'Our Lord and God' in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?

The debate over the date of the book of Revelation remains a live issue in contemporary scholarship. The battle lines are drawn between those who hold firmly to the late date of composition in the time of the emperor Domitian and those who have begun to examine afresh the possibility for a date in the reign of Nero. While, for the most part, scholars have fielded the more significant arguments on both sides of this issue, some of the lesser arguments have been neglected. The purpose of this article is to assess the value of one of the lesser arguments for the late date of Revelation, one which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been responded to by any early-date scholar.

Several late-date advocates from the last half of the 20^th century have proposed, with varying degrees of specificity, that the phrase 'our Lord and God' (o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n; Rev 4,11) derives from the language of the Roman imperial court. This imperial title was supposedly taken over by John in order to make the counter-claim that the Christian God was the one, true 'Lord and God'. The views of these scholars can be divided into three broad categories: (1) those who regard this phrase as an exact rendering of the Latin title dominus et deus noster employed by Domitian¹; (2) those who suggest that the phrase comes from the imperial court and cite Domitian's use of 'our lord and god' as an example, but do not state that his particular title is reflected in Rev 4,11²; and, (3) those who believe the title reflects the language of the imperial court, but do not mention Domitian by name³.

The importance of this argument, especially as formulated by the representative scholars in the first category, is that it could provide a significant clue to the date of Revelation. If Domitian's title dominus et deus noster is rendered by o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n in Rev 4,11, then it follows that the book was composed during or after his reign. The strengths of this interpretation are apparent: (1) the Greek and Latin titles appear to be identical; (2) Domitian is regarded by many as the emperor who first required his subjects to address him as 'our lord and god'⁴; (3) the exact phrase 'Our Lord and God' does not appear in the Old Testament as a divine title (MT; LXX), thus rendering a Jewish origin for the title unlikely; (4) in Rev 13, the presentation of a beast with a blasphemous name on each of its seven heads could refer to Domitian's demand to be addressed as 'our lord and god'; and, (5) Rev 4, in which the title 'our Lord and God' appears, can be partially understood against the backdrop of the imperial court or worship.

These details, coupled with some of the 'greater arguments' for the late date (e.g. Irenaeus' mention of Revelation's composition in the time of Domitian and Domitian's reputation as persecutor of Christians) constitute an impressive case. This paper will investigate each of these claims in order to determine whether the title in Rev 4,11 is a counter-claim to Domitian's title and can therefore serve as a tool for determining the date of the book.

1. Usage of 'Our Lord and God' by Domitian

Four ancient authors record that the title 'lord and god' was used when addressing the emperor Domitian: Martial (Epig. 5.8.1; 7.34.8; 9.66.3), Suetonius (Dom. 13.2), Dio Cassius (67.4.7; 67.13.4), and Dio Chrysostom (Or. 45.1). Both Suetonius and Dio Cassius noted Domitian's insistence on being called 'our lord and god'. Suetonius writes:

With no less arrogance he began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, "Our Master and our God [dominus et deus noster] bids that this be done". And so the custom arose of henceforth addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation (Suetonius, Dom. 13.2)⁵.

Dio Cassius writes, 'for he even insisted upon being regarded as a god and took vast pride in being called 'master' and 'god' (kai_ despo/thj kalou/menoj kai_ qeo_j u(perhga/lleto). These titles were used not merely in speech but also in written documents' (67.4.7)⁶. Other passages simply record examples of subjects addressing him by this combined title. Dio Chrysostom records that Greeks and barbarians addressed Domitian as despo/thj kai_ qeo/j (Or. 45.1), while Dio Cassius tells of how Juventius Celsus, condemned for taking part in a conspiracy, saved his own life by addressing the emperor as both 'lord' and 'god' (despo/thn te kai_ qeo/n), terms that many others had already used (67.13.4). Martial himself addressed Domitian as noster ... dominoque deoque (Epig. 9.66) and domini deique noster (Epig. 5.8; 7.34). Writers from a later period claim that Domitian had gone so far as to order this use of the title (Aurelius Victor, De Caes.11.2; Epist. de Caes.11.6; Eutropius 7.23; Orosius, 7.10).

Until recently, the majority of historians and biblical scholars have accepted this negative presentation of Domitian at face value. However, scholars such as B.W. Jones and L.L. Thompson have argued that, although some subjects addressed Domitian as 'lord and god', he did not require them to do so⁷. These studies re-evaluate contemporaneous sources, later sources, and epigraphic evidence for the use of the title by Domitian. Their interpretations of the earlier and later sources were essentially the same. Thompson, claims that this negative portrayal of Domitian's reign was not written by neutral observers, but by rhetoricians under Trajan (i. e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius) who sought to promote the ideology of a new era by maligning the emperor's Flavian predecessors. Thompson notes that authors such as Quintilian, Statius, Frontinus, Martial, and Silius Italicus, who wrote during the reign of Domitian, paint a more positive picture of his administration. Not only do they praise his public rule, they do not even refer to him as 'lord and god' in their writings as supposedly would have been required. Statius even provides a bit of counter-evidence by noting that when Domitian was acclaimed dominus at one of his Saturnalia, the emperor forbade the practice (Silv. 1.6.81-84). Thompson concludes that this title was used by those 'approaching power from below' (e.g. Martial), but that 'Domitian did not encourage divine titles such as dominus et deus noster, nor is there evidence that Domitian had become a mad tyrant seeking divinization'⁸. Jones notes that the habit of calling Domitian 'our lord and god' developed from a letter he dictated and that later writers (i.e. Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and Orosius) 'repeat and embellish it'⁹. Like Thompson, he regards the use of the title as sycophancy: 'terms used by flatterers such as Martial, Statius, Juventius Celsus (or Pliny) to secure a favour from an autocrat hardly constitute proof that they were instructed or required to use them'¹⁰. Jones continues, 'He obviously knew that he was not a God, and, whilst he did not ask or demand to be addressed as one, he did not actively discourage the few flatterers who did'¹¹.

The epigraphic evidence also presented an obstacle for the theory that Domitian promoted the title. Thompson noted that inscriptions, coins, and medallions from Domitian's period do not bear the title 'lord and god'¹². Jones writes:

In view of Domitian's concern for theological niceties, the story is all but incredible. The best an emperor could expect after death was to be declared a divus, never a deus: a living one had to make do with even less. If an emperor such as Domitian could overcome that barrier, why should he hesitate to proclaim it publicly (and epigraphically)? Senatorial abhorrence would not have concerned him¹³.

Jones noted that, although the title dominus does appear on inscriptions, it is used exclusively in the sense that slaves used it of their masters¹⁴.

These theories have not been accepted wholesale. Slater has pointed out that the writers of Domitian's day may also have been biased in their positive portrayal of the emperor and that Quintilian, while not employing 'our lord and god', did deem the emperor worthy of divine honors¹⁵. Aune noted, contrary to the assertion of Thompson, that two of the authors of Domitian's time actually used the titles 'lord and god'. Martial used 'lord and god' in tandem several times, while Statius used 'lord' and 'god' separately ¹⁶. Aune further noted that Thompson did not adequately appreciate the different contexts in which Dio Cassius mentioned the use of the title and that he failed to evaluate the testimony of Dio Chrysostom. He attributed the absence of the title 'lord and god' on coins, medallions, and inscriptions to the fact that such nomenclature was not a part of official titulary¹⁷.

