Floyd O. Parker, «‘Our Lord and God’ in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?», Vol. 82 (2001) 207-231

This article challenges a commonly-held belief that the title ‘our Lord and God’ (Rev 4,11) served as a Christian counter-blast to the claim of the emperor Domitian to be dominus et deus noster. Despite the claims of several scholars that the title ‘our Lord and God’ does not appear in the OT, the data collected favors the view that the title in Rev 4,11 does indeed have its origin in the divine title ‘Lord and God’ found in the LXX and other Jewish sources. Consequently, the title is of no use in helping to determine the date of the book of Revelation.

(13,1) are specifically identified with seven hills and seven kings later in Rev 17,9.10⁸⁵.

        The exact time of and historical personalities involved in this conflict, however, are subject to debate. Several writers believe that the events in this chapter can be pinpointed to the time of Domitian’s persecutions by means of connecting his title ‘lord and god’, supposedly mentioned in Rev 4,11, to the situation reflected in Rev 13. H.-J. Klauck specifically links the title in Rev 4,11 with chap. 13. He writes:

Für die Lästernamen auf den Köpfen in 13,1 darf man daran erinnern, daß Domitian mit dominus et deus angeredet wurde. Diese Titulierung als "Herr und Gott" gebraucht Offb 4,11 exklusiv für Gott im Himmel⁸⁶.

        W. Schrage writes:

It is therefore no accident that under the emperor Domitian, who claimed divine honors as "Lord and God" (dominus ac deus) during his own lifetime, a bloody persecution based on religious grounds erupted for the first time because there was opposition to the empire and its emperor. It is against this background that we must understand Revelation, and especially chapter 13⁸⁷.

        The connection between the title ‘Lord and God’ and chap. 13 is tenuous at best. The primary difficulty with this view is that the title ‘lord and god’ does not appear in chap. 13. In fact, no titles appear at all. Instead, a blasphemous name (o)no/ma) or names (o)no/mata) are mentioned, according to which textual variant proves to be correct (13,1). In either case, the name(s) cannot be proven to refer to the title dominus et deus noster in particular. If the plural variant ‘names’ is the correct reading, then more than one divine title or claim would be implied (e.g. ‘lord’, ‘god’, ‘lord and god’, ‘son of god’, or ‘savior’). If the singular variant ‘name’ is correct, as is most likely the case, then the same divine title (e.g. Sebastoi) or a general claim to divinity would have to be associated with all of the imperial heads of the beast. The safest course is simply to acknowledge that the blasphemous name represents the accepting or making of some sort of divine claim on the part of all the emperors.