By Mark W. Christy
The dating of Revelation is extremely important to those who desire to properly determine the identities behind its symbolism. Among the various over-arching perspectives on John’s content, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Preterism favor a dating that occurs before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D and during the reign of Nero, as this would allow them to associate much of the events recorded by John to be directly associated with Jerusalem and thus consigned to history. While some premillennialists also assume the earlier dating, most prefer to date Revelation to sometime in the later years of Domitian’s reign.
If those who support the early dating are correct, then one would be forced to delve deeper into the various views on the meaning of John’s symbolism so as to arrive at a reasonably sound interpretation. However, if the later date is validated, then the readers of Revelation would by default have to align themselves at least broadly with the premillennial perspective even while debating particular interpretations of John’s multitude of symbolic references. Since there is no conclusive argument to affirm either dating approach, the only option left for the interpreter is to carefully weigh the evidence to determine where its cumulative weight points. To this end, this article will seek to discuss the evidences of both views together with any significant counter arguments.
Evidence for an Early Date
John’s Own Timing of the Events
In the very first verse, John offers a time reference for the events that unfold in the vision that follows by calling them “the things which must soon take place.” Proponents of the pre-70 A.D. dating point to this as solid support. As Doug Wilson states, “Believing this to be a revelation, and not an obscuring, [one] should expect the fulfillment of the vast majority of this book to occur within a few years of the time it was given. The operative word is soon. With this assumption, many details within the book swim into focus.”[1]
Despite Wilson’s strong affirmation, he himself admits that he is making an “assumption.” Those who would argue against see John as simply intending to set forth the initial unfolding of his vision instead of foretelling of its near-term completion. That this may indeed be John’s intent can be seen from his usage of exact same phrase, “the things which must soon take place,” which he used to speak of the entirety of his vision in 22:6. Specifically, the vision portrays the Second Coming of Christ, which certainly has not occurred so long as one upholds the orthodox view of the Lord’s bodily return and the resurrection of the dead.
Jesus’ Coming with the Clouds
Quoting from Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10, John prophesies, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen” (Rev 1:7).[2] Though John excludes it, Zechariah identifies those who mourn in his prophesy as “the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” With this in mind, those who prefer an earlier dating of Revelation claim that John is referencing “all the tribes” of Israel because “earth” in Greek can also mean ‘land.’ Based on this assertion, they understand John’s reference to clouds as clouds of judgement and the mourning to be associated with the atrocities that befell Jerusalem ending with its demise in A.D. 70.
To uncover whether or not this argument has sufficient merit, one should first consider the quoted verses from Daniel and Zechariah. In Daniel 7:13, Jesus arrives before the “Ancient of Days” by “coming” “with the clouds of heaven.” This, it would seem, is a picture of Christ’s ascension as Wilson, who affirms an earlier dating, would agree.[3] Along with this, Wilson also affirms that Zechariah 12:10 is a prophesy concerning the Pentecost.[4] Despite these acknowledgements, he still argues that John has in mind the judgement of Jerusalem such that its fall in A.D. 70 is an appropriate climax to the horrors unfolding in John’s prophesy.
This conclusion is rather surprising given that Zechariah is, even as Wilson affirms, entirely focused on good tidings for Israelites. Moreover, the only destruction borne out in the context of the quoted material involves a particular “day” when God “will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem” (Zech 12:9). Like Rome in A.D. 70, these nations “siege…Jerusalem” for, as the prophet declares, “all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it” (Zech 12:2-3). The outcome of this siege, however, is not like the one that occurred in the first century. According to Zechariah, God will cause the Israelites to “consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem” (12:6).
In the midst of this divinely enabled picture of total victory, Zechariah speaks of a Pentecost that appears to be somehow different than the initial Pentecost in Acts 2 because it appears to be associated with a future eschatological event that occurs in conjunction with the nations coming toward Jerusalem to destroy it (12:10). The mourning which he references and which John quotes cannot be mourning that would arise from sadness because judgement upon Israel is not portrayed in Zechariah 12. Rather, the prophet is pointing to a future time of unparalleled blessing when the entirety of Israel will experience the call to salvation coinciding with God’s deliverance.
By viewing John’s reference in light of Zechariah’s portrayal of a final battle scene between the world and God’s people in Jerusalem, the universal dimension of John’s intending meaning becomes even more clear. Supporting this, John, in Revelation, 1:7, also mentions that “every eye will see” Jesus. Those who compose this group must not be limited to the Israelites because “all the tribes of the earth” always refers to all nations throughout the Septuagint.
