The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (186 page)

⁸¹
This is indicated by the continued subject matter, the walk of true Christians, and the continued use of the metaphor of walking in light and darkness in 2:9.

⁸²
This is what Longacre (“Toward an Exegesis of 1 John,” 279) called the “ethical peak” of this introductory division.

⁸³
For a striking parallel see Josh 1:8, where Joshua is told to be strong and to meditate on the word so he would have good success.

⁸⁴
The present passage is, in all probability, commenting on Gen 3:6, where the woman “saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom.”

⁸⁵
The phrase “you all have knowledge” (2:20) may constitute a thinly veiled polemic against an early gnostic element among John's opponents. The statement “you don't need anyone to teach you” (2:27) does not imply that believers are without need of instruction subsequent to salvation (see Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 2:7; 3:2; 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 1:11; 2:2) but merely warns the readers not to listen to the false teachers.

⁸⁶
This is the same emphasis as in John's Gospel. See the comments on John 20:31 in A. J. Köstenberger,
John
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 582.

⁸⁷
Many editions of the NT include what is known as the “Johannine Comma,” which divides the witnesses between those in heaven and those on earth: “For there are three that testify
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One. And there are three who bear witness on earth:
the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement” (5:7—8; the “Johannine Comma” is in italics). Today this is nearly universally understood to be a later addition. It appears in Erasmus's third edition of the NT (commonly known as the
Textus Receptus)
, because a sixteenth-century Greek manuscript, the Codex Montfortianus (Britanicus), included it. This manuscript was produced for the purpose of getting Erasmus to include it in the text (see Brown,
Epistles
, 776, 780). Most rightly reject it on the grounds that it is impossibly late.

⁸⁸
There is no scholarly consensus on the exact identification of this sin. For a judicious discussion, see Stott,
Letters of John
, 189—93. Stott argued that John here used the term “brother” in a broad sense to refer to another person, not necessarily a fellow Christian (see 1 John 2:9,11; 3:16—17), and he identified the “sin unto death” as “a deliberate, open-eyed rejection of known truth” akin to the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” committed by the Pharisees, who ascribed Jesus’ miracles, done in the power of the Holy Spirit, to Satan (Matt 12:28 and parallels). Other possibilities listed by Stott include a specific sin (a “mortal” sin) or apostasy.

⁸⁹
For an excellent treatment of this topic in 1 John and the rest of the NT, see D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Christian Assurance,”
WTJ
54 (1992): 1-29.

⁹⁰
See R. Law,
The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John
, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

⁹¹
Kruse,
Letters of John
, 33.

⁹²
I. H. Marshall,
New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 539.

⁹³
Ibid.

CHAPTER 20

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of the book of Revelation. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the book's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit Discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify the major theological themes in the book of Revelation.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for John's authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss the major theological themes in the book of Revelation and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to assess critically the internal and external evidence for the authorship and date of Revelation. They should be able to explain the genre of the book and be prepared to discuss the literary structure of Revelation in relation to the four visions, the seals, trumpets, and bowls, and the final two visions. They should also be able to discuss the five major approaches to the study of the book of Revelation.

INTRODUCTION

T
HROUGHOUT THE HISTORY of its interpretation, the book of Revelation has captured the imagination of numerous people, producing a myriad of interpretations and theological schemas in an effort to understand the difficult yet fascinating teachings of the book.
¹
Despite the multitude of challenges confronting the interpreter, interest in the book of Revelation continues unabated.
²

HISTORY

Author

Since the author identified himself as “John,” and since most scholars accept that the name was not a pseudonym,
³
the focus of discussion has been on answering the question,
Which
John is the author of the book? Most scholars recognize three major candidates:
(1) John the apostle and son of Zebedee;
⁴
(2) John the elder;
⁵
and (3) some other unknown John who was a prophet.
⁶
In addition, John Mark
⁷
and John the Baptist
⁸
have been proposed as candidates but have failed to gain any serious support.

Internal Evidence
Revelation is the only book in the Johannine corpus with an explicit declaration of authorship. The author identified himself as “John” three times at the beginning and once at the end (1:1,4,9; 22:8). The first-person references indicate that the author was an eyewitness and participant in the events narrated in the book.
⁹
At the very outset, the text says that John “testified” as an eyewitness to the veracity of the message directly handed down to him by God (1:2; see 1 John 1:1—3). In the other two opening self-references, it seems that John stated his name for the official record (1:4,9).
¹⁰
Hence he fulfilled the role of a witness to Christ and to the churches by submitting his testimony in writing.

The author referred to himself simply as “John,” which suggests that he was a well-known figure in Asia Minor. Although he did not explicitly call himself a prophet, he did present himself as such. This is demonstrated by the simple self-designation “I, John” (1:9; 22:8), which conforms to the standard convention used in prophetic and apocalyptic writings.
¹¹
He also designated his book as a “prophecy” (1:3; 22:7,11,18—19).
¹²
The inaugural vision includes John's commission in a manner reminiscent of OT prophets (1:9—20).
¹³
Later in the book, John participates in the vision like a prophet when he eats a bittersweet scroll and is told that “it is necessary for [him] to prophesy again” (10:8—11, author's translation; see Ezek 3:1—3). He exhibited a special concern for Christian prophets (10:7; 11:10,18; 16:6; 18:20,24; 22:6,9) and condemned all false prophets (16:13;
19:20; 20:10). This suggests that John regarded himself as a prophet in the tradition of the OT prophets.

