by John Clark
Introduction
The Importance of the Date
There is significance in determining the date when the Revelation was received. I think this is an important thing for us to consider when we are talking about that -- when was it received? Our correct understanding of the time of the writing is highly significant because such will directly affect one’s interpretation of the prophecy. The message to John was that the prophesied events would immediately begin to occur. There was a similar vision seen by Daniel and he said that the vision was not for many days. But the similar vision that we have here, he said in:
Rev 1:3 .....the time is at hand. (KJV)
So we are seeing, then, that it is critical that we know the date that the prophecy was received in order to mark the beginning of the succeeding train of events. So that is what we want to point out here. It is extremely important, then, to actually mark the beginning of the succeeding train of events. On any linear prophecy it is very important to know the time to begin to start marking the starting point of them. So, that is why it is so important that we know the date that the Revelation was received. However, there are a number of problems in dating the book. Many scholars have attacked this problem, by examining what they refer to as the internal evidence and the external evidence. I think that that is how most people would relate to it who have looked into it to any extent.
Internal Evidence
This would appear to be a very valid approach. However, we are going to see that each one of these approaches includes objectionable flaws which tend to undermine any sound conclusions. For instance, as we look at the internal evidence, (I might explain what I mean by internal evidence), many objects, for example, Revelation talks about the city, the events, the measurement of the temple, etc. These are described in the text, and are intended to be interpreted figuratively. So we might ask the question, “How can things that were intended to be communicated with figurative ideas then be used to establish literal beginning dates?”
It might just pointed out, first of all, then, that what we have is figurative expressions or figurative information. We may ask the question, “Could we use that, then, to establish literal dates, or literal events?” What we are trying to notice here are the events such as the date for the beginning -- can we do that if we have that kind of information?
External Evidence
On the other hand, when we look at the external evidence, it is not without it’s problems, also. The writings and the conclusions of the early church fathers and historians, primarily are based on tradition and information that was handed down over a period of a hundred or more years, and much of that information that we are talking about is vague and even contradictory. So, one wonders, really, what he should believe at all! The overall view of the problems that we have with the external evidence is the information that we have externally (that is, the writings to the church fathers), has been handed down by word-of-mouth, and covers a hundred or more years. Now, when you think about oral information being handed down by tradition, and it is a hundred years old, we can see that it is not very reliable.
I know that just by personal experience that my grandfather, who I knew personally when I was a lad up until I was twelve years old, lived during the course of the Civil War. His father and brothers were involved in it and I have heard many family stories, but today , when looking at it over a hundred years later from that, I have very little reliable information that they passed on to me, even though they talked about it quite a bit.
That is the problem that we are looking at. We see that this information is over a hundred years old, and that it is generally pretty vague as we look at it in the writings of the church fathers, and, at times, we can see that much of it is contradictory. It is not even in agreement. So, that is the problem of looking at some of the external evidence.
Our approach, then, in trying to establish the date was to make as extensive search of the information that is available, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of many different possibilities. As you can see, even the language of the text itself was often critically examined for clues for understanding. So, I think that as we develop these ideas, you will see that you have quite a bit to go on, as we put it all together and try to make it into one consistent message that you can rely on.
John’s Circumstances at the Time of the Reception
To start with, I would like to notice the circumstances of John at the time of the reception. What do we have in the way of information along this? At the very beginning of the Apocalyse (that is the Greek word for Revelation), after the Salutation and Doxology, we find recorded in Revelation 1:9, the circumstances of John at the time of reception. That verse reads as follows:
Rev 1:9: "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." (KJV)
From these words we can see, first of all, that John was “in tribulation.” That information is given. And secondly, we can see from this information that it said that he “.....was in the isle that is called Patmos.....” Now, this island is located off of the coast of Asia Minor not very far from the city of Ephesus. The island was used for taking political prisoners and putting them into exile throughout the time of the Roman period, when they dominated world politics. Tradition says that John was banished there as a means of persecution. However, I just want to point out that there is nothing in the text that says that that is true. It is not borne out by the text. The verse did say that he was our “.....brother, and companion in tribulation......” However, I want to notice that it says in:
2 Tim 3:12 "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (KJV)
So, then, John would not have been an exception to the case. We can simply point out that evidently he was in tribulation, as all Christians would have persecution. We can see that this statement alone does not prove that he had been banished there. He could have been just a normal Christian and that could have happened to him. We are just saying that the statement does say that he was in tribulation; it does say that he was on the Isle of Patmos. But we can see that all Christians may be in tribulation. So that does not prove the point that he had been banished there.
