The Dating of Revelation
Before diving into the reasons our church holds a partial-preterist view of eschatology, we must first address a key question: when was the book of Revelation written? The answer to this question significantly impacts how we interpret its prophecies. In this article, we’ll examine the two main positions—the “late date” and the “early date”—and explore why the timing matters.
In my previous articles concerning eschatology (the study of the ‘Last Things’), I mentioned that our church holds to a partial-preterist interpretation of biblical prophecy. This means that we believe the vast majority of prophetic literature in the Bible concerning eschatology (namely Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation, as well as passages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) was fulfilled in the first century AD. All of these prophetic passages point to the time when the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant began. These events occurred in the first century as Jesus incarnated into human history and began his ministry. The New Covenant was ushered in by his death, resurrection and ascension (in AD 30 or 33), which also began the “last days” – or, the end of the age of the Old Covenant. This period came to a conclusion 40 years later in AD 70 with the complete destruction of Jerusalem, along with that of the temple, the Levitical priesthood, and its corresponding sacrificial system.
In future articles I will discuss the biblical, theological, and historical reasons why our church holds to these views, but before I delve into those subjects, it is necessary to deal with the crucial subject of when the book of Revelation was written. This subject is both important and contentious, as the date of Revelation’s authorship has a direct bearing on when its prophetic events would be fulfilled.
There are two primary positions regarding the dating of the book of Revelation: the “late date” position (around AD 95-96, during the reign of the emperor Domitian) and the “early date” position (during the reign of the emperor Nero, around AD 60 - 64). It’s important to note that this isn’t a minor issue; the position a Christian holds has a direct impact on how they will interpret the prophecies contained in Revelation. If Revelation was written during the reign of Nero, it would directly refer to his persecution of Christians and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions in AD 70. If, however, the prophecies of Revelation were written after AD 70 (as the “late date” position suggests), then they could not be referring to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and instead could mean any number of things, ranging from spiritual fulfillments to other historical or even future events.
The “Late Date” View
“Late date” advocates consist primarily of historicist and futurist (especially dispensational) biblical interpreters.
The primary evidence for this view comes from a passage from the church father Irenaeus’ (c. AD 180) book Against Heresies:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” - St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5,30,3
While it is a cryptic passage, Irenaeus seems to state that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Domitian. It is important to note that Irenaeus is traditionally believed to have been a disciple of Polycarp, who is traditionally considered to have been a disciple of John. This direct connection to the Apostle John gives Irenaeus’ point some weight.
In addition to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Victorinus (writing in the 3rd and 4th centuries) recorded in their works that the Apostle John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian.
It is necessary to deal with the crucial subject of when the book of Revelation was written.
Beyond these testimonies from church history, “late date” advocates point to some internal evidence within the book of Revelation. One argument considers differences between the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, written during his first imprisonment in Rome, and in his letters written to Timothy, where he writes of false teachers at work in Ephesus. This appears to be in contrast to Jesus’ message in Revelation 2, where speaking to the Ephesians he says: “Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6 ESV). The Apostle Paul wrote his Ephesian letters to Timothy during the early 60s of the first century AD, addressing false teaching present in the church. Yet in Revelation, Jesus’ letter indicates that false teaching had been rooted out from among the Ephesians. “Late date” advocates believe that this rooting-out would have required decades, and interpret Revelation 2 to be internal evidence pointing to a “late date” of authorship.
Most of the other arguments by “late date” advocates relate to the letters of Revelation 2-3, and their understanding of the condition of the seven churches written to in the AD 60’s. Additionally, late date advocates wonder why if Paul, Timothy, and the Apostle John ministered in the city of Ephesus within the same decade, why this was not mentioned in the letters of the New Testament.
While less compelling from an evidentiary standpoint, a common argument by “late date” advocates is that the “scholarly consensus” of our time favors the late date. While it’s true that many respected, conservative biblical scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries favored the “late date”, it is important to note that the dominance of dispensational eschatology within American evangelicalism has skewed conservative Bible scholarship to futurist interpretive views concerning the prophetic literature of the Bible.
Counter-Arguments of the Late Date View
While “late date” advocates often point to Irenaeus’ works as a trump card for their view, the church fathers were not infallible, and there are a number of weaknesses to his testimony.
