Before Jerusalem Fell

262 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Christianity and the imperial cult had reached the pitch of antagonism
that is presupposed in the [Revelation] before the closing years
of Domitian’s reign. In the reign of Vespasian the Christians, as
Moffatt . . . writes, “seem to have enjoyed a comparative immunity
. . . and our available knowledge of the period renders it unlikely
. . . that anything occurred either under him or Titus to call forth
language so intense as that of the Apocalypse.” Moreover, Vespasian
did not take his claims to divinity seriously. But Domitian insisted
on the public recognition of these claims, and in the last year of his
reign he began to persecute the Church in the capital of the Empire.
. . . Compliance with the claims of the imperial cult was made
the test of loyalty to the Empire. In the earlier days, Christians had
been persecuted for specific crimes, such as anarchy, atheism, immorality,
etc. But in the latter days of Domitian the cotiession of the
name of Christ (cf [Rev.] 2:3, 13; 3:8; 12:11; 20:4) was tantamount
to a refusal to accede to the Emperor’s claims to divinity, and thereby
entailed the penalty of death (13: 15).4
Torrey scorns such argumentation when he states regarding the
verses found in Revelation 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4: “Now
these, together with the rest of chapter 13, are the on~ allusions to the
imperial cult which are to be found in Revelation, and they all refer
definitely to the Beast of 13:18. If the background of the reign of
Domitian is to be found at all in the book, it must be sought
elsewhere.”5 With Torrey we are compelled to agree. Let us then
consider the validity of the late date argumentation on this matter,
all the while keeping in mind the previously established arguments
for Revelation’s early date. The cracks in the emperor cult argument
will be exposed in the light of three very basic considerations.
The Dif13culty of
Dating the Emperor Cult
Initially it would seem that the arguments based on the emperor
cult as presented above should serve as valuable clues to the date of
Revelation. Unfortunately, despite the confidence with which the
watermark of the emperor cult on the pages of Revelation is presented,
there are fundamentally erroneous assumptions involved that
4. R. H. Charles, T/u Revelation of.St, John, 2 vols. International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh T. &T. Clark, 1920) 1 :xciv-xcw.
5. Charles C. Torrey, T/u A@ca@e ofJohn (New Haven: Yale, 1958), p. 68.