John’s Reference to the Temple
In Revelation 11:1-2, John writes, “Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, ‘Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it.’” Some suggest that the temple to which John is referring is the first-century Herodian temple that was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. To buttress their position, they offer a counter-argument to those supporting a post-70 A.D. dating by arguing that John would have almost certainly spoke of the fall of the Jerusalem temple had he written Revelation under Domitian. With this assumption, they see the temple being pictured by John as still standing as strong evidence for their view.
Their conclusion, however, quickly loses its warrant for four main reasons. First, John often employs symbolic language throughout his prophetic discourse, so mandating a literal reading without substantial intertextual clues would not be wise. Second, John is “given…a measuring rod like a staff” by an angel, so it would seem that the temple being referenced here is one that existed only in a vision (cf. Rev 10:9-11). Third, the temple envisioned by John does not accord with the 1st century temple but with the eschatological temple spoken of by Ezekiel (cf. 40-48). Fourth, John does not refer to the temple using the standard New Testament term (ἱερόν). Instead, he only uses the term that refers to the inner sanctuary (ναός). Given these reasons, it would seem that John is likely referring to a temple that is either purely symbolic or perhaps one that will be built at a later date as the eschaton approaches.
Jerusalem as the Harlot
In his prophecy concerning the doom of Babylon, John sees “a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns” (17:3). While declaring the name of the woman to be mysterious, he nevertheless provides what most assume to be a symbolic rendering of it (17:5). Specifically, the woman is called “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Further identification of this woman, as provided by John, is that she is “drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus” (17:6). This woman, according to those preferring an earlier date for John’s Revelation, is typically identified as the city of Jerusalem in part because John calls the harlot “the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth” and notes that “in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth” (17:18; 18:24).
This interpretation is further bolstered by John’s earlier statement in 11:8 where he calls “the great city” the place that “mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.” Reading a typical English translation of this verse, one would likely be compelled to validate this interpretation as clear and unmistakable. Despite the convincing nature of this surface-level reading of a given English translation, a more likely interpretation based upon Greek grammar would require one to interpret “where also their Lord was crucified” as a subordinate clause modifying “Sodom and Egypt” and thus continuing to express the spiritual nature of the prophesied city in a mystical manner.
While the Lord was certainly crucified in Jerusalem, the place that John speaks of is “mystically called Sodom and Egypt” (italics mine). This being the case, it could be that John is speaking of a place where Christ was “mystically” crucified, a place like Rome for instance where Nero crucified many believers after blaming them for the burning of Rome. Further evidence to support this view is found in the usage of ὅπου (“where”) at other places throughout Revelation where John uses it to introduce symbolic or mystical places (2:13; 12:6, 14; 14:4; 17:3, 9; 20:10).
Overlooking these grammatical detractions, those who still wish to favor Jerusalem as the great city and the harlot of Revelation so as to support the pre-70 A.D. dating will also note that it is said to be “clothed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls” (18:16). Given these adornments, these interpreters believe they have evidence to further support their idea that this great city is apostate Israel because the clothing mentioned by John is that of the Jewish high priest. Acknowledging the strong likelihood that John in some way desires to draw his readers to consider the blatant apostasy of Israel by using Ezekiel’s prophesy to draft his description (cf. Ezek 16:13, 18, 24-34; 27:12-24; 28:13), G. K. Beale also observes that John’s “allusion also includes the clothing of the pagan king of Tyre, who himself reflects the attire of Adam and Eve” based on Ezekiel 28:13.[5] Since allusions from the clothing can be drawn to both the high priest of Jerusalem and that of a Gentile king and then connected to both religious and economic matters, Babylon is likely a wealthy and idolatrous city like Rome or the economic-religious world of paganism in general
The Seven Kings as Roman Emperors
This harlot in 17:5, which is seen as Jerusalem by those who uphold an earlier date for Revelation, is pictured by John to be riding on a beast “having seven heads and ten horns” (17:3). Further aid in the identification of the beast is provided by 17:8-10: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while” (17:9-10).
