Most scholars date the writing or Revelation at about AD 90 after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple in AD 70. However, there is some evidence that Revelation was written earlier than AD 70. Why is this important? Because a dating of Revelation before AD 70 changes the possible interpretations immensely, such that it may not be referring to events still as yet in the future, but to the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish Dispensation.
According to the book of Revelation itself, the author’s name is John (1:4, 9, 22:8), a prophet (22:9), which has been traditionally understood to be John the apostle. Although John the apostle would have been old indeed if he had written Revelation as late as AD 90, it’s not impossible, so this by itself is not sufficient evidence for an earlier dating. In fact, there’s no evidence that provides a conclusive date for Revelation, which is legitimately speculated to have been written anywhere between AD 50 and AD 160. Let’s review evidence for both the early dating and the late dating.
Evidence for an Early Dating
1) Evidence from the writings of Irenaeus who lived between AD 130 and AD 202.
2) Evidence from the writings of Clement of Alexandria who lived AD 150 to AD 215.
3) The fact that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
4) The nearness of the predicted events.
5) The fact that Nero fits the King as the one who “is” very well.
6) Other Internal evidence for an early date.
Point #1: Evidence from Irenaeus
Irenaeus was an early church father who referred to Revelation in his work Against Heresies, which was written about AD 180 or AD 190 and is actually used to assert a later date for Revelation of around AD 90. What does Irenaeus say? The critical statement when referring to “him who beheld the apocalyptic vision” (i.e. John) is “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” This is used to date Revelation as being written during Domitian’s reign, which was after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and puts the date in the early 90’s.
However, another interpretation would allow that Irenaeus was referring to John himself who may have lived into Domitian’s time, but that John may have actually written the Book of Revelation much earlier, possibly before AD 70. Also, Irenaeus refers to “ancient copies” of Revelation, which does not square with the idea of the original autographs being composed “almost in our day.”
Another interpretation is that Irenaeus was referring to John’s original written version of Revelation. We have copies of John’s work, but not the original. Where did it go and when did it disappear? The original copy could have been written before AD 70, making it an ancient copy. And this is what Irenaeus was referring to as that which was last seen towards the end of Domitian’s reign. Perhaps shortly after John’s death it disappeared among those who were managing his affairs. Irenaeus was born in AD 120 and was a pupil of his elder friend, Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of John himself and probably had seen John’s original manuscript. Polycarps’, and possibly others’, stories of John and his ancient writings coming from first hand witnesses must have indeed seemed as if they happened almost in Irenaeus’ day.
Also, Kenneth Gentry states "that although many ancient fathers employed Iranaeus in high regard, they do not seem to have regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed John's banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero's reign. Photus preserved extracts of "Life of Timotheous" in which he states that John's banishment was under Nero".
There’s no conclusive proof as to which interpretation is correct, but let’s review the other evidence before rendering a verdict on this.
Point #2: Evidence from Clement
Clement writes “When after the death of the tyrant…[John the apostle] removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus…” Who is “the tyrant?” Clement does not name him. Is it possible the tyrant is not Domitian but Nero who reigned between AD 54 and AD 68? Nero was regarded as the quintessential tyrant and was commonly known by the name Tyrant. To confirm this, a quote from an early writer named Apollonius of Tyana says “In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India, But this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs…And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mothers, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet.”
Two other statements by Clement also lend support for the early dating of Revelation. The first is a reference to John pursuing a young apostate on horseback during the period after John’s exile. If he were exiled during the reign of Domitian, then John would have been in his nineties when chasing the apostate. While not impossible, such a feat is not likely. However, Clement also refers to John as “an infirm old man” after his exile. This does not necessarily require John’s exile to be in Domitian’s reign, because even if it occurred after Nero’s reign, John would have been in his 60’s or 70’s. By the standards of the day 70’s was very old indeed. So the picture Clement draws for us could well be one of an old John (i.e. in his 60’s or 70’s) undoubtedly showing his age, but still willing to mount a horse and chase the young apostate.
The second statement comes from Clement’s Miscellanies: “For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero.” Since Clement considered the Apostle John the author of Revelation and Clement argues that apostolic revelation ceased with Nero, he indicates that Revelation was written before Nero died.
Point #3: No mention of destruction of Jerusalem
If the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence if deafening. Not only does Revelation not mention the temple’s destruction as a past event, it frequently refers to the temple as still standing and that the temple’s destruction is only anticipated in 11:1-2.
Point #4: Nearness of events
The temporal expectation of Revelation receives frequent repetition in that it occurs not only seven times in the opening and closing chapters, but at least three times in the letters in chapters two and three (Rev. 2:16; 3:11).
“…things which must shortly take place.” (1:1)
“The time is near.” (1:3)
“Write…the things that are about to take place.” (1:19)
“Repent, or else I will come to you quickly.” (2:16)
“…the hour of trial…is about to come upon the whole world.” (3:10)
“Behold, I come quickly!” (3:11)
“…things which must shortly take place.” (22:6)
“Behold, I am coming quickly!” (22:7)
“The time is at hand.” (22:10)
“Behold, I am coming quickly.” (22:12)
“Surely I am coming quickly.” (22:20)
If we prefer to interpret Revelation as being written in AD 90 and that all of these prophecies are as yet unfulfilled almost 2000 years later, how do we account for the nearness of the events stated? However, if Revelation was written during Nero’s reign and these prophecies refer to the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish Dispensation in AD 70, the nearness of these warnings makes perfect sense.
