical ways. Dionysius had a theological axe to grind, and this brought him to the point of questioning an almost unanimous tradition that had been handed down to him. This should serve notice to us to exercise every effort toward objectivity in our biblically related investigations.

(2) Though not the case for every NT book, apostolic authorship was a major, if not the major, factor in the recognition of the Apocalypse as canonical. At this point Caird is incorrect when he says, The little that we know of the Apostle John would add nothing to our ability to interpret Revelation, and its authority would be neither increased if his authorship of it could be proved nor diminished if it were disproved.¹⁹ Caird is at odds with the testimony of the early church on this point. Some contemporary evangelicals seem to have missed this point too. Without apostolic authorship the book loses its claim to canonicity.

(3) There is severe danger in relying solely on internal evidence for conclusions about authorship when there is a strong consensus of ancient tradition covering the same. One’s use of internal criteria can and often does become quite subjective, allowing him to prove just about anything he sets out to prove. Sometimes, when there is no such consensus among the ancients, one must rely on internal matters, as is the case with the epistle to the Hebrews. But to use internal evidence to counteract a consistent tradition coming from the earliest period of church history is very ill-advised.

(4) Tradition preserved from the ancient church is on the whole quite reliable. This is not to say that the Fathers individually were inerrant, but that when one did go astray in his writings there was a sufficient response to counteract his error. It is highly insulting to those leaders of the past to assume that we moderns can discover the truth and overrule their early testimony because of allegedly insightful discoveries made in observations of internal criteria of this or that book of the NT. The earliest Christians were not ignorant and uninformed. We who have entered the inheritance which they preserved for us should show the highest respect for their collective accuracy and integrity.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR APOSTOLIC AUTHORSHIP

ληθιν

ς

(alēthinos). Both books have a striking form of Zechariah 12:10 (John 19:37; Rev. 1:7), an invitation to the one who is thirsty (John 7:37; Rev. 22:17), and white clothing for angels (John 20:12; Rev. 4:4). Both sets of writings have the same sharp contrasts between absolute good and absolute evil, and they both emphasize witness-bearing and keeping the commandments of God.²⁰ A more detailed look at similarities is revealing.

εντ

ω

(ekkenteō(dāqar, I pierce) of Zech. 12:10 in agreement with the rendering of the same word in John 19:37. This rendering differs from that of the LXX, making the agreement even more striking. These are the only two occurrences of the verb in the NT. Koινωνέω (Koinōneō, I share) with its cognates and

συγ

oινωνέω

(synkoinōneō, I have fellowship with) with its cognates are used five times in John’s other writings (1 John 1:3 [twice], 6, 7; 2 John 11) in agreement with John’s usage of them in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 18:4; 21:27). John’s use of θλίψις (thlipsis

ψις

(opsis(ek, out of) is far more frequent in the gospel of John and Revelation than in any other books in the NT.²¹

The verb

νι

άω

(nikaō, I conquer, overcome) is a dominant one in John’s writings. It is found seven times in his other works (John 16:33; 1 John 2:13, 14; 4:4; 5:4 [twice]; 5:5) and fifteen times in Revelation (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 6:2; 11:7; 12:11; 13:7; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7). Only four instances of it in the NT are outside Johannine writings (Luke 11:22; Rom. 3:4; 12:21 [twice]). Seven of the Revelation uses (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21) closely parallel in sense the uses in 1 John 5:4, 5. The use in Rev. 5:5 is quite close in meaning to the use in John 16:33.

The Greek verb πλανάω (planaō, I deceive) occurs with greater frequency in Revelation (Rev. 2:20; 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10) and 1 John (1 John 1:8; 2:26; 3:7) than anywhere else in the NT. This gives evidence of the composition of the two books by the same author, addressed to the same general audience, at roughly the same time. It seems to have been John’s role to rebuke erring church leaders of Asia during the last decade of the first century.

John reflects the frequent teaching of Jesus in his use of

β

λλω

ε

ς

(ballō eis, I cast into) to speak of casting people into the place of eternal torment (cf. Matt. 3:10; 5:29; 7:19; 13:42, 50; 18:8, 9; Mark 9:45, 47; Luke 3:9) both in the gospel of John (John 15:6) and in Revelation (Rev. 20:14, 15; cf. Rev. 20:3, 10).

Tη

έω

(Tēreō, I keep) is another word of unusual frequency in writings of the apostle John. In reference to keeping someone’s word or command, it occurs twelve times in the gospel of John (8:51, 52, 55; 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10 [twice], 20 [twice]; 17:6) and six in 1 John (2:3, 4, 5; 3:22,