Perhaps more than any other New Testament book, the date for the writing of Revelation is important for interpreting the book. If the book was written in the 90s, then the immediate background for the book is persecution of Christians under Domitian. But if the book was written before A.D. 70, then the persecution in the background of the book is Nero’s backlash against Christians after the fire of Rome.
Fall of Jerusalem (David Roberts, 1850)
Another factor is the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is fairly obvious the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple are somehow related to the images in the book. For a preterist like Ken Gentry, the book of Revelation is revealing “what will happen soon,” and the soon-event is the destruction of Jerusalem. (See his Before Jerusalem Fell, for example.) For other preterists who do not feel the need to preserve Revelation as a book of prophecy, the fall of Jerusalem is in the background as a past event that provides a set of metaphors.
The majority of the early church assumed that it was under Domitian’s persecution that the book was written. Irenaues said that John wrote “nearly in our generation,” at the end of the reign of Domitian. All of the secular evidence for persecution under Domitian comes from after his reign. Pliny the Younger wrote a tribute to Emperor Trajan:
He [Domitian] was a madman, blind to the true meaning of his position, who used the arena for collecting charges of high treason, who felt himself slighted and scorned if we failed to pay homage to his gladiators, taking any criticism of them to himself and seeing insults to his own godhead and divinity; who deemed himself the equal of the gods yet raised his gladiators to his equal.
In 1 Clement 1:1, written in A.D. 96, alludes to “the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses that have befallen us.” 1 Clement 4-7 contains several references which might be taken as either referring to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul or the present persecutions under Domitian.
Since all of the sources describing Domitian as a megalomaniac who demanded worship as a god date from after his reign, some argue the later sources are painting the old emperor in a negative light (perhaps to paint Trajan in a good light). DeSilva disagrees, arguing instead that “Domitian valued cultic language as an expression of social and political relationships.” This language would have been imposed on the lower levels of society as a method of declaring loyalty to the state (“The ‘Image of the Beast’” TrinJ 12 [1991], 199).
I am personally inclined to retain the late date for the book and see the imperial cult as the potential background for many things in the book. I am not opposed to the destruction of Jerusalem as a possible background, but (for me) it does not have to be predictive of the event. There is no problem for John to be using a past event like Rome’s obliteration of the city of Jerusalem to talk about other, still future judgments.
What difference might it make to reading Revelation if the book is early (pre A.D. 70) as opposed to in the 90s?
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I think it’s important to look at the dates of the book in their original context before making the distinctions between the two and their importances. If the book was to be written in the early 90’s there is a section that gives us proof that this section talks about the persecution of the Christians by specifically addressing the seven churches in section 2-3. But the metaphorical references could also be an indication that the book was written at a different time period when Nero was king over the city. Specifically talking about the fire, dragons, angels, the beasts, the sacrificial lamb, plagues etc that are displayed throughout different sections of the book. So the date of the book exactly can be interpreted differently by different scholars depending on which section of the book they decided to read first.
Whenever a book of the Bible is written, it is critical to figure out the time period that it was written in. The time period tells us a lot about the context and everything that is going on in the community thus we can infer why different things were written or situations had happened. I agree with you that it was written at a late date instead of the early date. If Revelation was written as early as pre A.D. 70, it would be difficult to distinguish when the author is talking about the persecution of the believers in the seven churches. The date of the writing is crucial in identifying what all is going on and what is going on in the community at the time of the writing.
The first and only real point about Revelation is that it is included in the canon of Scripture so no matter what everything that was written is profitable. The dates are insignificant if the book is still talking about a future apocalyptic time. If it had an earlier date people would be constantly thinking the anti-christ was present and was the emperor. So, not much different then how we read into it today. I here all the time Obama is the anti-christ, and I’m positive people thought Hitler was the same. No matter the date people would read into it the same.
I agree with miller2016 that in this case that the date does not hold much significance as knowing the dates of other books in the Bible. The pre A.D. 70 might mean it could be talking about the fall of Jerusalem and/or the future while the 90s would just be future. Either way their is future implications. Which as miller2016 mentioned makes the date insignificant, which I agree. I think how we read it today is how they would read it as well which is that it could happen at any moment. As miller2016 mentioned that Obama was the anti-christ which I heard from people both close and distant from me. I think each generation will have a new accusation who the anti-christ is as long as the current and past accusations have been wrong. Nonetheless, as miller2016 says that I agree with is that the date does not change how people would read Revelation.