Point #5: Nero is king who “is”
If Revelation was written during Nero’s reign between AD 54 and AD 68, then he must be the King who “is” as mentioned in Revelation 17:10. It reads “and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes; he must remain a little while.” How plausible is Nero as the king who “is?”
Whether the fulfillment of Revelation is past or future, it is commonly understood that these are kings who rule from the city of Rome, because it was commonly known as the city of seven hills, which compares to Revelation 17:9 “...The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.” So how do the kings of Rome fit into Rev 17:10?
Though Julius Caesar preferred the title caesar to king, it was common in the ancient world to refer to Rome’s emperors as kings. Even the New Testament bears witness to this when the chief priests declared to Pontius Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). Although Augustus was the first Roman emperor to refer to himself as Caesar, it was custom of ancient historians such as Josephus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius to begin the list of Roman kings with Julius Caesar. Then we have the first ten Roman Emperors as:
1) BC 49-44; Julius Caesar
2) BC 31-14: Augustus
3) BC 14-AD 37; Tiberius
4) AD 37-41; Caligula
5) AD 41-54; Claudius
6) AD 54-68; Nero
7) AD 68-69 Galba
8) AD 69-69 Otho
9) AD 69-69 Vitellius
10) AD 69-79 Vespasion
Scholars and historians also question including Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. These never exercised authority over the empire nor were they recognized by the provinces as Emperors.
Should we count Julius Caesar as the first Emperor of Rome? How can we refuse to count him? He was the father of the Empire. He was dictator for more than four years before his death and none of the Emperors were more imperial than he. His power was so stately that he was offered the title and crown, though he refused it. The people of John's day thought he was the first Emperor. Josephus, the Jewish historian who was contemporary with John, counted Julius as the first. He identified Augustus and Tiberius as the second and third Emperors, and Caligula as the fourth (Ant., 18, 2, 2; 16, 6, 2; 18, 6, 10). Suetonius, a Roman historian of the first and second centuries, begins Lives of the Twelve Caesars with Julius as the first. Dio Cassius also counts him as first in his Roman History, and the Sibylline Oracles (Book 5) calls Julius "the first king." Should not he whose name became the title by which all the Emperors were addressed be recognized as the first? Caesar was Julius' last name and it became the title by which all the Emperors were called. There were no Caesars if Julius was not the first.
If this is true, then is there a first century candidate for the beast Antichrist? The beast’s appearance is one of the “things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1). Let’s examine Nero as a possible candidate.
Nero’s life included the murders of his own family members, the castration of a boy he “married,” and the brutal murder of his pregnant wife by kicking her to death. Nero even devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the genitals of men and women, who were bound to stakes. Nero began his reign as emperor in AD 54. His imperial persecution of the Christian community was launched in AD 64, the same year as the famous fire that many believe was set by Nero himself. He is referred to as having a “cruel nature” that “put to death so many innocent men.” Also, “the destroyer of the human race” and “the poison of the world.” Apollonius of Tyana specifically mentions that Nero was called a “beast.” Nero erected statues of himself inscribed with “Almighty God and Savior” which he demanded people worship. Nero committed suicide in AD 68, when he was but 31 years old.
Also, if Nero is to be taken seriously as the antichrist, or even a type of antichrist, he must have some relation to the number 666. In the ancient world, alphabets often did double duty as a system of numbering. We are aware that Roman letters such as X, C, M and L also functioned as numbers and this existed in the Latin and Hebrew alphabets as well. A Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name was Nrwn Qsr. Also, in the Hebrew N=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, Q=100, s=60, r=200. That is, the sum of numbers corresponding to the letters of Nero Caesar in the Hebrew spelling totals 666. One fascinating aspect of this cryptogram is that a Latin textual variant in Revelation 13:18 reads 616 rather that 666. Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form on Nero Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.
Point #6: Internal evidence
When Daniel received his prophecy, he was told that the time was not for many days (Daniel 8:26; 10:14). In Daniel 9:24-27, a long period of several centuries was forecast before the final destruction of Jerusalem would come. In chapter 12, Daniel inquired as to when the judgment foretold would come to pass. God answered, "for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9; cf.12:13).
John's message in Revelation was urgent. The prophecy was to "shortly come to pass" and "the time is at hand" (Revelation 1:1,3; 22:10). Daniel's prophecy was more than 500 years future when he wrote. It was yet for many days while it was at hand when John wrote. If John wrote the Apocalypse between 65 and 68 A.D., indeed, the destruction of Jerusalem was at hand. Jerusalem was destroyed in late summer, 70 A.D.
Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."
Daniel 9:24 “seal up the vision and prophecy” By the end of the 70th week Daniel's vision and prophecy (all prophecy) would be sealed -- not completed but sealed. As Daniel's prophecy continued, it showed that rebuilt Jerusalem would again be destroyed (9:26,27). Since this destruction of Jerusalem was to follow the completion of the six things promised, it would serve as proof that God fulfilled all that He promised in the vision and prophecy.
Revelation 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
Compare with “For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33) and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets (33:34) Therefore, Babylon can only symbolize Jerusalem.
Jesus said, "I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"(Matthew 23:34,35). Did Jesus speak out of both sides of His mouth? Did He punish two cities for the same thing, one that deserved it and the other which did not? Jerusalem was the city of God and deserved this punishment because she knew better than to do as she did, but Rome was not the city of God and knew no better.