On the other hand, these very scholars have accepted certain aspects of Thompson's reconstruction. Aune writes, 'Thompson is correct ... in arguing that Domitian did not demand greater divine honors than his imperial predecessors or successors'¹⁸. Slater even concedes that 'Thompson's insistence that Domitian was not worshipped as 'our lord and god' may be strictly true, but it is equally true that Quintilian clearly sees him as worthy of divine honours, a detail which undermines, to some degree, Thompson's point'¹⁹. The evidence does seem to favor Domitian's acceptance of divine appellations and even of the specific title 'our lord and god', but whether or not he demanded the use of such honors is debatable. Having obtained an affirmative answer that the title was used of him, the next issue is whether the application of this title to him was unique, so much so that one could identify him as its sole bearer and the intended target of the alleged parody in Rev 4,11.

The use of the titles 'lord' and 'god' in tandem in ruler cults predates the time of Domitian by more than a century in the Greek-speaking east. In the Hellenistic ruler cult, 'lord and god' was not an official title, but it was rather common nonetheless:

The title 'god and lord' is of interest, for it does not appear to be found earlier than Auletes. In P. Bouriant 12 (88 BCE) we have to_n me/giston qeo/n of Soter, but in BGU VIII we have q.k.k.b. four times: dia_ th_n tu/xhn tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou basile/wj (1764.8); tou= para_ tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou bas(ile/wj) (1789.3) and the plural tw=n qew=n kai_ kuri/wn basile/wn (1834.7 [51/50 BCE] and 1845.5); in 1838.1 (51/50 BCE) an official is described tw|= qeota/tw|= kai_ kuri/w|= strathgw|=²⁰.

A papyrus from around the time of Ptolemy Auletes (c. 69-58 BCE) records that a religious association, dedicated to Zeus, was to arrange for a monthly banquet for its members 'at which they should in a common room pouring libations, pray, and perform other customary rites on behalf of the god and lord, the king' (u(pe/r te t[o]u= qeo[u=] kai_ kuri/o[u] basile/wj)²¹. The combined title is used at least twice in the Roman imperial period:

...thereafter we find of Augustus in P. Oxy. 1143 (c. 1 CE) qu]si/aj kai_ sponda_j u(pe_r tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou au)tokra/toroj, and the phrase recurs in BGU VIII 1200.11 (2/1 BCE) and is used of an official under Augustus in BGU VIII 1201 (restoration tw|= qew=[i kai_ kuri/]wi is likely enough)²².

Thus, the two titles 'lord' and 'god' were used in tandem for royalty and officials during the Ptolemaic period and the early Roman Empire.

In addition to the usage of the combined title 'lord and god', the independent use of the titles 'lord'²³ and 'god' is also attested when referring to Roman leaders prior to Domitian's time. The Romans exclusively reserved the imperial titles 'god' (divus) and 'god, son of god' (divi filius divus) for emperors who had been deified posthumously by the Roman Senate, but the Greeks frequently used these and similar titles of living emperors as well²⁴. Although the majority of Roman emperors did not demand their subjects to address them by such titles and even sometimes discouraged the practice (dominus was rejected by Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius)²⁵, they were still offered by Greek worshippers, as we shall see below.

Julius Caesar was the first Roman to be deified posthumously. In 42 BCE, the Roman Senate gave him the name Divus Iulius. However, even during his lifetime, he was referred to as a god in an inscription commissioned by the town council of Ephesus in conjunction with other Greek cities of Asia (c. 48 BCE). It reads, 'the God manifest, offspring of Ares and Aphrodite, and common saviour of human life' (to_n a)po_ jArewj kai_ 'Afrode[i/]thj qeo_n e)pifanh= kai_ koino_n tou= a)nqrwpi/nou bi/ou swth=ra)²⁶.

In a passage mentioned above, Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) was called 'the god and lord emperor' during his lifetime (u(pe_r tou= qeou= kai_ kuri/ou au)tokra/toroj). The separate titles 'lord' and 'god' were also used of him. An oath formula from the first year of Augustus swears 'by Caesar, god of god' (Kai/sar[a] qeo_n e)k qeou=) and an inscription from Socnopaei Nesus in Fayum (March 17, 24 BCE) portrays him as Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis, and calls him 'god of god and goddess' (u(pa/rxon qeo_j e)k qeou= kai_ qea=j)²⁷. Another oath (c. 3 BCE) calls upon the living Augustus as a witness along with the other deities: Di/a, Gh=n, jHlion, qeou_j pa/nta[j kai_ pa/]saj kai_ au)to_n to_n Sebas[t]o_n...²⁸. An inscription from Pergamum (16 CE) reads: to_n newko/ron qea=j ФRw/mhj kai_ qeou= Sebastou= Kai/saroj, while another speaks of a local benefactor who performed sacrifices and built temples so that others might witness his piety 'towards the god' (ei)j to_n qe/on [sic], i.e. Augustus)²⁹. An inscription from Priene (9 BCE) mentioned 'the birthday of the god' (h( gene/qlioj h(me/ra tou= qeou=)³⁰. The posthumous deification of Julius Caesar, 'provided Octavian (later known as Augustus) the ground to claim that he was 'son of god', being heir and adopted son of the divine Julius'³¹. The following sources claim that he was 'son of god': h( kai/saroj kra/thsij qeou= ui(ou (P. Ryl. 601; PSI 1150); kai=sar qeou= ui(oj Au)tokra/twr (P. Teb. 382), Kai/saroj au)tokra/twr qeou= ui(o_j Zeu_j e)leuqe/rioj (P. Oslo 26; SB 8824)³². Augustus was called both 'god' and 'son of god' in a letter of Tiberius (...qeou= Kai/s[a]roj qeou= ui(ou= Sebastou= Swth=roj 'Eleiqeri/ou...) (SEG XI 922-923)³³ and on a marble pedestal from Pergamum erected during the lifetime ([Au)tokra/t]or[a K]ai/sara [q]eou= ui(o_n qeo_n Sebasto_[n] [pa/shj] gh=[j k]ai_ q[a]la/sshj [e)]p[o/p]t[hn])³⁴. Even Vergil refers to Augustus as one of 'the gods among us' (praesentes deos)³⁵.

Tiberius (14-37 CE) was also referred to as 'son of god' and 'god': Tibe/rioj Kai=sar Sebasto_j qeou= u(io_j au)tokra/twr (SB 8317); [Tibe/rioj Kai=sar qeou= Seb]astou= ui(o_[j S]ebasto_j a)rxiereu_j (SEG XI 922-923)³⁶. A denarius from 37 CE refers to him as divus³⁷. Despite the fact that Tiberius officially rejected the title 'lord' (Suetonius, Tib. 27), the Lysanius inscription from Syria (prior to 29 CE) refers to Tiberius and his mother Livia as 'the lords Augusti' (tw=n kuri/wn Se[bastw=n])³⁸.

Gaius or 'Caligula' (37-41 CE) was called 'lord'³⁹, 'new god' ne/wi qew=i (IGR IV 1094), 'son of Ares' jArhoj ui(o/n (CIA III 444a), and 'son of Augustus, a new Ares' Sebastou= ui(o_n ne/on jArh (CIA III 444)⁴⁰. Josephus claims that Gaius 'wished to be considered a god and to be hailed as such' (Bell. iud. 2.184)⁴¹. Philo of Alexandria records that Gaius first likened himself to demigods (Leg. 11.78), but that he later compared himself to the supreme deities (Leg. 13.93). Gaius began not only to say but to think he was a god (Leg. 25.162). Among his titles mentioned by Philo are 'god', 'ruler and master' (Leg. 33.247), 'master and lord' (Leg. 36.286), and 'lord' (Leg. 45.356).

