The Dating of Revelation
Christians generally agree that most of the New Testament was written before AD 70. But there is notable debate about the book of Revelation. Some commentators say Revelation was written around AD 65, and others say it was written in AD 95. Who’s right?
The reason this issue is so important is that many Bible commentators—including myself—believe the book of Revelation is primarily about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the lead up to that event. This is when the temple was destroyed, and this is when the old covenant age of animal sacrifices ended…and the new covenant age of the Messiah officially began.
Those who hold the late date (AD 95) view, on the other hand, say Revelation cannot possibly be about that event because it was not even written until thirty years after. In fact, the vast majority of Christians that hold to the late-date view say most of the events of Revelation still have not been fulfilled 2000+ years later.
So there is a lot riding on the dating of Revelation, and there is much debate about it.
As I said, I hold to the early-date view, which holds that it was written around AD 65. So I’m going to start by giving the reasons why I hold this view; and then I’m going to go over the most popular arguments for the late-date view.
First, the city of Jerusalem and the temple–which everyone agrees were destroyed in AD 70–were still standing when Revelation was written. In fact, in Revelation 11:1-2, the angel of Revelation told John to measure the temple. He then said the Gentiles would tread down the holy city, Jerusalem, for forty-two months.
“Then I [John] was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months’” (Rev. 11:1–2, bolding mine).
It seems clear that the city of Jerusalem and the temple—which were destroyed in AD 70—had not yet been destroyed yet. Therefore, Revelation must have been written before AD 70.
The angel of Revelation also specifically said that the events described in Revelation would happen soon, for the time is near:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near” (Rev. 1:1-3)
And, so that nobody could possibly miss this timing, Revelation repeats this same timing in the closing verses:
“Then he [the angel] said to me [John], ‘These words are faithful and true.’ And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. ‘Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book…Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (Rev. 22:6-10).
The events of Revelation were about to happen when the book was written. And one of those events was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (see above). This timing fits perfectly with what ended up happening. Within a few years, in AD 70, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed.
Incidentally, back in the Olivet Discourse (in AD 30), Jesus had given a prophecy about this very same event. After his disciples commented about the beautiful temple stones, Jesus said:
“These things which you see [the temple stones]—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” Then Jesus said, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near…Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:20, 24; bolding mine)
Just like in Revelation, Jesus prophesied that the temple will be destroyed and that the city of Jerusalem would be tread down by the Gentiles. And when did Jesus say this would happen?
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.” (Luke 21:32). Keep in mind, a generation equates to around forty years (see Heb. 3:8–10, Num. 14:30–34, Neh. 9:21). Therefore, this event had to have happened by around AD 70.
This timing fits perfectly with what ended up happening. Jesus uttered this prophecy around AD 30. He said it would be fulfilled by around AD 70. And sure enough, the city and temple were destroyed around forty years later in AD 70.
Jesus and Revelation were both prophesying about the same destruction of the temple and the treading down of the city of Jerusalem by the Gentiles. And this event was fulfilled exactly when expected in AD 70.
Second, it is inconceivable that John, the author of Revelation, would have failed to mention the destruction of the temple had it already happened. This temple was of utmost importance to the Jews, so there’s no way that John would have failed to mention it’s destruction, at least in passing, had it already happened. Here’s a great quote from the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek:
“Imagine this. You’re a devout Jew in the first century. The center of your national, economic, and religious life is Jerusalem, and especially the temple. It has been that way in your nation, your family, and almost every Jew’s family for a thousand years—ever since Solomon built the first temple…For your entire life, you have been attending services and brought sacrifices there to atone for the sins you’ve committed against God. Why? Because you and your countrymen consider this temple the earthly dwelling place of the God of the universe, the maker of heaven and earth, the very Deity whose name is so holy you dare not utter it.
“As a young man, you begin following a Jew named Jesus who claims to be the long-awaited Messiah predicted in your Scriptures. He performs miracles, teaches profound truths, and scolds and befuddles the priests in charge of the temple. Incredibly, he predicts his own death and resurrection. He also predicts that the temple itself will be destroyed before this generation passes away…Forty years later, the temple is destroyed just as Jesus had predicted, along with the entire city of Jerusalem and thousands of your countrymen.
“Question: If you and your fellow-followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70, aren’t you going to at least mention that unprecedented national, human, economic, and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially since this risen Jesus had predicted it? Of course! Well, here’s the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70—there’s absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents.”[1]
This quote says it all. It’s simply inconceivable that John would have failed to mention the temple’s destruction, had it already happened.
Moreover, Jesus had specifically predicted this event. So once again, it’s inconceivable that John would have failed to mention the fulfillment, had it already happened. Just think about how many times the New Testament says things like, “This was done in fulfillment of the OT prophecy” or “This was done to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy.” In the gospel of Matthew alone, we find these kinds of phrases around forty times. So if Jesus’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple had already been fulfilled when Revelation was written, surely John would have mentioned it as proof that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
This wasn’t just some minor prophecy. The temple were of utmost importance to Jews. And this temple had been standing for over 500 years. In fact, it had just been refurbished by Herod the Great! Furthermore, the city of Jerusalem was surrounded by what was thought by the Jews to be an impenetrable stone wall. And Jesus predicted both temple and city would be destroyed. Keep in mind, Jesus didn’t just say it would happen someday, by and by; he said it would happen within the lifetimes of the people he was speaking to!
And it did! So it’s inconceivable that John would have neglected to mention the fulfillment, had it already happened.
Possible objection: In a public debate about the dating of Revelation between late-date advocate Mark Hitchcock and early-date advocate Hank Hanegraaff, the late-date advocate Mark Hitchcock said that the reason John, the author of Revelation, did not mention the fulfillment of this prophecy is that Jesus told John to write about future events, not past events: “Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this” (you can see this in Rev. 1:9). Therefore, if John would have written about past events [such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple], then he would have been violating a direct command by Jesus himself, said Hitchcock.[2]
Response: It’s amazing how such a notable Bible scholar as Mark Hitchcock could say something like that, given that Revelation is filled with references to past events. For example, Revelation mentions Jesus’s resurrection (1:10), the creation account (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 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 (22:16). Revelation is filled with references to past events! So Hitchcock’s argument makes zero sense.
Hitchcock also argued in this debate that the reason why John (Revelation) does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple is that Revelation was written to Gentiles, and these Gentiles would have cared less about this.
Once again, Hitchcock’s argument makes zero sense. 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 animal sacrifices, a physical temple, a Levitical priesthood…to the new covenant age of Messiah. This is something all Christians care deeply about!
Furthermore, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 proved once and for all that Jesus was the prophet he claimed to be. And it also confirmed that God was on Jesus’s side—instead of the Jewish persecutors. Moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was 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 a generation–then Christianity would have fizzled away into obscurity…and rightly so because it would have shown that Jesus was not the prophet he claimed to be.
Therefore, the Gentile churches of Revelation would have cared deeply about this event! In fact, Gentiles today–two thousand years later in America–still care about this event…immensely. Gentiles are still talking and writing books about it two thousand years later.
Neither of Hitchcock’s objections to the early-date view of Revelation make any sense.
Third, 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, as it were. The Jews were the aggressors. The Jews were the persecutors (see Rev. 17:6 and 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 the persecuted.
But this all changed in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. No longer were Jews in the position to persecute Christians. While there were still some sporadic pockets of Jewish persecution here and there, the head of the persecuting snake, Jerusalem, had been cut off.
Incidentally, if Revelation were about the future, as late-daters argue, then this would mean Jews are once again going to persecute Christians like we see in Revelation and the rest of the New Testament. I think that’s a stretch! Those days are long gone.
Fourth, another reason we can be confident Revelation was written prior to AD 70 is that Revelation 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, in the years leading up to AD 70. The Romans and Jews had joined forces to persecute Christians. The Jews’ reason for joining with the Romans was that they wanted the Empire’s help to stamp out the Christian movement. And the Romans’ reason for persecuting Christians is because Nero, the emperor, needed someone to blame for the Great Fire in Rome in AD 64. Nero likely started this fire himself so he could rebuild Rome without having to get the Senate’s approval. But he needed a scapegoat. So he blamed the Christians. This is when the official systematic Roman persecution of Christians began.