Empire-wide Roman Persecution: This was a present reality at the time Revelation was written. The source of this persecution is unidentified. Upon the basis of this reasoning, many conclude the Apocalypse pictures a Roman persecution of saints extensive enough to affect the entire Roman world. Since no Roman persecution of this magnitude took place before the end of the first century, they deduct that the Apocalypse was not written prior to the end of Domitian's reign (95-96 A.D.). Many also contend, though uninformed, that Domitian instigated a persecution against the saints so severe that he filled the empire with their blood. Careful students of the Apocalypse are learning better, however. Many who hold to the late date understand that evidence for a Domitian persecution is missing. While still holding to a Domitian date, they project the persecutions foretold to the reign of Trajan (98-117 A.D.) and beyond. There is unquestionable evidence of empire-wide persecution during Trajan's reign and extending for about 200 years thereafter.
If the Roman persecution is the only persecution symbolized in the Apocalypse, then, the argument is valid. However, there is another persecutor identified in Revelation. There can be no doubts about their identify because Jesus calls them by name. He said, they "say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (2:9). Of this persecutor, Jesus promised His saints at Philadelphia, "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee" (3:9). Since the Jews are still a prime persecutor of saints when John wrote, which effectively ended in 70 AD, this promise of punishment upon the Jews was yet future.
Empire & Emperor Worship: Though proof is missing, many commentators insist that it was under Domitian that the death penalty was issued to those who refused to bow in worship of the emperor. However, Rome was worshipped as an entity called Dea Roma as early as 195 B.C. and temples were erected to worship the deified emperors beginning with Julius. Throughout Asia temples were erected to Augustus and Tiberius before the ministry of Jesus began. All temples within the borders of the empire admitted Caesar's image among the temple gods for public worship. The only temple failing to welcome an image of Caesar was the temple in Jerusalem. In 40 A.D. Caligula, the fourth emperor, sent an army to Palestine for the purpose of placing his image in the temple at Jerusalem. He was murdered before the task was accomplished and the attempt abandoned. So, emperor worship existed long before the reign of Domitian. This practice was clearly in operation by the middle of the second century A.D. but there is no evidence it was a state law as early as Domitian's reign.
The Age of the Churches: Many commentators place confidence in their contention that the seven churches of Asia needed time to develop as described in chapter 2 & 3 and, therefore, assert that the late date is essential. Were decades necessary for the conditions described in chapters 2 & 3 to develop? The answer is "NO." Why would it take decades for one congregation to reach imperfection and the same amount of time for another congregation to reach perfection? The church at Ephesus was in deep trouble when Paul wrote Timothy in 64 A.D. (cf.1 Timothy 1:3-6, 19-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18). Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to correct the wrongs. Both common sense and experience teach that the conditions of churches are not determined by their age but by their loyalty and commitment to the Lord.
Revelation 6:12-13 parallels Matthew 24:29-32, Mark 13:24-29, and Luke 21:25-31. These texts record Jesus' discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem. The language is comparable even to the discussion of the fig tree. How can we overlook the obvious? This too supports our conclusion.
Revelation 12:14 "Time, and times, and half a time" is an expression used two other times in scripture (Daniel 7:25; 12:7). In both instances, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was in view. The expression means three and one half years, the length of the Roman-Jewish War which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. This further supports our conclusion.
There are a great deal more than this, but the study can become extensive. Let’s leave it at this and say there certainly is plausible internal evidence that connects the events in Revelation with other scriptures that fit well if Revelation was written before AD 70 and referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Evidence for a Late Dating
There is evidence that points to a later dating of Revelation. For example, it’s known that John was banished to Patmos (where Revelation is written) by Domitian after A.D. 70 and assumed by many that this must necessarily have been the time that John wrote Revelation. In fact some other early church leaders, such as Eusebius Pamphili (260-340 AD) and Victorinus-Bishop of Pettaw (about 300AD) write of their belief that John’s vision was seen during his banishment on Patmos during Domitian’s reign. However, they lived several generations after Irenaeus and Clement and could have made their assertions on a mistaken interpretation of Irenaeus’ writing. If they based their interpretation on additional evidence, they failed to mention its source and it has not survived to this day. John may also have been banished to Patmos when all the other Apostles were being persecuted and martyred in the 60’s AD. This is not recorded in history, but is very plausible.
One writer in the fourth century makes the blunder of assigning the banishment to the reign of Claudius Cæsar, a blunder which finds no endorsers, a blunder which is supposed to have been a verbal mistake, but it is not until the sixth century that we find the opinion expressed that the banishment belonged to the persecution of the reign of Nero, and up to the twelfth century there are only two writers who endorse this date. Let’s consider in detail the evidence that points to a later writing of Revelation.
1) St. Irenaeus
2) Tertullian
3) Clement of Alexandria
4) Victorinus
5) Eusebius Pamphili
6) Elliott
7) Other Internal evidence for a late date
Point #1 St. Irenaeus
The statement of St. Irenaeus is the primary and earliest support. It is not surprising that Preterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement.
"For the testimony of Irenaeus -- Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John, -- is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable. Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse: 'for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago; but almost in our age, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.' " (vol. I, p. 32)
Further evidence from Irenaeus comes from his book Against Heresies as he discusses the number 666 and its interpretation. He, writing after 177 A.D., speaks of the embodiment of the number 666 as yet future to them.
