Another Perspective
Revelation Date

By Don K. Preston

Preston Heresy Page

    A prominent writer and preacher has recently written an article on the date of the Apocalypse in which he advocates the "traditional" late date, ie 95 AD. He sets forth his defense of same as an objection to the "bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times [e.g. the notion that all 'end time'prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70." We would observe that there are a host of scholars and students that advocate the early date of Revelation who do not hold to these "bizarre theories." We believe this writer has done as good a job as possible to uphold the late date of Revelationbut we believe the evidence will not support his thesis. We are convinced Revelation was written as a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Surely, an examination of all the evidence is necessary to any honest inquiry into truth. Our purpose here is to examine the evidence presented by the above mentioned writer and show the fallacy of the late date for Revelation.

     External Evidence

     Our friend cites five external sources as supportive of a late [94-96 A.D.], date for Revelation. One, Eusebius, is admittedly dependent upon Irenaeus for his information. [1] This means our friend really has only four "independent" sources. 2

     Irenaeus, second generation from John the Apostle, maintained that John saw the Revelation late in Domitian's reign. As Daniel Denham states, "The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date." [2] But Denham admits some problems with this "bastion of evidence." First, the Greek language of Irenaeus can be understood to refer not to the Revelation, but to John being seen on Patmos. Second, he observes it is possible that Irenaeus has been misunderstood. Robert Young stated that the name Domitianou, referring actually to Nero, was mistaken by later writers for Domitian. Denham, although a late date advocate, is therefore forced to admit, "The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." [3] Clement of Alexandria says John returned from Patmos after being exiled there by "the tyrant;" and citing Eusebius, the author under review says the tyrant is undoubtedly Domitian. The trouble is, Eusebius is far removed from the historical and chronological context of the Apocalypse! Eusebius wrote in approximately 324 A.D.. But we have much earlier testimony as to the identity of "the tyrant."

     Gary Gentry, [4], cites Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, the Roman satirist Juvenal, and others, all of whom predate Eusebius as calling Nero the tyrant. Miriam Griffin, [5], calls Nero "the proverbial tyrant." Our brother also notes that Clement calls John an "old man" when released from Patmos and says this would not apply if said when he was only in his sixties, [prior to 70 A.D.]. But Paul the apostle called himself Paul the aged, Philemon verse 9, and he was only about 60 years old! [6] Further, our late date advocate fails to inform the reader of the problems associated with accepting Clement's testimony and also fails to note a serious contradiction in his other writings.

     Had John returned from Patmos at age 90+, [in 95A.D.], consider: Clement claims John went into the wilderness on horseback and chased down a former convert turned criminal, physically capturing him, and taught him once again the truth! [7] Could John do this at age 90+; the age he would have been if Revelation was written in 94-95?

     Why did our brother not inform his readers that Clement maintained that all divine revelation ceased in the time of Nero?!? Clement definitely believed John wrote the Apocalypse. But "How could he have made this statement if John's Revelation had been written about thirty years after Nero?" [8] If late date advocates are going to accept the external testimony of Clement, they are faced with a genuine dilemma here.

     Victorinus and Jerome constitute the remainder of our brother's external evidence. But note that Victorinus wrote in the late 3rd and Jerome in the early 4th century. Their testimony is therefore somewhat late. Not to mention they both seem to be dependent on Irenaeus. In addition, Victorinus in his citation, insists that John was working in the mines of Patmos when exiled there. How could this be the case if John was well into his nineties? [9] One should be very cautious then, in maintaining the strength of the external testimony in regard to the date of the Apocalypse. The testimony is at best debatable, scant and interdependent. Further, external evidence cannot militate against the internal evidence especially when thatexternal testimony is subject to serious objection.

     Internal Evidence

     Our friend contends that the spiritual conditions of the churches mentioned in Revelation favor a late date. We believe the evidence indicates otherwise. He says the fact the church at Ephesus had left its first love demands more time than demanded between the complimentary letter of Ephesians, approximately 61, and the early date, 67-69. But it certainly was not long between the establishment of the Galatian churches and their "so soon" removal from the faith, Galatians 1:6-7. Further, Paul warned the Ephesian elders of impending trouble in Acts 20 and in I Timothy [65A.D.] he tells the young evangelist how to cope with the false teachers which abounded in Ephesus at the very time.