When John spoke of himself, he did so with humility, preferring to call himself a “servant”
(doulos)
of God or Christ (1:1; see 2:20; 6:15; 7:3; etc.) and a “brother”
(adelphos;
1:9). While John was an authoritative figure in the Christian community, he presented himself as one of the believers, a “joint participant”
(synkoinōnos)
with his readers in hardships, the kingdom, and patient endurance (1:9; see 6:11; 12:10; 19:10; 22:9).

What is more, linguistic and stylistic clues in the text strongly suggest that John was a Jewish Christian originally from Palestine.
¹⁴
R. H. Charles affirmed through his painstaking analysis that the one certainty regarding the author was that he was a Palestinian Jew from the region of Galilee, based on two observations.
¹⁵
First, John's mother tongue was Hebrew, as evidenced by the “vast multitude of solecisms [an apparent grammatical incongruity] and unparalleled idiosyncrasies” of his Greek that reflect Semitic syntax.
¹⁶
Second, John was a prophet who wrote an apocalypse.
¹⁷
John's Palestinian roots are also exposed by his awareness and interest in the temple (11:1—2) and other locations in Palestine (11:8; 16:16; 20:9; 21:2).
¹⁸
Even the name “John” is of Jewish origin and did not appear in Gentile settings until much later.
¹⁹

In light of these observations there is good reason to believe that the author of Revelation was John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. But several objections have been raised that dispute this identification, especially in recent decades.

The first possible objection is that John the son of Zebedee was not a prophet but an apostle. Indeed, nowhere in the book does the author claim apostolic authority or personal acquaintance with Jesus during his earthly ministry, and he is identified as a brother with the prophets, not the apostles (22:9).
²⁰
But claiming that John was
only
a prophet
constitutes an undue inference. It is certainly possible, if not plausible, that one man could function in both roles at the same time.
²¹
Thus John's identity as a prophet does not necessarily obviate his status as an apostle.

Another objection is that when John described the foundations of the new Jerusalem bearing the names of the 12 apostles (21:14; see 18:20; Eph 2:20), he spoke of the apostles as an apparent outsider by referring to them as founding figures of the past.
²²
But again, especially in light of the symbolic nature of John's vision, nothing seems to preclude that he was one of them.
²³
In reporting such a vision, it would be entirely out of place for the author to interject that he himself was one of the apostles. Thus 21:14 does not indicate that the author was someone other than John the apostle.

External Evidence
Early church tradition unanimously ascribes Revelation to John the apostle. Few other NT books enjoy such clear and unambiguous attribution of authorship.
²⁴
Explicit early and uncontested testimony asserting Johannine apostolic authorship is found in the writings of Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Hippolytus (c. 170-236), Origen (c. 185-254), and Tertullian (c. 160-225).
²⁵
Justin Martyr in the second century (c. 100-165) provided the earliest extant evidence that John the apostle wrote Revelation (Justin,
Dialogue with Trypho
81.4; see Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
4.18.8).

This tradition was not only echoed and affirmed by later church fathers; there is absolutely no hint of any competing views to Johannine apostolic authorship. So strong is this evidence that Guthrie observes that those who deny Johannine apostolic authorship suppose that the early church fathers were simply ignorant of the true origins of the book and erroneously assumed that the author must have been the son of Zebedee.
²⁶
Thus these early traditions make a solid case for John the son of Zebedee as the author of Revelation.

Other testimony may provide additional early attestation of Johannine apostolic authorship, such as the writings of Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110), the gnostic
Apocryphon of John,
and the Muratorian Canon (later second century?), but these sources are less conclusive.
²⁷
Papias of Hierapolis, in particular, continues to be a controversial figure (see Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39.1)- According to Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340), Papias distinguished between a “John” among the apostles and a “John the elder”
(Eccl. Hist.
3.39.5). But there is evidence that Papias regarded Revelation as from the hand of John the apostle.
²⁸

The widespread testimony for Johannine apostolic authorship began to be questioned by some fringe groups in the second century. Marcion (c. 150) was the first to reject the book because of its strong Jewish characteristics,
²⁹
but this rejection has had virtually no impact since Marcion repudiated most of the NT.
³⁰
The second challenge came from anti-Montanists. The
Alogi,
a group of Christian heretics that flourished in Asia Minor around 170, rejected John's Gospel and Revelation as from the apostle John and believed it was the product of the heretic Cerinthus, as did Gaius, who detested the earthly nature of Christ's kingdom after the resurrection.
³¹
Interestingly, these second-century dissenting voices cast aspersions on Revelation not on historical grounds but because its message conflicted with their theology.