Every copy we have of Irenaeus’ work is of Latin manuscripts translated from the original Greek - and in fact, the earliest complete Latin copy is from a couple hundred years after Irenaeus’ death. Eusebius fortunately preserved sections of Irenaeus’ work quoted from Greek in his own Church History, providentially including the section from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies shared above. Eusebius’ translation of this passage is ambiguous, and can be translated in a couple of different ways. Here are two variants:
“For it, that is the vision, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
“For he, that is the Apostle John, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Eusebius, Church History 3.18.3; 5.8.6
It is unclear from the Greek translation whether Irenaeus was saying that the book of Revelation was from Domitian’s reign, or whether the Apostle John lived into Domitian’s reign. The ambiguity of this passage does not lend itself to being a solid proof for a late date.
Aside from this ambiguity, neither Irenaeus and Eusebius are completely reliable sources. Irenaeus’ view on Revelation was contested by other church fathers - and Irenaeus himself is widely maligned for holding to a historically incorrect and theologically bad view that Jesus lived and ministered into his fifties. Taking these missteps into account, it seems likely that Irenaeus was mistaken in his assertion of placing the authorship of Revelation in AD 95. Or, depending on how the text is translated, Irenaeus could have been writing that John lived to AD 95, and not asserting a claim as to when Revelation was written at all.
Additionally, it is clear from his writings that Eusebius “had an axe to grind concerning the book of Revelation” [1]. Dr. Robert Gundry in his work has demonstrated that Eusebius made a false distinction between “John the Apostle” and “John the Elder” in order to discredit the canonicity of Revelation, and that Eusebius had manipulated many texts in order to discredit the validity of the book of Revelation overall.
The internal evidence pointed out by “late date” advocates solely relies on incomplete information that we have today concerning the seven churches of Revelation. In fact, there is nothing in the letters to the seven churches of Revelation which would require a “late date” composition. The argument that it would require decades of time for the spiritual condition of Ephesus to shift ignores the reality that if the Ephesian church heeded Paul’s admonishment (and grew fruitfully under the faithful ministry of Timothy and others), the Ephesian church could have rapidly changed in the space of only a few years. Additionally, the “late date” view completely ignores the strong internal evidence and symbolism in Revelation pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This is due to the fact that both historicist and futurist interpreters (especially of the dispensational variety) are boxed into a corner: in order to make the rest of their views tenable, they must believe that Revelation refers to anything but the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem - in other words, a “late date” interpretation of the authorship of Revelation.
The “Early Date” View
“Early date” advocates consist primarily of partial-preterist biblical interpreters. (Idealist eschatological interpreters may hold to either “early” or “late date” views, due to their belief that Revelation is largely symbolic and non-literal).
Like the “late date” advocates, the “early date” advocates point to both external and internal evidence to support their view. The primary difference between these two views of Revelation’s authorship lies in their sourcing: “late date” advocates draw from external evidence as their strongest point, while “early date” advocates turn first to the internal textual clues present in Revelation, and the historical context of the time.
Firstly, Revelation 11:1-2 describes the temple of Jerusalem as still standing, suggesting that the temple still exists at the time of its writing. . In fact, much of the eschatological prophecy of the Scriptures (Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, Revelation) requires the temple to still be standing in order to tie the narratives together. The mention of the temple in Rev. 11:1-2 is interpreted by futurists to indicate that at some point in the future a “third temple” will be rebuilt, and the Old Testament sacrifices will resume. Of course, much of this is conjecture. The clearer explanation would be that the temple was still standing when the book was written. Without a doubt, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a monumental event closing the Old Covenant. In fact, John A.T. Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament says that if we believe the New Testament canon was not completed until 30+ years after the destruction of Jerusalem, this omission is “one of the oddest of facts…[that the destruction of Jerusalem] is never once mentioned as a past fact.” [2]
The date of Revelation’s authorship has a direct bearing on when its prophetic events would be fulfilled.
