Dating the Book of Revelation

8/12/2019 Dating the Book of Revelation

1/25

The Date of the Book of Revelation:

Neronic or Domitianic?

Introduction

The interpretation of no other book in the canon is affected by the date in which

it was written as much as the Revelation of Jesus Christ.1Ice, writing from the perspective

that the book was written after the fall of Jerusalem, is correct in saying that the date of

Revelation is paramount in determining its setting. One entire school of interpretation,

namely the Preterists, depends upon an early date. If it can be proved that Revelation was

written before 70 A.D. then Preterists have good reason to believe that the events in

Revelation describe the divorce of God from promiscuous Israel.2That is, Revelation could

be describing events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem.3If, however, it can be

shown that a pre 70 date is unwarranted, the entire Preterist system falls apart; for what kind

ofprophecydescribes past events? Further, to accept the Preterist position with a late date

would be to ascribe to a broad system of interpretation that destroys the authority of biblical

prophecy.

But further problems arise when one accepts a Preterist position. The literal

interpretation that is normally given to prophecy is decimated; a dispensational framework is

1Thomas Ice, Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?, Conservative Theological Journal 4

(2000): 308.

2The most thorough study to date concerning a pre-70 interpretation comes from Gentry who holds

to this view that Revelation describes Gods divorce from Israe l. See, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Beast of

Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2002), 183.

3Some Preterists hold that the predictions include the fall of the Roman Empire as well.


2/25

2

impossible; and a deconstructive bias is applied to the Holy writ. While proving that an early

date for Revelation will not solve all of these interpretive dilemmas facing the book of

Revelation, it will certainly exclude one of the more prominent systems evangelicals have

used to support these practices.4Therefore, this paper is designed to prove that the evidence

presented in church history and inside the book of Revelation indicate that Revelation was

written after the destruction of Jerusalem and before the turn of the century.5

External Evidence

Within the discussion of dates there are two distinct groups of evidences;

external and internal. Within the external discussion the text itself will not be examined.

Instead, the focus will be on the writings of church fathers. Historically, external evidence

has been heralded as conclusively Domitianic in outlook. In fact, the entire section dedicated

to the date of Revelation in Ladds commentary reads, Tradition has ascribed the Revelation

to the last decade of the first century when Domitian was emperor in Rome (A.D. 81-96).

Some scholars have argued for an earlier date, but this is unlikely.6Proponents of the early

date, however, argue that the external evidence is far from conclusive. In the discussion

below, the external arguments for and against both dates will be examined.

4For more of the problems with Preterist teaching see, Mal Couch, Inerrancy: The Book of

Revelation, Conservative Theological Journal 5 (2001): 212-13.

5The argument of this paper is that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian (81-96).

Preterists believe that the book was written during the reign of Nero (54-68). Other dates have been suggested

through church history such as during the reign of Claudius (41-54) or the reign of Trajan (98-117), but these

have such little support that they will not be dealt with here. See, D. A. Carson and Douglass J. Moo,An

introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 708.

6George Eldon Ladd,A Commentary on the Revelation of John(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 8.


3/25

3

Irenaeus

Due to his relation with the Apostle John, Irenaeus (130-202) is unarguably the

most important witness to the date of Revelation.7

Not only was he a disciple of Polycarp

(who was a disciple of John), but his writings give the earliest evidence concerning the date.

Mayhue notes, A general axiom states that ancient documents whose date is closest to the

historical event reported contain more accurate and reliable information than the documents

further removed in time.8According to this principle Irenaeus statementshould be

considered a potent witness. For this reason it is important to quote Irenaeus statement in

full:

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 apocalyptic

vision. For that was seen (evwraqh) no very long time since,

but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.9

The key statement is made at the end of the entry when Irenaeus seems to say that the vision

was seen during Domitians reign. Obviously, if the vision was not seen until Domitians

reign then Revelation could not have been written anytime before that time.