In his letter to Alexandria (41 CE), Claudius (41-54 CE) made it clear that the establishment of temples and priests was 'a prerogative to the gods alone'⁴². Yet, this did not prevent some from addressing him as 'lord' and 'god': o( ku/rioj (OPetr 209); Tibe/rioj Klau/dioj ku/rioj (SB 4331); Tibe/rioj Klau/dioj Kai=sar Sebasto_j au)tokra/twr o( ku/rioj (GOA 1038)⁴³; qeo_j Klau/dioj (PSI 1235; P. Oxy. 713); qeo_j Kai=sar (P. Oxy. 808; P. Oxy. 1021); qeo_j Sebasto/j (P. Mich. 244)⁴⁴; qeo_n e)pifanh=⁴⁵; deus noster Caesar (Scribonius Largus, Praef. C60, C163) ⁴⁶.

Nero (54-68 CE) was called 'lord' and 'god' in several inscriptions: Ne/rwn ku/rioj⁴⁷, Ne/rwn o( ku/rioj (P. London. 1215; P. Oxy. 246; GOA 1038), Ne/rwn Kai=sar o( ku/rioj (O. Petr. 288; P. Oxy. 246); o( tou= panto_j ko/smou ku/rioj Ne/rwn (SIG 814)⁴⁸, and tw|= kuri/w| (Acts 25,26); to_n ui(o_n tou= megi/stou qew=n (IM 157b); 'Agaqo_j Dai/mwn th=j oi)koume/nhj a)rxh_ w!n te pa/ntwn a)gaqw=n (P. Oxy. 1021)⁴⁹; qeo_j Ne/rwn⁵⁰; a)gaqw|= qew|=⁵¹. He was also known as 'son of god Claudius' and 'greatgrandson of god Sebastos' qeou= Klaudi/ou ui(o/j ... qeou= Sebastou= a)po/gonoj⁵². An inscription from Salamis (c. 60-61 CE) calls him 'god and savior' (qew|= kai_ swth=ri)⁵³. In 66 CE, the Parthian king Tiradates addressed Nero as 'master' (de/spota) and 'my god' (to_n e)mo_n qeo/n) within the course of a short speech (Dio Cassius, 62.14), the exact terminology Dio Cassius claims Domitian employed (67.4.7), except that the two titles were not connected by kai/.

Vespasian (69-79 CE) did not usually accept divine honors. He even jested as he died that he thought he was becoming a god (Suetonius, Vesp. 23.4; Dio Cassius, 66.17). Nevertheless, inscriptions refer to him as either 'lord' and 'god': Ou)espasiano_j o( ku/rioj (P. Oxy. 1439; SB 1927); Ou)espasiano_j au)tokra/twr o( ku/rioj (GOA 439; SC 3563); qeo_j Ou)espasiano/j (P. Oxy. 257; P. Oxy. 1112)⁵⁴. The Sicarii regarded God alone as their lord (qeo_n de_ mo/non h(gei=sqai despo/thn; Bell. iud. 7.411), and even under torture refused to acknowledge Vespasian as lord (Kai/sara despo/thn; Bell. iud. 7.418-419).

This survey of texts indicates that the combined title 'lord and god' was applied to Ptolemaic rulers and to at least one Roman emperor prior to Domitian (i.e. Augustus, and perhaps to Nero). The separate titles 'lord' and 'god' were applied to all the Roman emperors treated above. Although Domitian was addressed by the title 'lord and god', the evidence suggests that other emperors were referred to by the same or similar terminology. Even though the Latin dominus et deus noster accurately renders o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n, one cannot guarantee this title is the sole possession of one emperor. Thus, it seems to go beyond the data to claim that the title 'lord and god' in Rev 4,11 could only refer to Domitian and securely date Revelation to his reign.

While the evidence will not allow one to identify Domitian as 'the' emperor who used this title, the possibility that John used this title to parody some emperor or imperial claims in general remains a viable option. However, there is yet another option for the origin of the title that must be explored. To this subject we now turn our attention.

2. Usage of 'Lord and God' in the Septuagint

Some scholars have ruled out a Jewish origin for the title 'our Lord and God' because an exact match for it cannot be found in the LXX and because it is uncharacteristic of Jewish divine nomenclature⁵⁵. Mowry writes:

The third phrase, o( ku/rio) kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n, appears in Rev 4 11. What is striking about this departure from traditional Jewish expression is that the word kai/ has been inserted in the customary title for Deity, ku/rioj o( qeo_j. The modification may seem to be quite innocuous but in reality was of great significance for Christians living at the close of the first century A.D. If the Seer wrote during the period of Domitian's persecutions the inserted kai/ had subtle overtones of importance for Christians enduring martyrdom, for Domitian wished to be called Dominus et Deus noster, the Latin form of the title for deity appearing in Biblical documents only in this reference in the book of Revelation. It seems likely, therefore, that a Christian at the end of the first century in the face of powerful forces at work to destroy his faith has by the insertion of the kai/ into the customary title ku/rioj o( qeo_j reaffirmed his loyalty to God as his Creator and Savior⁵⁶.

 

Beasley-Murray is even more adamant in denying the existence of a precise parallel in the LXX: 'The precise phrase our Lord and God does not occur in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but it is the exact rendering of the title, blasphemously claimed by the emperor Domitian, Dominus et Deus noster'⁵⁷. These statements are technically correct, for an 'exact parallel' cannot be found in the LXX.

However, the quest for an exact parallel may be not be the proper methodology to use when searching for the origin of some titles.

There are at least three objections to seeking an 'exact parallel' that warrant some discussion prior to an examination of potential parallels to 'Lord and God' in the LXX. First, most scholars have neither sought nor required exact OT parallels for the various divine titles used in Revelation. Most scholars suggest OT parallels or origins for the following titles, even though none of them have an exact match in the LXX: (1) o( w$n kai_ o( h]n kai_ o( e)rxo/menoj (1,4.8; and variations 4,8; 11,17; 16,5)⁵⁸; (2) tw=n e(pta_ pneuma/twn (1,4; add tou= qeou=, 3,1; 4,5; 5,6); (3) o( ma/rtuj o( pisto/j (1,5)⁵⁹, o( ma/rtuj o( pisto_j kai_ a)lhqino/j (3,14), or pisto_j kai_ a)lhqino/j (19,11); (4) o( prwto/tokoj tw=n nekrw=n (1,5)⁶⁰; (5) o( a!rxwn tw=n basile/wn th=j gh=j (1,5)⁶¹; (6) to_ a!lfa kai_ to_ w] (1,8; 21,6; 22,13); (7) o( prw=toj kai_ o( e!sxatoj (1,17; 2,8; 22,13)⁶²; (8) o( ku/rioj o( qeo_j tw=n pneuma/twn tw=n profhtw=n (22,6)⁶³; (9) o( a)mh/n (3,14)⁶⁴; (10) h( a)rxh_ th=j kti/sewj tou= qeou= (3,14)⁶⁵; (11) o( le/wn o( e)k th=j fulh=j 'Iou/da (5,5)⁶⁶; (12) h( r(i/za Daui/d (5,5) or h( r(iza kai_ to_ ge/noj Daui/d (22,16)⁶⁷; (13) ku/rioj kuri/wn e)sti_n kai_ basileu_j basile/wn (17,14) or basileu_j basile/wn kai_ ku/rioj kuri/wn (19,16)⁶⁸; and, (14) o( a/sth_r o( lampro_j o( prwi>no/j (22,16; cf. 2,28)⁶⁹. Since, as most scholars agree, these titles have their origin in the OT, even though they are not identical to any OT title, the absence of an 'exact parallel' for 'Lord and God' in the OT should not seem odd. Scholars working with other titles in Revelation have been content to locate an 'approximate parallel' in the place of an 'exact parallel'. To demand a perfect match may be asking too much of most titular formulae.