Secondly, Revelation 17:9-10 speaks of the Beast, which is almost universally interpreted as representing the Roman Empire (or a revived Roman Empire). Speaking of the seven heads of the beast, it says: “they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.” This is remarkable considering who the sixth king is. When you put the Roman emperors in view, it fits history precisely leading up to the dating of Revelation: 1) Julius Caesar, 2) Augustus, 3) Tiberius, 4) Caligula, 5) Claudius, 6) Nero (“one is”), 7) Galba (who only reigned briefly). Even more compelling from Revelation 17 is that it describes 10 kings in total: 8) Otho, 9) Vitellius, and 10) Vespasian, who was the reigning Roman emperor when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Vespasian’s son Titus, who was in line to become the next emperor, is understood to be the promised prince who comes after the Messiah is “cut off”, the Abomination of Desolation. Titus was the Roman general who desecrated the temple and Jerusalem.
Nero being the sixth king in this prophecy dates the book of Revelation to have been written between AD 54 to AD 68, completely aligning with the prophecy described in Revelation 17. Nero was the first emperor to launch a severe persecution against Christians, which began in AD 64, aligning with Revelation 6:9-11, 13:7, and 17:6.The prophecies in those passages have a sense of immediacy, and Revelation 1:1 and 22:10 state that the time “must soon take place” and is “near”, leading the reader at the time to understand that persecution was imminent.
This persecution aligns with Jesus’ warning for Christians to flee Jerusalem when it is surrounded by armies (Matthew 24:15-16; Luke 21:20-24). Revelation 12:6 describes the woman (referring to the church or faithful Israel) as fleeing to the wilderness for 1,260 days, or 3 and a half years, which aligns with the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-70) when history attests to Christians fleeing to the mountains before Jerusalem’s destruction.
The above passages are only the tip of the iceberg regarding internal evidence pointing to an early date for authorship of Revelation during the reign of Nero. In addition to the internal evidence, there is external evidence pointing to the early date view.
The position a Christian holds has a direct impact on how they will interpret the prophecies contained in Revelation.
One of the earliest versions of the New Testament, The Syriac (also referred to as the Peshitto), states on the cover page of the book of Revelation: “Again the revelation which was upon the holy John the Evangelist from God when he was on the island of Patmos where he was thrown by the emperor Nero.” [3]
The Muratorian Fragment, which is one of the earliest lists of New Testament books from the second century, states that the Apostle Paul followed the example of his predecessor John, writing to seven churches. While not a direct statement, this implies that Revelation was written before Paul had finished writing his letters. [4]
The internal and external evidence makes a strong argument for an early date of the Apostle John’s authorship of Revelation. But of course, due to the differences in theology between partial-preterists, historicists, and futurists, each camp will place a heavier emphasis on the evidence that backs up their theological views.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this article, I wrote that it was important while learning about our church’s views to deal with the important subject of the dating of Revelation. As R.C. Sproul, the late presbyterian pastor and “early date” advocate, rightly noted: “If the book was written after AD 70, then its contents manifestly do not refer to events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem–unless the book is a wholesale fraud, having been composed after the predicted events had already occurred…the burden for preterists then is to demonstrate that Revelation was written before AD 70.” [5] R.C. Sproul acknowledged this burden, and yet held to the scholarly opinion that the strongest evidence, both internal and external, pointed to the Apostle John writing Revelation during Nero’s reign.
Our church leaders hold to the partial-preterist view of interpreting biblical prophecy, and therefore the “early date” view concerning the authorship of Revelation. It is my hope in future articles to lay out the scriptural, historical, and theological arguments for why we hold to these views, as well as discuss why this is so important to your life as a Christian today.
For Further Reference:
RC Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus
Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
Edited by C. Marvin Pate, Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, a Parallel Commentary
Works Cited:
[1] Gundry, R.H. “The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition Concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,” in Gundry R.H., The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 49-73.
[2] John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA.: Westminster Press, 1976) 13.
[3] Glenn David Bauscher, trans., “The Peshitta Aramaic-English New Testament - An Interlinear Translation,” Internet Archive, accessed March 31, 2025, https://archive.org/details/150276553AramaicBible1/page/678/mode/2up (Interestingly, Sir Isaac Newton is quoted in this translation concerning his scholarly belief that John wrote the Book of Revelation during the reign of Nero)
[4] Peter Kirby, “The Muratorian Fragment,” Early Christian Writings, accessed March 31, 2025, https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian2.html
[5] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), p.140.