The Jews and Romans temporarily joined together to persecute Christians. But then, in AD 67, the Romans suddenly turned on the Jews because of political problems between the two. This led to the Jewish/Roman War of AD 67-70, in which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed.
By the way, these events—from the temporary alignment of Jews and Romans…to the sudden turning of the Romans on the Jews—was prophesied about in Revelation 17. In other words, the events described in Revelation fit nicely with the historic events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
But for those who say Revelation is about future events, that would mean all this is once again going to happen someday—which seems highly unlikely, if not impossible. After all, are Jews really going to join up with the Roman Empire and persecute Christians? There’s not even a Roman Empire anymore. These events of Revelation must have happened long ago.
Fifth, another point I want to make regarding the dating of Revelation has to do with the timing Indicators. I already touched on this, but I want to point out something else. As I mentioned, Revelation opens and closes by saying the prophecy would happen soon for the time is near (Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6-10). Therefore, no matter when Revelation was written—whether AD 65 or AD 95—the events described had to have happened shortly after the book was written…because that’s what the book itself says! There’s no getting around these timing indicators.
And what events does Revelation prophecy about? The persecution of Christians (Rev. 2:9–10; 3:10; 6:9–11; 18:24), great tribulation (Rev. 1:9; 2:10; 3:10), earthquakes (Rev. 6:12; 11:13), famine (Rev. 6:6, 8), Christians fleeing Jerusalem when its destruction was imminent (Rev. 18:4), the destruction of the temple (Rev. 11:2), the destruction of Jerusalem (Rev. 11:2), Jesus coming on clouds in judgment (Rev. 1:7, 6:17, 22:12), and the tribes of the earth/Israel mourning (Rev. 1:7).
These are some of the events prophesied about in Revelation. Therefore, whether Revelation was written in AD 65 or AD 95, these events had to happen shortly after the book was written—because that’s what the book itself says. And while we have plenty of historical evidence from the first century historian Josephus that these events happened in the time period from AD 65 to AD 70,[3] there is zero evidence these things happened in the time period following AD 95…with the possible exception of some limited persecution of Christians by Dometian in the 90’s (see more about this below).
Here’s another telling fact: the book of Revelation prophesies about the exact same events that Jesus had prophesied about back in AD 30 in the Olivet Discourse. Here is a comparison:
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), Jesus coming on clouds in judgment (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 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), 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).
Jesus and Revelation mention the very same events. Even the timing for the fulfillment matches perfectly. Jesus said in AD 30 that these events would happen within a generation, or forty years (Matt. 24:34, Luke 21:32), which would put the fulfillment date around AD 70; and Revelation said in AD 65 that these events would happen soon, for the time is near (Rev. 1:1-3, 22:6-10). The fulfillment timing matches perfectly.
To me, this is great evidence that Jesus and Revelation had the same event in mind. In fact, more and more Bible commentators are starting to recognize that the book of Revelation is actually John’s expanded version of the Olivet Discourse that was written on the eve of fulfillment. Consider this fact: The synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–each contain the Olivet Discourse. However, the gospel of John does not. Why not? Because John wrote an entire book about it on the eve of its fulfillment, a book called Revelation. The reason why the events and fulfillment timing match so well is because it’s the same event.
And again, these events happened by AD 70, per the Jewish historian Josephus.
One more point I want to make about the time indicators in Revelation. Those who say Revelation has still not been fulfilled 2000 years later are forced to interpret John’s words–which are actually Jesus’s words (per Rev. 1:19)–as the exact opposite of what he actually said. Descriptions such as “This event will happen shortly, for the time is at hand” becomes “2000+ years.” Futurists take a wrecking ball to Revelation’s timing indicators. And that’s a careless way to interpret Revelation—or any Scripture—particularly given Jesus’s explicit warning in the book itself. Right after giving the timing indicator at the end of the book, Jesus warns:
“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–just to make it “fit” their doctrines and traditions are playing with fire!
So these are my reasons for concluding that Revelation had to have been written before AD 70. Now I want to go over the most popular arguments for the late-date view
Popular Late-date Arguments
Late-date argument #1: One of the primary arguments late-date advocates use to support their view is a quote from a second-century Greek bishop and theologian Irenaeus from his book Against Heresy. Irenaeus is discussing the identity of the 666 beast, and he says:
“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 distinctively revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision [John]. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”[4] Note: Domitian was emperor of the Roman Empire from AD 81–96.
