As pointed out in Back to the Future, the Book of Revelation clearly identifies the earthly instrument in writing Revelation, saying that Christ "sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John" (1:1). We say "earthly instrument" because "we must remember that the real Author of the book is not the apostle John but God Omniscient Himself."
But, what the Book of Revelation does not tell us is-which John? There were several in the New Testament world, and because there were several in the early church it would be incumbent upon the earthly author to tell us which one he is, that is, if he were any other than the apostle John. However, "...to say John was sufficient. Any other John would need a descriptive epithet, but there was one John who needed none." Which John would that be? "The external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this view, and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen testify direct testimony that the Apocalypse is the writing of the apostle John."
As one author says of the Book of Revelation, "The nature of the book demands the essence of a man who compares in abilities to a fully inspired Peter or Paul. In fact, he must be able to stand beside an Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Zechariah, for the Apocalypse encompasses the fullness of these prophets and more. Only John, the apostle, measures up to the likeness of these notable ones."
Some scholars have questioned this conclusion, noting that John does not characteristically attach his name to his letters, and yet here he does. This objection seems less weighty, however, when the following points are considered. 1) In his epistles, John wrote personal letters to close friends who knew him well. The intimacy and personal nature of the letters did not require additional information on the author. 2) In his Gospel, he probably hand delivered his story to the Christian community in which he lived. Again, eliminating any question as to the authorship. 3) But for the Book of Revelation, he was not "home," and he was writing to seven churches, only one of which knew him well-Ephesus. He simply needed to tell them who was sending the letter. He did not, could not, hand-deliver this letter as he was on the Isle of Patmos at the time. Considering also the unique nature of his letter, it is quite possible that he would feel a need to inform his audience with certainty just who the writer was. Considering these points, John the Apostle is the only serious contender for authorship.
As for the date, the author Milton Terry succinctly describes the importance of grappling with the exact time of Revelation's writing saying, "The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A.D. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions.
But, what the Book of Revelation does not tell us is-which John? There were several in the New Testament world, and because there were several in the early church it would be incumbent upon the earthly author to tell us which one he is, that is, if he were any other than the apostle John. However, "...to say John was sufficient. Any other John would need a descriptive epithet, but there was one John who needed none." Which John would that be? "The external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this view, and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen testify direct testimony that the Apocalypse is the writing of the apostle John."
As one author says of the Book of Revelation, "The nature of the book demands the essence of a man who compares in abilities to a fully inspired Peter or Paul. In fact, he must be able to stand beside an Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Zechariah, for the Apocalypse encompasses the fullness of these prophets and more. Only John, the apostle, measures up to the likeness of these notable ones."
Some scholars have questioned this conclusion, noting that John does not characteristically attach his name to his letters, and yet here he does. This objection seems less weighty, however, when the following points are considered. 1) In his epistles, John wrote personal letters to close friends who knew him well. The intimacy and personal nature of the letters did not require additional information on the author. 2) In his Gospel, he probably hand delivered his story to the Christian community in which he lived. Again, eliminating any question as to the authorship. 3) But for the Book of Revelation, he was not "home," and he was writing to seven churches, only one of which knew him well-Ephesus. He simply needed to tell them who was sending the letter. He did not, could not, hand-deliver this letter as he was on the Isle of Patmos at the time. Considering also the unique nature of his letter, it is quite possible that he would feel a need to inform his audience with certainty just who the writer was. Considering these points, John the Apostle is the only serious contender for authorship.
As for the date, the author Milton Terry succinctly describes the importance of grappling with the exact time of Revelation's writing saying, "The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A.D. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment