When was Revelation Written

When was Revelation Written

Arguments for an early date.

Many within the Evangelical community promote a late date of the receiving and writing of the Revelation, usually early to mid 90 AD. This late date is based almost exclusively on a quote by Irenaeus from his work "Against Heresies." This quote is later cited by early church historian Eusebius, who also happens to be a late date advocate. 

This isolated quote has played a primary role in supporting and advancing a late-date view. Since Irenaeus' DOB is approximately 130 AD, it is understandable why many would consider him an authoritative source for a late date. 

Some consider Irenaeus’s quote so significant they cite him as their only authority. This is also likely however because no other credible source is available (we mention another less credible one, seldom mentioned, towards the end). Any other claim based on such slim support would not be considered strong even if it were sound.

Basing one’s position on such limited support makes a closer look at the meaning of this quote not only necessary but vital. If it can be demonstrated the common interpretation of this sole quote is inadequate, it makes a late date unnecessary if not virtually impossible. 

The primary part quoted is:

“…For that was seen not a very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” 

When one first realizes late date advocates look to this quote almost exclusively, it may be surprising. Alone, it is vague at best and does not tell us much. Isolated and without context, the meaning is unclear if not confusing.

The common interpretation is the word “that” (underlined in the above quote), is referring to The Revelation (the vision and book) received and written by John.  If “The Revelation” was received towards the end of Domitian’s reign in 96AD that would likely date the Revelation somewhere near the early to mid-90s. Because of this, many put the date of its writing between 90 and 94 AD. If so, the book could not have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, 20 to 25 years prior, as argued by most early-date advocates.

Irenaeus being Greek and Greek being the common language of his day, we will make a simple and brief comment on a key aspect of this quote.

The translation of the word “that” is inconclusive due to specific characteristics of Greek grammar. "That” is not the required translation at all. The word could easily be translated “he” (i.e. John) or “it” as well as “that” (the Revelation). Therefore, translating it as “that” is a 50/50 proposition and far from conclusive. In light of this, we must go elsewhere to determine its meaning.

Let's take a look at the context of the quote to see if this sheds any light on this unclear quote.

This quote is taken from chapter XXX, end of paragraph 4 of Irenaeus’s book “Against Heresies.” It is important to point out that the topic of focus is how to determine the name of the beast and not the date of the writing of the Revelation. This is indicated in the heading below. Emphasis added.

“BOOK V, CHAP. XXX.--ALTHOUGH CERTAIN AS TO THE NUMBER OF THE NAME OF ANTICHRIST, YET WE SHOULD COME TO NO RASH CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE NAME ITSELF, BECAUSE THIS NUMBER IS CAPABLE OF BEING FITTED TO MANY NAMES. REASONS FOR THIS POINT BEING RESERVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. ANTICHRIST'S REIGN AND DEATH.”

Now to the entire context of this quote:

“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number (i.e. 666) being found in all the most approved and ancient copies(3) [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; (i.e. that indeed the number 666 is in all approved copies of Revelation) while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six…”

What Irenaeus is saying is since the number 666 is in the oldest and most recognized copies of Revelation, and the number is also confirmed by those who meet John himself, it is within reason to use this number to determine the actual name of the Antichrist by properly calculating (according to a common alpha-numeric mode of calculation) the verbal equivalent of the number itself (numbers in those days had specific alphabetical values assigned to them). Indeed, what Irenaeus is wrestling with within this entire chapter is the specific name of the beast and the means or method by which to best determine that name. 

It is important to point out there is no comment or concern throughout this entire chapter over the date of the book itself. The only question being discussed is how to determine the name of the beast.

Irenaeus continues his argument regarding the beast's name:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation (i.e. John who was given the revelation). "For 'that' was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."  (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Again we see the focus of the discussion continues on how to best determine the 

specific name of the “Antichrist.” After Irenaeus decides he has a reasonable way to determine the name (i.e. by applying the alphabetical equivalent of the number 666), he checks himself. He concludes there is no reason to take the chance of trying to determine the name of the Antichrist in this manner. He argues we could have simply asked John since it wasn't that long ago that he was with us. (It is accepted by both sides of this discussion that John lived up until this time). Irenaeus's point is if knowing the name was that important, we could have asked John and he could have told us himself.

Irenaeus concludes since the specific name was not given by John, it wasn't worth speculating about. He reasons that just as John confirmed that the number 666 was in the original text we could have known with equal certainty the name of the Antichrist if John wanted us to, so there’s no point in guessing i.e. it’s apparently not that critical to know or John would have told us.

Given the whole context of this quote, using “John” or “him” in the place of “that” makes far more sense than the commonly held interpretation of “that” used to support it was referring to the entire revelation and book itself. 

Here it is again with "that" substituted with "John." 

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him (John) who beheld the Revelation. "For 'he' (i.e. John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3). If the Revelation was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (as early date advocates propose), that means they had as much as 25 years to find out. 

Again, the context clearly shows that the focus of this discussion is not 
the date of the Revelation but the name of Antichrist and how the name could best be determined.

Also when you consider the sentence just before talks about how “he (i.e. John) who beheld the Revelation” could have given the specific name if necessary; it makes perfect sense this quote would continue along this same line of reasoning. Especially considering it begins with “for” showing a direct tie to the preceding sentence i.e. Irenaeus is reasoning that the name could have easily been obtained from the author himself “for” it wasn’t that long ago that John had been seen. To interject an entirely different line of reasoning regarding the date of the writing The Revelation does not fit the line of reasoning in the previous sentence nor the context of the entire quote.

Below is the entire quote with “he” in place of “that.” Since the Greek allows for this interpretation and it fits the context of the overall quote far better, we offer this alternate interpretation to show its logic. The primary quote cited as proof of a late date is highlighted in yellow.

“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies(3) [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; (i.e. that indeed the number 666 is in all approved copies of Revelation) while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six…”

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him (John) who beheld the Revelation.  For he (John) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

As we can see, the highlighted portion fits the context of the discussion regarding the antichrist and how to determine who he is and not with the very different topic of the date the book was written.

In conclusion, Irenaeus himself never directly indicated in any of his writings - outside the questionable interpretation of this quote - what his view was concerning the date of the book itself. It is simply not discussed in "Against Heresies" or in anything else written by him. This view is only advocated by others, not Irenaeus himself. Others simply cite this quote as proof that Irenaeus held to a late date but this does not appear to be Irenaeus's view based on his writings. 

It appears pretty evident, after close examination, that this quote has nothing to do with the date of the writing of Revelation.

On a side note, it is interesting that there would be such intense discussion of who the antichrist was (i.e. what was his name) unless they believed the party in question would be someone they might recognize living among them in their day. It is not likely it would occupy them with knowing the name of someone in the far-off distant future if they believed the book was intended for an audience hundreds or thousands of years later in the distant future. What would be the point of knowing the name of someone they would never meet or have a clue who this person was even if they knew the name? Such a name would be meaningless to them even if known or at least would not likely create such earnest curiosity. On the other hand, if this were a person living in their time, that would be someone many would be curious to know the identity of. The intense curiosity supports the view that those who lived around the time the book was circulated thought the book addressed current events (events soon to take place) vs events in the distant future. 

In my opening comments, I mentioned the Irenaeus quote was the primary support for a late date. The only other external evidence offered is a reference to Hegesippus 
made by church historian Eusebius. There is no actual quote by Hegesippus supporting a late date but simply a dubious and highly speculative reference to Hegesippus that is so obscure it is rarely discussed much less considered as having any real weight in support of a late date.

Though the weight of this secondary reference is marginal at best, if you wish to see some discussion on Hegesippus both pro and con, I offer the following links for your consideration. It's far less significant than the Irenaeus quote.

Pro http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/DatingTheBookOfRevelation.html

Con

https://web.archive.org/web/20100217150819/http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4145

(the above link is an archive of the original link http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4145 )

What about an early date? Are there any sources or people in the early church that clearly held to an early date?

•          The Syriac Version of the New Testament (dated back into the second century) places the date of Revelation in the period of Nero who reigned between 64 and 68 AD. It has a superscription which reads: "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the Island of Patmos to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."
•      Epiphanies (who wrote ca 315-403) believed Revelation to be written at the time of Nero, ca 65-68 AD (Heresies 51:12).
•          The Muratorian Canon (which was a collection of New Testament books in about 170 AD) says that the book was written in the days of Nero as well.
•         Clement of Alexandria who wrote in 150-215 AD believed that all the books of the New Testament were written by Nero's reign. He said, "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7.17)

So where does that leave us? If the external evidence is unclear at best to support a late date and not at all conclusive, where else can we turn to determine the date of Revelation? We would need to look and see if there is any internal evidence within the book and the rest of scripture. Are there any hints of an early date? There are several worth considering.

1.  (Rev 1:1)  The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon (tachos) take place

2.     (Rev 1:3) … for the time is near (eggus).

3.   Rev 2:16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon (tachu) and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

4.   Rev 3:11 I am coming soon (tachu). Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

5.     Rev 22:6 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon (tachu) take place."

6.    Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon (tachu). Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."

7.   Rev 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near (eggus)..
8.   Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon (tachu), bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.

9.  Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon (tachu)." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Particularly note the contrast of the above reference in Revelation with Dan 12:4 “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end…” The events of that particular vision given to Daniel were far away yet, therefore Daniel was told to seal it up. This is important considering both Dispensationalists and Preterists alike believe Daniel and Revelation are dealing with the same events. However, the instructions given to Daniel are the opposite of those given to John in The Revelation time-wise but virtually identical subject-wise. John was told near the very end of the book not to seal it up “for the time is near” i.e. get the word out. Something important is about to happen! The chorus of that famous Temptations song of the 70’s “Get ready, cause here I come…” would be an appropriate contemporary example of what Revelation is saying. If Revelation was addressing a distant future event like Daniel it only makes sense it would also use the same time language as that of Daniel i.e. seal up the words until the end...

Both commands come at the end of each book but unlike Daniel which was dealing with the distant future, The Revelation was addressing that which would happen soon, i.e. the time was near. If Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that would likely put it being written somewhere between 65-70 AD. 

John also stresses the benefits of reading the book now when he said in Rev 1:3 “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.” Why are they blessed? The verse clearly states the time for the events covered was near. Therefore heeding what was written would give them advanced warning and therefore the opportunity to prepare, to not be surprised at what was coming, and to act accordingly before these events happen. To be forewarned of coming destruction would indeed be a blessing. This fits with the warnings and promises Christ also gave in Mat 24:4, 6, and 13,16,25,44. 

So do these “soon” and “near” references prove an early date. They don’t directly but if the coming event referred to in the book is the wrapping up of the Old Covenant via the coming judgment of the unfaithful bride/harlot i.e. Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant and marriage to the new faithful bride, the church, the best historical event around John’s life that fits is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

10. In Rev 11:1 the temple is mentioned, however, it was destroyed in 70AD and no longer around in the ’90s. If the book was written after the temple was destroyed why this reference to it as if it still stood. I realize some say this is referring to a future temple that will someday be rebuilt but in light of everything else, it simply doesn’t need to be in the future. It is also worth pointing out Christ made the need for the OT sacrificial system null and void. The tearing of the curtain at Christ's death, between the holy of holies and the rest of the temple, was the symbolic gesture of this. The book of Hebrews bears out that the OT system was no longer needed because Christ fulfilled what that system was pointing to i.e. the coming of the perfect Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. 

11. Reference to the birth of Christ in Rev 12 and all events in that chapter occurred around or near that time of birth and not in the far-off future.

12. Every reference to “earth” is the word “gē” and every reference to “world” is oikoumenē throughout Revelation giving strong indication the events throughout the book are local or regional not global.

Earth - γῆ, gē, ghay

Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

World - οἰκουμένη, oikoumenē, oy-kou-men'-ay

Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.

Even though use of the word gē, ghay would allow for a possible worldwide event, it certainly does not require this interpretation. Coupling its use alongside the word oikoumene minimizes the likelihood of such an interpretation. It is far more likely referring to a local event. Reference to those in Judea fleeing on the Sabbath in Matthew 24 would also support the idea of a local, Jewish event and not a worldwide event. 

13.  Many within the Nation of Israel that were alive during the crucifixion would no doubt still be around in 70AD.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes (phulē - that is, race or clan) of the earth “gē” will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. 

This is a case where literally some of those who actually pierced Christ would still be alive in A.D. 70. Yet in this case Dispensationalist’s abandon their “literal” hermeneutic.

14. Tribes appear to be a reference to Israel not all peoples of the global world. Rev 21:12 “It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes (phulē - that is, race or clan) of the sons of Israel were inscribed…” When revelation refers to Gentiles, it uses nations and not tribes and is often preceded with “every.”

15. The letter is clearly addressing 7 contemporary churches at the time of the book’s writing which is an indication that the rest of the book was also dealing with contemporary events and not events in the distant future.

This list of internal evidence gives strong indication and support to an early date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.  

_______________________________________________

*If you wish, you can read the chapter in its entirety at "Against Heresies." The infamous quote is at the end of paragraph 4. 