Late-date advocates interpret this quote as saying: The vision, Revelation, was seen by John at the end of Domitian’s reign in approximately AD 95. That is, Jesus gave the Revelation to John at the end of Domitian’s reign in approximately AD 95.
Response: If that’s really what Irenaeus meant, then it would seem to support the late-date view. However, there’s a big problem with that argument…actually, there are a number of problems with it.
First, there is much debate about what Irenaeus was referring to. Did Irenaeus mean the vision (Revelation) was seen at the end of Domitian’s reign? Or did Irenaeus mean John was seen at the end of Domitian’s reign? Or did Irenaeus mean the name of Antichrist was seen at the end of Domitian’s reign? As many Greek scholars have pointed out, the Greek grammar is very ambiguous. It may seem clear in English, but it’s far from clear in the original Greek. Therefore, the quote is far from conclusive.
Moreover, even if Irenaeus was referring to the vision—and that’s a big IF—that still would not settle the issue. Why not? Because Irenaeus made many mistakes. For example, in the very same volume in which this quote appears, Against Heresies, Irenaeus says Jesus’s ministry lasted fifteen years, and that Jesus died at fifty years old. Yet no scholar today believes that. Here’s what theologian Dr. Kenneth Gentry says about this topic in his book, Before Jerusalem Fell:
“No self-respected New Testament scholar asserts that the biblical record allows for a fifteen or more years ministry for Christ, or His having attained an age in excess of forty.”[5]
Most Bible scholars say Jesus’s ministry lasted around three-and-a-half years and he was no older than forty years old when he was crucified.
Irenaeus also mistakenly said Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, which conflicts with both scholarly opinion, as well as the New Testament (see Romans 1 and 15).
Irenaeus also wrongly predicted that the world would end by the year 2000: “For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the six thousand year [in AD 2000].[6]
Therefore, even if Irenaeus’s quote about Revelation says exactly what late-date advocates want—and that’s a big IF—it still would not prove the late date view. Irenaeus needs to be taken with a grain of salt because he made many huge blunders.
Late-daters often point to the many early church fathers that held the late-date view…men like Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome. And on its face, that’s pretty impressive. However, when we did a little deeper, we find that their sources can all be traced back to one man—Irenaeus. All these guys were just repeating what Ireneus said. Notable Bible scholar Milton Terry said:
“It seems to us that no impartial mind can fail to see that [the external evidence] preponderates in favor of the later date. But when we scrutinize the character and extent of this evidence, it seems equally clear that no very great stress can safely be laid upon it. For it all turns upon the single testimony of Irenaeus, who wrote according to the best authorities, about 100 years after the death of John.”[7]
Because of Irenaeus’s stature and influence in the early (postbiblical) Christian establishment, later church fathers simply cited him as a source. But they did not actually verify through independent research whether or not he was right.
Here’s another problem with Irenaeus’s quote: He might have simply mixed-up Domitian and Nero. Both were Roman emperors around the same time period, and Ireneus could have simply mixed up the names. Bible scholar T. Randell writes:
“Irenaeus, writing a century after the fact, may easily have made the mistake of putting the name of one famous persecuting emperor instead of another, and it is remarkable that his statement is supported by no other writer earlier than Victorinus of Pettan, after a second interval of a century. Eusebius and Jerome, in the fourth century, do not strengthen what they merely repeat.”[8]
Keep in mind, also, that while many early church fathers held the late-date view of Revelation, not all did. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215), for example, believed Revelation was written in the time of Nero, who died AD 68. Here’s what Clement said:
“Revelation ceased at the time of Nero. As such, the canon [the New Testament] would have to have been completed at the time of Nero.”[9]
There’s also an impressive list of more recent Bible scholars who held/hold the early-date view of Revelation—men such as F. F. Bruce, J. B. Lightfoot, A. T. Robinson, N. T. Wright, Phillip Schaff, Josh McDowell, Jay Adams, Adam Clarke, Milton Terry, R. C. Sproul, Alfred Edersheim, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Steve Gregg, Don Preston, and many more.