The “seven mountains” are almost always associated with the city of Rome regardless of how a given interpreter prefers to date Revelation because Rome was historically known as the city on seven hills. These seven mountains also, according to John, represent seven kings. Among those who prefer an earlier date for Romans, these kings are most often associated with various first century Roman emperors. Using this approach, five emperors are understood to be “fallen, one is” currently alive at the time of John’s vision, and “the other” one who will bring the fall of Jerusalem “is yet to come” (17:10).[6]
To determine the identity of the “king” in power at the time of John’s vision using this interpretation, those who prefer the pre-A.D. 70 dating look for an answer in the lineage of 1st century A.D. Roman emperors. To this end, although Augustus was the first “king” of Rome, the first official emperor was Julius Caesar followed by Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellus, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. If one starts with Augustus despite his unofficial status, one arrives at Nero as the “king” in power at the time of John’s vision. This, however, causes complications as one attempts to identify the seventh king because Galba, Otho, and Vitellus only reigned for a combined total of about a year and a half after Nero’s reign ended in A.D. 68. By the fall of Jerusalem, they were out of power and Vespasian was in power.
Others who prefer to date Revelation by understanding John’s mention of the “seven kings” as Roman emperors in the first century A.D. may choose to start with Augustus since he was the first official emperor. Under this system, Galba would be in power at the time of John’s writing of Revelation, and so the fall of Jerusalem would remain a possible interpretation of the events prophesied by John that led up to the Second Coming of Christ. This approach, however, suffers from the same problem as the previous one because the seventh king would be Otho or Vitellus and not Vespasian.
To escape the problems that occur from the two previous approaches to identifying the seven kings, some will uphold Nero as the sixth king, and then exclude the following three kings given their relatively short reign. By doing this, they arrive at Vespasian as the seventh king, and this of course would align with the timing of the fall of Jerusalem. Despite its suitability to the claims of those hoping to arriving at early date for the composition of Revelation, this method fails to consider that some ancient writers viewed these short-lived emperors as legitimate emperors of Rome.
Those who wish to associate the seven kings with the Roman emperors ultimately encounter multiple difficulties as they proceed in that direction. For one thing, the seventh king is at some point joined by an eighth king (who is also called “the beast”). This king is often associated with the Roman Empire by those seeking an early date for Revelation. The problem with this contention is that the Roman Empire does not fall until well after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (17:10-11). Beyond this, this beast does not fall until the time of Christ’s Second Coming to war against Him (19:19).
Should one prefer to cast the beast’s war with the Lamb as mere symbolism for persecutions that broke out before the inauguration of the Church Age which followed the fall of Jerusalem, one would still encounter some issues. Specifically, the short reigns of Galba and his predecessor lacked any significant persecutions. Those who offer an earlier date that leads to one of these emperors being the seventh king will find this is a difficult obstacle to surmount.
Nonetheless and as noted already, some may posit Vespasian as the seventh king by overlooking the short reign of those emperors following Nero. This, however, will not resolve the dilemma because the seventh king (who will be empowered by the beast) according to John will persecute God’s people on a much larger scale than any who preceded him (11:7; 13:7-10; 19:20; 20:1-9). Since Nero is recognized as the foremost persecutor of Christians among all other 1st century Roman emperors, then there is no king left to identify as the one who would have been like this prophesied seventh king.
To reassert the earlier dating, some scholars will try to resolve the problem of the seventh king needing to be the greatest persecutor of Christians by assuming, by relying on 1st century legends, that Nero somehow was revived after his death and was thus enabled to return to power. Besides lacking any historical support for its being factual, the usage of this fanciful account also fails to consider that the sixth king as the “one” who “is” cannot also be “the other” who “has not yet come” (17:10).
666
Another way for those supporting the earlier date for Revelation involves the identification of the first beast in Chapter 13. The first beast coming out of the sea is understood as the Roman Empire, but it is also, even by some of the same commentators, thought to be Nero, who was the head of the Roman Empire at the time that these same commentators believe that Revelation was penned (13:1).[7] Those who see the land beast as Nero do so based on Revelation 13:18: “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six” (cf. 15:2; 20:4).
To arrive at the conclusion that Nero’s number is 666, these commentators use the Hebrew system of gematria to reduce the name, Caesar Nero, to that number. While this rendering is possible, it suffers from multiple fronts. First, John certainly could not have expected his Gentile audience to have sufficient knowledge of Hebrew, much less the capacity to transition it to numbers. Second, Nero had many names and titles, so adapting one that allowed for a calculation of 666 seems somewhat arbitrary. Third, this Hebrew system allowed for multiple variations when accounting for vowels, and therefore, aligning any name and/or title of Nero with the numerical value of 666 only becomes still more arbitrary.