While most scholars accept Irenaeus statement without hesitation, there are a

group of scholars, of the Preterist interpretation, that question its translation. That is, they

7Couch notes that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor (where John last ministered), was discipled in

Ephesus (where John was for the last years of his life), was trained by Johns immediate disciple (Polycarp),

and was within a generation of John. He concludes, Therefore the quality of his evidence is as strong andreliable as any we have for any book of the New Testament. See, Mal Couch, Introductory Thoughts on

Allegorical Interpretation and the Book of Revelation Part I, Conservative Theological Journal1 (1997):, 24.

8See, Richard L. Mayhue, Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist?, The Masters Seminary Journal 14

(2003): 16.

9Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Columbia University, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/

arch/irenaeus/advhaer5.txt (Accessed 30 November 2007), 5.30.3.


4/25

4

question the referent of the verb (evwraqh) in the last sentence. The assertion is that Irenaeus

actually meant thatJohnwas seen towards the end of the Domitians reign.10

The problem

with this interpretation, however, is twofold. First, the closest antecedent is the apocalypse

which argues for its reception as the subject of the verb. Also, the context of Eusebius (when

he quotes this section of Irenaeus) indicates that it was the churchsbelief that Irenaeus was

referring to the apocalypse and not the apostle.11

Any attempt to make this text say that John

was seen during Domitians reign should be questioned. In fact, Robinson, one of the most

eloquent defenders of the early date, says of this text that The translation has been disputed

by a number of scholars, on the ground that it means thatHe(John) was seen; but this is very

dubious.12

Though ambiguity will always exist concerning this reference, the meaning that

was portrayed to all of the church fathers and their subsequent readers was that John saw the

apocalypse during Domitians reign.

Clement and Origen

Two of the early fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Origen) mention Johns

exile to Patmos (1:9). The problem with the evidence from these fathers is that they say that

John was exiled, but they fail to say by whom. Clement says it was the tyrant,13

and

10Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.,Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,

1999), 48-57.

11Ice says of the interpretation that john was seen rather than the apocalypse, If such were the case,

it would seem odd that Eusebius, who was a theological opponent of Irenaeus in the area of biblical prophecy,

clearly thought that it was John who saw the apocalyptic vision. See, Ice,Has Bible Prophecy, 313.

12John A. T. Robinson,Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 211.

13Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, Early Christian Writings,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-richman.html (Accessed 30 November 2007), XLII.


5/25


6/25

6

have been able to work in the mines at the age of 90.19

Gentrys argument isunderstandable,

yet the advancement of age does not take its toll on each individual the same. There are some

people at the age of 90 who can do more than others could at 60. Therefore, it is altogether

feasible that John could have worked in the mines at 90. Furthermore, this sort of cruel

punishment inflicted on the elderly does not seem foreign to the savage nature of the Roman

dictatorship.

Jerome

Jerome (347-420) adds value to this discussion by saying that John was a

prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor

Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the

future.20

Again, this church fathers work is not left uncriticized by Preterists. Here Gentry

questions Jeromes sources. The doubt surrounds Jeromes quotation of Tertullian who said

that John was dipped in oil. Gentry argues vociferously that this had to be during the time of

Nero since Nero lighted his parties with Christiansbodies.21

Gentry then argues that either

John was exiled during the reign of Domitian, or he was dipped in oil by Nero. And because

Jerome records both, Gentry believes that the statement from Jerome should be disregarded.

But one should ask whether being exiled by Domitian and being dipped in oil are mutually

19

Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 163.

20Jerome, Against Jovinianus, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

(Accessed 1 December 2007), 1:26.

21He also argues that Tertullian thought Paul and Peter were killed at the same time that John was

banished. A closer look at the text, however, seems to show that Tertullian was merely mentioning the famous

apostles who were martyred (Tertullian, Exclusion of Heretics,New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/

fathers/0311.htm [Accessed 30 November 2007],36.). Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 144-145.


7/25

7

exclusive things. Could not have Domitian dipped John in oil and then sent him off to exile?

In fact, it is highly likely that Domitian followed in the footsteps of his tyrant successor.

Therefore, Gentrys argument fails to persuade any but the already convinced.

Syriac Versions, Arethas, and Theophylact

While not a church father, the Syriac versions (550 A.D.) are some of the earliest

translations of the Scripture and therefore deserve attention. It is within these versions that

the earliest reference to a Neronic date is found. While this constitutes some of the strongest

arguments for the Preterist date, it pales in comparison to the stronger witnesses written

nearly four hundred years previous (Irenaeus).

Arethas (850-944) wrote a tenth century commentary on the book of Revelation.

Within this work, he says that the sixth seal was actually the destruction of Jerusalem. It is

interesting to note that this is the first time in the history of the church that a Preterist

interpretation is found. Arethas, elsewhere in his commentary, noted that he was aware

earlier church history claimed that John was deported under Domitian.22

Again, it is

surprising to note that the Preterist interpretation does not surface until hundreds of years

after the end of the canon.

Theophylact (d. 1107) is the last of those in history for which reference is made

in this debate. He seems to be confused, however, as to the date he assigns the apocalypse. In

22Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 146-147.


8/25

8

his commentary on John he clearly dates it to Neros reign,23

but in his commentary on

Matthew he assigns it a date under Trajan.24

The Syriac versions as well as Arethas and Theophylact indicate that there might

have been a variant tradition which held that the apocalypse was written during Neros reign.

But since church history records other misguided traditions (dating the apocalypse to the time

of Claudius or Trajan)25

it should be expected that some tradition would claim that it came

under Nero as well.

Conclusion26

External evidence strongly suggests that the book of Revelation was written

during Domitians reign.Added to this is the fact that the earliest church fathers all looked

forward to the events described in revelation.27

Overall, this makes a Neronic date seem

unwarranted. Guthrie concludes: On the principle that a strong tradition must be allowed to

stand unless internal evidence makes it impossible . . . the Domitianic dating must have the

23Gentry,Before Jerusalem Fell, 108.

24For the reference see, Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1909), p. c.

25

Carson & Moo,Introduction,708.

26No mention was made in this section to Epiphanius who says that John was exiled during

Claudiuss reign. He was excluded because no other church father followed his tradition.

27House and Ice ask, Why is it that all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and

Matthew 24, see these as future events? They all wrote well after A.D. 70. Did even those who knew the writer

of Revelation, the apostle John, not pick up on such an important understanding? See, Wayne House and

Thomas Ice,Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, Oregon: Multinomah, 1988), 258-59.


9/25

9

decision in its favor.28

Next, the internal evidence will be examined to determine whether it

supports a Domitianic or Neronic date.

Internal Evidence

While the external evidence did not deal with the text of Revelation, the internal

evidence is grounded in proper exegesis of Revelation. Unfortunately, there is some scholarly

opinion that internal evidences are not advantageous to either side. For instance, Richard

Mayhue says, Regarding internal evidence, this writer has foregone any discussion . . .

because of the frequent use of figurative language in Revelation, one could easily read ones

own prophetic voice into the interpretation to prove his historical and/or theological

conclusions.29

Unfortunately, Mayhue seems to believe that Revelation is such an

allegorical mess that anyones interpretation fits. He overlooks, however, that a literal

interpretation puts the proper restraints on the passage so that it can be understood.

Therefore, since the internal evidence comes from the inspired text it must be examined in

full. The first five evidences mentioned below are those often cited by early date advocates.

These will be examined for their integrity. The latter four evidences overtly support the late

date.

Theme

Almost every commentator on Revelation agrees that 1:7 is the theme verse of

Revelation: Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those

28Donald Guthrie,New Testament Introduction(Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970), 957.

29He also mentions that space restraint limits him. See, Mayhue, Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist?, 15.


10/25

10

who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

Neronic date advocates argue that this text says Jesus was coming back, not in the end to

judge the whole world, but in the near futureto judge Israel.30

In order to interpret the verse

this way, however, they have to do some hermeneutical gymnastics. First, they must abolish

the similarity between Zechariah 12:10-13:3 and Revelation 1:7. The Zechariah passage says,

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace

and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they

shall mourn for him . . . as one weeps over a firstborn. In all scholarly opinion, John is

referring back to this passage when he writes 1:7. If a near judgment of Israel interpretation

of 1:7 is true, then John is quoting Zechariah 12:10ff completely out of context. In Zechariah

the coming will be accompanied by remorse and repentance. But in this interpretation the

coming will actually be in judgment with no thought of mercy at all.