"But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom,[let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truely the abomination of desolation".(Book 5 Chpt. 30, Sec. 2)
Point #2 Tertullian
Tertullian lived from approximately 160-240 A.D., born in North Africa at Carthage, and converted to Christianity when he was 30-40 years of age. He became the father of Latin theology and creator of the church language in the Latin tongue. Tertullian's support of a 96 A.D. date is based on his references to persecutions of the apostles; Paul and Peter were put to death by Nero yet no mention of John and his banishment is mentioned as occurring during this time.
"First, Tertullian seems in no dubious manner to indicate this view of the Apocalyptic date. For in his Apology, after specifying Nero's as the first imperial persecution, and this one by the sword, (wherein, as he elsewhere says, Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of John,) he proceeds to notice Domitian's as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on St. John. It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertullian; I mean as alluding to St. John's banishment as the act of Domitian." (vol. I, p. 33)
Point # 3 Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria lived from approximately 150-220 A.D. He was originally a pagan philosopher converted to the Christian church. He sought instruction from the most eminent teachers, traveling extensively to Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Palestine. He was a pupil of Pantaenus at Alexandria and was made presbyter in the church of Alexandria. Clement's support to a later date is found in story involving St. John after he returned from Patmos. The point being made that John was quite an old man when it occurred.
"Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, 'after the death of the tyrant;' and represents him as at that time an infirm old man. Now 'the tyrant,' whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.”
Point #4 Victorinus
Victorinus, who died in 303 or 304 A.D., was the bishop of Pettaw in Upper Pannonia, near modern Vienna. He wrote commentaries on several Old Testament books, Matthew and Revelation.
"Thirdly, Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution, in a Commentary on the Apocalypse written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patmos when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 34-35)
Point #5 Eusebius Pamphili
Eusebius Pamphili lived from approximately 260-340 A.D. He was bishop of Caesarea and wrote Ecclesiastical History. In this work he relates events in the early church and his chronology places St. John on Patmos during Domitian's reign. Eusebius in three passages says that the banishment of John was during Domitian's time. He even goes so far as to say that John received the Revelation in the 14th year of Domitian, which was 95 AD.
This is very serious evidence for a later dating of Revelation, because Eusebius was writing the imperial records of Constantinople while it and Rome both were fairly intact. It was in 498 that a very bad fire in the government quarter destroyed the imperial archives. You can see the drop in reference knowledge starting after the reign of Justinian. Prior to then, the various centers were still extant. It’s very probable that there was additional historical evidence available to Eusebius that is now lost to us.
That's why, for example, we might tend to trust Eusebius' direct statement that "Christ suffered in the 19th year of the reign of Tiberius". Because Eusebius had access to court records, and it contradicted the more popular notion of simply adding 3 years (passovers) to Luke's date of 29 AD for the commencement of John Baptist's ministry.
Point #6 Elliott
We learn from Elliott, a scholar who read all the statements from the early historians that they did not merely mimic St. Irenaeus, but that they were themselves scholars and their statements are the result of their own research into this matter.
"Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic testimony still extant, to the fact of St. John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian: -- a chain of testimony not to be viewed... as but the repetition of that of Irenaeus, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to: but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence which then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, ...it can scarcely have been unknown to them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions; -- viz. either that it did not exist; or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice." (vol. I, p. 36-37)
Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.
"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?"
Point #7 Other Internal evidence for a late date
Some say, the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This fact alone places St. John's authorship somewhere before September of A.D. 70. However, Most scholars do not view the Book of Revelation as primarily a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem; and therefore their interpretation of this book does not require a writing date of 64-68 A.D. The Preterist interpretation, however, cannot exist without an earlier date.
It might be of service to add that the persecution of Nero, as far as known, was local and confined to Rome; that death, instead of banishment, was the favorite method of punishment with him; that it is not probable that he would have put to death Paul and Peter and banished John; and that there is no evidence that John, as early as A. D. 68, had ever visited the region of the seven churches. On the other hand, the persecution of Domitian was not local; we know also that he sent other Christians into exile; we know also that the later years of John's life were passed at Ephesus, and in the region of which it was the center.
The Lord’s day: The expression, "The Lord's-day," does not occur in the earlier apostolical writings. They always speak of the "First Day of the week" instead. The term used in A. D. 68 was "the First Day of the week," but the writers of the second century from the beginning use "the Lord's-day." This term, then, points to a period near the beginning of the second century as the date of Revelation. The expressions in chap. 2:9 and 3:9 point to a complete separation between the church and the synagogue. This complete separation did not take place until the epoch of the destruction of Jerusalem. Such language as we find in these two places can only be accounted for by a fact so momentous as the overthrow of the Jewish state, and hence belongs to a later date.
What are the Ramifications of this?
It’s difficult to say we’ve provided conclusive evidence for the dating of Revelation before AD 70 and that its meaning necessarily includes the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple. If this is true, then we must look at how the rest of Revelation could have been fulfilled in this timeframe.
The first century fulfillment of Revelation also hints at a first century fulfillment of much (if not all) of the Olivet Discourse, or at least those parts up to and including “…this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matt. 24:34) By the way, a first century fulfillment of any part of the Olivet Discourse is also a minority viewpoint within Protestant circles, because most seem to primarily take the viewpoint that all of the Olivet Discourse is yet to be fulfilled. However, after Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:34, He goes on to describe things that will take place merely sometime before “Heaven and earth will pass away…” (Matt. 24:35) such as “Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and on will be left.” (Matt. 24:40).
According to the book of Revelation itself, the author’s name is John (1:4, 9, 22:8), a prophet (22:9), which has been traditionally understood to be John the apostle. Although John the apostle would have been old indeed if he had written Revelation as late as AD 90, it’s not impossible, so this by itself is not sufficient evidence for an earlier dating. In fact, there’s no evidence that provides a conclusive date for Revelation, which is legitimately speculated to have been written anywhere between AD 50 and AD 160. Let’s review evidence for both the early dating and the late dating.
Evidence for an Early Dating
1) Evidence from the writings of Irenaeus who lived between AD 130 and AD 202.
2) Evidence from the writings of Clement of Alexandria who lived AD 150 to AD 215.
3) The fact that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
4) The nearness of the predicted events.
5) The fact that Nero fits the King as the one who “is” very well.
6) Other Internal evidence for an early date.
Point #1: Evidence from Irenaeus
Irenaeus was an early church father who referred to Revelation in his work Against Heresies, which was written about AD 180 or AD 190 and is actually used to assert a later date for Revelation of around AD 90. What does Irenaeus say? The critical statement when referring to “him who beheld the apocalyptic vision” (i.e. John) is “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” This is used to date Revelation as being written during Domitian’s reign, which was after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and puts the date in the early 90’s.
However, another interpretation would allow that Irenaeus was referring to John himself who may have lived into Domitian’s time, but that John may have actually written the Book of Revelation much earlier, possibly before AD 70. Also, Irenaeus refers to “ancient copies” of Revelation, which does not square with the idea of the original autographs being composed “almost in our day.”
Another interpretation is that Irenaeus was referring to John’s original written version of Revelation. We have copies of John’s work, but not the original. Where did it go and when did it disappear? The original copy could have been written before AD 70, making it an ancient copy. And this is what Irenaeus was referring to as that which was last seen towards the end of Domitian’s reign. Perhaps shortly after John’s death it disappeared among those who were managing his affairs. Irenaeus was born in AD 120 and was a pupil of his elder friend, Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of John himself and probably had seen John’s original manuscript. Polycarps’, and possibly others’, stories of John and his ancient writings coming from first hand witnesses must have indeed seemed as if they happened almost in Irenaeus’ day.
Also, Kenneth Gentry states "that although many ancient fathers employed Iranaeus in high regard, they do not seem to have regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed John's banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero's reign. Photus preserved extracts of "Life of Timotheous" in which he states that John's banishment was under Nero".
There’s no conclusive proof as to which interpretation is correct, but let’s review the other evidence before rendering a verdict on this.
Point #2: Evidence from Clement
Clement writes “When after the death of the tyrant…[John the apostle] removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus…” Who is “the tyrant?” Clement does not name him. Is it possible the tyrant is not Domitian but Nero who reigned between AD 54 and AD 68? Nero was regarded as the quintessential tyrant and was commonly known by the name Tyrant. To confirm this, a quote from an early writer named Apollonius of Tyana says “In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India, But this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs…And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mothers, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet.”
Two other statements by Clement also lend support for the early dating of Revelation. The first is a reference to John pursuing a young apostate on horseback during the period after John’s exile. If he were exiled during the reign of Domitian, then John would have been in his nineties when chasing the apostate. While not impossible, such a feat is not likely. However, Clement also refers to John as “an infirm old man” after his exile. This does not necessarily require John’s exile to be in Domitian’s reign, because even if it occurred after Nero’s reign, John would have been in his 60’s or 70’s. By the standards of the day 70’s was very old indeed. So the picture Clement draws for us could well be one of an old John (i.e. in his 60’s or 70’s) undoubtedly showing his age, but still willing to mount a horse and chase the young apostate.
The second statement comes from Clement’s Miscellanies: “For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero.” Since Clement considered the Apostle John the author of Revelation and Clement argues that apostolic revelation ceased with Nero, he indicates that Revelation was written before Nero died.
Point #3: No mention of destruction of Jerusalem
If the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence if deafening. Not only does Revelation not mention the temple’s destruction as a past event, it frequently refers to the temple as still standing and that the temple’s destruction is only anticipated in 11:1-2.
Point #4: Nearness of events
The temporal expectation of Revelation receives frequent repetition in that it occurs not only seven times in the opening and closing chapters, but at least three times in the letters in chapters two and three (Rev. 2:16; 3:11).
“…things which must shortly take place.” (1:1)
“The time is near.” (1:3)
“Write…the things that are about to take place.” (1:19)
“Repent, or else I will come to you quickly.” (2:16)
“…the hour of trial…is about to come upon the whole world.” (3:10)
“Behold, I come quickly!” (3:11)
“…things which must shortly take place.” (22:6)
“Behold, I am coming quickly!” (22:7)
“The time is at hand.” (22:10)
“Behold, I am coming quickly.” (22:12)
“Surely I am coming quickly.” (22:20)
If we prefer to interpret Revelation as being written in AD 90 and that all of these prophecies are as yet unfulfilled almost 2000 years later, how do we account for the nearness of the events stated? However, if Revelation was written during Nero’s reign and these prophecies refer to the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish Dispensation in AD 70, the nearness of these warnings makes perfect sense.
Point #5: Nero is king who “is”
If Revelation was written during Nero’s reign between AD 54 and AD 68, then he must be the King who “is” as mentioned in Revelation 17:10. It reads “and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes; he must remain a little while.” How plausible is Nero as the king who “is?”
Whether the fulfillment of Revelation is past or future, it is commonly understood that these are kings who rule from the city of Rome, because it was commonly known as the city of seven hills, which compares to Revelation 17:9 “...The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.” So how do the kings of Rome fit into Rev 17:10?
Though Julius Caesar preferred the title caesar to king, it was common in the ancient world to refer to Rome’s emperors as kings. Even the New Testament bears witness to this when the chief priests declared to Pontius Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). Although Augustus was the first Roman emperor to refer to himself as Caesar, it was custom of ancient historians such as Josephus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius to begin the list of Roman kings with Julius Caesar. Then we have the first ten Roman Emperors as:
1) BC 49-44; Julius Caesar
2) BC 31-14: Augustus
3) BC 14-AD 37; Tiberius
4) AD 37-41; Caligula
5) AD 41-54; Claudius
6) AD 54-68; Nero
7) AD 68-69 Galba
8) AD 69-69 Otho
9) AD 69-69 Vitellius
10) AD 69-79 Vespasion
Scholars and historians also question including Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. These never exercised authority over the empire nor were they recognized by the provinces as Emperors.
Should we count Julius Caesar as the first Emperor of Rome? How can we refuse to count him? He was the father of the Empire. He was dictator for more than four years before his death and none of the Emperors were more imperial than he. His power was so stately that he was offered the title and crown, though he refused it. The people of John's day thought he was the first Emperor. Josephus, the Jewish historian who was contemporary with John, counted Julius as the first. He identified Augustus and Tiberius as the second and third Emperors, and Caligula as the fourth (Ant., 18, 2, 2; 16, 6, 2; 18, 6, 10). Suetonius, a Roman historian of the first and second centuries, begins Lives of the Twelve Caesars with Julius as the first. Dio Cassius also counts him as first in his Roman History, and the Sibylline Oracles (Book 5) calls Julius "the first king." Should not he whose name became the title by which all the Emperors were addressed be recognized as the first? Caesar was Julius' last name and it became the title by which all the Emperors were called. There were no Caesars if Julius was not the first.
If this is true, then is there a first century candidate for the beast Antichrist? The beast’s appearance is one of the “things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1). Let’s examine Nero as a possible candidate.
Nero’s life included the murders of his own family members, the castration of a boy he “married,” and the brutal murder of his pregnant wife by kicking her to death. Nero even devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the genitals of men and women, who were bound to stakes. Nero began his reign as emperor in AD 54. His imperial persecution of the Christian community was launched in AD 64, the same year as the famous fire that many believe was set by Nero himself. He is referred to as having a “cruel nature” that “put to death so many innocent men.” Also, “the destroyer of the human race” and “the poison of the world.” Apollonius of Tyana specifically mentions that Nero was called a “beast.” Nero erected statues of himself inscribed with “Almighty God and Savior” which he demanded people worship. Nero committed suicide in AD 68, when he was but 31 years old.
Also, if Nero is to be taken seriously as the antichrist, or even a type of antichrist, he must have some relation to the number 666. In the ancient world, alphabets often did double duty as a system of numbering. We are aware that Roman letters such as X, C, M and L also functioned as numbers and this existed in the Latin and Hebrew alphabets as well. A Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name was Nrwn Qsr. Also, in the Hebrew N=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, Q=100, s=60, r=200. That is, the sum of numbers corresponding to the letters of Nero Caesar in the Hebrew spelling totals 666. One fascinating aspect of this cryptogram is that a Latin textual variant in Revelation 13:18 reads 616 rather that 666. Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form on Nero Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.
Point #6: Internal evidence
When Daniel received his prophecy, he was told that the time was not for many days (Daniel 8:26; 10:14). In Daniel 9:24-27, a long period of several centuries was forecast before the final destruction of Jerusalem would come. In chapter 12, Daniel inquired as to when the judgment foretold would come to pass. God answered, "for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9; cf.12:13).
John's message in Revelation was urgent. The prophecy was to "shortly come to pass" and "the time is at hand" (Revelation 1:1,3; 22:10). Daniel's prophecy was more than 500 years future when he wrote. It was yet for many days while it was at hand when John wrote. If John wrote the Apocalypse between 65 and 68 A.D., indeed, the destruction of Jerusalem was at hand. Jerusalem was destroyed in late summer, 70 A.D.
Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."
Daniel 9:24 “seal up the vision and prophecy” By the end of the 70th week Daniel's vision and prophecy (all prophecy) would be sealed -- not completed but sealed. As Daniel's prophecy continued, it showed that rebuilt Jerusalem would again be destroyed (9:26,27). Since this destruction of Jerusalem was to follow the completion of the six things promised, it would serve as proof that God fulfilled all that He promised in the vision and prophecy.
Revelation 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
Compare with “For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33) and "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets (33:34) Therefore, Babylon can only symbolize Jerusalem.
Jesus said, "I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"(Matthew 23:34,35). Did Jesus speak out of both sides of His mouth? Did He punish two cities for the same thing, one that deserved it and the other which did not? Jerusalem was the city of God and deserved this punishment because she knew better than to do as she did, but Rome was not the city of God and knew no better.