The Dilemma of Finiteness

The Dilemma of Finiteness

In order for the mind - us - to decide and choose the best course of action we must assess the environment via the senses alone -- sight, hearing, smelling etc. But this assumes 3 things.

1.     The mind is unlimited in its ability to make a complete and accurate assessment of what is out there in order to make that right choice.

2.     We are only material and the observable physical world is the only reality we need to explore. Therefore our physical senses are all that is needed to make an accurate assessment.

3.     There are several possible choices that may be beneficial instead of only one “best choice” in any given decision made (i.e. there are no absolutes). Therefore making the “right” choice is not necessary or even possible. So just make the most of it -- if it feels good, do it -- and do the best you can. This, in essence, is at the heart of existentialism. 

However, regarding the first assumption, our mind (you or I) is finite. We are not all-knowing, all-seeing, or everywhere present at the same time. So how can we, unaided, know with certainty we are pursuing what is the most favorable option? We can not. There may be reality/truth out there needed - that we do not have access to because of our limitations - which might prove the course we have taken is not the best choice. Due to our finiteness, we can not make that determination unaided, i.e. alone. 

(Admittedly, I am assuming -presupposing - two things. There are absolutes, i.e. the universe has design. Everything - including us -operates best when operating according to that design. If we operate outside of that design, we do not function properly). 

Also, there is someone other than us that has infinite, absolute and perfect knowledge. Since we do not have this, we must confide in this other person to know it ourselves. 

But we all must start somewhere precisely because we are finite. Every system posits certain presuppositions, whether you are a theist, atheist, or agnostic. I simply choose to start with the belief that there is a God who by definition is the first cause of all things (and therefore there is also design). But I don't take that position out of the air. I think there is objective evidence to back it, more so than not (which is an entirely different discussion). One I allude to throughout many of my other posts and touch on some here. (I may post a more extensive blog on this in the future) 

Also because we are spiritually inert (though some deny that we even have a spiritual dimension. For more on this separate discussion click here) and are only left to depend on our physical senses and the physical world/universe to observe - or so we believe - we potentially dismiss a whole realm of reality that may exist and be crucial in order to accurate assessment of reality  i.e. the metaphysical or reality beyond the physical. It’s the admission that we are more than physical, as well as being spiritually inert, that we, in our postmodern world, have a hard time acknowledging. 

If we are a product of time plus chance, there is no absolute right or best way (except maybe "survival of the fittest" has resulted in some sort of consistency in how things operate). However, evolution is always progressing so in this sense it can't be absolute. This is the assumption we are only material and there is no other reality. 

But if we are the product of design, there must be a Designer who made things to operate according to design i.e. a specific purpose. That includes you and me. If so, violation of that design results in things breaking down, just like putting water in the tank of a car instead of gas. The car was made - designed - to run on gas. Put anything else in the tank and you have problems. 

Some go to the other end of the spectrum and say we are only spiritual and the material world is basically an allusion. This, in essence, is Neoplatonism. This is a separate issue not addressed in this post. I don't fully address it but touch on it here.

I propose there are 3 significant realities many deny that we must acknowledge if we are to make an accurate assessment of what is true, and therefore the best course of action to take (at least practically if not intellectually).

1.      We are finite (few will deny we are physically unable to travel a million light years and back in the blink of an eye or be in two (or multiple locations) at the same time. Some may argue this is an unrealistic standard, however, this is actually as close as we can get to what God claims of himself i.e. omnipresence. If there is such a being, then this would be the standard by which we define being finite or infinite). 

2.     We are not just material. There is more to reality than just the material world e.g. what is love and where does it come from.

3.     We are created and not a product of chance, therefore we are designed with a purpose.

Since we are finite (something few would deny by the definition I have offered) and not just material (at least I am posing this for consideration) and assuming, for sake of discussion, we are also the product of creation/design, yet do not acknowledge these things, our understanding of the world cannot be rooted in reality. If so, this prevents us from making an accurate assessment of what is best (i.e. what is true). In other words we believe we can unaided (as if we are infinite) make an accurate assessment of what is the best course of action to take, and that belief itself hinders us from making an accurate assessment. 

To say it another way, if we believe there is nothing outside of or beyond the physical we won't look or consider there is anything beyond the physical for any realities that might be there which are vital to making an accurate assessment of things/truth.

