Debating Eschatology: Part 2
by Gary DeMar
Plain Text/Printer Friendly Version
Part One is located here
Dating Revelation
The debate over the statement by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 120-202), that either John or the Revelation was seen during the reign of Domitian is pivotal for the futurist position. The appeal to external evidence is weighted heavily since there is almost no support for a late date using internal evidence (using Revelation itself). The time indicators of "near," "shortly," and "quickly" are indicative of a pre-A.D. 70 composition date. The passage of nearly 2 millennia with no fulfillment insights is hardly a literal interpretation of Revelation's opening statement to John's first readers that "the time is near" (Rev. 1:3). Events "must shortly take place" (1:1) turns the Bible on its head when the described a prophetic events are still in our future, distantly long from the time in John received, wrote, and distributed the Revelation to the seven churches in Asia Minor. In fact, the mere mention of these historic first-century churches is itself evidence of the early date as James M. MacDonald argues:
The expression 'the seven churches' seems to imply that this constituted the whole number, and hence affords one of the most striking incidental proofs in favor of an early date.... Those who contend for the later date, when there must have been a greater number of churches than even in the region designated by the apostle, fail to give any sufficient reason for his mentioning no more. That they mystically or symbolically represent others is surely not such a reason. [1]
John mentions "the number of those who were sealed, one hundred forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel" (Rev. 7:4). James tells us that the "twelve Tribes" were "dispersed abroad" in his day (James 1:1). Paul also acknowledges the existence of the twelve tribes(Acts 26:7). "Many thousands, we know, had been converted from the Jewish to the Christian faith (see Acts ii.41, vi.7, xii.24, xix.20)." [2]
MacDonald, with this and other internal evidence, concludes "that a reader of the Apocalypse, without prepossessions as to the date, consulting the book itself as a witness on this point, cannot fail to come to the conclusion that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the reign of Nero, the sixth in succession to Julius Caesar in the empire of Rome." [3]
A Weak Reed
The futurist appeal to Irenaeus as an irrefutable and unquestioned authority on when Revelation was written is a weak reed. First, his statement that is used to support a late date is ambiguous. Second, it's extra-biblical and carries only historical weight that is open to questioning. Third, even if it should be read as "it was seen" (see below), it's open to several interpretations. Too much weight has been given to Irenaeus while discounting a number of clear time indicators in a Revelation itself. That's why it is surprising to read the argument by late-date advocate John P.M. Sweet: "To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus." [4] Henry Barclay Swete comes to a similar conclusion when he states that he "is unable to see that the historical situation presuppose to buy the Apocalypse contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus which assigns the vision to the end of the reign of Domitian." [5]
Even though the statement by Irenaeus that is used to support a late date for the writing of Revelation was written more than 80 years after John's death, it should be studied. For review purposes, let's consider his much quoted statement. It reads as follows:
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 and the present time [c. A.D. 185], it would have been announced by him [John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [the Revelation or John himself] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign [c. A.D. 95].
Simon Kistemaker, in his commentary on Revelation, offers a helpful summary of the debate surrounding the interpretation of the passage: "In both of the Latin and the Greek texts, the subject of the verb was seen is lacking and has to be provided. Did Irenaeus mean that the Apocalypse was seen? Or did he intend to say that John, the writer of Revelation, was seen?" [6] If Irenaeus meant to say that the Revelation was seen "towards the end of Domitian's reign," then, so the argument goes, the last book of the Bible was written a quarter of a century after the destruction of Jerusalem and could not possibly refer to events leading up to its destruction in A.D. 70. This means that Revelation is describing prophetic events beyond to the first century and could support the idealist, historicist, and dispensational prophetic positions. [7] A late date position does not make dispensationalism true but only possible.