And this list continues to grow every day as more and more people consider the historic evidence and better understand apocalyptic language and the ancient Jewish mindset.
Late-date argument #2: A quote from Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150 – 215) which says:
“And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit (italics mine).”[10]
The critical phrase in this quote is, “When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus…” But who was the tyrant? Was it Nero, who died in AD 68, or Domitian, who died in AD 96? We know John wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9–11) and had been banished there by a Roman emperor. The question is, who was the tyrant? Late-date advocates say it was Domitian. As evidence, they cite Eusebius and various other church fathers who also believed this.
However, there are some significant problems with that view. First, just because Eusebius and other church fathers said something does not mean they were right. The church fathers erred on many things, as I just showed in Irenaeus’s case. Eusebius, too, is known for saying lots of questionable stuff. Just google him if you don’t believe me.
Second, it should be painfully obvious upon even a cursory reading of Clement’s quote that “Domitian” is not mentioned. Clement could have just as easily been referring to Nero as the tyrant—and probably was! After all, Nero, above all other emperors, best fits the label “tyrant.” In fact, the Greek philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (3BC–AD 97)—who lived during the reigns of both Nero and Dometian—said Nero was commonly called a tyrant (italics mine):
“In my travels, which have been wider than ever man had yet accomplished, I have seen many, many beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads he has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with terrible fangs…And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mothers, but Nero has gorged himself in this diet (italics mine).”[11]
Tyana said Nero was known as the Tyrant!
Here’s something else to consider: John (the writer of Revelation) says he was “a brother in the tribulation” (Rev. 1:9) and repeatedly mentions the persecution of Christians (Rev. 2:9–10; 3:10; 6:9–11; 18:24). And while there is plenty of evidence of intense persecution of Christians leading up to the Roman-Jewish War in AD 66-70, there is no evidence of any systematic persecution of Christians under Domitian. In the book The New Testament Speaks by notable evangelical Bible scholars Glenn W. Barker, William Lane Craig, and J. Ramsay Michaels, they write:
“Early evidence is lacking for any religious persecution during Domitian’s reign. Though the emperor was a violent man, his outbursts were not directed against Christians or any other groups but [rather] against carefully selected individuals whom he suspected of undermining his authority.”[12]
Gentry himself says: “The persecution of Christians under Domitian (if we may call it a persecution) was much less severe than that under Nero—although it certainly was a tyrannical outburst.”[13]
While Domitian had violent outbursts, he did not systematically persecute Christians. Consider the following quote from the early church father Tertullian (AD 155–220) in which he compares Nero to Domitian:
“Nero was the first to rage with the imperial sword against this school in the very hour of its rise to Rome. But we glory—nothing less than glory—to have had such a man to inaugurate our condemnation. One who knows Nero can understand that, unless a thing were good—and very good—it was not condemned by Nero…Domitian too, who was somewhat of a Nero in cruelty, had tried it, but forasmuch as he was also a human being, he speedily stopped the undertaking, even restoring those whom he had banished.”[14]
Gentry goes on to argue that “[Tertullian] mentions only Nero’s persecution when citing the persecution of the Apostles who were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19)—and was not John one of the Apostles?”
There is simply no evidence for the systematic persecution of Christians under Dometian. Even late-date advocate G.E. Ladd admits “there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century [under Domitian’s reign] there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church.”[15]
Still another problem with saying “the tyrant” refers to Domitian is the contextual difficulty. The immediate context following Clement’s quote describes John chasing down an apostate on horseback “with all his might.” But if this happened under Domitian’s reign, then John would have been in his nineties! Are we really supposed to believe a ninety-plus-year-old John was still chasing down apostates on horseback at full gallop? That stretches all credulity.[16]
Another problem with saying “the tyrant” refers to Domitian is this: As I already stated above, Clement believed Revelation (inspiration) ceased at the time of Nero. Here’s the quote again:
“Revelation [inspiration] ceased at the time of Nero. As such, the canon [the New Testament] would have to have been completed at the time of Nero.”[17]
Therefore, it’s clear that Clement of Alexandria believed the New Testament canon was completed at the time of Nero. So Revelation could not have been written thirty five years later in Domitian’s time…unless it’s not inspired.