     It is insisted that since Laodicea was destroyed by earthquake in 60 A.D. it would have taken more than the eight or nine years to recover between the earthquake and reconstruction. But the historian Tacitus [10] reports that the city was so wealthy that they rebuilt their city "without any subvention from Rome."

     It is suggested that the "full-fledged sect" of the Nicolaitans, Revelation 2:6,15 demands a late date since these groups are only "hinted at" in 2 Peter and Jude. But the reader is urged to read 2 Peter and Jude for yourself. Peter writes an entire chapter, and Jude's entire letter is written to combat the then present reality of those heresies! That is a little more than a "hint"!

     Nero's persecution was limited to the city of Rome, we are told, but the seven letters suggest a wide spread persecution more in keeping with a later date. It is only assumed Nero's persecution was confined to Rome, however.

     Emminent historian William Ramsey, [11] well notes "When Nero had once established the principle [of persecution, DKP] in Rome, his action served as precedent in every province."

     Our friend would say the persecution in Revelation agrees better with that of Domitian than of Nero. Yet modern scholarship is becoming sceptical about the reality of any systematic or prolonged persecution instigated by Domitian. Leon Morris [12], says "While later Christians sometimes speak of a persecution under Domitian the evidence is not easy to find." George Ladd says "there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." [12]

     Arguments Against Early Date

     We come then to consider some of our brother'sresponses to early date arguments. He notes the contention that it would be strange indeed for this book to be written after Jerusalem's demise and contain no mention of the catastrophe. He responds by saying "some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem's destruction in 11:8 where the 'great city,' in which the Savior was crucified [Jerusalem] is called Sodom-- not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a DESTROYED city." But in chapter 11 the city under consideration [Jerusalem, by our friend's own admission] had patently not been destroyed! See Revelation 11:11-14. John was not looking back; he was anticipating "things which must shortly come to pass!" See chapter 1:1-3.

     Further, if this reference to Jerusalem is"post facto" then the appearance of the two witnesses was aswell; but in verses 3ff we are told clearly that the witnesses had not yet come! He says the insistence that "the literal city and temple were still standing, based on chapter 11, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative." At first blush this sounds convincing but he has contradicted himself. He has already acknowledged that "where our Lord was crucified" is advert to literal Jerusalem. Now he wants to deny this. The fact is, chapter 11 is symbolic. Yet in the midst of the symbology we find the interpretive phrase "where our Lord was crucified" to clear away the confusion. "Where our Lord was crucified" is not symbolic, it is interpretive!

     Our friend cites, with approval, Salmon who expresses amazement that anyone could see a reference to literal Jerusalem since "the whole scene is laid in heaven." Carried to its logical extension this means Jesus was crucified in heaven! The witnesses, symbolic we are certain, were to be killed in the same city where Jesus was crucified. But if this was all only going to happen in heaven then Jesus must have died in heaven!

     Our studied brother says we have only to compare Ezekiel's vision and measuring of the temple to realize that [John's] Jerusalem could in fact have been already destroyed. Ezekiel was told to measure the temple, Ezekiel 40, but our brother observes the literal temple had been destroyed some 14 years earlier. The suggested analogy is that John was to measure the temple that had already been destroyed. But Ezekiel was measuring a FUTURE temple, not the one destroyed earlier. And John was told to measure a temple that was about to be destroyed, 11:1-2. One might also ask why John is being asked to measure a temple that was destroyed some 25 years earlier since in our brother's words "there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter century." ?

     The Bible sometimes spoke of future events in the past tense, Isaiah 46:9-10. But where does the Bible ever speak of past events in the future tense? Yet this is precisely what our brother demands in Revelation 11 to avoid the obvious i.e. Jerusalem was still standing but was about to fall.

     He insists it is "the most irresponsible form of exegesis" to assert that Nero fulfills the enigmatic 666 of Revelation 13:6. He objects to adding "Caesar" to Nero's name. We would only ask in response, who in the first century world would think of omitting it? Nero was Caesar! He also objects to calculating the 666 based on the Hebrew instead of the Greek. But this would be consistent with his own observation that Revelation contains over 500 references and allusions to the Old Testament. While written in Greek, Revelation has a Hebrew background!