A second problem is that the text clearly says the whole earth will see Him.

Neronic daters circumvent this by focusing on the phrase thosewho pierced Him. While

this certainly refers to the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Christ, the gospels and Acts

clearly lay blame on gentiles as well for the crime (John 19:31; Acts 4:27). Further, the text

states that all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him.31

These parameters do not

limit the coming to only Israel or the Palestinian landscape. The Revelation is obviously

30Gentry,Before Jerusalem Fell, 131-132.

31Any attempt to make tribes as a reference to Israel or land as a reference to the Promise Land

fail upon investigation of the context of Revelation and the other uses of these words within the text of

revelation. See, Robert L. Thomas, Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation, The Masters Seminary Journal

5 (1994): 191-193 and G. K. Beale,NIGTC: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25-26.


11/25

11

worldwide in scope, and this passage, being the theme of the book, is worldwide in scope as

well.

Immanency

Closely related to the theme is the idea that pervades the book concerning the

immediacy of the Revelation (1:1, 3, 19; 22:6, 7, 12, 20). The argument seems strong

enough: if the book says that these things will happen quickly this should not be a period

of at least 1900 years. But there are problems with this understanding of these terms. If, as

the proponents argue, Jesus had to return during this generation (Matt. 24:34) then there is

no doubt that Jesus would be coming within a certain time period. Yet the Scripture clearly

teaches that the time of Jesus coming is not knowneven by Him (Matt. 24:36).32

Therefore, The teaching of Christs imminent returnis not about setting a time limit on

when He will come. It is about teaching an attitude of expectancy that provides motivation

for a godly lifestyle.33

Overall, then, immanency is largely misunderstood by those who

advocate an early date. Jesus never limited His coming to any specific time frame. Instead,

He taught that people ought to always be ready for His coming.

32Thomas notes that the passage about this generation occurs within the same teaching that no one

knows the time of Jesus return. See, Thomas, Theonomy, 199.

33Ibid.


12/25

12

Temple in Chapter 11

This much-debated passage in Revelation is touted as one of the strongest

arguments for the early date.34

Here, John is given a measuring rod and told to measure the

temple. The question that Neronic date advocates ask is, what temple is John measuring if

the temple has already been destroyed?The literal hermeneutic which must be applied to

this text does seem to indicate that John is measuring a real temple. But what is this temple?

Is it Herods temple as the Preterists argue? Or is it a literal temple rebuilt during the

tribulationone that Ezekiel mentions in chapters 40-48 of his prophecy? Interestingly

enough, in Ezekielsvision a temple was measured even though there was no temple in

Jerusalem during his time. Therefore, since John was in a vision, there is no indication at all

that there is a literal temple standing at the time that John wrote.35

Therefore, the reference is

to a literal temple standing during the tribulation of which John was seeing a vision.

The Seven Kings

Revelation 17:9-11 reads, This calls for a mind with wisdom . . . they are also

seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does

come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth

but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.Correlating this prophecy with the

Roman kings of Johns day, early date advocates create a compelling interpretation of this

34Walvoord notes, A comparison of many commentaries will reveal the widest kind of

disagreement as to the meaning of this chapter. See, John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ

(Chicago: Moody, 1989), 175.

35Ice,Has Bible Prophecy, 310.


13/25

13

passage. Under this interpretation, the first king was Julius Caesar, the sixth Nero, and the

seventh Galba. If this elucidation stands, then an early date is proved.

The problem with this interpretation, however, is that it is not altogether clear.

Why should the number of emperors start at Julius Caesar when the first emperor was

actually Caesar Augustus? Further, within the early date camp there are disagreements as to

who should be the sixth emperor. Gentry believes that it is Nero,36

but Robertson believes it

is Galba.37

The incongruity here points to the fact that what is claimed by early daters as

clear is in fact not clear at all. Walvoord comments, The explanation of the beast

introduced by the unusual phrase, here is the mind which hath wisdom anticipates the

difficulty and complexity of the revelation to follow. The reader is warned that spiritual

wisdom is required to understand that which is unfolded.38

Interpreters should take heed that

the interpretation of this passage is not as evident as many would like to make it. In fact, the

best interpretation of this passage does not refer to kings at all. Instead, it refers to

kingdoms.39

Ice comments on this analysis when he says, The five fallen refer to Egypt,

Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time John

36Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 104.