Second, divine titles in Revelation are not always static. The fact that some of these titles vary slightly in form (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13 above) should caution one about being too demanding of a parallel. The flexibility of such formulations is evident in the various ways in which 'Lord' and 'God' are combined in these examples from Revelation: (1) ku/rioj o( qeo/j (1,8; 4,8; 18,8; 19,6?; 21,22; 22,5); 2) ku/rie o( qeo/j (11,17; 15,3; 16,7); (3) o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n (4,11); (4) o( ku/rioj o( qeo/j (22,5.6); and, perhaps (5) ku/rioj o( qeo_j [h(mw=n] (19,6)⁷⁰. The word 'Lord' may (i.e. 3, 4) or may not be preceded by the definite article (i.e. 1, 2, 5). 'Lord' may appear in the nominative case (i.e. 1, 3, 4, 5) or in the vocative (i.e. 2). A personal pronoun may be attached to the entire title (i.e. 3, 5?). A conjunction may be inserted between 'Lord' and 'God' (i.e. 3). It would be difficult to select one of these examples to serve as the representative for the entire group, even though it is apparent that all of these examples are variations of the same title.

Third, and perhaps most significant, the title 'lord and god' used of Domitian is not uniform in the sources. Beasley-Murray, Mowry, and others have accepted the title dominus et deus noster used by Suetonius as normative, when, indeed, several versions of this title exist. The first variation, dominus et deus noster, which was popularized by Suetonius, uses the titles in tandem. The usage by Martial and Dio Chrysostom falls under the rubric of this variant, although technically Martial's variant is distinguished by his preference for –que over et⁷¹. The second variation, found in both Dio Cassius and Martial, employs a 'both ... and' (or 'not only ... but also') construction (kai/ ... kai/; -que ... -que)⁷². This construction indicates the titles were regarded as separate ('both 'lord' and 'god' ', not 'lord and god'). The third variation (te_ kai/), employed by Dio Cassius ⁷³, is a bit ambiguous for it could be either a 'both ... and' construction, favoring independent use of the titles, or it could simply mean 'and', thus allowing for the use of the titles in tandem. Translation issues also haunt the 'exact parallel' approach. When rendering dominus into Greek, should one utilize despo/thj, as in Dio Chrysostom and Dio Cassius, or ku/rioj, as in Rev 4,11? Finally, the omission of words must be taken into consideration. Dio Cassius did not add the pronoun 'our' to 'lord' and 'god, as did Suetonius and Martial. Obviously, one has to allow for a modicum of flexibility in the structure of Domitian's titles, for, simply put, one cannot seek an 'exact parallel' for a title that is not consistent itself.

Therefore, our quest for parallels in the LXX will begin with a definition of terms. An 'exact parallel' is defined as one that matches the phrase o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n in every detail (so Beasley-Murray). An 'approximate parallel' is defined as one that contains the basic wording and structure of a phrase (e.g. [kai/ +] ku/rioj + kai/ + qeo/j). In addition, an 'approximate parallel' allows for the transposition of the words (e.g. ku/rioj and qeo/j), the replacement of key words with synonyms (e.g. despo/thj for ku/rioj; te_ kai/ for kai/ ... kai/), and the addition of other words to a phrase. Additions would include such items as the difference or absence of pronouns (e.g. 'me' 'your' for 'our') or the expansion of divine titles (e.g. 'God of gods').

With this sort of definition in hand, several 'approximate parallels' to o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n can be identified in the LXX. The closest parallels are o( qeo_j mou kai_ o( ku/rioj mou (Ps 34,23), qeo_j qew=n kai ku/rioj tw=n basile/wn (Dan 2,47), au)to_j h(mw=n ku/rio/j e)stin kai_ au)to_j qeo_j h(mw=n kai_ au)to_j path_r h)mw=n kai_ au)to_j qeo_j ei)j pa/ntaj tou_j ai)w=naj (Tob 13,4), o( ku/rioj au)tw=n kai_ o( qeo_j au)tw=n (Jdt 5,21), to_n qeo_n h)mw=n kai_ ku/rion tw=n pate/rwn h(mw=n (Jdt 7,28), and ku/rie pa/ter kai_ qee_ zwh=j mou (Sir 23,4)⁷⁴. These six examples demonstrate that, contrary to Mowry, the insertion of kai/ between ku/rioj o( qeo/j was not unknown in traditional Jewish usage. They also demonstrate that, contrary to Beasley-Murray, parallels for 'Lord and God' do exist in the LXX, if one allows for a few minor differences⁷⁵.

The use of the title 'Lord and God' in Judaism is not limited to the LXX. Philo of Alexandria used the phrase ku/rioj kai_ qeo/j in his comments on Genesis and regarded it as identical or interchangeable with ku/rioj o( qeo/j, the title actually used in the LXX (Som 1.159-160; based on Gen 28,13; Quis Her. 22, based on Gen 15,2; cf. Questions and Answers on Gen. 2.53, based on Gen 8,21). These two passages are clear examples of his insertion of kai/ between ku/rioj and qeo/j.

These examples from Philo's writings may shed some light on how the author of Revelation came to use the title 'Lord and God'. In Philo's case, 'Lord and God' was considered a variant of 'Lord God' and was formed by inserting kai/ between the two titles⁷⁶. So, like Philo, John may have supplied a conjunction to a title that did not originally have one (from 'Lord God' in Rev 4,8 to 'Lord and God' in Rev 4,11). Alternatively, he may have been influenced by a title in the MT or LXX in which the conjunction already stood between the two titles (e.g. Dan 2,47 and Ps 35,23). Either way, John would not have been out of step with Jewish usage of divine nomenclature by using 'Lord and God' in Rev 4,11.

Within this section, we have demonstrated that '[our] Lord and God' is a traditional title for God in the LXX and in Judaism in general (e.g. Philo) prior to the time of Domitian. Six 'approximate parallels' were located, thus demonstrating the possibility of an origin for the title 'Lord and God', used in Rev 4,11, in the LXX. The final discovery was that, contrary to what some claimed, Jewish authors sometimes actually inserted kai/ between 'Lord God' and seemed to regard 'Lord God' and 'Lord and God' as interchangeable titles.

3. Usage of 'Our Lord and God' in the New Testament

The quest for a parallel to 'Lord and God' in the New Testament is similar to that encountered in the LXX. The precise phrase o( ku/rioj kai_ o( qeo_j h(mw=n only appears in Rev 4,11 in the NT. However, two similar constructions do appear. The first 'approximate parallel' is found in Thomas' address to the risen Christ in John 20,28 (o( ku/rioj mou kai_ o( qeo/j mou). Several commentators have noted the similarity of this title to the language used of Domitian⁷⁷, yet they rarely suggest that a comparison with Domitian was intended⁷⁸. For example, R. Brown writes:

The combination of the titles 'Lord' and 'God' appears in pagan religious literature and is represented in the 'Dominus et Deus noster' affected by the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96; see Suetonius, Domitian, 13), who was probably the reigning emperor when the Gospel was being written and against whose pretensions the Book of Revelation was directed. Nevertheless, there is scholarly agreement that John's source for the titles is biblical, combining the terms used by LXX to translate YHWH (=kyrios) and Elohim (=theos)⁷⁹.

Likewise, Lindars writes, 'Thomas' confession is not so much a counterblast to the conceit of the Roman emperor as a summary of the Gospel as a whole'⁸⁰. The dismissal of any intentional allusion to the imperial cult by these scholars seems sound for several reasons. From a theological perspective, John begins his work with the statement 'the word was God' (John 1,1) and ends with the confession of Jesus as 'my Lord and my God' (20,28). From a stylistic perspective, the title 'my Lord and my God' has an affinity to other statements in the gospel (i.e. title + kai/ + title), such as 'teacher and lord' (13,13), 'lord and teacher' (13,14), and 'my father and your father, and my God and your God' (20,17). From a contextual perspective, nothing suggests an intentional comparison of Jesus with the emperor. Consequently, many scholars regard the LXX as the source of the title 'my Lord and my God' in this passage⁸¹.

