Perhaps the saddest or most tragic outcome of misplacing the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation is that, in so doing, men must then misrepresent this book by inventing a new theme for it. Afterward, a new theme requires more inventive and more elaborate explanations of the text. Each time men invent a meaning or an interpretation for God’s word, which the Scriptures don’t support, we add to the traditions of men, which in turn make the word of God of no effect upon the hearts of men (cf. Mark 7:13). In so doing, men accomplish the exact opposite of the intention of God’s word, which is to bring the wisdom or plans of men to no effect through the Gospel (Psalm 33:10). Simply put, men are unable to accomplish the will of God through their own wisdom (1Corinthians 1:17; 2:1, 4-5, 13), and neither are men able expect God to verify or establish what they mistakenly say about this book.
The writer or recorder of the Book of Revelation is John, and he begins his introduction by first, introducing himself and describing the circumstances of his commission (Revelation 1:9-10). Secondly, he offers us a glimpse of the one who commissioned him (Revelation 1:11-16), and, finally, he gives us an overview of that commission (Revelation 1:17-20). Everything that comes to us later in chapters 2 to 22 should fit into this briefest of outlines and introduction.
It is interesting that John doesn’t introduce himself as an Apostle, as Paul did in most of his epistles. It became necessary for Paul to defend his office, whereas the offices of the Twelve were never called into question. Nevertheless, instead of claiming the respect due his office, John is a brother and a partaker with his readers of their tribulation and their perseverance in Christ. It makes no sense to introduce himself as an Apostle, if he intends to be recognized as ‘one of them’. Peter also did the same thing in his first epistle. He spoke of himself as an ‘elder’ when he wished to plead with the ‘elders’ and leaders of the churches in Asia, to whom he wrote (cf. 1Peter:5:1). John told his readers that he understood their plight, because he, too, had and continued to preserver in tribulation. He was beaten (Acts 5:40), he suffered the loss of his brother (Acts 12:1-2), and had to flee his homeland to escape death (cf. Acts 12:17-18).
The Greek word used in Revelation 1:9 for tribulation (G2347) is found 45 times in the New Testament and is always used for the suffering of the saints at the hands of unbelievers (cf. Matthew 24:21; Romans 8:35; Revelation 7:14; etc.). Tribulation seems to be a mark that identifies a true believer (Acts 5:41; 14:22). Unbelievers shun suffering for Christ (Galatians 6:12), which, as an aside and at least for me, calls into question the doctrine of the rapture. Why should Christ save a single group of believers out of all others in this present age from suffering for his name sake, and why would any believer want to be delivered from such a thing (2Corinthians 12:10, 15)?
John tells us that he had been on the island of Patmos, which is in the Aegean Sea and about 37 miles west of Miletus, which is a city in the province of Asia. Patmos is about 10 miles long and 6 miles wide at its widest (northwestern) point. It is mentioned only three times in surviving ancient Greek works.[1] It is mentioned in passing by Thucydides,[2] Strabo[3] and Pliny the Elder,[4] But is never identified as a place where Rome banished political prisoners. Moreover, the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, who does speak of Rome banishing certain political prisoners to some of the Aegean Islands[5] never once mentions the island of Patmos.
The silence of history, of course, isn’t proof that Patmos was never used as a Roman penal colony, but it does place proof of such a thing squarely upon the shoulders of those who claim John was banished there by Rome, specifically by Emperor Domitian, in the latter part of the first century AD.[6] Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasized that we have no sure authority that this ever occurred. In fact, Clement of Alexandria places the writing of the entire New Testament sometime before 70 AD,[7] so this puts John’s tribulation period prior to that date.
John tells us that he was on the island of Patmos “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 1:9), which may mean he was there preaching the Gospel. Nevertheless, it may also have the traditional meaning of being there due to persecution, but if so, when? After the slaying of James, John’s brother, by King Agrippa in Acts 12:1-2, the Apostles had to flee not only Jerusalem, but Agrippa’s territory. The Apostolic church leaders were no longer safe under his government. Peter probably fled to Antioch (cf. Acts 12:17-18; cf. Galatians 2:11), but nothing is certain, concerning the other Apostles. John may have fled to Ephesus, where Christian tradition does say he spent a period of time, and Patmos is not very far from there, if one considers the territory one would adopt, if Ephesus were the center of one’s ministry. If this is logical, John’s vision occurred sometime after the death of James, John’s brother and the persecution of the Apostles began during King Agrippa’s government (cir. 43-44 AD) but before the beginning of the Jewish war with Rome (66 AD), which is roughly a twenty year period.
__________________________________________
[1] See Ian Boxall; Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse; Appendix 2 — “The ‘Pre-Johannine’ Reception: Patmos in Classical Sources and Inscriptions”: page 232.
[2] History of the Peloponneasian War; 3.33.3.
[3] Geography; 10.5.13
[4] Natural History
[5] See Tacitus; Annals, 3.68; 4.30; 15.71
[6] See my previous studies: The Apocalypse and Irenaeus and When Was the Apocalypse Written?
[7] Clement of Alexandria: The Stromata; Book 7; Chapter 17
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “The Importance of Context”
Why do most commentaries insist Patmos was a penile colony if there’s no proof? I also thought the text could just as easily mean on Patmos to evangelize as forced to be there. So I assumed if they almost universally interpreted it that way, it was because Patmos was known to be a prison.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Patmos was a penal colony in the first century AD. I suspect the fact that most commentaries view it as such is because at least one man read that into the text, and others didn’t check up on his accuracy. They simply followed his lead and the interpretation became the most common. I believe this, because otherwise one would have to say there was a conspiracy and all colluded to give that false interpretation. I don’t believe there was anything like a conspiracy. Rather, it is most probably due to the error of one man, and the lack of good judgment on the part of the others.