Empire-wide Roman Persecution: This was a present reality at the time Revelation was written. The source of this persecution is unidentified. Upon the basis of this reasoning, many conclude the Apocalypse pictures a Roman persecution of saints extensive enough to affect the entire Roman world. Since no Roman persecution of this magnitude took place before the end of the first century, they deduct that the Apocalypse was not written prior to the end of Domitian's reign (95-96 A.D.). Many also contend, though uninformed, that Domitian instigated a persecution against the saints so severe that he filled the empire with their blood. Careful students of the Apocalypse are learning better, however. Many who hold to the late date understand that evidence for a Domitian persecution is missing. While still holding to a Domitian date, they project the persecutions foretold to the reign of Trajan (98-117 A.D.) and beyond. There is unquestionable evidence of empire-wide persecution during Trajan's reign and extending for about 200 years thereafter.
If the Roman persecution is the only persecution symbolized in the Apocalypse, then, the argument is valid. However, there is another persecutor identified in Revelation. There can be no doubts about their identify because Jesus calls them by name. He said, they "say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (2:9). Of this persecutor, Jesus promised His saints at Philadelphia, "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee" (3:9). Since the Jews are still a prime persecutor of saints when John wrote, which effectively ended in 70 AD, this promise of punishment upon the Jews was yet future.
Empire & Emperor Worship: Though proof is missing, many commentators insist that it was under Domitian that the death penalty was issued to those who refused to bow in worship of the emperor. However, Rome was worshipped as an entity called Dea Roma as early as 195 B.C. and temples were erected to worship the deified emperors beginning with Julius. Throughout Asia temples were erected to Augustus and Tiberius before the ministry of Jesus began. All temples within the borders of the empire admitted Caesar's image among the temple gods for public worship. The only temple failing to welcome an image of Caesar was the temple in Jerusalem. In 40 A.D. Caligula, the fourth emperor, sent an army to Palestine for the purpose of placing his image in the temple at Jerusalem. He was murdered before the task was accomplished and the attempt abandoned. So, emperor worship existed long before the reign of Domitian. This practice was clearly in operation by the middle of the second century A.D. but there is no evidence it was a state law as early as Domitian's reign.
The Age of the Churches: Many commentators place confidence in their contention that the seven churches of Asia needed time to develop as described in chapter 2 & 3 and, therefore, assert that the late date is essential. Were decades necessary for the conditions described in chapters 2 & 3 to develop? The answer is "NO." Why would it take decades for one congregation to reach imperfection and the same amount of time for another congregation to reach perfection? The church at Ephesus was in deep trouble when Paul wrote Timothy in 64 A.D. (cf.1 Timothy 1:3-6, 19-20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18). Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to correct the wrongs. Both common sense and experience teach that the conditions of churches are not determined by their age but by their loyalty and commitment to the Lord.
Revelation 6:12-13 parallels Matthew 24:29-32, Mark 13:24-29, and Luke 21:25-31. These texts record Jesus' discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem. The language is comparable even to the discussion of the fig tree. How can we overlook the obvious? This too supports our conclusion.
Revelation 12:14 "Time, and times, and half a time" is an expression used two other times in scripture (Daniel 7:25; 12:7). In both instances, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was in view. The expression means three and one half years, the length of the Roman-Jewish War which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. This further supports our conclusion.
There are a great deal more than this, but the study can become extensive. Let’s leave it at this and say there certainly is plausible internal evidence that connects the events in Revelation with other scriptures that fit well if Revelation was written before AD 70 and referring to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Evidence for a Late Dating
There is evidence that points to a later dating of Revelation. For example, it’s known that John was banished to Patmos (where Revelation is written) by Domitian after A.D. 70 and assumed by many that this must necessarily have been the time that John wrote Revelation. In fact some other early church leaders, such as Eusebius Pamphili (260-340 AD) and Victorinus-Bishop of Pettaw (about 300AD) write of their belief that John’s vision was seen during his banishment on Patmos during Domitian’s reign. However, they lived several generations after Irenaeus and Clement and could have made their assertions on a mistaken interpretation of Irenaeus’ writing. If they based their interpretation on additional evidence, they failed to mention its source and it has not survived to this day. John may also have been banished to Patmos when all the other Apostles were being persecuted and martyred in the 60’s AD. This is not recorded in history, but is very plausible.
One writer in the fourth century makes the blunder of assigning the banishment to the reign of Claudius Cæsar, a blunder which finds no endorsers, a blunder which is supposed to have been a verbal mistake, but it is not until the sixth century that we find the opinion expressed that the banishment belonged to the persecution of the reign of Nero, and up to the twelfth century there are only two writers who endorse this date. Let’s consider in detail the evidence that points to a later writing of Revelation.
1) St. Irenaeus
2) Tertullian
3) Clement of Alexandria
4) Victorinus
5) Eusebius Pamphili
6) Elliott
7) Other Internal evidence for a late date
Point #1 St. Irenaeus
The statement of St. Irenaeus is the primary and earliest support. It is not surprising that Preterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement.
"For the testimony of Irenaeus -- Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John, -- is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable. Speaking of the name and number of the Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse: 'for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago; but almost in our age, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.' " (vol. I, p. 32)
Further evidence from Irenaeus comes from his book Against Heresies as he discusses the number 666 and its interpretation. He, writing after 177 A.D., speaks of the embodiment of the number 666 as yet future to them.