Significant Omissions

     Perhaps the most disturbing thing about our brother's article is that he seems to ignore some of the very strongest internal evidence for a pre-70 date and carefully chooses evidence which may seem easier to discredit. This is excellent debating tactic, but unbecoming an honest inquiry for truth. Revelation concerns "things which must shortly take place", Revelation 1:1. Chief among those coming events was the destruction of the city which was full of the "blood of the prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth," 18:24. [Jesus clearly identified this city in Matthew 23:29-39 as Jerusalem]. Now, how can we maintain Revelation spoke of the fall of Rome when that happened almost four hundred years after John wrote, given a 95 date? Four hundred years is not "shortly!" [For interesting historical and Biblical confirmation of this compare the vision of Daniel 8 which spanned a period of 386 years from beginning to end. [12] Daniel was told to seal the vision because it would be a long time, 8:26. In Revelation 22:10 John was told not to seal his vision because it was "at hand." Now was 386 years a "long time" for Daniel, but 381 years, until the fall of Rome, only a "short time?!?"] And this is even more devastating to the traditional identification of Babylon with the Papacy! These two considerations alone, the specific time frame of Revelation and the identity of the persecuting city should cause a careful student to pause and reconsider before accepting the traditional late date of the book.

     We have but touched the hem of the garment of this most fascinating subject. Space considerations forbid further discussion. We urge the reader to be careful students and investigate for themselves the evidence for the late or early date of the book. Truly, some "bizarre theories" are based on improper interpretation of the Apocalypse. But we need not make bad arguments or present faulty evidence to defeat them. We must accept evidence as it is presented, properly interpret it, and thereby determine truth.

     We hope this brief excursus will aid in presentation of some of that evidence.

Bibliography

1. The Beast of Revelation, Kenneth Gentry, Institute For Christian Economics, Tyler, Texas, 1989, page 164.

2. "Date of the Book Of Revelation???", H. Daniel Denham,Part 1 of a three part series carried in the Defender,January, 1979, 4850 Saufley Rd. Pensecola, Florida.

3. Ibid.

4. Gentry, p. 42.

5. Nero, The End of a Dynasty, Miriam Griffin, Yale University Press, 1985, page 100.

6. Interpretation of Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, R.C.H.Lenski, Augsburg Publishing, 1964, page 961.

7. Redating The New Testament, John A.T. Robinson, Westminster Press, 1976, page 223. 8. Gentry, page 162.

9. Gentry, page 163.

10. Annals of Imperial Rome, Tacitus, Dorsett Press, 1984, page 326.

11. The Church in The Roman Empire, Before A.D. 170, William Ramsey, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, page 245.

12. The Revelation of St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leon Morris, Eerdmans, 1980, page 36.

What do YOU think ?

Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.  They will be posted shortly upon receipt
 

Date:

31 Mar 2004

Time:

00:11:59

Comments

Ken Gentry, Right? Not Gary? Or is there a Gary Gentry? Just curious. Good article by the way. I am always surprised by the number of late daters who don't address the comments by Clement about prophecy and the poor quality of the Irenaeus quote. Anyways, keep on seeking everyone! God Bless! dhm

Date:

21 Sep 2004

Time:

05:46:30

Comments

I agree with most of your arguments, but ‘there is one thing you lack’: Like every other writer on Revelation, you have totally ignored the powerful arguments of George Edmundson. In 1973 J. A. T. Robinson chided scholars for simply ignoring Edmundson, without refuting any of his arguments. Their response was to give Robinson the same treatment they had given Edmundson! Edmundson argued, rather convincingly, that Revelation was written during the twelve months beginning about February of the year 70, and he showed the relationship of both Revelation and 1 Clement to events in Rome at that time. He also showed the likely source of traditions claiming that Revelation was written after John ws exiled to Patmos by Domitian, and before he was released by Nerva: Edmundson showed that after Mucianus claimed the throne in the name of Vespasian, the latter’s younger son, Domitian, (eighteen years old) was made, in effect, acting emperor. Domitian started a purge of any and all potential enemies of Vespasian. Later that year, Nerva, although not a member of the Flavian family, was assigned the job of judicial review, to decide who should be freed. (I also believe there is other powerful evidence of this date of Revelation, but it would require a very lengthy discussion.)

Date:

26 Oct 2004

Time:

17:37:22

Comments

I think the article is flawed from top to bottom. I, for example, am cited as a "late date advocate." It is obvious that Preston does not reade his reference materials very carefully. Sincerely, H. Daniel Denham

Date:

30 Dec 2004

Time:

06:22:03

Comments

Date:

30 Dec 2004

Time:

06:40:53

Comments

If Paul says the beast will sit in the Holy of Holies (II Thes) Did Nero make it The temple? Nero died in 68 and the Titus burned Jerusalem in 70 ad. Try this for fun: using the alpbabet make A=100, B=101,C=102 etc. find the values for the letters H I T L E R ....it's 666 and I didn't have to use Hebrew. I'm not saying Hitler was the AC but you can do many things with mumbers.

