The Dating of Revelation
“The key to understanding the book of Revelation has been hanging by the front door all along (the timing indicator in Rev. 1:1–3). Unfortunately, most people walk right past the key and try to climb in the window” (author unknown).
While Christians generally agree that most of the New Testament was written before AD 70, there is notable debate about the book of Revelation. Some commentators say Revelation was written around AD 95, well after the fall of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. And if this were the case, it would mean Revelation is not about this event.
However, the late-date view has significant problems.
First, the city of Jerusalem and the temple—which everyone agrees were destroyed in AD 70—were still intact when Revelation was written. The angel of Revelation told John to “measure the temple” and said the Gentiles would “tread the holy city [Jerusalem] for forty-two months” (Rev. 11:1–2). Clearly, the temple was still standing, and the city had not yet been sacked.
Second, if the temple/city had already been destroyed, John would have said so! The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was one of Jesus’s most important and significant prophecies, so had it been fulfilled, John would have certainly mentioned it. In fact, he likely would have touted the fulfillment as proof that Jesus was the prophet he claimed to be. Just think about how many times the New Testament writers said things like, “This was done in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy” (Matt. 12:17) and, “This happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet” (Matt. 1:22). John surely would have done the same kind of thing!
Possible objection: In a formal debate about the dating of Revelation between late-date advocate Dr. Mark Hitchcock (who believes Revelation was written in AD 95) and early-date advocate Hank Hanegraaff (who says Revelation was written in approximately AD 65), Hitchcock argued that the reason John, the author of Revelation, did not mention the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was that Jesus specifically told him to write about future events, not past events (see Rev. 1:19). “If John would have written about past events [such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple], then he would have been violating, it seems to me, a direct command by Jesus himself.”[1]
Response: It’s baffling how such a notable Bible scholar as Hitchcock could say that, given that Revelation is filled with references to past events (and past people). For example, Revelation mentions Jesus’s resurrection (1:10), Jezebel of the Old Testament (2:20), creation (4:11), declarations of past prophets (10:7), Sodom (11:8), the crucifixion of Jesus (11:8), the exodus from Egypt (11:8), Jesus’s birth (12:5), Jesus’s wilderness experience (12:5), the righteous saints who had died (12:8), the fall of Babylon (12:8), Moses (15:3), the shedding of the blood of the prophets (16:6), the beheading of saints such as John the Baptist (20:4), and the fall/the curse (22:16). Revelation is filled with references to past events/people! Therefore, Hitchcock’s argument makes no sense.
Hitchcock also argued in the aforementioned debate that the reason why John (Revelation) did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple is that Revelation was written to Gentiles, who would have cared less about it.
But this argument, too, falls flat. The seven churches that Revelation was written to may have been primarily Gentiles, but they were also followers of the Jewish Messiah. Therefore, they would have cared deeply about something as significant to their new “religion” (way of life) as the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. This event signaled the official changeover from the old covenant age of types and shadows (i.e. the physical temple, physical Jerusalem, Levitical priesthood, and physical sacrifices) to the new covenant age of spiritual realities consisting of the spiritual temple, spiritual priesthood, spiritual sacrifices, and spiritual New Jerusalem (1 Pet. 2:4–9, John 4:21). This is something all Christians—even Gentiles—would care deeply about!
The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 also confirmed once and for all that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. This was one of Jesus’s most important prophecies (Luke 21:5–32, Matt. 24:2–34, Mark 13), and the fulfillment confirmed God was with him. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was also one of the springboards (along with Jesus’s resurrection) that launched Christianity into becoming a worldwide movement. Had it not happened within the time frame Jesus laid out—within “this generation” (Luke 21:32)—Christianity would have fizzled away into obscurity…and rightly so.
So the Gentile churches of Revelation would have cared deeply about this event! In fact, Gentiles today—two thousand years later—still care about this event…immensely. They are still talking and writing books about it two thousand years later!
Neither of Hitchcock’s objections to the early-date view of Revelation are persuasive.
The Historical Climate
Another reason we know Revelation was written before AD 70 is that the relationship between Jews and Christians that is portrayed in Revelation—and the rest of the New Testament, for that matter—ended in AD 70. Prior to AD 70, the Jews were in charge in Jerusalem/Judea. The Jews had the “religious” power. The Jews were the aggressors. They were the persecutors (Rev. 17:6; see also Matt. 23:29–36). Christians, on the other hand, were the new kids on the block. Christians were “powerless” (in the political/religious sense). Christians were also the persecuted. However, all that changed in AD 70, when the head of the persecuting snake, Jerusalem, was cut off. The Jewish establishment was destroyed. No longer were Jews in the position to persecute Christians. Moreover, unless Jews are one day going to persecute and murder Christians again, then the events of Revelation must have been fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Another reason we can be sure Revelation was fulfilled in the first century is that it portrays the Jews aligning themselves with the Roman Empire to persecute Christians (Rev. 17:1–2), which is exactly what happened in the first century, just prior to AD 70. However, this unholy alliance came to an abrupt end when the Romans suddenly turned on the Jews in AD 66 (during the Jewish-Roman War), just as Revelation said would happen (Rev. 17:16–17; see my book The End Is Here, available summer 2024). Therefore, unless this is going to one day happen again—which is impossible, since the Roman Empire no longer exists—then the events of Revelation must have happened long ago.
Timing Indicators
Keep in mind, also, that no matter when Revelation was written, whether AD 65 or AD 95, the events described had to have happened shortly after it was written—because that’s what the book itself says! Revelation begins and ends by explicitly stating that the prophecy must shortly take place, for the time is near (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). The reason John (the author) used this “bookend argument” was to drive home the point that the events in between the “bookends” (that had not yet happened) would happen soon. Therefore, whether Revelation was written in AD 65 or AD 95, the events had to have happened shortly after it was written.
What events does this include? The same events that Jesus said back in AD 30 would happen within a generation, such as the persecution of Christians (cf. Matt. 24:9; Rev. 2:9–10; 3:10; 6:9–11; 18:24), great tribulation (cf. Matt. 24:9, 21; Rev. 1:9; 2:10; 3:10), earthquakes (cf. Matt. 24:7; Rev. 6:12; 11:13), famine (cf. Matt. 24:7; Rev. 6:6, 8), Christians fleeing Jerusalem when its destruction was imminent (cf. Luke 21:20; Rev. 18:4), the destruction of the temple (cf. Matt. 24:2; Rev. 11:2), the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Luke 21:20; Rev. 11:2), the sun, moon, and stars dimming/falling (cf. Matt. 24:29; Rev. 6:12–14), lightning (cf. Matt 24:27; Rev. 11:19), the sound of a trumpet (cf. Matt. 24:31; Rev. 11:15), Jesus coming on clouds (cf. Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7, 6:17, 22:12), the tribes of the earth/Israel mourning (cf. Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7), the marriage of the Lamb (cf. Matt. 25:1–13; Rev. 19:7), and the new heaven and earth (cf. Matt. 24:35; Rev. 21:1).
The events that Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse (in AD 30) would happen within a generation were “at hand” (about to happen) when Revelation was written. In fact, Bible commentators are recognizing more and more that Revelation is essentially John’s expanded version of the Olivet Discourse, written on the eve of fulfillment. Notice how the synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—each contain the Olivet Discourse; however, the gospel of John does not include it. Why not? Because John wrote an entire book about the Olivet Discourse on the eve of its fulfillment, a book called Revelation. The events that Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse (in AD 30) would happen within a generation were “at hand” when Revelation was written.
And these events happened by AD 70! The Jewish historian Josephus—who was not a Christian, by the way—affirmed in Wars of the Jews that the events discussed in Revelation happened by AD 70. Josephus specifically mentioned such events as great famine, earthquakes, Jerusalem surrounded by armies, Christians fleeing Jerusalem (when the armies surrounded the city), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, 1.1 million Jews being slaughtered in the greatest tribulation ever, and the tribes of Israel mourning over the destruction of their beloved city and temple (see my article Prophecies Fulfilled in the First Century).
Admittedly, some of the events mentioned in Revelation—such as the sound of the trumpet and the marriage of the Lamb—were spiritual events that cannot be verified directly. However, since the verifiable events all happened as prophesied, per Josephus and other historians, we can be confident that the spiritual events did too.
On the other hand, if Revelation was written in AD 95, as late-date advocates claim, then Christians are left without any proof of fulfillment. Remember, no matter when Revelation was written—whether AD 65 or AD 95—the prophecy must have happened soon, for the time was near (Rev. 1:1–3, 22:6–10). There is no getting around these time indicators. Therefore, if Revelation was really written in AD 95, then the events had to have happened shortly thereafter. Yet there is zero evidence for that, with the possible exception of some limited persecution of Christians by the Roman Emperor Domitian around this time period (see my book The End Is Here, available summer 2024, for more about this).
Those who say Revelation has still not been fulfilled two thousand years later are forced to interpret John’s words—which are actually Jesus’s words (Rev. 1:19)—as the counter opposite of what John/Jesus actually said. “Shortly” and “at hand” become “thousands of years.” Futurists take a wrecking ball to John’s bookends. That’s a careless way to interpret Revelation, particularly given Jesus’s harsh warning in the book itself:
“For I [Jesus] testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book [Revelation]: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18–20).
Those who ignore or misinterpret the words of Revelation—or any other Scripture, for that matter—in order make it “fit” their doctrines and traditions are playing with fire!
Revelation and the Book of Daniel
Still another way to show Revelation has been fulfilled is by comparing the angel’s words in Revelation to the angel’s words in Daniel. In Revelation’s closing passages, the angel tells John, “Do not seal [set aside] the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time [of the end] is at hand” (Rev. 22:10, italics mine). The angel not only used a direct time indicator, but he also used phrases from the book of Daniel that biblically literate Jews in the first century would have been very familiar with. Back in Daniel’s day, in approximately 600 BC, the angel told Daniel to seal up the prophecy because the time of the end was not near: “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end…for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4, 9, emphasis mine). The reason why the angel told Daniel to “seal up” (set aside) the prophecy is that the time of the end was still far off. It was not near. However, when Revelation was written, the angel—presumably the same angel—told John to do the exact opposite. This time, the angel told God’s representative not to seal up the prophecy because the time of the end was at hand: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time [of the end] is at hand” (Rev. 22:10, italics mine).
John and Daniel are describing the same time of the end. In Daniel’s day, it was still far off in the future, so the angel told Daniel to seal up the prophecy; however, by John’s day (first century), the time of the end was at hand, so the angel told John not to seal it up.
Think about these two passages mathematically. In 600 BC, the angel told Daniel to seal up the prophecy because the time of the end was still a long way off. The time span from Daniel (600 BC) to Revelation (AD 65) was approximately 665 years. Then, in AD 65, the angel told John not to seal up the prophecy because the time of the end was at hand. Logically, then, the time of the end had to have happened no later than 665 years after the writing of Revelation; otherwise, the angel would have told John to seal it up, just like he had told Daniel.
While this does not prove Revelation was written in AD 65 (as opposed to AD 95), it does show that the time of the end must have come within approximately 665 years of the writing of Revelation. From there, we can further narrow down the timing by considering what “at hand” means—it means “about to happen.” In fact, the angel of Revelation had just said a few verses earlier: “These events must shortly take place” (Rev. 22:6, paraphrase). Then, immediately after saying the events are “at hand” (v. 10), Jesus says he is coming quickly (v. 12). These are three timing indicators, back to back to back, essentially saying the same thing. Actually, if we continue reading to the end of the chapter, we find even more timing indicators saying the exact same thing. Clearly, the events of Revelation were on the verge of fulfillment when John wrote the book.
The End of the Age
We can also confirm this timing for the end by considering what Jesus and his disciples said about the subject in the Olivet Discourse. After the disciples had asked Jesus about the timing of “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3), Jesus said it would happen within a generation (Matt. 24:14, 34). In fact, Jesus specifically linked the end of the age to the fall of the temple (Matt. 24:2, 14, 34)—which happened in AD 70! This timing is further confirmed by Paul saying in approximately AD 57, “The end of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11) and Peter saying in AD 63, “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7).
All these passages are talking about the same time of the end (of the old covenant age), which is why Revelation said (in AD 65) it was at hand! The old covenant age ended in AD 70, when the temple, which represented the old covenant age (Heb. 9:8–9), was destroyed.
Let the Filthy Remain Filthy
Here’s another revealing statement in Revelation. Immediately after saying “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand,” the angel said, “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still…And behold, I [Jesus] am coming quickly” (Rev. 22:10–12, italics mine). The reason why the angel said “Let the filthy remain filthy” was that the second coming/the end was so near that there wasn’t any time to waste on trying to convert the unrepentant and suppressors of truth.[2] The glaring problem for those who say Revelation has still not been fulfilled is that if Jesus has still not come, then this should still be the message of the church: “Let the unjust be unjust…Let the filthy be filthy…for I [Jesus] am coming quickly.” So why aren’t Christians today preaching this message? I’ve certainly heard plenty of pastors proclaim “Jesus is coming soon,” but I’ve never heard one preach, “Let the filthy remain filthy.” I think pastors realize, deep down in their heart of hearts, that such a message would not be appropriate. While such a message would make perfect sense at a time of imminent judgment—such as in AD 65, just prior to the cataclysmic judgment in AD 70—it would not make sense for an extended period of time (thousands of years).
The Seven Churches
Another important point about Revelation that many Christians overlook is that the Revelation was given to seven specific churches in Asia Minor[3] that existed in the first century (Rev. 1:4). It was not given to us! These were real churches in John’s day. In fact, we know from ancient sources that the order in which John listed these churches—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea—followed a well-known Roman postal route.[4] This is who Revelation was given to—not us! It was given to prepare these seven churches for what was about to happen (Rev. 1:1–3, 22:6–10). While the book of Revelation was certainly preserved for us—for our learning and edification and the building up of our faith—it was not given to us.
For more about Revelation, see my book The End Is Here, available summer 2024. I discuss such things as: 666, the mark of the beast, the harlot, and much more. I also examine the most popular arguments for the late-date view.
Alex Polyak, The Bible Fulfilled 3/23/24
[1] “Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 2 of 3), May 9, 2013, Eschatology247, 8:00, viewed Nov. 23, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ShMXmQq_QQ&list=PLihGRkXMkcf5KJAY6O5ZaaUo4tcGKK_qZ&index=2&t=481s.
[2] A person who “suppresses the truth” is someone who won’t look objectively at the arguments against his view because he desperately wants his view or tradition to be true. Traditions die hard!
[3] Asia Minor was a province of the Roman Empire located in modern-day Turkey.
[4] Kenneth Gentry, Revelation Made Easy, 16.