1. "Revelation: A Biblical Approach," by H. A. Whittaker

In his book "Revelation: A Biblical Approach", Bro. H. A. Whittaker makes it clear that the date when the Apocalypse was written is crucial to his interpretation. On page 53 he writes:

"The date of the writing of Revelation is a matter of fundamental importance vitally affecting the interpretation of the book."

In contrast to this statement, Brother John Thomas writes in Eureka Vol. 1; page 39:

". . . it really matters not whether it be assumed to be written before or after that event (i.e.: of A.D. 70), the interpretation is in no way affected."

What then is Bro. Whittaker's evidence for the date he insists upon for the writing of the Apocalypse? Briefly, it rests upon two main arguments. First he claims that there is ancient documentary evidence for the so-called Nerionic date of A.D. 66, and secondly he claims to have a "Biblical argument" for the date. Let us consider the documentary evidence first:

Evidence For The Nerionic Date Examined

Whilst most of us may wonder why the date of the Apocalypse is not clearly stated in the text, if it is vital to the understanding of the message, Brother Whittaker believes that it is - in the obscure text of the ancient Syriac Version. He claims that the heading of this version says that the Revelation was given to John during the reign of Emperor Nero (A.D. 54 - 68).

The heading to which Bro. Whittaker makes reference however, is hardly a solid foundation upon which to build such a radical exposition. The heading was added during the revision of the Syriac Bible (the Philoxenian Revision) in approximately A.D. 508. This is far too late to be of any consequence. In fact the Apocalypse was not even included in the original Syriac Version (known as The Peshitta)!

Further investigation reveals that the title Nero was sometimes given to Emperor Domitian. Tertullian for example, in his Apologies, Chap. 5, speaks of Dornitanus Portio Neronis, so that even the Philoxenian reviser was probably referring to Domitian by this title.

It is also worth pointing out here that there is no real evidence to suggest that Nero ever punished by banishment. The persecution during his reign did not extend far beyond Rome itself. On the other hand, we do know that Domitian carried out this form of punishment, for the contemporary historian Suetonius makes several references to banishment being carried out during the period A.D. 81 to 96 in his surviving book, The Two Caesars.

The "Biblical Argument" For The Nerionic Date

This consists of several allusions which are drawn between the Apocalypse and the Epistle to the Hebrews and between the Apocalypse and Peter's Epistles. Brother Whittaker claims that ideas present in the epistles are borrowed from the Apocalypse, which he thinks was written first.
On pages 56 and 57 of his book, Bro. Whittaker gives details by giving a block of allusions. This looks pretty impressive until it dawns upon the student that the ideas which are presented as having come from the Apocalypse, could just as easily have been taken from the Old Testament!

For the benefit of those who would like to check this for themselves, Bro. Whittaker's allusions (No's. 8 to 21) are reproduced below. The column on the right is added by this present writer to show possible Old Testament sources for the same ideas.

The evidence which Bro. H. A. Whittaker advances for the date of the writing of the Apocalypse is thus lacking in any real substance. Such evidence as does exist favours the view that the book of Revelation was written later than A.D. 70 (about A.D. 96) so undermining the very foundation upon which brother Whittaker has constructed his exposition. The celebrated 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"The main body of early Christian tradition attests the date of its composition in the closing years of Domitian . . . the evidence for the Domitian date outweighs that for any other."

The following additional points are worth considering:

1. If the events of A.D. 70 are foretold in the Apocalypse (as Brother Whittaker suggests), how is it that we find no message for the ecclesia in Jerusalem to whom it would have had very special and even urgent relevance? The fact that only Gentile ecclesias are addressed is itself indicative that those in Judea had already ceased to exist.

2. The city of Laodicea was destroyed by earthquake in approx. A.D. 64 (see Young's Concordance). The ecclesia would hardly have been rich and increased in goods just two years after so complete a disaster. In the light of this, Brother Whittaker's date appears most unrealistic.

3. The ecclesia at Laodicea was founded about A.D. 55/58 (Acts 19, verses 10 and 26). It is not likely that an ecclesia would have become so apostate within only ten years of its beginning.

2. "Apocalypse For Everyman" by A. D. Norris

Although Bro. A. D. Norris would refuse the name "Futurist" as being a suitable description of his exposition of the Apocalypse, he does believe that all of the book applies to the future beyond the sixth chapter and the tenth verse. In his 18-part study entitled Apocalypse For Everyman put out a few years ago (and presumably in his book which is now in process of being published), we are told that all history since the gospel was first preached, is contained in Seals one to four. He says that the words of the souls speaking from beneath the altar (Chapter 6:10) together with the reply of verse 11 "that they should rest yet for a little season" means that the end must be near. The reply means "it will not be long now" says Brother Norris, so that we to day are about - if not in - this 5th seal period. The remainder of the Revelation is yet future.