Revelation 1:9 also says that “.....he was there for the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Again, the wording itself lends to several possible interpretations:
1) He could have been banished there because of his past activities. (Similar expressions are associated with persecution (Revelation 6:9 and Revelation 20:4.) Or,
2) He could have gone there for evangelistic purposes. Or,
3) He could have been sent there for the express purpose of receiving the Revelation.
Now, the same words are used to describe the Revelation itself in Revelation 1:2. So, as we look at all of the information that we have, and considering the possibility and fact that the isle is a very sparsely-populated penal location, it seems highly unlikely that John was there for evangelistic purposes. It does seem plausible that he could have received the Revelation, having been sent to the isle for the purpose of being persecuted by one of the persecuting emperors.
The First Persecution -- The Early Period
Now, let’s look at the time-line that we have for the first century that depicts the first two periods of Imperial Persecution of Christians. I would like to give you an orientation of the first hundred years, or that first century, a time-line in relation to the emperors themselves. In the days when Jesus began His personal ministry, the Roman Emperor at that time was Tiberius. Along about AD 37, Caligula succeeded him, and he reigned for about five years. He was succeeded by Claudius who reigned until about AD 54. At that time Nero became the emperor. Nero was somewhat of a tyrant, and somewhere around the time of AD 64, Rome was burned. He blamed the Christians, which triggered a period of their persecution. Things got so bad that during this time of persecution that Nero finally committed suicide in AD 68.
There is a gap in the time-line here, because we had several people gaining control of the empire in the vicinity of Rome for a period of about a year, and then finally Vespasian, who was in charge of the army, took control of the empire in AD 69. He ruled until his death. He was succeeded by Titus, his son, who only reigned a couple of years until he died. His brother, Domitian, took over the empire and he, too, was a tyrant. He reigned until AD 96, when he was murdered. He was succeeded by Nerva, who reigned a couple of years, until Trajan succeeded him.
The Second Period of Persecution -- The Latter Period
Because of the tyrannical actions of Domitian, we can see that there was a period toward the latter part of his reign, another great period of persecution. To focus on what we are talking about, the persecutions during the first century was essentially a persecution by the Jews. In other words, when we go back and look at the book of Acts, we can see that many times that Paul and the other disciples were persecuted. But all of that was being instigated by the Jews. The Roman government themselves were neutral toward Christianity, and got involved only when it was necessary in order for them to restore order, or when a Roman citizen, such as the Apostle Paul, appealed to them for justice.
Now, all of this changed in AD 64, when Rome was burned and the emperor, Nero, blamed the Christians for that act. He initiated Imperial Persecution, which means that the government started to persecute the Christians. This is the first time that the government had become involved in persecuting the Christians. Before this time, the government had been neutral toward Christianity. Even though they were Pagan, they were neutral toward the Christians. They tolerated them, they tolerated the Jews and, in fact, considered the Christians as just a sect of the Jewish religion. But this all changed when Nero started blaming the Christians, and made the official policy of the government to be to persecute the Christians. So, this is an extremely important era of the persecution by the government themselves. One other comment about this period of persecution is that Peter and Paul were in prison and taken to Rome about AD 64. Paul was released and then in prison again, and we can see that both Peter and Paul were killed as prisoners there at Rome, and, evidently, as we are going to see a little later, John was brought to Rome at this time. So, there was four years of very difficult times for the Christians. The period of persecution of Domitian was toward the end of his reign. He was a very cruel man and was finally murdered in AD 96. It was under his reign that we can see many Christians killed and he too was a tyrant and many disciples killed as a result of Domitian’s official policy against Christianity around AD 95 or AD 96.