"But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom,[let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truely the abomination of desolation".(Book 5 Chpt. 30, Sec. 2)
Point #2 Tertullian
Tertullian lived from approximately 160-240 A.D., born in North Africa at Carthage, and converted to Christianity when he was 30-40 years of age. He became the father of Latin theology and creator of the church language in the Latin tongue. Tertullian's support of a 96 A.D. date is based on his references to persecutions of the apostles; Paul and Peter were put to death by Nero yet no mention of John and his banishment is mentioned as occurring during this time.
"First, Tertullian seems in no dubious manner to indicate this view of the Apocalyptic date. For in his Apology, after specifying Nero's as the first imperial persecution, and this one by the sword, (wherein, as he elsewhere says, Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of John,) he proceeds to notice Domitian's as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on St. John. It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertullian; I mean as alluding to St. John's banishment as the act of Domitian." (vol. I, p. 33)
Point # 3 Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria lived from approximately 150-220 A.D. He was originally a pagan philosopher converted to the Christian church. He sought instruction from the most eminent teachers, traveling extensively to Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Palestine. He was a pupil of Pantaenus at Alexandria and was made presbyter in the church of Alexandria. Clement's support to a later date is found in story involving St. John after he returned from Patmos. The point being made that John was quite an old man when it occurred.
"Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, 'after the death of the tyrant;' and represents him as at that time an infirm old man. Now 'the tyrant,' whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be: since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.”
Point #4 Victorinus
Victorinus, who died in 303 or 304 A.D., was the bishop of Pettaw in Upper Pannonia, near modern Vienna. He wrote commentaries on several Old Testament books, Matthew and Revelation.
"Thirdly, Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution, in a Commentary on the Apocalypse written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patmos when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian." (vol. I, p. 34-35)
Point #5 Eusebius Pamphili
Eusebius Pamphili lived from approximately 260-340 A.D. He was bishop of Caesarea and wrote Ecclesiastical History. In this work he relates events in the early church and his chronology places St. John on Patmos during Domitian's reign. Eusebius in three passages says that the banishment of John was during Domitian's time. He even goes so far as to say that John received the Revelation in the 14th year of Domitian, which was 95 AD.
This is very serious evidence for a later dating of Revelation, because Eusebius was writing the imperial records of Constantinople while it and Rome both were fairly intact. It was in 498 that a very bad fire in the government quarter destroyed the imperial archives. You can see the drop in reference knowledge starting after the reign of Justinian. Prior to then, the various centers were still extant. It’s very probable that there was additional historical evidence available to Eusebius that is now lost to us.
That's why, for example, we might tend to trust Eusebius' direct statement that "Christ suffered in the 19th year of the reign of Tiberius". Because Eusebius had access to court records, and it contradicted the more popular notion of simply adding 3 years (passovers) to Luke's date of 29 AD for the commencement of John Baptist's ministry.
Point #6 Elliott
We learn from Elliott, a scholar who read all the statements from the early historians that they did not merely mimic St. Irenaeus, but that they were themselves scholars and their statements are the result of their own research into this matter.
"Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic testimony still extant, to the fact of St. John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian: -- a chain of testimony not to be viewed... as but the repetition of that of Irenaeus, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to: but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence which then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, ...it can scarcely have been unknown to them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions; -- viz. either that it did not exist; or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice." (vol. I, p. 36-37)
Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.
"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?"
Point #7 Other Internal evidence for a late date
Some say, the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This fact alone places St. John's authorship somewhere before September of A.D. 70. However, Most scholars do not view the Book of Revelation as primarily a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem; and therefore their interpretation of this book does not require a writing date of 64-68 A.D. The Preterist interpretation, however, cannot exist without an earlier date.
It might be of service to add that the persecution of Nero, as far as known, was local and confined to Rome; that death, instead of banishment, was the favorite method of punishment with him; that it is not probable that he would have put to death Paul and Peter and banished John; and that there is no evidence that John, as early as A. D. 68, had ever visited the region of the seven churches. On the other hand, the persecution of Domitian was not local; we know also that he sent other Christians into exile; we know also that the later years of John's life were passed at Ephesus, and in the region of which it was the center.
The Lord’s day: The expression, "The Lord's-day," does not occur in the earlier apostolical writings. They always speak of the "First Day of the week" instead. The term used in A. D. 68 was "the First Day of the week," but the writers of the second century from the beginning use "the Lord's-day." This term, then, points to a period near the beginning of the second century as the date of Revelation. The expressions in chap. 2:9 and 3:9 point to a complete separation between the church and the synagogue. This complete separation did not take place until the epoch of the destruction of Jerusalem. Such language as we find in these two places can only be accounted for by a fact so momentous as the overthrow of the Jewish state, and hence belongs to a later date.
What are the Ramifications of this?
It’s difficult to say we’ve provided conclusive evidence for the dating of Revelation before AD 70 and that its meaning necessarily includes the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple. If this is true, then we must look at how the rest of Revelation could have been fulfilled in this timeframe.
The first century fulfillment of Revelation also hints at a first century fulfillment of much (if not all) of the Olivet Discourse, or at least those parts up to and including “…this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matt. 24:34) By the way, a first century fulfillment of any part of the Olivet Discourse is also a minority viewpoint within Protestant circles, because most seem to primarily take the viewpoint that all of the Olivet Discourse is yet to be fulfilled. However, after Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:34, He goes on to describe things that will take place merely sometime before “Heaven and earth will pass away…” (Matt. 24:35) such as “Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and on will be left.” (Matt. 24:40).