The second 'approximate parallel' appears in 1 Cor 8,5: w#sper ei)si_n qeoi_ polloi_ kai_ ku/rioi polloi/. Paul may have had in mind here Greco-Roman pagan deities⁸² or, as Winter argues, the emperors, both living and dead⁸³. If a reference to the emperor was intended, then this is yet another example of the imperial usage of 'lord and god' prior to the time of Domitian.

This passage also supports the theory that 'Lord and God' is a variant of 'Lord God'. The language of 1 Cor 8,4-5 is based on the Shema ⁸⁴. Paul alluded to the Shema by use of the phrase 'there is no God but one'(1 Cor 8,4; Deut 6,4; cf. 4,35.39). The title ku/rioj o( qeo_j h(mw=n in the Shema (Deut 6,4.5) seems to have prompted Paul to discuss Gentile 'lords' and 'gods' (1 Cor 8,5). Thus, it appears Paul inserted kai/ between the words in the title 'Lord God' and, by implication, indicates that this phrase was interchangeable with 'Lord and God'.

The New Testament yielded two 'approximate parallels' to the phrase 'our Lord and God'. Both of these seem to have been based on the LXX. So then, in seeking the origin of the Christian use of 'Lord and God', a Jewish source is as likely as one based on the language of the Roman imperial cult. The parallel from 1 Cor 8 also predates the title used of Domitian by several decades. Thus, the title in Rev 4,11 may likewise derive from the LXX and predate the time of Domitian.

4. Dominus et Deus and Revelation 13

        Imperial worship certainly serves as the religious and political backdrop for Rev 13 (13, 4.8.12.15). The beast from the sea is generally regarded as Rome, whereas the seven heads of the beast (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:

Fьr die Lдsternamen auf den Kцpfen in 13,1 darf man daran erinnern, daЯ Domitian mit dominus et deus angeredet wurde. Diese Titulierung als "Herr und Gott" gebraucht Offb 4,11 exklusiv fьr 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.

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.

5. Imperial Context of Chapter 4

Some scholars have suggested that symbolism and language of the throne-room vision in Rev 4–5 was partially influenced by the ceremony of the Roman imperial court⁹³. Most of these scholars give due attention to both Roman imperial and Jewish imagery,but tend to place the title 'our Lord and God' into the former category.

The most important of these studies to date is that of D. Aune. His article challenged the widely held view that the heavenly liturgy portrayed in the throne-room was a projection of Christian worship in Asia Minor during the first century. He proposed instead that the liturgy was based primarily on Roman imperial court ceremonial. Pate makes an excellent summary of Aune's article:

As David Aune has shown, Revelation 5–6 also draws on the imperial ceremonial court. The following points of contact with that milieu emerge in the symbolism of chapters 4–5. (a) Greco-Roman kings were considered to be divine, their courtrooms often artistically expressed in terms of being cosmic, which itself was portrayed in concentric circles. (b) Their attendants were often associated with astrology (seven planetary spheres [cf. Rev. 4:5], twenty-four [the doubling of the twelve signs of the Zodiac] devotees [cf. 4:4, 10; 5:6-10]). (c) These attendants sang hymns of worship to the divine king (cf. 4:8-11; 5:9-14). (d) The king dispensed justice over his empire, symbolized by a scroll (cf. 5:1-8). These considerations, along with the competing claims for the respective deities throughout Revelation between John and the imperial cult of the first century (god, son of god, lord's day, savior of the world) suggest that the two cultures clash in the imagery employed in Revelation 4–5⁹⁴.

Aune suggested that the doxology 'you are worthy Lord and God' was a Christian reaction to imperial propaganda⁹⁵.

I concur with Beale that, 'while there may be some plausibility to this background, it certainly takes second place behind the OT-Jewish influence ...'⁹⁶. Beale convincingly argues that the primary sources for John's throne room vision are Dan 7 and Ezek 1–2. The various details in Dan 7 compare well with Rev 4–5 in terms of both symbolism and chronology:

1) introductory vision phraseology (Dan 7,9 [cf. 7,2.6-7]; Rev 4,1);
2) a throne(s) set in heaven (Dan 7,9a; Rev 4,2a [cf. 4,4a]);
3) God sitting on a throne (Dan 7,9b; Rev 4,2b);
4) God's appearance on the throne (Dan 7,9c; Rev 4,3a);
5) fire before the throne (Dan 7,9d-10a; Rev 4,5);
6) heavenly servants surrounding the throne (Dan 7,10b; Rev 4,4b.6b-10; 5,8.11.14);
7) book(s) before the throne (Dan 7,10c; Rev 5,1-8.);
8) the book(s) opened (Dan 7,10d; Rev 5,2-5.9);
9) a divine (messianic) figure approaching God's throne to receive authority to reign forever over a kingdom (Dan 7,13-14a; Rev 5,5b-7.9a.12-13);
10) the kingdom's scope: 'all peoples, nations, and tongues' (Dan 7,14a [MT]; Rev 5,9b);
11) the seer's emotional distress on account of the vision (Dan 7,15; Rev 5,4);
12) the seer's reception of heavenly counsel concerning the vision from one of the heavenly throne servants (Dan 7,16; Rev 5,5a);
13) The saints given divine authority to reign over a kingdom (Dan 7,18.22.27a; Rev 5,10);
14) Concluding mention of God's eternal reign (Dan 7,27b; Rev 5,13-14)⁹⁷.

Beale also noted that the sea appears in both visions (Dan 7,2-3; Rev 4,6). Other details, not noted by Beale, are the mention of 'glory' and 'honor' (Dan 7,14; Rev 4,11; 5,12.13). Thus, one could say that the majority of the images in these chapters could just as well have been derived from the OT⁹⁸ as from the imperial court.

The arrangement of the inhabitants of the throne-room into concentric circles may take its inspiration from biblical and extra-biblical Jewish sources, rather than the Roman imperial court⁹⁹. Long before the time of Domitian or even the Roman empire, God had been portrayed in Jewish texts as being encircled by (Isa 6,2) or supported by four heavenly beings (Ezek 1,22.26). Furthermore, Jewish texts represent God as being frequently flanked by (1 Kgs 22,19), seated in front of (Dan 7,1; 4 Ezra 4,21), or encircled by angelic hosts (1 Enoch 71,6-8; cf. the later work, 3 Enoch 33,1–34,2). The circular arrangement of the twenty-four thrones may have been suggested by the proximity of the thrones to the Ancient of Days in Dan 7,9.

The use of cosmic symbolism in this vision of the throne-room is likely, as Aune suggests, but it seems to be based less on the Roman imperial court than on the Jewish tabernacle or temple. The throne-room of God in Revelation resembles the tabernacle and temple in several respects¹⁰⁰. Since the earthly tabernacle and the temple were believed to have been based on a model of heaven itself (Wis 9,8; Heb 9,23.24; Philo, Mos. 2.74-76,88-104; Josephus, Bell. iud. 212-217), cosmic imagery would be quite in line with John's throne-room vision.

Before concluding this section, two more items need to be treated due to their proximity to the phrase 'Our Lord and God' in Rev 4. The first is the acclamation, 'you are worthy' (Rev 4,11), which some have associated with the opening phrase vere dignus used to greet an emperor in triumphal procession¹⁰¹. Although the phrase could be understood in an imperial context in Rev 4–5 (4,11; 5,2.4.9.12), it does not serve as an imperial acclamation in other contexts (Rev 3,4; 16,6). Furthermore, God is proclaimed 'worthy' of praise because he is the creator (Rev 4,11), which is quite in line with Jewish thought (e.g. Dan 4,37 [LXX]; Ps 145,1.6 [LXX]; Rev 14,7). This item does not fit well as part of an imperial parody, for Roman emperors would not have taken credit for the creation of the cosmos.