For these reasons, Clement of Alexandria’s quote does not prove what late-date advocates want.
Late-date argument #3: Another popular late-date Argument has to do with the severe spiritual decline of five of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation. Late date advocates point out that these churches were founded by Paul in the mid- to late 50s; however, by the time Revelation was written, five of these churches were mired in problems. For example, Revelation says Ephesus had lost its first love (2:4). It also says some church leaders in Pergamum (a.k.a. Pergamos) were teaching the children of Israel to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality (2:15). Revelation also says Thyatira had “allowed that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols” (2:20). Revelation also says Sardis was “dead” (3:1). And the church in Laodicea is described as being lukewarm (3:16).
Late-daters says this kind of severe spiritual decline could not have happened in the short period between the establishment of these churches in the mid- to late 50s and the writing of Revelation in approximately AD 65. More time would have been needed.
Response: I disagree. In fact, the New Testament writers themselves would disagree. Doctrinal error and sin can seep into churches very quickly—and it often did—even in churches founded by the apostles themselves! For example, Paul founded the Corinthian church and taught them face to face for eighteen months; yet very shortly after Paul had left them, the Corinthians became mired in “sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles” (1 Cor. 5:1). The Corinthians were also denying the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:12). The reason Paul wrote Corinthians (in approximately AD 57) was to try to correct these problems. Keep in mind, also, that sexual immorality was the same problem in the churches of Thyatira and Pergamum (in Revelation).
In an even starker example of a church’s quick spiritual decline…Paul founded the church in Galatia; yet within a few weeks, practically before Paul had even arrived home to Antioch, the Galatians had devolved into serious error, teaching that Christians must be circumcised and keep the other old covenant requirements.
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). The Galatians were teaching “a different gospel”—within a couple weeks of Paul leaving them!
The same kind of thing likely happened in the churches in Revelation.
Late-date argument #4: If Revelation was written in AD 65, then the early-date view would have had a thirty-year head start. Yet most of the early church fathers held the late-date view.
Response: First, as I explained above, these church fathers all got their information from Irenaeus, who erred about many things.
Second, as I just showed, doctrinal errors can develop very quickly, even in churches founded by the apostles themselves. Therefore, it is irrelevant which view began first because error can develop fast. As Mark Twain once said, “A Lie can travel halfway around the world before the Truth can even get its boots on.”
Protestants and evangelicals should know this well. After all, many of the doctrines that were taught by the earliest church (Jesus and the apostles) were swamped by the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church for much of the first 1,500 years of Christianity, up until the Reformation.
Error can develop very quickly, so it’s irrelevant which view began first.
Conclusion: These are the primary arguments late-date advocates use to support their view. But I don’t think they work for the reasons stated above. I believe there’s much more evidence—both scriptural and historical—for the early-date view. Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem, and it prophesied about the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the changeover from the old covenant age of animal sacrifices…to the new covenant age of Messiah.
For more information about the topics discussed in this article, get my book The End Is Here: How the New Testament’s Prophecies Were Fulfilled.
By Alex Polyak, Director of The Bible Fulfilled, 1/18/25.
[1] I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Norm Geisler and Frank Turek, 237.
[2] “Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation” (Part 2 of 3), YouTube, May 9, 2013, Eschatology247, 8:00, viewed Nov. 23, 2023.
[3] In War of the Jews, Josephus—who wasn’t even a Christian—documents the events of the time period leading up to AD 70. Josephus mentions 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. In fact, Jews still mourn over this event today, 2000 years later, at the Wailing Wall. For more information about his, see my article “Prophecies Fulfilled in the First Century.”
[4] Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 46–47.
[5] Ibid. 64.
[6] Francis Gumerlock, The Day and the Hour, 320.
[7] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 64–65.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Hank Hanegraaff, “Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation,” YouTube, May 9, 2013, Eschatology247, 51:00.
[10] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 68.
[11] Ibid. 81.
[12] Ibid. 81.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid. 82.
[15] Ibid. 81.
[16] Ibid. 81.
[17] Hank Hanegraaff, “Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation,” YouTube, May 9, 2013, Eschatology247, 51:00.