The point remains the same, like Miller said. It should be read the same as if it was in a slightly different time. But to answer the question, I could see how the time would make some people think that the book already predicted the end times and that we are in it now. I personally do not believe we are in the end times, but not far from it. Israel being rebuilt is a good example of some of the prophecies being fulfilled already. In the end though, the book can’t be read properly by those not within the end times. It will be revealed to them at the end.
To answer your question following your analysis, I believe that the book of Revelation will be read in and looked at in a different context than that of the A.D 70 suggestion. One question that always comes to mind, is that when all of the authors of the New Testament wrote, they would add excerpts of the book of Revelation, so could it possibly be that the book of end times was written before all of the other books? Or perhaps the author wrote piecing the excerpts together from past authors? Nevertheless, Revelation and the setting of the book does go hand in hand with some of the A.D 70 setting. The imperial cult does play a role because of the previous NT authors who, also, were part or experienced the same cult. Perhaps the author of the book experienced the same cult, but there some significant prophecies mentioned from the earlier books in the OT. With respect to the question, there are connections to both A.D 70 and 90’s, but the later date makes more sense according to the setting and examples used.
Answering this question is tough because we really do not know the exact date written for this book of the Bible. However, should it really matter that there is a difference in reading it no matter what time a person is in? Because there is more support for it being written in A.D. 70 as written in the original post. For example, the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple are the support for the A.D. 70 side of this argument. I would go with the side that has the more support in this argument. To directly answer the question there would be a difference in reading it because they are two completely different times with different people. So, that means there would be different methods of interpretation too. Overall, there is more support for older of the two dates and it should not really matter that there would be a difference at all.
Wow, this is defiantly an article that I had to think deep of as it blows my mind that such an important book of the Bible doesn’t have a 100% specific date that we know the book of Revelation was written. The beginning of the article explained that persecution would have been a big thing to look for if the book was written in the 90’s AD. When I look at books at the biblical, the date of when it was written isn’t the first thing that comes to my mind. Normally the first thing that comes to my mind is theological principles and the audience of who the author is writing to. It was neat reading this article and seeing how when the period of time the book was written changes how the book is viewed and interpreted.
It seems that it is always difficult to find specific dates of when many of these books of the Bible were first circulated. This is especially true for Revelation, considering the sheer amount of figurative language that is found within the book. While John’s lifespan does give something of a cut-off point, even narrowing the date down to the two options mentioned can still give cause a debate to biblical scholars.
The resistance of the Roman imperial persecution is a definite theme of the book of Revelation, and it just so happens that the two options for dating the book fall between two very oppressive emperors of the Roman Empire. It seems somewhat curious that most early church scholars tended to date the book during the 90’s AD, during the tail end of the reign of Domitian. If there were so many writings after his reign that denounced his reign as someone who was obsessed with being worshiped as a deity while living as emperor, it only makes sense that he would be so concerned with the worship of another God outside himself. While most of this evidence does come from outside his own reign, I believe it makes sense, given that someone like Domitian would certainly be upset by any negative press.
Joel,
I agree with your article and the several points that you have made here. It is very difficult to narrow down the dates that different scriptures were written. I think the truth is that we will never know for sure when these scriptures were written. We can however use clues and different hints from within the texts themselves to help us get some idea of when it was written. As for the book of Revelation, we can tell from certain styles of writing and phrases that John uses as to when he may have written the book. Once again, however we simply cannot know for sure when he actually wrote it. I have come to the realization that while it is healthy to seek out knowledge about when scriptures were written and how accurate they are, I need to have faith and trust that God has revealed to us what he wants us to know through his word and that we need to take it at that.
The date of authorship of the book of Revelation is probably the most important debate for any book in the whole Bible. The reason for this being that the book of Revelation’s soul purpose is to describe events that are going to happen in the future. And these aren’t just any random events. They are the very serious events that describe what is going to happen during the end times. So because of the time sensitivity of this book, it is absolutely vital to know the date when it was written. For example, if the book was written at a much later date than John claimed then he could have written these events after they happened. Thus making his claims about seeing visions of the future irrelevant. But from what I have read in Revelation and from this article it seems to me that the evidence points to the fact John definitely wrote these things well before they happened. And as for the events that are written describing the very end times of the world, I don’t see how there could be any way he would have written this after it happened.
