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.

        Some commentators detect a growing intensity in the divine claims of the beast’s blasphemous heads, a growth culminating in Domitian’s title. Beasley-Murray writes:

The blasphemous name on each head alludes to the titles which were applied to the emperors increasingly through the first century CE. These included God and Son of God, and culminated in the desire of Domitian to be addressed as Dominus et Deus, ‘Lord and God’⁸⁸.

        He later writes:

Augustus had no desire to pose as a god, and Tiberius severely checked the new cult. Their successors were less modest, especially the mad Caligula and Claudius who followed him. None, however, exploited the cult to such a degree as Domitian, who arrogated to himself the title Dominus et Deus noster, ‘our Lord and God’⁸⁹.

        Mounce takes a similar position, ‘The names of blasphemy upon the seven heads reflect the increasing tendency of the Roman emperors to assume titles of divinity’⁹⁰. His final example is of Domitian’s use of the divine title Dominus et Deus noster⁹¹.

        Contrary to the interpretation of Beasley-Murray and Mounce, Rev 13 does not support a progression in the magnitude of divine claims. Although each head of the beast bore a blasphemous name, there is no indication of incremental growth in the severity of the name on each of the seven heads. Even in chap. 17, where a linear progression of kings can be verified (‘Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come’ [17,10]), there is no indication these emperors had grown progressively evil. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the title ‘lord and god’ could be the culmination of divine claims since it was used of Augustus, and perhaps Nero, before Domitian’s time. This interpretation not only fails at the level of textual interpretation, but it is at least questionable from a historical perspective, for several contemporary scholars argue that Domitian did not make more grandiose claims to divinity than the emperors that went before or after him⁹².