Because man is finite, he must always operate out of trust i.e. no one, including the atheist lives without faith; without trusting something or someone in order to function in the world with some level of direction, meaning, and purpose (whether that is subjective and created meaning as with existentialism or objective meaning).

Yet, if we believe we are a product of time plus chance, there is no absolute purpose or meaning to our existence (objectively anyway. We have to create meaning, which is a key tenant of existentialism). 

Also if we believe we can make an accurate assessment of reality on our own, we will not be open to or interested in looking outside of ourselves for information that may be vital to making that assessment and will therefore be unable to make the best choice i.e. a choice rooted in the reality of who we are and the world we find ourselves in.

So we have a dilemma. In order to know with certainty, we are pursuing what is the most favorable course of action we must assess all possible options. To make that assessment we must have access to all possible facts/reality i.e. we must have infinite knowledge of all realms, spiritual as well as physical. This requires our being everywhere, at all times in all realms, with an infinite capacity to take in all that we observe at any (or even every) given moment.

But how can we if we are finite? We can not be everywhere to assess everything in order to know with absolute certainty we are pursuing the best course. Nor can we be certain in our current state that the material universe is all there is. 

What do we do? We must trust. When all is said and done, no matter what world view you take, you must place your faith in something or someone, whether that be in yourself (with your limited ability to observe), other finite men/women (also with limited ability - even collectively) or a supreme Creator i.e. God, who by definition knows everything, is everywhere present and is obviously powerful... He did, after all, make everything. A basic tenant in the concept of God. 

Since all of us are finite we can never know for sure if we are making an accurate assessment of things and therefore whether our trust in ourselves or our fellow finite humans will lead to an accurate understanding of reality. We must look outside ourselves and depend on another. No matter which direction we go, we must trust by the mere fact that we are not infinite but limited. Either we trust in ourselves and there is no reality out there that contradicts our conclusions (and hope we have it right) or we must find someone else we decide to trust in, count on, etc.

Of course the best person to count on would be someone who has complete knowledge (unlike us) of every possible reality (who must be everywhere present to do so) and has complete understanding of who we are (is all-knowing) and what is best for us and is totally committed (all-loving) to what is best for us as well as the complete ability to give us what is best (all-powerful). Only then would we have any possibility of finding the truth or the best course to take. 

Side note: Christ also experienced this dilemma of being limited during His incarnation. He didn’t have infinite knowledge or power to know or take the best course of action (at least not solely within himself as a man. He did have access to all of this in his Father however). For the first time, in a new and different way, He had to completely depend on someone other then Himself. He had to depend on His Father in a way He never experienced before. But what was different about Christ compared to us or even Adam was in each instance He trusted His Fathers assessment and direction completely, even to the point of letting it kill him (how God would be loving and good in doing this is another discussion that has to do with man's rebellion. For more on that discussion click here and here). He believed His Father always directed Him with complete love, wisdom and power on the best possible course to take. And His trust proved to be well placed. When it was all said and done, He was resurrected to new life by His Father and to a state of existence possibly greater-richer than it was before becoming a man. 

The only way the mind can know for sure what is the most favorable course to take is to seek the direction and help of someone who, unlike us, does have infinite knowledge, not only about what is out there but about us. Someone who knows what it is we most need that is most favorable to our well being, as well as the ability to obtain or provide it. We normally assume that person is us, but how can it be in light of our limits. 

The irony is many unbelievers assert the belief that there is nothing beyond this life i.e. we don't live forever, we come to an end, we are finite. While at the same time taking a position that our finite mind can somehow come to a place of absolute certainty (which requires infinite knowledge) i.e. the finite can make an infinite determination unaided by the infinite. So we contradict ourselves. We believe we are finite in saying life ends once we die while at the same time making this assertion that requires infinite knowledge. 

Even when the agnostic says we can not know anything with certainty, he or she is making an absolute statement i.e. a statement of certainty. Maybe we can, in fact, know enough to know we are living based on truth/reality. It's just not knowledge we can arrive at and determine unaided. Nevertheless, this too is a position of faith (in someone outside of ourselves); only the object of faith has changed. 

Vital to our trust in someone else is knowing they care about us and have our best interest at heart at all times and in all circumstances and the ability to provide that best (typically we assume-believe this is us). And who would know better than the infinite Creator who made us? But if we do not acknowledge or believe there is such a being, we are alone to sort things out and can only hope we get it right at best. Otherwise, there simply is no point to existence at all.