37Robinson,Redating the New Testament, 248.

38Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 250.

39Some might assert that the normal interpretation of the passage demands that it be kings in view.

Kistemaker speaks directly to this question when he says, Although this is true, there is validation for the word

Kingdoms. . . The termKingsis translated in numerous versions, including the Septuagint, as Kingdoms,

because kingdoms over which kings rule are greater and more enduring than their rulers. See, Simon J.

Kistemaker,New Testament Commentary: Revelation(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 33.


14/25

14

wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist,

known in the Revelation as the beast.40

Due to the mess of interpretive issues that naturally arise by identifying the

prophecy with Roman kings (who was the first, who was the sixth, etc.), it is hard to

understand why early date advocates claim this passage lucidly teaches their interpretation.

This is especially true when it is seen that many exegetes deny this passage speaks of kings at

all. Instead, many believe it speaks of kingdoms. Therefore, what was looked at as a strong

proof turns out to be the creativity of the early date interpreter.

The Number of the Antichrist

Gentry, as well as almost every other early date advocate, argues that the number

assigned to the antichrist is a cryptogram (numerical puzzle).41

According to the relation of

letters with numbers in the Hebrew language Caesar Neronadds up to 666. This would

seem to indicate then that the prophecy of Revelation was written some time during or before

Neros reign. But there are problems with this line of reasoning. Cryptograms certainly

existed during the time of Johns writing, but there is little reason why John, who was writing

in the Greek language to Greek speaking people, would have written a cryptogram in the

40Ice,Has Bible Prophecy,, 311.

41Gentry,Before Jerusalem Fell, 193-219.


15/25

15

Hebrew language.42

Further, Nero was called by many names. Therefore, to use the particular

name Caesar Neron for the cryptogram is altogether too convenient.43

A final argument against ascribing the identity of the antichrist to Nero is that

Irenaeus, when discussing this passage in depth, never mentioned Nero as a possibility

though he did mention some names. It is hard to imagine that one so close to John would

have missed such an immediate application.44

Persecution

Having looked at the main evidences used by early date advocates, the next task

is to examine the evidence in favor of a late date. The first evidence concerns the nature of

persecution in Revelation. Revelation shows two tendencies (1) emperor worship and (2)

empire wide persecution. It is generally agreed that, in the case of Christians, the former is

the cause of the latter

While there is some early evidence that some of the emperors thought of

themselves as gods, Domitian took it a step furtherhe told people to call him our lord and

god.45

Thus, Domitian demanded worship.46

Obviously, this was not acceptable to a

42Guthrie,New Testament Introduction, 959.

43Beale,NIGTC: Revelation, 24. Beale also notes that the Greek word qurion also adds up to 666.He questions whether this is a coincidence.

44Zahn argues that it was not until the nineteenth century that Nero was associated with the

antichrist.See, Theodor Zahn,Introduction to the New Testament Vol. III (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock

Christian Publishers, 1977), 447 n.4.

45Bruce M. Metzger,Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1993), 16.

46Warden, in his paper devoted to imperial persecution, says, The record is considerably stronger

that Domitian did, in fact, demand divine recognition to a degree that his predecessors generally had not done.


16/25

16

Christians who knew only one Lord (Eph. 4:5). Further proof for Domitians desire for

worship came in 113 A.D. when Pliny wrote to Trajan, the emperor following Domitian,

asking how to treat Christians.47

Trajan responded by saying that Christians should not be

looked for, but if accused and convicted they should be imprisoned. It was quickly added,

however, that Christians could avoid punishment if they would worship the emperor along

with other gods. For the subject at hand, the most interesting part of the letter was that Pliny

said some had recanted Christ up to twenty years earlier.48

By subtracting the years, one finds

that this was during the reign of Domitian! Therefore, while there was probably not a

programmatic system of persecution for those who did not worship Domitian, evidence

suggest that during his reign there was persecution for not worshipping him. Furthermore,

there is evidence that a temple was dedicated to the family Sebastoi (Vespian, Titus, and

Domitian) in 89-90 in Ephesus. This provides further proof that within the area for which

John was writing there was pressure to worship the emperor.49

That the book of Revelation relates persecution amongst Gods people is

undeniable. The letters to the churches declare a situation in which there was already some

persecution (exiling [1:9], martyrdom [2:13], and imprisonment [2:10]), but the idea John

portrays is that persecution would increase.50

The question which must be answered,

See, Duane Warden, Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation, Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 208.