Date:

03 Jan 2005

Time:

05:37:53

Comments

I was favoring the Nero era date for Revelation even before I heard JAT Robinson speak on the subject in the mid 1980's at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. I appreciate your contributions to the issue. Richard Wagoner, MDIV 86

Date: 29 Apr 2005
Time: 13:22:53

Comments:

Revelation 17:10

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus
3. Tiberius
4. Caligula
5. Claudius
6. Nero
7. Galba

Date: 11 Dec 2006
Time: 17:59:54

Comments:

I would like to know how Nero is the beast that was and then is not and is coming? If Domitian is not the one who revived the persecutions to resurrect the beast then please explain.

Date: 03 Aug 2007
Time: 00:55:54

Comments:

Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, but when he does come, he reigns but a short while. The one who was, and currently is not, is himself an eigth, but counted [spiritually] among the seven.

Four important observations here. First, five of the seven had fallen.

These were:

1.Augustus
2. Tiberius
3. Caligula
4. Claudius
5. Nero (The Beast who was)

Galba, Otho, and Vitelius were not true Emperors, but self proclaimed Emperors attempting to claim the throne. Their reigns were less than three months, except Galba who did reign for about six months in 68 A.D. Vespasian gained the throne by flattery and used his victory over Jerusalem to become the next Emperor to bring glory to Rome. This would make Vespasian number six (6). His son Titus would be number seven (7), who reigns but a short while, less than three years.

and the throne of the Beast was plunged into darkness....

This occured during the Roman civil war around 68 AD, when Rome had no king after the death of Nero (The Emperor killed / slaughtered in the neck) Three (possibly four) Roman Generals tried to claim the throne, each killing the other in order to gain the throne. Vespasian would be the next Emperor, not of the family of Caesars, but a new family line of three, who would return glory to Rome, giving rise to the Beast from the earth.

The first beast was of the sea. Sea, according to scripture, is a figure for Gentile nations. These Emperors were accepted by the Gentiles as chosen and popular, with each becoming Emperor through family relations. These represented the five (or six if you count Julius Caesar) Caesars. These also represented the Beast with seven heads, of which the five had been killed. The five were the Caesars.

After the civil war, another Beast would rise, but it's origin was of the earth. The earth, according to scripture, is a representation of Israel; Jewish land. This Beast from the earth (Jewish land) is a ram with two horns and spoke like a dragon. But how do you make the connection with the Emperors of Rome? After careful thought, it became obvious! Vespasian had two sons, Titus and Domitian. These three were the Flavian family. Through their victory over Jerusalem (seven year war), they brought glory back to Rome and restored anarchy to the Roman Empire. Through this victory, their birth to power was through the destruction and blood of the land of Israel. Vespasian ordered the seek-out of all those born in the blood line of David in order to reduce any possible chance of another Jewish revolt. In short, he wanted to kill all the Jews. According to Josephus, there were about 1.5 million Jews killed during this time. Titus and Domitian, although not yet Emperors, were held as smaller kings, who would accomplish all that Nero had done. It was Vespasian who began the building of the Roman Arena, which we know historically is the location of where thousands of Christians and Jews were killed. The beast from the earth, which looked like a ram with two horns, were the Flavian family.

Domitian, even though physically is an eigth king, he spiritually is counted as part of the first seven headed Beast because he began a second persecution against the Christians, in like manner as Nero. Eusebius gives testimony regarding them account as the 2nd persecution against the Christians.

Lastly, Vespasian could also represent Daniel's little horn, before which three were subdued; Galba, Otho, and Vitelius. It was Vespasian who ordered the killing of any Jew related to David.

Having said all this, I fully support a pre-date of Revelation. Just because Iranaeus believed John wrote Revelation in the mid 90's, doesn't make him right. That was merely his guess, not fact. Not to mention that Irenaus made other false claims, such as the age of Christ being 50.

Irenaeus seems to have mixed a little verbal tradition passed down from others before him. IMO, Papias was the first to teach strange unwritten things, such as a physical return and reign of Jesus in physical Jerusalem. Yet the NT teaches the Kingdom of God is spiritual, and not physical, though the KOG is physical through us.

Joseph from South Carolina.