A Shift…but related

This raises even more basic questions. Why do we choose or feel the necessity to choose at all i.e. to make the right choice? What is the end we are seeking in our choosing? Why do we even seek anything and what exactly is it we are seeking? What is it about us that drives us to seek and choose one direction over another?

If we are a product of time and chance (the atheistic evolutionist model), there is no explanation or point to our existence much less these longings for meaning/purpose i.e. our coming into existence was an accident at best and not deliberate, intentional, or with purpose, therefore our existence is meaningless. 

Yet everything about us says the opposite and cries out for an understanding of why we exist (Is this not the primary quest of science or space exploration or philosophical debate?). 

What is love, for example, and why do we enjoy loving and being loved. Where does that come from if we are a product of time and chance?

We are "haunted" by the question of why we are here. But why are we even haunted? What causes it... the "haunting?"

There is something about our makeup that cries out for meaning and purpose. In fact, studies have shown that a newborn's growth is stunted both physically and emotionally (and even death can occur) if an infant does not receive adequate attention (i.e. emotional support) through physical contact. Not unlike it would also physically suffer if it didn't have basic physical needs met, such as food, shelter, water, and air. Certainly, an infant isn't this way due to an errant or misplaced belief system. This occurs before they have completely developed cognitively. This occurs on an "emotional" or dare I say spiritual level and not an intellectual/rational level. 

This drive for meaning and the desire to choose or to understand what is the best course of action belies the assertion that we are merely physical and a product of time plus chance. It belies the assertion that life is meaningless and pointless. Where does this longing and drive for meaning come from?

Simply stated the best explanation for why we seek these things is because we are not a product of time and chance as the atheistic, evolutionist model suggests but we are the product of a real and personal Being who created us to have a real and personal relationship (i.e. love) by and with Him. And this is a being who not only made everything but on whom everything depends on for their day to day existence and operation. This means this being is of infinite value to everything else for without Him nothing would be that is; no air, no sun, no earth, no plants, no animals or no breath, no eyes, ears, touch, taste or smell to enjoy these external things. No loved ones, no love, no relationships. In short no “us” or anything else that we enjoy.

Some reject this notion of a Supreme Being/Creator outright and most reject it practically i.e. the majority live as if this is not true even when they give lip service to it (as is the case with a majority of those who self-identify as Christians). However, if they do reject this idea of a Creator, they again are left with the uncertainty of why they exist.

They also must deal with the enigma of why they even care about why they exist. Why do we feel this gnawing need to answer the question at all? (Of course many never even consider this question with any seriousness until they are facing the prospect of their life ending). 

If we are an accident i.e. the product of time and chance, we shouldn't even be asking the question much less wondering or caring what the answer is. The very desire to know the answer to the question betrays the assertion that we are the result of impersonal time and chance or that we just are here for a time and eventually cease to be. That’s it. We fade into infinite nothingness. There is no point to our existence, therefore stop asking the question and either just get on with your meaningless and pointless life the best you can or end it.

This is at the heart of existentialism. Since there is no meaning objectively i.e. there is nothing “out there” that explains or gives meaning to our existence, we are only left to create meaning subjectively. However, this again begs the question. Why do we feel the need to find and create meaning at all, so much so that we must create it when it doesn’t objectively exist according to this belief system? This is also why some existentialist suggest suicide is the only logical conclusion to their understanding of themselves and the world. There is no actual point to our existence, so why keep existing/living. We all die anyway so why prolong the misery; just end it and stop this maddening desire and pursuit for meaning. Ironic, if you think about it. If you say, "but I enjoy life." I say give me a good logical reason based on your view of the world. You have none. 

It is ironic that our need for meaning is such that once one concludes there isn’t any; we feel compelled to end our life to put us out of the pain of a meaningless and pointless existence. Why do we feel pain at all? Where does pain come from? That very compulsion to find meaning and avoid pain contradicts the conclusion that life is pointless and meaningless and screams we are designed to have meaning and if we can’t get it, then we feel compelled to just end our lives.

For a further discussion of pain, you may find the following worthwhile. 

http://thotsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-anatomy-of-pain.html

Glossary of basic terms and concepts touched on above:

Metaphysics - a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:

1.      "What is there?"

2.     "What is it like?"

Ontology - the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality. It is part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, that

addresses questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist.

Cosmology - the philosophical study to understand the origin, progression, structure, and ultimate fate of the Universe at large and of us as individuals.

Epistemology - the study of knowledge

·        What is knowledge?

·        How is knowledge acquired?

·        To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?