The second matter is that the wording of the hymns in Revelation resembles that of imperial hymns. These hymns employ the following terminology: 'salvation', 'holy', 'glory', 'authority', 'worthy to receive power', 'righteous are your judgments', and divine titles such as 'our lord and god'¹⁰². Such nomenclature is quite similar to that found in Rev 4,11, where God is said to be worthy of 'glory', 'honor', and 'power'. However, a Jewish milieu may be just as likely. In 1 Chr 29,11, God is praised for his attributes of 'power', 'glory', 'majesty', and 'splendor'. In Dan 2,37, Nebuchadnezzar praised God for 'dominion', 'power', 'might', and 'glory'. In 1 Enoch 84,2-3, God is praised for his 'authority', 'kingdom', and 'dominion'. In Dan 4,34.36 (Theod.), 'power' and 'honor' are mentioned, while 'glory' is mentioned in Dan 4,35.36 (LXX)¹⁰³. Even in Dan 7, which serves partially as the backdrop for Rev 4–5, the Son of Man is given 'authority', 'glory', and 'power' by the Ancient of Days (Dan 7,14).

Thus, a case can be made that this passage portrays God in a traditional Jewish throne-room/temple scene. He is surrounded by four living beings, angelic hosts, and thrones. His subjects deem him worthy to receive honors, just as they do in several OT passages, and he is praised for his creative power (something that would never be attributed to an emperor). He is addressed by a divine title 'Lord and God', which occurs six times in the LXX. Thus, the title fits into a Jewish milieu as well or better than a Roman imperial one.

The title 'Our Lord and God' in Rev 4,11 could just as well derive from traditional titles for God found in the OT as from the language of the Roman imperial court and cult. Several lines of evidence converge to suggest that the title does not serve as a parody of the divine honors given Domitian or any other emperor. First, even if the nomenclature could be isolated to the Roman imperial 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.

SUMMARY

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.

NOTES

¹ L. MOWRY, "Revelation 4–5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage", JBL 71 (1952) 80; H. LILJE, The Last Book of the Bible (Philadelphia 1957) 108-109; W. BARCLAY, The Revelation of John (Philadelphia 1960) I, 164; R.H. MOUNCE, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1977) 140; H.H. Hobbs in G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY – H.H. HOBBS – R.F. ROBBINS, Revelation. Three Viewpoints (Nashville 1977) 85; E. SCHЬSSLER FIORENZA, Invitation to the Book of Revelation (Garden City 1981) 62, 76; L. VAN HARTINGSVELD, Revelation. A Practical Commentary (Grand Rapids 1985) 28; G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, The Book of Revelation (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1983) 119; L.L. THOMPSON, The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire (New York 1990) 58, 104; H.-J. KLAUCK, "Das Sendschreiben nach Pergamon und der Kaiserkult in der Johannesoffenbarung", Bib 73 (1992) 172; B.M. METZGER, Breaking the Code. Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville 1993) 51; G.K. BEALE, The Book of Revelation. A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids 1999) 335.

² J. SWEET, Revelation (Philadelphia 1990) 121, writes, 'our Lord and God: in the east a common form of address to the emperor, affected especially by Domitian'; M.E. BORING, Revelation (Louisville 1989) 103, remarks, 'The title "Lord and God" (4:8 [sic]) is paralleled by Domitian's insistence that he be addressed by this title'. I place Boring here since the force of 'paralleled' is unclear; D.E. AUNE, "The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremony on the Apocalypse of John", Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research 28 (1983) 20-22; ID., Revelation (WBC 52; Waco 1997) I, 310.

³ H. HAILEY, Revelation. An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids 1979) 172; C.M. Pate, although neither taking a definite position on the date of Revelation nor specifically mentioning 4,11, sees the language of Rev 4–5 as deriving partially from the imperial ceremonial court and mentions the use of such titles as 'god'; this makes him worth mentioning in this category; Four Views on the Book of Revelation (ed. C.M. PATE) (Grand Rapids 1998) 4-5.

⁴ MOUNCE, Revelation, 140, writes on Rev 4,11, "our Lord and God" was introduced into the cult of emperor worship by Domitian'. LILJE, Last Book of the Bible, 108-109, writes:

The formula "our Lord and God", as we learn from the imperial biographies of Suetonius, was introduced by Domitian into the cult of emperor worship as an expression of homage. First of all he arranged that his procurators should introduce the formula, "our Lord and God commands", into the official documents. After that it became the custom also to address him as Dominus ac Deus noster.

⁵ Translation from Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars (trans. J.C. Rolfe) (Cambridge 1914) II, 367.

⁶ Translation from Dio Cassius, Roman History (trans. Ernest Cary) (Cambridge 1968) VIII, 329.

⁷ B.W. JONES, The Emperor Domitian (New York 1992) 108-109; THOMPSON, Book of Revelation, 104-107.

⁸ THOMPSON, Book of Revelation, 107.

⁹ JONES, Domitian, 108-109.

¹⁰ Ibid., 108.

¹¹ Ibid., 109.

¹² THOMPSON, Book of Revelation, 105

¹³ Ibid., 108.

¹⁴ JONES, Domitian, 108.

¹⁵ T.B. SLATER, "On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John", NTS 44 (1998) 236. The latter is a moot point, since Thompson does not deny that divine honors were offered to Domitian. Thompson's point is merely that Domitian did not require this practice himself.

¹⁶ AUNE, Revelation, I, 311.

¹⁷ Ibid., I, 311.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ SLATER, "Social Setting", 237. In a similar vein, he writes, 'Moreover, even if Domitian did not demand that he be referred to as 'our lord and god', it does not mean that no one deemed him worthy of divine honours', 238.

²⁰ A.D NOCK – T.S. SKEAT – C. ROBERTS, "The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos", HTR 29 (1936) 50.

²¹ Ibid., 40, 42. A. DEISSMANN, Light from the Ancient East (New York 1927; repr.: Peabody, Mass. 1995), 352, lists the similar titles of Ptolemy XIII 'the lord king god' (tou= kuri/ou basil[e/]oj qeou=) and of Ptolemy XIV and Cleopatra 'the lords, the most great gods' (toi=j kuri/oij qeoi=j megi/stoij). Alexander the Great and his successors were on occasion called 'gods', both while living and posthumously. Antiochus IV of Syria was the first to include the title 'god' on his coins. See S.R.F. PRICE, "Gods and Emperors: the Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult", JHS 104 (1984) 81.

²² NOCK – SKEAT – ROBERTS, "Gild of Zeus", 50. These scholars note that the title disappeared for a while after the time of Augustus.

²³ The word ku/rioj has a wide semantic range. It may refer to the owner of slaves or property (Luke 12,45), one worthy of respect (e.g. an apostle[Acts 16,30] or ruler [Matt 27,63]), supernatural beings (e.g. angel [Acts 10,4]; God; Jesus), or serve as a translation of YHWH (Matt 22,37=Deut 6,5). This essay does not propose to determine the intended usage of 'lord' when applied to Roman emperors, but merely wishes to demonstrate that the title was used of and by them frequently. When 'lord' appears alone in imperial contexts, it does not necessarily have divine connotations (e. g. Matt 27,63; Philo, Leg. 45.356).

²⁴ PRICE, "Gods and Emperors", 83, 84.

²⁵ AUNE, Revelation, I, 311.