We should note that according to the Old Testament "a little while" can mean many centuries - see Haggai 2:6,7.

But the language of the Sixth Seal does not have to mean that "the end" has arrived; it merely describes a change in the political rulership. If Rev. 6: 10 be read carefully, we find that the question "How long" relates to the avenging of "our blood on them that dwell on the earth." Certainly the blood of those brethren slain by the Pagan Roman world was avenged during the Constantinian revolution A.D. 312. This is the subject of the next seal (Chap. 6:12) which shows a political earthquake taking place, removing the Pagan order and establishing a new one.

Bro. Norris has refused this understanding of the prophecy however. "It is impossible" he claims, "to limit the language to the fear that some men might have felt at the advance of a human conqueror in bygone ages" (Apocalypse For Everyman; Part 6, page 54).

But is the traditional Christadelphian interpretation as "impossible" as Bro. Norris has demanded? Almost identical language was used to describe "the advance of a human conqueror" against Babylon in Isaiah Chapter 13. Here it is the advance of the Medes which is referred to (verse 17). Compare the language of Revelation with that of Isaiah:

In Jeremiah, Chapter 4, the prophet forsees the destruction of the cities of Judah: "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly." (verses 23-24).

So it is not "impossible" to limit the language to the advance of a human conqueror. Brother Norris is wrong, and his reason for rejecting the traditional interpretation of the sixth seal is unjustified.

In seeking to find an alternative for the traditional view, Bro. Norris has some difficulty in making his exposition fit the requirements. On page 55 of his work we are told that "it is the return of Jesus to which this Sixth Seal points", and that this is "absolutely beyond question". On page 56 however, this certainty wanes, and the Sixth Seal draws a picture only of "the portents heralding the Lord's return." It would be most inconvenient for Bro. Norris if the Lord actually returned in the Sixth Seal - he has to fit in the rest of the Revelation yet!

Similar Theories Rejected 100 Years Ago

Brethren and sisters should be aware that Brother Thomas encountered similar ideas to those found in Apocalypse For Everyman over 100 years ago, and that he saw fit to dismiss them. In The Christadelphian for 1871, page 90-91, he wrote:

"What! a person pretend to be a Christadelphian, and not to know whether the seals have been opened! For shame! The same ecclesia could also hear (as I am informed) one of its own affirm that the scene exhibited in Rev. 4 and 5 has its counterpart in heaven above, in John's past and present (compare A.D.N. Part 5. - P.B.) What is the use in writing an exposition of the Apocalypse, if the author's professed brethren manifest such gross darkness as this? Let such know that we are now living under the Seventh Seal which was opened A.D. 324, and the opening characterized by 'silence in heaven for half-an-hour'."

Are we now expected to accept theories which Brother Thomas found necessary to reject over 100 years ago? The failure of Bro. Norris in his attempt to eliminate the validity of the Eureka interpretation, his ambiguous treatment of so many parts of the Revelation, together with the fact that he subscribes to the Future Antichrist theory (Apocalypse For Everyman, Part 12, page 116) will be enough to convince most Christadelphians that his exposition is not according to truth. Ecclesias that permit such wrong teaching may well receive the Master's rebuke; it would appear so from the Apocalyptic epistles.

3. "Exploring The Apocalypse by Peter Watkins

This exposition has received considerable attention in the correspondence section of The Christadelphian, and for this reason we mention it. The review of Bro. Watkins' book (The Christadelphian, June, 1981, page 210) by Bro. Fred Pearce sums up the experience of the present writer:

"... serious students of the Apocalypse will find such evidences as these quite unsatisfactory. Every one is debatable. The author seems to have concluded that Israel is the beast and then cast around for his evidence . . ."

What are Christadelphians to think of an exposition which sternly warns them to be on their guard against a great deceptive act - one which many may regard as "proof positive that the Lord is in the land of Israel" (page 185). What are Christadelphians to think when they are told that "Unwary saints would be easy victims" (page 93), and that they could be deceived into believing that their returned Lord was head of an Islamic confederacy! What are true Christadelphians to think of such incredible suggestions!

The programme of events which is enumerated on page 123 of this book reveals just how many events the late author expected before Christ's return. Israel (he says) is to suffer an onslaught from many nations, including Arabs, and defeat them. The Arabs are seen as accepting Israel's leadership in the Middle East (though Israel accepts the religion of Islam!!! page 22). Then there is to be a witnessing mission by spirit-powered mortals (? Christadelphians who have not been deceived by the Israeli beast), and a repentance is effected in a remnant of Israel. Then the Israeli beast is to suppress these witnesses but they are finally vindicated. It is only after all these amazing things have happened that Christ comes (the 12th item on the list of events).

Anyone who is "grounded and settled" in the Faith (Col. 1:23), is unlikely to be moved by such fantastic speculations as these.

We do better to move on to a more positive approach.

Go to: Chapter 5: A Vision That Spans Centuries