The Status of Jewish Activities and Worship
So, these are the two basic periods we are looking at. The first one, which I will call the Early Period, under the reign of Nero, and this Latter Period, under the reign of Domitian. We will see the significance of that because we are looking at two times. It was during one of these two times, or shortly before that, that the Revelation was given. Our immediate task will be to consider which one of these is the appropriate time for the banishment of John.
So let’s begin by trying to look at the status of Jewish activities, such as their worship, the status of Jerusalem, and the status of Jewish persecutions when the Apocalypse was received. First of all, Jewish worship activities did not terminate with the Crucifixion of Jesus. Now, I think that all of us have been taught that, yes, the Law of Moses essentially came to an end, the spiritual side of it, with the death of Christ. However, that did not bring the Jewish activities and Jewish worship to an end. That is not true -- they just continued on after that. So, the apostles went into the temple, for example, and preached to many of the Jews, there. The daily sacrifices continued to be offered and all of these activities continued until the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So, that would take us to the time when Titus came in as the Commander of the Roman Army and actually destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. So these Jewish worship activities continued right on during this course of time, until the fall of Jerusalem. Just keep that in mind.
Next, it says in:
Heb 8:13: " ... Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (KJV)
So the Jewish worship activities, as we can see, were ready to vanish away. So they did not cease with the death of Christ, but they did cease with the fall of Jerusalem! We can see that they continued for another thirty or forty years. They were about to pass away. The book of Hebrews was written some seven, eight, or ten years or so before the fall of Jerusalem, so this was in the early sixties, when the Hebrew letter was evidently written. Those activities were continuing at that point, but they were ready to vanish with the fall of Jerusalem. That would completely do away with them.
It is apparent from the content of the Apocalypse that the nation of Israel, with its central city and its temple worship and all of its religion was in existence at the time the Apocalypse was written. However, all of these were essentially obliterated with the fall of Jerusalem, AD 70. The primary purpose of referencing these objects in the Apocalypse was to convey symbolic meanings. Nevertheless, they were in existence and they play an important role in the book. The fact of their existence at the time of the writings serves to corroborate their symbolic use in the prophesy.
Now, the conditions in the seven churches addressed in the introduction to the prophecy indicate that Jewish persecution was still going on. It was continuing and they were continuing to suffer; the persecution of Christians, as we can see in the second chapter of the book of Revelation. I might just point out that the condition described there -- it cannot imagine as prevailing after the fall of Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem, all such Jewish activities of persecuting the Christians ceased. I think that such a conclusion fits perfectly with the description of events as prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24. After the cataclysmic doom of Jerusalem, we find that Jesus proceeded to say in:
Matt 24:28 "For wheresoever the carcass is [that means the remains of the corrupted Jewish state], there will the eagles [the eagles would be the symbols for the Roman army] be gathered together." [In other words, to annihilate them -- jac].
That tells us clearly that the Romans went out and actually found pockets of Jewish settlements and various places, even outside of Jerusalem, and all of those people were either killed or taken prisoner. So, there was not enough left of the corrupted Jewish state in any way to persecute the Christians. That is a strong argument in favor of an early date. We can see that if the Jewish persecutions absolutely stopped at this time, (the book of Revelation seems to contain a lot of Jewish persecutions as being mentioned), if that ceased at this point, and the Revelation was given at a later time, it would be an inconsistency. I think that is a very strong argument, then, in favor of that. We can see from all of this that the remains of the Jewish state were annihilated in Matthew, chapter 24 in AD 70. So that is the strong argument in favor of the early date by the just the fact that that annihilation took place, as we can see, after the Revelation had been given, and with the fall of Jerusalem.
The Basis for the Traditional Date
Now, let’s talk a little bit about the basis for the traditional date of AD 96. Probably, any commentaries, if you have them, on the book of Revelation are going to be referring to this traditional date, as I call it, of the book of Revelation having been recorded in AD 96. This date relies almost totally on a single statement by Iranaeus, who was born sometime around the year AD 120 and died about the year AD 202. Those are approximate dates, toward the end of the second century.
Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. So, we have a minimum number of links in the chain between Iranaeus and John. Iranaeus addressed the current issues of his time and he wrote extensively against what he believed to be false doctrines. His most notable writings are entitled, “Iranaeus Against Heresies.” In these, he warned against rash conclusions concerning the name and the number of the beast that is described in Revelation 13:18. After presenting his own ideas in that writing, he wrote the following, and I would like to give the full text of what he said about the number of the beast -- the 666 that you have probably heard of -- he said:
“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 that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Also, I might point out that the well-known historian of the fourth century, Eusebius, who was hired by Constantine to record their ecclesiastical history and so forth, references Iraneaus’ statement and generally, quotes it. Many reputable commentators have taken Iraneaus’ statement as sufficient proof to establish the latter date for the Apocalypse. Among those, some of whom you may be familiar with, are Albert Barnes, David Brown (who wrote a very excellent work on the Millenial time, “The Second Coming of Christ”), Robert Brumbach (who wrote “History of the Church Through the Ages”), B. W. Johnson (who wrote “Vision of the Ages”), Homer Hailey, Edward Eliot, and others.
Apparently, I might say, that many other commentators simply followed the lead of these imminent men and copied their ideas, or that of others, with little research on their own. At least, that has been what I have found.
Major Criticisms of the Latter Date
I would like to make some major criticisms of selecting this latter date, though. We will even talk some about this statement, it “.....was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” First of all, when we carefully consider that statement, a number of questions seem to arise. His information on the matter is based on hearsay and memory. It spans a period of over a hundred years. Please note that.
Secondly, the differing English statements provided above are the product of multiple translations of material that are recorded in different points of time, and subject to various interpretations. In fact, Iranaeus’ statement does not even mention the writing of the Revelation. It says, “... that was seen no very long time since ...”. It is not clear whether Iranaeus was referring to the seer, who was John, or to the vision or to a copy of the book. So, there is a big question that we need to think about for a minute, as when I say that it was subject to various interpretations, what are we referring to? Are we referring to the seer, John? Is it referring to the vision? Is it referring to the book? It was seen no very long time ago. So we can see that that begins to raise questions as to what is he really saying?
I have even had a person who is quite knowledgeable of the Greek and looking at all of the various, fine details that are associated with it, and their response was, “Well, probably this ... well, maybe it’s that.” So they are not sure, at all, as to what it means. I would like to note that it is quite inconclusive by looking at that statement alone. A fourth point is that Iranaeus is not considered to be a very reliable source on chronological matters. In his writings, a lot of things do not hang together very well. So, then, to stake all of our beliefs and things associated with the Revelation on such flimsy information does not seem to be the right thing to do.
Tales Too Tall To Stand
Another point that I would like to look at would be that of Clement of Alexander. Clement of Alexander lived from about 150 AD to 220 AD. About the close of the second century, this influential writer records a narrative which bears upon our inquiry that we are making. Clement writes a paragraph, which was handed down and committed to the custody of memory about the Apostle John:
“For when on the tyrant’s death, he [meaning John] returned to Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited to the contiguous territories of the nations; here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”
What he is saying, then, is when John came back from Patmos to Ephesus, he became very active in many, many kinds of evangelistic activities. Then Clement proceeds to relate the incident in which John was involved, where that at one time John had converted a young man who later regressed back into the ways of the world, and falling in with very bad associates, this man had participated in highway robbery and later, became the captain of a gang of people who were nothing but just highway bandits. Clement says that time passed, and then the Apostle John hears of this man’s condition, having gone back into the world. He says, then, that John mounts a horse and goes in search of him. In the ensuing encounter, John is repeatedly referred to as an “old man.”
Now, what I am trying to get at in bringing this out is that Clement begins to talk about this and as he is relating it, we can see that he is talking about a very old man. Can we hardly believe that a man who is close to a hundred years old is mounting a horse and chasing off after another man trying to catch him? Or, can we see here, this man, a former disciple of John, that John would be chasing him down and doing all of this heavy work that we have been talking about? For a man who is ninety or a hundred years old, this hardly seems plausible.
