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.

court, it would be difficult to narrow its usage to Domitian. The combined title ‘lord and god’ is attested in Greco-Roman religious texts in connection with Hellenistic and Roman rulers prior to the time of Domitian and the separate titles ‘lord’ and ‘god’ were used to refer to all first-century emperors. Second, contrary to what several writers asserted, the title ‘Lord and God’ does appear as a traditional title for God in the LXX (and Philo). Eight ‘approximate parallels’ to the title ‘lord and god’ were located in both the Old and New Testaments. Many scholars believe that the language of the LXX influenced these NT titles, so a case can be made that the title in Rev 4,11 also has an origin in the LXX. Third, no evidence was discovered that would identify the title ‘lord and god’ as a counter-claim to the ‘blasphemous name’ of the beast in Rev 13 and thereby set the events in this chapter within Domitian’s reign. Fourth, the evidence for setting the throne-room vision in Rev 4–5, along with the title ‘lord and god’, within the context of the imperial ceremonial court is unconvincing, for most of the elements can be accounted for within the Jewish world of ideas. Consequently, the title ‘Our Lord and God’ is of no value in determining the date for the composition of Revelation. The argument concerning the date must be settled on other grounds.