The date of authorship of the book of Revelation is probably the most important debate for any book in the whole Bible. The reason for this being that the book of Revelation’s soul purpose is to describe events that are going to happen in the future. And these aren’t just any random events. They are the very serious events that describe what is going to happen during the end times. So because of the time sensitivity of this book, it is absolutely vital to know the date when it was written. For example, if the book was written at a much later date than John claimed then he could have written these events after they happened. Thus making his claims about seeing visions of the future irrelevant. But from what I have read in Revelation and from this article it seems to me that the evidence points to the fact John definitely wrote these things well before they happened. And as for the events that are written describing the very end times of the world, I don’t see how there could be any way he would have written this after it happened.
This is a very tough question to due to all of the different dates and times that are presented. There are many different dates that some individuals believe when it was written. I believe that most people would have had a lot different thought process back in pre A.D. 70, than in the 90s. Everyone would have had a different thought process then causing them to interpret the what was said in the Bible to determine the time or when it was written. Hence it was make a huge difference to make it reading Revelations so different back in the pre A.D. 70 times than in the 90s or even in todays times.
Why should we even consider that the persecution described in Revelation relates to the time of either Nero or Domitian?
The people living in those times have all died, yet the ‘plagues’ of the greatest tribulation ever to occur, as detailed in Revelation, surely did not occur in the lifetime of anyone contemporary with John. It remains for the future.
Christ foretold of the tribulation in Matthew 24, citing Old Testament prophecy:
Matthew 24;15-22 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place…then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains … For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”
Matthew 24:29-30: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
Did the greatest tribulation of all time occur under either Nero or Domitian? Were the sun and moon darkened and stars fall out of heaven? Did the sign of the Son of Man appear in heaven *immediately* afterwards and all the tribes of earth mournfully see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory?
John wrote in Rev 1:1 that the Revelation was given “to show His servants things which must shortly take place”.
The events of Matthew 24 are picked up in Rev 1:7 – “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him …”
John wrote that these ‘things which must shortly take place’ were revealed to him as an observer of The Day of The Lord. That implies he was made to time-travel, which would be a simple feat for the God who created time and who says “before Abraham was I am”.
John said in Rev 1:10-11 “… I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying…What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
Rev 1:19 reiterates that John observed these things unfolding: “Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.”
The greatest tribulation of all time has not yet happened. Neither has The Day of The Lord! If you still need convincing about this, read Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Zechariah, Jeremiah and other Old Testament books to see much unfulfilled prophecy concerning what else happens in association with the Day of the Lord. The greatest tribulation of all time has to be cut short by the return of Christ, otherwise no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
In Revelation chapters 2-3, the seven churches in Asia receive their instruction about how to live through the times that immediately precede the Day of the Lord. Even if those churches existed in Nero’s and/or Domitian’s time, shouldn’t we also acknowledge that the seven churches must exist during the 3.5 years leading up to the Day of the Lord?
The book of Revelation closes in chapter 22:6-7 with a reminder that the book is a prophecy and it pronounces happiness for those who acknowledge it: “Then he said to me, “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.”
Then we read a warning in Rev 22:18-19: “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: 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.”
This stern warning declares that if a person alters the words of the Revelation account, that person will either have to endure the plagues of which Revelation speaks or be denied the blessings of which it speaks. For these punishments to be possible, this offending person must be living in the times of which the prophecy speaks and thus able to suffer the plagues, or to be denied access to the holy city, etc. The plagues, the day of the Lord, the reading of the names in the book of Life, the holy city must *all* be future. If the tribulation and plagues had already occurred in Nero’s or Domitian’s day, you could not add to the prophecy about the holy city or The Day of The Lord, or of various other elements of the prophecy contained in Revelation, and still suffer the plagues.
If you accept that the great tribulation and plagues have already happened in Nero’s or Domitian’s time, then ‘if anyone adds to these things’ nowadays, they will go unpunished.
Surely the plagues are future, just as The Day of The Lord is future and just as the people of the seven churches will be living in the future, whom John enjoins to be ‘overcomers’ through the tribulation, when *all* these events are coming to pass.