Domitian, Rome and Revelation

One writer wants to know about the historical situation of the book of Revelation. Did Domitian really persecute Christians? Did Domitian really claim to be divine? And, can the entire book of Revelation really surround the Domitian era of the Flavian dynasty?

First, it's true that the secular evidence is somewhat slight for Domitian's claims to divinity, but, on my reading, it was certainly a new development for the living Roman emperor. Caligula had “given it a go” but died before it “got off the ground.” Domitian was the first living Roman emperor to make such claims (if he even did).

But, there are a few ancient historians that attest to Domitian's claim to be divine. Suetonius (A.D. 69-122) notes that there were letters sent by Domitian's procurators that said, “Our master and God . . .” (Lives of Twelve Caesars, 13.1,2). And, Martial (A.D. 38/41-102/104) in his “Epigrams” includes some interesting remarks (8.2; 9.66,101). And, Quintilian (A.D. 35-96) also noted Domitian's conferring the “divine power” upon his father and brother after their deaths (Institutes, 10.1.91). And, then there's also the more explicit testimony of Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 40-120, Oration, 45.1), Pliny the Younger (A.D. 61, Panegyrick, 33.4; 52) and Dio Cassius (Roman History, 67.4.7; 67.13.4), where each give cases where Domitian's divinity is expressed and insisted upon. Also, Stanley Paher lists evidence of coins found in Smyrna, where Domitian's divinity was expressed (pg. 81,82).

Second, if Domitian did make claims to divinity – even if they were for political purposes – there's also the question as to whether or not he persecuted Christians. (I'll make a more explanatory note on “perspective” here in a minute.) I think that from the Christians' perspective, Domitian was a persecutor of the saints. If it's right that he utilized the “Imperial Cult” for his political purposes, then, naturally, there'd be a fallout upon the saints. I think that the insistence on casting the incense before the bust of Caesar, the declaration “Caesar is Lord” and that sort of thing necessarily impacted the saints. Sure, the entire setup may have not been directed at the saints from Domitian's point-of-view, but the fallout from the arrangement could hardly have been dodged by the saints. I think Kevin Rhodes has a good thesis/book that addresses the setup from an historical angle; it is called “The Consequence of Legitimacy.”

Third, all of this makes us question if the book of Revelation can really surround Domitian's rule. Or, should we look for a different identification of the events “laid out” within the book of Revelation? Here's an important point . . . There is a difference between “history” and “theology.” Now, it's true that these two disciplines intersect/overlap at points, but there is also a need to distinguish between the two.

Our questioner points out the continued historical success of Rome after the fall of Domitian and concludes that Revelation, surely, can't be about the fall of Rome as embodied within Domitian. But, Revelation isn't giving us pure, straight history, is it?! Can't you read Revelation 13:1-ff. and conclude that the text doesn't belong to the “historical” genre?! Or, how do you read Revelation 20:1-ff.?! Surely, we're aware that there's a reason that all of the “big hitters” have reminded us that the genre is “apocalyptic”?! My point is that a strict allegorical and/or historical analysis completely bombs; it's just not that type of text . . . and to treat it as one is severely misguided and leads to all sorts of interpretive problems.

Here's what I'm suggesting . . . From the perspective of the saints (so, theologically), the fall/demise/assassination of Domitian sent a major (theological) message. Grant the point that Domitian had made claims to being Divine and see what you come up with! The death of Domitian, then – after having claimed divinity! – would send a message of victory to the saints! This was no “god” – this was a mere mortal! (Oh, do see Revelation 13:15-18, noting that it was a number of a man, not a “god”!) It wouldn't matter to me that Rome reached its major financial, political, commercial, etc., etc. success after the fall of Domitian. It was the theological truth that Domitian – and the rest of the Roman enterprise! – wasn't God's “emperor” or God's “power” or God's “people” that was vindicated or publicly manifested in the fall of Domitian. Now, in the death of the one (Domitian) who had brought about a system of persecution of the saints, we have God reminding the saints that He was the eternal One, that Caesar wasn't Lord and that the whole enterprise was destined to fail, since it wasn't of God (cf. Mat. 15:13). You'll find the same thing of Babylon in the Old Testament; the entire system “fell” in Nebuchadnezzar's demise – oh, historically it continued for another few kings, but the system was demonstrated as “not from God” and thus “not eternal” in Nebuchadnezzar's fall. Theologically, God expressed the inevitable. (And, this is true of hundreds of other nations and/or individuals in the Old Testament.)