Evidence for a Later Date
Emperor Worship and the Persecution of Christians
In the previous discussion, it was observed that those preferring an early date for Revelation understand “the beast coming up out of the sea” to be the Roman Empire headed by Nero (as one of the seven heads of the beast) or some other 1st century Roman emperor who aligns with their preferred method of dating. Since the beast is worshipped, many commentators argue that this worship must be some form of emperor worship given their imposed limitation on the identity of the beast’s head (cf. 13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).
If they are correct, one would expect to find largescale refusal to participate on the part of Christians coinciding with massive persecutions as this would fit the context of John’s discussion on the worship of the beast. In John’s words, the beast was given the power to “make war with the saints and to overcome them…and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.” (13:7, 16). This imagery in a way could compare loosely to Nero, who has been recognized as the greatest persecutors of Christians in the 1st century A.D. With this admission however, one should realize that Nero was not known to persecute Christians due to their lack of participation in the imperial cult. This sort of persecution, in fact, finds no attestation in any of the historical sources of the period. Moreover, Pliny’s letter to Emperor Trajan, one of the earliest sources written in the early part of the 2nd century A.D., suggests that no such persecution was even occurring on any significant scale at that time because Trajan advises official actions against Christians to be based upon the need to preserve order as opposed to a fixation upon outright religious persecution.[8] Pliny’s appeal for advice directly from Emperor Trajan serves as strong evidence that the Roman courts had yet to adjudicate over many trials involving Christians refusing to worship the emperor. Along with this argumentation from history, those who prefer a later date for Revelation also observe that Domitian was known to deport those who held objectionable religious views.[9]
The State of the Seven Churches
Among the seven churches mentioned by John in Revelation 2-3, the ones in Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea were all rebuked by the Lord. Among these, the churches in Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea are in such a pathetic spiritual state that they are in danger of losing the status as communities of the faithful. Pointing to this, those who uphold a later date question how such decay could have happened so quickly since it would have been only a short time, assuming an earlier date for Revelation, since Paul and his associates started these churches. For this reason (in conjunction with the others discussed in this article), they argue that a later date would seem more viable.
Along with noting the amazing spiritual decline of these three churches, those preferring the later date also find evidence in John’s description of the Laodicean Church as being “wealthy” (3:17). This, they say, would be surprising should one hold to an earlier date because Laodicea experienced a devastating earthquake in A.D. 60-61 that required it to have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Since this was the case, those who affirm the later date posit that Laodicea’s development into an economic powerhouse would have been impossible in such a short time.
Jerusalem as Babylon
Despite the previous evidence given to the contrary by those argue for the pre-70 A.D. dating, Beale submits that John’s usage of Babylon in his identification of the harlot “may be one of the strongest pieces of internal evidence that [Revelation] is to be dated after 70 A.D., since that after date the name is typically applied in Judaism to Rome.” This being said, he also offers the counter to this support by stating that no ancient record that predates the fall of Jerusalem ever refers to Jerusalem as Babylon. Since this is the case, it seems that Babylon could very well be a symbolic reference to either Rome or the pagan system in general as noted earlier.
For those supporting the post-70 A.D. dating, many prefer Rome as John’s intended meaning behind his mention of Babylon. This connection is resoundingly plausible because Rome is frequently referred to as Babylon in post-70 A.D. Jewish literature (including 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Sibylline Oracles) due to the Jewish association of Rome with Babylon. This association is understandable after the fall of Jerusalem because, like Rome, Babylon had destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in the sixth century B.C.
Tradition
Though internal evidence from within Revelation is always to be preferred when establishing its dating, one should not overlook significant historical affirmations that appear to align with the internal evidence. While those who affirm the earlier dating see this ancient support as having been debunked, those approving of the later date have no trouble appealing to it since it only adds further weight to their argument. Among the many ancient sources that testify to Revelation having been written in the reign of Domitian, perhaps the leading witness is that of Irenaeus.
Spending his youth in Smyrna, where Revelation would have circulated, and knowing Polycarp, who was a disciple of John Himself, Irenaeus was certainly well-positioned to confirm the time when John committed his vision to writing. In his work entitled “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus attests to John having written Revelation “towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”[10] Along with this, this ancient writer also discusses the identity of the beast whose number is 666. Unlike those who affirm the earlier dating, Irenaeus does not even consider Nero as a possible interpretation.