²⁶ DEISSMANN, Light, 344.

²⁷ Ibid., 344-345.

²⁸ PRICE, "Gods and Emperors", 89, n. 88.

²⁹ Ibid., 85 and 88 respectively.

³⁰ H. KOESTER, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia 1990) 4.

³¹ TAE HUN KIM, "The Anarthrous ui(o_j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult", Bib 79 (1998) 228.

³² Ibid., 232.

³³ Ibid., 232.

³⁴ DEISSMANN, Light, 347. An inscription from Priene (c. 9 BCE) spoke of the birthday of Augustus 'the most divine Caesar' (tou= qhota/tou Kai/saro[j]), ibid.

³⁵ Vergil, Ec. 1.41; A.A. BARRETT, Caligula. The Corruption of Power (New York 1990) 140.

³⁶ KIM, "ui(o_j qeou=", 233.

³⁷ D.L. JONES, "Roman Imperial Cult", AncBD V, 806-809.

³⁸ DEISSMANN, Light, 353.

^{39 Ibid., 353.}

^{40 KIM, "ui(o_j qeou=", 235.}

⁴¹ Translation from Josephus. With an English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray. Vol. II: The Jewish War (LCL; London – Cambridge, MA 1967) 395.

⁴² JONES, "Roman Imperial Cult".

⁴³ KIM, "ui(o_j qeou=", 235.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 235.

⁴⁵ PRICE, "Gods and Emperors", 86.

⁴⁶ BARRETT, Caligula, 140.

⁴⁷ DEISSMANN, Light, 354.

⁴⁸ KIM, "ui(o_j qeou=", 235.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 235.

⁵⁰ Legends on coins from Cyme and Synas. See The Cambridge Ancient History (eds. S.A. COOK et al.) (Cambridge 1966) X, 732.

⁵¹ DEISSMANN, Light, 345, n. 4.

⁵² PRICE, "Gods and Emperors", 84.

⁵³ M. SMALLWOOD, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius Claudius & Nero (Cambridge 1967) 52, entry 145.

⁵⁴ KIM, "ui(o_j qeou=", 235.

⁵⁵ Greco-Roman deities were also referred to by this combined title. For instance, Zen (i.e. Zeus) was called qeo_n kai_ ku/rion, Diodorus of Sicily 3.61.6.

⁵⁶ MOWRY, "Revelation 4–5", 80.

⁵⁷ BEASLEY-MURRAY, Revelation, 119.

⁵⁸ This title is usually connected to Exod 3,14 (e)gw ei)mi o( w!n), but the exact phrase cannot be found in the OT or early Christian literature. The closest parallel is Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 32,39 (AUNE, Revelation, I, 32).

⁵⁹ This title may derive from Ps 89,37, o( ma/rtuj e)n ou)ranw|= pisto/j (BEALE, Revelation, 190) or from Prov 14,5.25 (AUNE, Revelation, I, 257).

⁶⁰ The word 'firstborn' appears in Ps 89,27 (BEALE, Revelation, 190).

⁶¹ The phrase u(yhlo_n para. toi=j basileu=si th=j gh=j is found in Ps 89,27 (BEALE, Revelation, 190).

⁶² This title is probably based on several passages in Isaiah (AUNE, Revelation, I, 101): Isa 41,4 (e)gw_ qeo_j prw=toj kai_ ei)j ta_ e)perxo/mena e)gw/ ei)mi); 44,6 (e)gw_ prw=toj kai_ e)gw_ meta_ tau=ta); 48,12 (e)gw/ ei)mi prw=toj kai_ e)gw/ ei)mi ei)j to_n ai)w=na). Nevertheless, no exact match in the OT exists.

⁶³ W. FOERSTER, "ku/rioj", TDNT III, 1087.

⁶⁴ Isa 65,16 (MOUNCE, Revelation, 124).

⁶⁵ Perhaps this title is based on Prov 8,22 (AUNE, Revelation, I, 256).

⁶⁶ The 'lion of Judah' is usually taken as an allusion to Gen 49,9 (AUNE, Revelation, I, 350), despite the fact that is it not an exact parallel ('a lion's whelp', sku/mnoj le/ontoj 'Iou/da).

⁶⁷ The closest parallels to this title are 'stem out of the root of Jesse' (r(a/bdoj e)k th=j r(i/zhj 'Iessai/; Isa 11,1 LXX), 'the root of Jesse' (h( r(i/za tou= 'Iessai.; Isa 11,10), the 'branch' for David (a)natolh/n; Jer 23,5; a)natolh_n; 33,15 not in MT), and simply 'branch' (a)natolh/n; Zech 3,8; 6,12). An exact parallel does not appear in the OT, but one does appear in the Qumran material (4Q252 v 3-4; AUNE, Revelation, I, 350).

⁶⁸ Even though several OT texts contain portions of this title, the closest parallels to it are 1 En 9,4 and Dan 4,37 LXX (au)to_j e)sti qeo_j tw=n qew=n kai_ ku/rioj tw=n kuri/wn kai_ basileu_j tw=n basilie/wn), an expansion missing from the MT and Theodotian. See G.K. BEALE, "The Origin of the Title 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' in Revelation 17.14", NTS 31 (1985) 618-620.

⁶⁹ Several find reference to Num 24,17 in this title; BEASLEY-MURRAY, Revelation, 343; MOUNCE, Revelation, 395; M. DE JONGE, Christology in Context. The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus (Philadelphia 1988) 231. However, this is not an exact OT match (a)natelei= a!stron e)c 'Iakw/b).

⁷⁰ For a discussion of this variant, see B.M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York 1975) 760.

⁷¹ Martial, Epig. 5.8; 7.34, has domini deique noster. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 45.1, has despo/thj kai_ qeo/j.

⁷² Dio Cassius, 67.4.7, states, 'for he even insisted upon being regarded as a god and took vast pride in being called "master" and "god" (kai_ despo/thj kalou/menoj kai_ qeo_j u(perhga/lleto). These titles were used not merely in speech but also in written records'. Note that Cary's translation (Dio's Roman History. With an English Translation by Earnest Cary on the Basis of the Version of Herbert Baldwin Foster [LCL; Cambridge, MA – London 1982] 329) correctly regards 'master' and 'god' as separate titles, as can be seen by his placement of the quotation marks. Martial, Epig. 9.66, has nostro ... dominoque deoque.

⁷³ Despo/thn te kai_ qeo/n (Dio Cassius, 67.13.4).

⁷⁴ Similar constructions employing ku/rioj or qeo/j with kai/ and other words are used in the LXX. E.g. o( basileu/j mou kai_ o( qeo_j mou (Ps 43,5; 83,4); qeo_j me/gaj ku/rioj kai_ basileu_j me/gaj (Ps 94,3), qeo_n kai_ swth=ra (Esth 15,2), qeo_n au)tw=n kai_ pate/ra (3 Macc 5,7) and ku/rie pa/ter kai_ de/spota zwh=j mou (Sir 23,1).