Now, this brings us to another point . . . Reading the book of Revelation requires – I mean, absolutely requires! – an incredible working knowledge of the Old Testament. Like it or not, a man that is unacquainted with Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and the rest is thoroughly unequipped and unqualified to begin handling the text of Revelation for us. As noted just earlier, the historical angle of the book of Revelation is only one side of the coin – and in some ways – though certainly not all! – it's the side of the coin that matters least. The other side of the coin is the theological side, and it matters a great deal!

The secular history of Rome (or Babylon or Assyria, for that matter) helps us see more clearly the situation out of which John (or Isaiah or Daniel or etc.) writes. But, it doesn't interpret the “theological” or “apocalyptic” text before us. I mean to say this: knowing the line of kings, the cities, the politics, the commerce, the finance, the allies, etc., etc. simply won't help us interpret Isaiah 13:1-ff.'s “apocalypticism.” We're still – even with all of our historical knowledge – forced to make an interpretation of the text, and, as I see it, there are three options before us . . . First, one could interpret literally. Second, one could interpret allegorically (where we equate every little figurative remark to something within human history). Or, third, we can – as I'm sure that we should – see the “big picture” and not miss the forest for the trees; we need to see the historical platform and fit all of the details and colorful expressions as mere “furniture” around the “big picture.” Instead of reading Isaiah's remarks about “falling stars” and concluding that a comet must have shot across the sky (literally or allegorically), we should probably just see it as details to elevate the poetry within the oracle.

So, let's get back to the question . . . It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Babylon or Rome continued after the fall of the oppressor/villain at the heart of these texts. Historically, they continued; theologically, they met their demise. For God's people in either era, watching Babylon or Rome enter into another year as “world power” was only a temporal thing and destined for failure. God had promised His victory through the Messiah; the rest, as they say, is history . . .

So, what do I think, now? I think that Revelation is written out of the historical crisis with the saints that existed in Domitian's day; from his angle, he may not have been intending to start a persecution specifically of Christians – I think it was more political and self-based! – but that it happened is practically undisputed. I also think that Revelation writes a colorful, theological tract about God's impending victory over Rome, as embodied within the present crisis, Domitian. If God could beat Rome, the “world power,” then what does that say for God's people today? Does God need to express that He can beat cancer, loss, oppressive bosses, wicked nations and etc. over-and-over-again?! Why, you know that's not true . . . He's done it before; He'll do it again, and He's faithful and has promised, so we know that He's “good for it.” And, I think the same thing of his expression with Domitian in relation to Rome; if Domitian fell and God claims the victory, we don't need Revelation to tell us also about God's victory over Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and so on. He beat Domitian in the heat of the battle that came against the saints. Also, God didn't need to tell us (explicitly) that He'd beat Stalin and Hitler; He had already told us (implicitly) in the fall of Domitian that these later oppressors were no “gods.”

Sure, the book of Revelation is written out of the midst of a very real historical situation, but, like all good literature, the core is easily transposed into other similar fitting contexts and “applied” (though not fulfilled). The implications of God's victory over Rome-in-Domitian is expressed for us in other new ways. This is how John read the Old Testament prophets, transposing them into his own, new “key.” This is how Jesus taught the disciples to read scripture (Luke 24:25-27,44,45); this is how we're to read the book of Revelation.