A Futuristic Necessity
Of course, a post-A.D. 70 date for Revelation would refute a preterist interpretation of the book. This does not mean, however, that preterism itself would be refuted since there are commentators were not dogmatic on the dating of Revelation but interpret the Olivet Discourse and other prophetic passages in a prophetic way. For example, Adam Clarke, who rehearses a great number of opinions on when Revelation was written, concludes, "If the date could be settled, it would be of the utmost consequence to the right interpretation of the book; but, amidst so many conflicting opinions, this is almost hopeless."[8] He does not see his agnosticism on the dating question as impacting a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse:
This chapter [Matt. 24] contains a prediction of the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the whole political Constitution of the Jews... every thing which our Lord foretold should come upon the temple, city, and people of the Jews, has been fulfilled and the most correct and astonishing manner."[9]
Philip Doddridge (1702 -- 1751), Thomas Scott (1747 -- 1821), and John Gill (1697 -- 1771), to name just three, take a similar position. They are preterists in their interpretation of Matthew 24 while not holding a dogmatic position on when Revelation was written. With the rise of dispensationalism and the nineteenth century, the late-date composition for Revelation has become a prerequisite. Unlike dispensationalists who packed all future prophetic events in the chapters of Revelation after a pretribulational rapture, preterists can interpret the Olivet Discourse and most other prophetic texts and a preterist to fashion while holding an idealist or historicist interpretation of revelation.
What Did Irenaeus Really Mean?
When Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies around A.D. 185, he stated that there were "ancient copies" of Revelation in circulation. Some of the copies had 666 as the number of the beast while others calculated the number as 616 (Rev. 13:18). Irenaeus makes the following comments in defense of 666 in his Against Heresies:
Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse] and those men who saw John face-to-face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek emotive calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six [666]; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of the hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), -- I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of 50 from it, so that instead of six decades (tens) they will have it that there is about one [resulting in 616 instead of 666].[10]
If there were "ancient copies" of Revelation circulating in the latter half of the second century, and some of them had 666 and others 616, then it stands to reason that if a person could see the original Revelation book, all would be made clear.
With this information in view, let's take another look at the disputed passage. Keep in mind that the context of the discussion is whether the number of the beast is 666 or 616:
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 the present time [c. A.D. 185], it would have been announced by him [John] who be held to the apocalyptic vision. For [the Revelation itself] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign [c. A.D. 95].
John was told, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches" (Rev. 1:11). The original was sent to take each of the seven churches where it was probably copied. When the company was finalized at one church, it was sent on to the next church and till all seven had received and copied the revealed the book.[11] Another theory postulates that a messenger circulated the book to the seven churches where it was read by the elders and heard by the congregation (1:3). And either case, what happened to the original? Did it circulate back to John? Since tradition teaches that John was alive during Domitian's reign, is it possible that John had the original and his possession and what "was seen" was the actual "book" John had been told to write? And he one who got to see the "book" would know whether the number of the beast was either 666 or 616. The "ancient copies," therefore, could be compared to the original.
Notes
[1] James M. MacDonald, The Life and Writings of St. John (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1877), 154-155. Go Back
[2] MacDonald, The Life and Writings of St. John, 158. Go Back
[3] MacDonald, The Life and Writings of St. John, 166. Go Back
[4] John Phillip McMurdo Sweet, Revelation (Westminster/John Knox Press 1979), 27. Quoted in G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 27. Go Back
[5] Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1977), cvi. Go Back
[6] Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation: New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MIL: Baker Books, 2001), 27 There is a full discussion of the dating issue in Beale, The Book of Revelation, 4-27. Go Back
[7] Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation - Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977). This unique study "offers an even-handed summary of the four traditional views of Revelation in parallel columns": preterist, historicist, futurist, spiritual (idealist). Go Back
[8] Adam Clarke, "Revelation," Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. (New York: Carlton & Porter, [1810] 1824) 2:961. Go Back
[9] Clark, "Matthew," Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, 1:225. Go Back
[10] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," Book 5, Chap. 30, Sec. 1: http://www.ccel.org/father2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P9303_2719209 Go Back
[11] Swete, Commentary on Revelation, cvii. Go Back