47Pliny, Ancient History Sourcebook: Pliny and Trajan, Fordham University,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.html (Accessed 30 November 2007), 10.96-97.

48Ibid.

49Kistemaker,New Testament Commentary, 36-37.



17/25

17

however, is whether this persecution fits within the timeframe of 90 or 70 A.D. While Nero

and his infamous persecution of Christians is a likely candidate it is excluded because the

effects probably never reached Asia. The whole point of Neros persecution was that he

wanted a scapegoat for his act of arson in Rome.51

Therefore,Neros persecution wasonly

local, though extreme. On the other hand, the persecution under Domitian seemed to be

instigated by emperor worship.52

And as Guthrie concludes, The strength of the Caesar-cult

in Asia and the fact that a new Caesar-temple was erected during Domitians reign would

make persecution there in his time highly probable.53

Overall, the proof for Asiatic

persecution under either Nero or Domitian is weak, but the evidence suggested by emperor

worship does point toward the latter.

Nero Myth

There was a popular myth spread during the Roman Empire that Nero was going

to come back from the dead. Early on it seemed to originate that he did not die, and then later

developed into the idea that he would come back to life to rule the empire. Swete argues

persuasively that many texts in Revelation are greatly influenced by this myth (13:3, 12, 14;

17:8).54

The general argument is that myths take time to develop. This myth had certainly

come to full circulation by the time of Tacitus (living during the time of Domitian) who

51Leon Morris, Tyndale NT Commentaries: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 36.

52Revelation is full of references to emperor worship (13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2 19:20;

20:4) see, Beale,NIGTC: Revelation, 5.


54Swete, The Apocalypse, p. ci.


18/25

18

called it a joke.55

Overall, however, the reliance of John on the Nero myth is

questionable and if it could be ascertained would not conclusively settle the matter.

Therefore, sole reliance upon this proof is unwarranted. Guthrie concludes, The most that

can be said is that it may possibly point to [a Domitianic date].56

Chronology of Church Leaders

According to the Preterists Revelation was written in late 65 or early 66 A.D.57

This creates some chronological problems as to who was the leader of the Asiatic churches. It

is evident that John had risen to a prominent position in these churches (Rev. 2-3). But if

Revelation was written at the time Preterists hold then John would not have been able to gain

a sufficient influence in the church.58

Paul was unarguably the most dominant leader in these

churches and his final visit to these believers was in 65 A.D. Therefore, as Thomas states, A

Neronic dating would hardly have allowed time for him to have settled in Asia, to have

replaced Paul as the respected leader in Asian churches, and then to have been exiled to

Patmos before Neros death in A.D. 68.59

Added to this chorological issue is the fact that

Paul, near his death, placed Timothy in charge of the Asiatic churches (I Tim. 1:3). Why


56Ibid.

57Gentry,Before Jerusalem Fell, 336.

58Thomas argues that Paul would have had to be in Asia for at least 5 years to become a dominant

figure. If that were the case, he argues that Paul would have had little reason to re-visit Asia after his

imprisonment. Further, he sees no reason to place Timothy in charge if John were already there. Thomas,

Theonomy,201.

59Robert L. Thomas,Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary(Chicago: Moody, 1992), 22.


19/25

19

would Timothy, who was not an apostle, need to take charge over an area for which an

apostle was present?

Further, though consisting from arguments of silence, it is startling that John

would not have mentioned Timothy or Paul to a congregation that was immensely influenced

by them. And, if Revelation were written in 66 A.D., it is also surprising to note that John

was not mentioned by Peter or Paul when they wrote to Asia around that time.60

Overall, a Neronic date does not suit the chronology that the Scriptures portray.