⁷⁵ The more common title for God was ku/rioj o( qeo/j, but the following sampling of passages demonstrates that tremendous variety of combinations of 'Lord' and 'God' in the LXX: ku/rioj o( qeo/j (Ps 84,9; Jonah 4,6), o( ku/rioj o( qeo_j (2 Macc 7,6), ku/rioj o( qeo/j + pronoun (sou= [Exod 20,1; Hos 13,4; Mic 7,10]; u(mw=n [Lev 19,36; Joel 3,17]; mou [Job 7,1; Ps 7,2; 29,3; Zech 13,9]; h(mw=n [Deut 5,24; Ps 98,8; 104,7]; au)tw=n [Zeph 2,7; Zech 10,6]), ku/rie o( qeo/j (2 Chr 20,6; Ps 83,9), ku/rioj o( qeo_j o( pantokra/twr (Amos 3,13; 4,13), ku/rioj ku/rioj o( qeo/j o( pantokra/twr (Amos 9,5.15), ku/rie/ mou ku/rie su_ ei] qeo/j (2 Sam 7,28), ku/rioj o( qeo_j au)to_j o( qeo/j (1 Kgs 18,39), ku/rioj au)to_j e)stin o( qeo/j (Ps 99,3), qeo_j qew=n ku/rioj (Ps 49,1), qeo_j me/gaj ku/rioj kai_ basileu_j me/gaj (Ps 94,3), ku/rie o( qeo_j o( basileu_j (Esth 13,15), ku/rie ku/rie o( qe/oj (2 Macc 1,24), ku/rioj o( despo/thj (Isa 1,24) and de/spota o( qeo_j (Sir 36,1). Cf. Dominus Deus (4 Ezra 2,3.48; 15,21; 16,8).

⁷⁶ Xenophanes seems to use a similar technique when interpreting Moses. He seems to be paraphrasing Exod 20,4-5, which used the title ku/rioj o( qeo/j sou. He writes, 'He (Moses) did not make any kind of picture of gods, as he did not believe that God was in human form; rather, the heaven, which surrounds the earth, was alone God and Lord of all [qeo_n kai_ tw=n o#lwn ku/rion]'. If I have correctly identified the passage he is discussing, he has inserted kai/ between 'Lord' and 'God'. For this text and translation see M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia 1974) I, 256.

⁷⁷ R. BULTMANN, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia 1971) 695, n. 2; R.E. BROWN, The Gospel According to John (AncB 29; New York 1970) II, 1047; B. LINDARS, The Gospel of John, (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1986) 615. G.R. Beasley-Murray, an advocate of finding an allusion to dominus et deus noster in Rev 4,11, when commenting on Jn 20,28 states that, 'The Christian use of kurios naturally did not arise through the clash of loyalties to Christ and Caesar, but it was firmly set over against the claims of Caesar', BEASLEY-MURRAY, John (WBC 36; Waco 1987) 391. However, elsewhere he locates the Christian title 'lord and god' within this conflict between loyalty to Christ or Caesar (ID., Revelation, 38, 119, 209).

⁷⁸ C.J. HEMER, The letters to the seven churches of Asia in their setting (JSNTSS 11; Sheffield 1986) 86-87, an exception to this statement, writes, 'It is well known that Domitian required to be addressed as dominus et deus (Suetonius, Dom. 13; Martial, Epig. 9.56.3), a title corresponding to that applied to Jesus in Thomas' confession (John 20.28)'.

⁷⁹ BROWN, John, II, 1047.

⁸⁰ LINDARS, The Gospel of John, 616.

⁸¹ DEISSMANN, Light, 361, comments on the title as used in John 20,28, 'In Christian worship it was probably a direct suggestion from the Septuagint'; LINDARS, The Gospel of John, 615; BROWN, John, II, 1047; O. CULLMANN, The Christology of the New Testament (NTLi; London 1967) 308, n. 2;

⁸² CULLMANN, Christology, 197; F.F. BRUCE, I & II Corinthians (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1986) 80; G. FEE, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1987) 373; G. O'COLLINS, Christology (New York 1995) 139.

⁸³ B.W. WINTER, "The Achaean Federal Imperial Cult II: The Corinthian Church", TynB 46/1 (1995) 174-175. Also A. FEUILLET, "La profession de foi monothйiste de 1 Cor. viii,4-6", SBFLA 13 (1962-1963) 7-32. The opinion of F.F. BRUCE, I & II Corinthians, 80, that Jesus could not be contrasted to the emperor at this early date is unfounded. AUNE, "Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial", 22, argues that such comparisons had probably been made from the dawn of Christianity.

⁸⁴ BRUCE, I & II Corinthians, 80; O'COLLINS, Christology, 137; N.T. WRIGHT, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids 1997) 66.

⁸⁵ In other texts, Rome is presented as a multi-headed creature. The heads may represent the Senate (Syb. Or. 3.175-176) or Roman emperors (4 Ezra 12,11 and 14).

⁸⁶ KLAUCK, "Das Sendschreiben nach Pergamon", 172.

⁸⁷ W. SCHRAGE, The Ethics of the New Testament (Philadelphia 1988) 343. In all fairness, Schrage, unlike Klauck, does not associate dominus et deus with Rev 4,11.

⁸⁸ BEASLEY-MURRAY, Revelation, 209.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 217.

⁹⁰ MOUNCE, Revelation, 250.

⁹¹ Ibid., 250-251.

⁹² THOMPSON, Book of Revelation, 95-115; AUNE, Revelation, I, 311. D. MAGIE, Roman rule in Asia Minor to the end of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton 1950) I, 577, writes:

There is little evidence of cruelty on the part of Domitian or even of exaggerated pretensions of grandeur. In the East, to be sure, the appellation of "God" which grated on the ears of the Romans had long since been accepted as normal. Even the fulsome title of "God invincible, Founder of the city" which was inscribed on the pedestal of the Emperor at Priene, was no more extravagant than those given to many of his predecessors.

Domitian's divine claims would have been a shock in Rome, in that they would have violated the gravitas and dignitas of the emperor (AUNE, Revelation, I, 310). However, such imperial claims would not have seemed any more scandalous than usual to the Christians of Asia Minor, who had grown accustomed to hearing the living emperor called 'lord' and 'god' by their pagan neighbors and had seen the emperor receive divine honors throughout the first century CE.

⁹³ LILJE, Last Book of the Bible, 108-109; MOUNCE, Revelation, 140; AUNE, "Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial", 5-26; THOMPSON, Book of Revelation, 58.

⁹⁴ Pate in Four Views, 144.

⁹⁵ AUNE, "Influence", 21.

⁹⁶ BEALE, Revelation, 313.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 315.

⁹⁸ The following key images within the visions of Rev 4–5 are unmistakably drawn from Jewish tradition: the rainbow (Ezek 1,28; Rev 4,3), the four living creatures (Ezek 1,5-14; Rev 4,6) who were covered with eyes (Ezek 1,18; 10,12; Rev 4,8), the seven lamps (Zech 4,2.10?; Rev 4,5), the crystal sea (Ezek 1,22; Exod 24,10; Rev 4,6), a scroll written on the front and back (Ezek 2,9-10; Rev 5,1), the trisagion (Isa 6,3; Rev 4,8), and the title 'Lord God Almighty' (Amos 3,13; 4,13; Rev, 4,8).

⁹⁹ In Revelation, the throne of God stands in the center of the throne- room (Rev 4,2) and is surrounded by the concentric circle of the rainbow (4,3), the four living creatures (4,6), the thrones of the twenty-four elders (4,4), and the angelic hosts (5,11; 7,11).

¹⁰⁰ Revelation employs a great deal of temple imagery: the temple (Rev 11,19; 15,5.8), the tabernacle (15,5), the ark of covenant (11,19), lamps (Exod 27,21; 1 Kgs 7,49), cherubim (4,6-8), the altar of incense (6,9; 8,3), incense (5,8), bowls (5,8; 15,7; 16,1; Exod 25,29), trumpets (15,2), harps (5,8; 14,2; 15,2; cf. 18,22), golden censers (8,3), and priests (1,6; 5,10; 20,6). The setting of the trisagion in Isa 6,3 is the temple (Rev 4,8).

¹⁰¹ LILJE, Last Book of the Bible, 108; MOUNCE, Revelation, 140.

¹⁰² AUNE, Revelation, I, 317.

¹⁰³ BEALE, Revelation, 336.