The Testimony of the Early Church part III

In considering the external evidence on the date of the book, we must take note that many scholars believe that John wrote in the later part of the first century during the reign of Domitian, about A.D. 95-96, well after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Although several of the Fathers make this assertion, all base their position on the comments of one person, Irenaeus bishop of Lyons in France. Irenaeus said this: "We therefore do not run the risk of pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist, for if it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign." While this statement appears rather straight forward, Terry points out that "...the critical reader will observe that the subject of the verb... was seen, is ambiguous, and may be understood either of John or the Apocalypse."

So, the question is this, who or what was seen? It may have been John that Irenaeus claims was seen, since the Apostle is reported to have lived to almost one hundred years of age. Actually, the logic of the sentence requires this interpretation. If the Revelation was "seen" at this late date, how would that have helped determine who the Antichrist was? In and of itself, possessing a copy of the Revelation does not answer that question. On the other hand, if John was "seen"-well certainly he could personally reveal who the Antichrist was! So, clearly, the seeing of John is really the only thing that makes sense. "The nearness of the vision cannot open the symbols of the book. It was the author John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning of the mystic name."

If, on the other hand, this passage is stating that John saw the Revelation at this time, then that is powerful testimony for a late date. Unfortunately, this quote will never be able to tell us more than it does, which is nothing certain, making this source of questionable force in the argument.

One other possibility exists as to whom Irenaeus was referring when he made reference to Domitian. It is a possibility that he was referring to "(Nero Claudius Caesar) [who] was originally named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus," instead of referring to Titus Flavius Domitianus, commonly known as Domitian. If Nero is here referenced, then there is no confusion in Irenaeus, just in his interpreters. But again the ambiguity cannot be cleared up.

In considering the testimony of the Fathers we should also take note of Jerome's statement that John was seen in A.D. 96 but was so weak and infirm that "he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people." Could a man in this condition endure an exile on an island like Patmos? And while there would he have the energy and presence of mind to write such a taxing book as Revelation? It simply does not seem reasonable.

Another Father of the Church, Clement of Alexandria tells us that divine revelation ceased under Nero: "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero." If the ministry of the apostles ends with Nero, then the Revelation would have to have been written before Nero died.

In a document called the Muratorian Canon, we have the oldest Latin list of New Testament books. "In it the author described John, whom he acknowledged as the author of the Apocalypse, as the predecessor of Paul in writing to seven churches. Since it is generally agreed that Paul was martyred in A.D. 67 or 68, Revelation would have to been written prior to the death of Paul." Obviously, Paul completed his seven epistles before he died. Since John was Paul's "predecessor" in writing to seven churches, John would have written Revelation before this date.

As you can see, the external evidence provides some considerable indication that John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70. But, let us now turn to the internal evidence. Consider these points:

The Testimony of the Book of Revelation Part 1

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.

Multiple Streams of Proceeds - The Seller's Goal

According to a fresh assessment, in excess of 80% of the populace is committing a dangerous lifestyle miscalculation. Some are banking their total complete lifestyle on a single revenue resource. If that single pay stream is interrupted, they will face a severe fiscal position. Throughout olden times, countless financial specialists have inscribed the prerequisite for economic diversity. They understood the consequences of only having a solitary basis of revenue and have produced many books and articles enlightening that danger. Regrettably, a large percentage of the populationstill doesn't absorb diversifying. They identify with the concept but are frightened to depart from the norm for dread of alienating their pals and family.

Scores of the evaluations citizens generate throughout their lives are predicated on their heritage. They have been trained to do what their chiefs (parents and grandparents) are doing and not to try fresh, risky adventures. This notion has its source in primitive mortals where survival of the being was needed the safety of the troupe. The larger the assembly, the better the possibility of surviving an attack from predators or other cliques.

The danger of this type of upbringing is that innovative concepts are deemed unbelievably risky, whether they are or not. Because the tribe determines what is acceptable and undesirable, brand new notions are promptly ridiculed and dismissed. It takes an unusual amount of power and fortitude to outlive the labors of the clique to exterminate an conception. Not that the perception is worthy or faulty, it's just altered and that is objectionable.

In the present situation, that formerly meant performing a post for 30 or 40 years and retiring. Folks who rotated jobs were called job-hoppers and usually experienced the wrath of the people. They were scoffed at for failing to reside in that one spot, resembling what their ancestors did. Whether they were able to improve their personal situation was extraneous. They were unusual and that was not good enough.

People who operated in direct sales seemed to be the persons that were detested the most. Because of the magnitude of valid scam performers, the salesperson was deemed a scam artist regardless of whether he was legitimate or not. These salespeople, because of their character, were also associates that understood the profit of having various products to promote. That way they continuously had items of appeal to all. This permitted them to generate a sale when other people that didn't have several goods would move away empty handed.

As sales and marketing evolved, these people taught their protégés the method they were selling and how to blend that thinking development into their lives. As this progressed from generation to generation, more and more persons began to understand the financial gains of having these various profits sources. At some spot, this course came to be called multiple streams of income.

Unfortunately, because this belief is poles apart from the time-honored, lone income source, many folks at present still don't appreciate. They don't understand that multiple income streams will allow fluctuations in the market to take place without crashing the whole income. The additional streams of revenue that exist, the better the possibility of having your lifestyle endure market conversions. You don't have to panic as something alters. You also have less financial hazard of being laid off or downsized as you are not only relying on one only one earnings source.

The great majority of today's marketers have been skilled to develop multiple income streams for the reasons listed above. In review, they will have a more enduring monetary picture. They by and large will build a larger gross income. They tend to have a degree of living that is greater than the associates close to them. Regularly they will be gamble takers, chasing the new opportunities that turn up on the marketplace to attempt to grab their piece of the pie earlier than it gets exposed to the genral public.

Today's salespersons are alive in the finest financial times. They have the prospect, and because of online marketing, the overall number of opportunities available is nearly mind boggling. Any salesperson that does not have at least three unique income streams is missing the boat. Only promoting a solo creation or benefit is glaringly inefficient and restrictions their complete income capability. As with the true direct salesman, the more items one can offer, the greater the opportunity of placing wealth in your pouch.