The only recourse available to early date advocates is to deny the apostolic authorship of

Revelation.61

The scope of this paper does not allow for an in-depth analysis of the

authorship of Revelation, but it should be noted that any evidence which claims Revelation

was written by someone other than the apostle John is based on sandy foundations.62

State of the Churches

Arguably the strongest witness to a late date is developed from the second and

third chapters of Revelation.63

Within these chapters John addresses the seven churches of

Asia. The problem with the early date is that it does not seem to fit the descriptions given of

these churches. On the other hand, a late date of Revelation accords with all of the

descriptions.

60

Kistemaker,New Testament Commentary, 34.

61This track has been taken by some early date advocates. Thomas notes that it is the only way to

resolve the chronological issue. Thomas,Revelation 1-7, 22.

62See, Grant R. Osborne, BECNT: Revelation(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 2-6.

63Osborne found these evidences so compelling that he notes, It is this aspect that first convinced

me to change my earlier view of a Neronian date. See, Ibid., 9.


20/25

20

First, the churches as a whole seem to have some history behind them. In fact,

the evidence suggests that these believers were second generation Christiansa conclusion

that would annul the early date hypothesis. Significantly, the three churches indicated as

having spiritual decline were Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea. Why these churches were

significant is that Paul was highly involved in the planting and watering of two of these. If, as

has been duly noted before, Paul wrote Ephesians in 61-62 A.D.,64

then what is found here is

a stark difference in only five years time! While the Ephesians in 62 A.D. were vibrant to the

extent that Paul thanked God for their vitality (1:15-16) now they are described as having left

their first love (2:4). Furthermore, Kistemaker notes the spiritual atrophy of Asia when he

says, Neither the personal epistles addressed to Timothy in the mid-60s nor the general

epistles of Peter sent to the same region at that time reflect the situation depicted in Jesus

letters to the churches in the province of Asia.65

The spiritual decline at this time seems

broad and deeply pervasive. While it is true that the Corinthian church struggled to live in

holiness and the Galatian church was allowing some false teaching to creep in,66

the overall

tenor of the Revelation letters indicates that some of these isolated issues had become

programmatic in the churches. And this would have taken some time to develop.

Closely aligned to the last point is the fact that there was a false teaching

spreading in the Asiatic churches called the Nicolaitan heresy (2:6, 15). While the actual

tenets of this false belief remain an enigma, what is known is that Paul never made mention

64Peter T OBrien,PNTC: Ephesians(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 62.

65Kistemaker,New Testament Commentary, 34.

66For this argument fleshed out see, Robinson,Redating the New Testament, 229.


21/25

21

of it or the leader of it (supposedly Nicolai). This would be rather strange if Paul had written

2 Timothy to Ephesus around 65-66 A.D. Again, this is an argument from silence, but if

Revelation was written in 67 A.D. it is a stunning silence.

A third argument for a late date within the description of the Asiatic churches is

the existence of Smyrna. It has been argued from a statement made by Polycarp (70-155), the

bishop of Smyrna, that the church in Smyrna was not even in existence until after the death

of Paul.67

This would put the date far too close to the supposed early date of Revelation. But,

as Robertson notes Polycarps statement could mean that the Philippians were converted

before the Smyrneans. Robertson then goes on to say, It is astonishing that so much has

been built on so little.68

Here Robertson is correct and all that can be said of the existence of

the church in Smyrna and Polycarps statement is that it mayindicate that the church had not

been built by 67 A.D.

A final argument derived from the epistles concerns the boasting of the

Laodicean church. History proves that in 60-61 A.D. a destructive earthquake shook the city

of Laodicea. The evidence in the letter to the Laodiceans, however, shows no indication that

there are any economic problems in the city at all. In fact, the church was saying, I am rich;

I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing (3:17). This would hardly be the case with a

city going through major reconstruction. Of course, history notes that the city rebuilt itself

without any help from Romesomething nearly unheard of then. But the city could not have

67Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/

fathers/0136.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007), II.3.

68Robinson,Redating the New Testament, 229-30.


22/25

22

done so in the short period between the earthquake and the early date proposed for

Revelation.