The Seven Kings as Kingdoms
While those supporting the early dating hold that the seven kings of Revelation 17:10-11 are Roman emperors, those who argue for the Domitian dating find support from Daniel (chapters 2 and 7), who discusses the rising and falling of six dominant kingdoms in the Mediterranean world. These (in the order given by Daniel which also coincides with their place in history) include Neo-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greco-Macedonia, and Rome. Those who wish to associate these kingdoms in Daniel with the seven kings in Revelation typically add either Babylon or Egypt as the first kingdom predating Ne-Babylon followed by Assyria. With these two in place, they then position Rome as the “one” who currently “is” in Revelation 17:10. Then, they posit the seventh kingdom “has not yet come” as some future empire. To support this, proponents will point out that the Septuagint translates Daniel’s reference to kings as kingdoms in 7:17 which reads, “These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.”
Since they take the seven kings as kingdoms, they must then reconsider the identification of the land beast of Revelation 13:18 which early daters often presume to be Nero. For them, they also connect this land beast directly with the beast who John identifies as the eighth king, or head, as well as somehow part of the seven kings, or heads, as well: “The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction” (17:11). Given the beast’s connection with all eight heads of the kingdoms, those who prefer the later date often associate the beast with the spirit of the Antichrist who will be personified in the rulers of these kingdoms.
Conclusion
After surveying the best evidence for both the early and late dating of Revelation, it seems that the later date is ultimately better supported for the following reasons. First, John’s mention in the first and last chapters about the events contained within his vision as taking place soon does not offer definitive proof for an earlier dating, especially since the resurrection of the dead and the Second Coming have yet to occur. Second, “earth” in Revelation 1:7 does not refer solely to the land of Israel and instead covers the entire world as the aforementioned examination of the relevant passages (used by John) from Daniel and Zechariah bore witness to. Third, the temple described by John in Revelation 11:1-2 appears to be an eschatological temple because his tool for measuring it comes from an angel, his description matches Ezekiel’s vision of an eschatological temple, and the term he uses for “temple” is limited by its scope to the inner sanctuary and not the entire temple complex.
Fourth, the “great city” in Revelation 11:8 should not be construed to be Jerusalem due to grammatical limitations. This city, which is called Babylon in Revelation 17:5 (where it is also referred as the harlot), is better understood to be Rome or perhaps a future city like Rome since Rome was called Babylon by post-70 A.D. writers while Jerusalem was never labelled as such. Fifth, identification of the “seven kings” as 1st century A.D. Roman emperors fails miserably since any approach at numbering the emperors such that they work well with the contention that Nero was the sixth king ends up being forced at best. The same could be said of attempts to establish Nero as being represented by the number 666. While plenty of room for conjecture remains, it is possible to understand the seven kings to be seven kingdoms such that the sixth king is Rome and the seventh is a future eschatological kingdom.
Sixth, an earlier dating demands widespread, state-sponsored, and legally required persecution for failure to worship the image of the beast, and yet no such widespread persecution and no such requirements existed in 1st century A.D. Rome. Seventh, the overwhelming decay within five of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 suggests a later dating since the earlier dating would have closely followed the ministries of Paul and his contemporaries. Eighth, the Laodicean church should have been notably poorer if an earlier dating is to be preferred given the impact of an earthquake in A.D. 60-61. Nineth, tradition strongly affirms the dating of Revelation to the latter part of Domitian’s reign.
[1]Doug Wilson, When the Man Comes Around: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2019), 4.
[2]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.
[3]Wilson, When the Man Comes Aroun, 7-8.
[4]Ibid.
[5]G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, in NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25.
[6]Some commentators who prefer a later date for Revelation still prefer to see the seven kings mentioned by John as being Roman emperors. Those who do so sometimes start with Tiberius since he was in power at the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Others begin with Caligula as he was the first to come to power in the new age inaugurated by Christ’s sacrifice.
[7]Wilson, When the Man Comes Around, 148, 156-58.
[8]The source being referenced is Pliny’s letter to Emperor Trajan. In this letter, Pliny specifically seeks counsel from the Emperor on how to deal with Christian who were refusing to worship the Emperor. In response, Trajan advises him to not seek them out but rather to only ensure that order is maintained.
[9]Philip Schaff, Apostolic Christianity: From the Birth of Christ to the Death of St. John A.D. 1-100, in History of the Church, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 427.
[10]Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 5.30.3.