Because of the potency of the evidence for Laodiceas destruction, Gentry has

proposed three rebuttals; (1) the earthquake did not impact the Christian sector, (2) the

wealth spoken of was spiritual not physical, and (3) the city was quickly rebuilt.69

Against

the argument that the Christian sector was not influenced is the fact that nearly every exegete

will admit that gentry is grasping for straws. Further, had something similar to Gods

protection of the Jews in Egypt happened in Laodicea it would most certainly have been

recorded for future generations. The lack of any data confirming this hypothesis strikes it a

fatal blow. Gentrys second argument, also, does not seem to fit the text. As Thomas notes,

A careful exegesis of 3:17, however, shows that Christians in the city thought their material

prosperity was equivalent to spiritual prosperity, not that they were spiritually rich while

materially poor.70

Finally, against the last argument is the fact that the rebuilding process

was still going on in 79 A.D., and that there was a recorded poverty striking the Lycus

valleyprobably as a result of the earthquake.71

Altogether, then, Gentrys arguments do not

accomplish their objective; for the evidence of Laodiceas destruction by earthquake still

stands as strong evidence for Revelation being written in the 90s.

69Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 176-177.

70Thomas, Theonomy, 203.

71Ibid.


23/25

23

Conclusion

Both internal and external evidences support a Domitianic date for Revelation.

Many have been the tactics to deny this conclusion, but the evidence stands firm. Believers

can rest assured, then, that what is written as a prophecy of the end times will come to pass

just as it is written. Far from becoming a text removed from the audience of the first century,

Revelation is perpetually relevant. The admonition that the Lord is coming back soon

should ignite the holiness of men to greater vibrancy. In the end, all will be made right, Satan

will be bound and cast into the Lake of Fire, there will be a millennial reign with Christ, and

believers will enjoy eternity around the throne. This is the unadulterated interpretation of

Revelation that is upheld by the evidence of a Domitianic date.


24/25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beale, G. K.NIGTC: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Carson, D. A. and Douglass J. Moo.An introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2005.

Clement of Alexandria. Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Early Christian

Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-richman.html

(Accessed 30 November 2007).

Couch, Mal. Inerrancy: The Book of Revelation. Conservative Theological Journal 5

(2001): 56-63.

____________. Introductory Thoughts on Allegorical Interpretation and the Book ofRevelation Part I. Conservative Theological Journal1 (1997): 15-31.

Eusebius. Church History.New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

(Accessed 30 November 2007).

Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr.Before Jerusalem Fell. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian

Economics, 1999.

____________. The Beast of Revelation. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,2002.

Guthrie, Donald.New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970.

House, Wayne and Thomas Ice.Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? Portland, Oregon:

Multinomah, 1988.

Ice, Thomas. Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Conservative Theological

Journal 4 (2000): 165-189.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies.Columbia University. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/

arch/irenaeus/advhaer5.txt (Accessed 30 November 2007).

Jerome. Against Jovinianus.New Advent.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

(Accessed 1 December 2007).

Kistemaker, Simon J.New Testament Commentary: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.


25/25

Ladd, George Eldon.A Commentary on the Revelation of John.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1972.

Mayhue, Richard L. Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist? The Masters Seminary Journal 14

(2003): 10-23.

Metzger, Bruce M.Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation.Nashville:

Abingdon, 1993.

Morris, Leon. Tyndale NT Commentaries: Revelation.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

OBrien, Peter T.PNTC: Ephesians.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Osborne, Grant R.BECNT: Revelation.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Pliny. Ancient History Sourcebook: Pliny and Trajan.Fordham University.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.html (Accessed 30 November

2007).

Polycarp. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/

fathers/0136.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007).

Robinson, John A. T.Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1909.

Tertullian. Exclusion of Heretics.New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/


Thomas, Robert L. Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation. The Masters SeminaryJournal5 (1994): 186-203.

______________.Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary.Chicago: Moody, 1992.

Victorinus. Commentary on the Apocalypse.New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/


Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1989.

Warden, Duane. Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation.Journal of

the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 203-213.

Zahn, Theodor.Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. III. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock

Christian Publishers, 1977. 447 n.4

Documents

Dating the Book of Revelation