Also, the question needs to be raised about this tyrant’s death. Clement could be referring to either Nero or Domitian, because each one of those was a tyrant and persecuted. So, what we are simply saying, as we look at Clement, he has some tales in here that were too tall to stand! Who can hardly visualize a man who is a hundred years old doing all of the various things that he is talking about. He indicated that John was an old man when he returned. So, I believe that we can conclude that this tale handed down by tradition (he does not name the tyrant, which emperor it was, nor does he state that John was an old man when he was released from Patmos); no matter how it was, I think that we are dealing with tradition that contains a lot of rather worthless information for determining the date. He may have been an old man when he was doing some of these things, but it did not say that he was old when he returned.
I could say this, that when he described these things, John could have returned back here, in AD 60, during his middle age and entering into his latter part of his life. He may have been an old man when he did the other things. It did not say that he was old when he returned. It said he was old when he was riding horseback and chasing the other man and so forth. So, regarding this, we just have a lot of vague information and we cannot base such an important thing as the date of the book on a fable that has been handed down by word of mouth.
The Ambiguity of Emperor Names
Another point that I think is highly significant here is the ambiguity of emperor names and their reigns. It was common practice in those days to adopt names and titles of predecessors. Today, we have a pope who goes by the name of “John Paul II.” He just took up the name that his predecessor had, John Paul I. That is not his Polish name at all. So he adopted a name. It was not uncommon in that day and time, either, that an emperor would adopt someone else’s name or a name that he chose. The Encyclopedia Americana shows that the Emperor Nero’s full title was Nero Caesus Drusis Gemanicus. His original name was Lucious Domitius Hannabarbarous. Thus, when the name was taken alone, any reference to “Domitian” may as likely be referring to Nero, who was responsible for the early persecution. So, I think that what we are talking about here is that since Nero’s original name, his family name given to him by his parents, included the word “Domitian”. So, the reference made by Iranaeus, “almost toward the end of Domitian’s reign”, is he talking about Nero or is he talking about Domitian?
The conclusion that we need to draw here is that there is a great ambiguity of emperor names. I am just trying to show that this is a major criticism if we are not sure who Iranaeus was even referring to, if we wanted to put any stock in what Iranaeus had said.
Vespasian’s Son -- Acting Emperor
Another strange fact to keep in mind is that in addition to reigning from AD 81 to AD 96 (we are talking about Domitian, now), Domitian temporarily took over the royal residence and administers the empire under his own name during the absence of his father, Vespasian. From December, AD 69, when Vespasian gained control, he was off in the east, and I am talking about more than a thousand or two thousand miles away from Rome at the time.
While he was away as a general in the east, Domitian, his son, took over and actually occupied the royal palace. He signed documents in the name of the emperor, himself, during this time, and those edicts and proclamations are in his own name. Really, in almost every sense of the word, he acted as the emperor for a period of time. However, when Vespasian returned to Rome, he was very upset with some of the things that Domitian had been doing.
He basically moved his position to the side and gave over much of the administrative work to a man whose name was Nerva and took much of Domitian’s activities away from him and made his into what we might say is a “staff” role. When you get right down to it, you might say that he was replaced by Nerva. Later, when he succeeded his older brother to the throne, and then was killed, we see that the one who succeeded him was the same “Nerva”, who succeeded him the first time, when he reigned over here, from AD 69 to AD 70. We see some of the ambiguity that is associated with that. Twice, you have him in charge of affairs, particularly in the vicinity of Rome and acted very much as a Caesar.
Vespasian was one who, when he came to power, saw the need to replace him. I point this out, then, that the question could be raised about Iranaeus’ statement, “... toward the end of Domitian’s reign”, we don’t know which Domitian he is talking about! Was he talking about the “Nerva” Domitian or was he talking about the latter one? It could have been toward the end of Nerva’s reign, about AD 69 or AD 70, or it could have been at the end of the latter Domitian’s reign, about AD 96. Again, we can see that that reference has a lot of ambiguity, and we cannot put a lot of stock in Iranaeus’ statement.
Arguments For the Earlier Date
Now, let’s look at some classic works on the subject. I think we’ll have time to talk about a couple. Let’s look at Tertullian. I think that he helps establish the narrative of events during that first century. Tertullian lived from about AD 145 to AD 220, and the bulk of his work is preserved in what is referred to as the “Anti-Nicene Fathers”. Tertullian speaks of the church of Rome as having its very own authority from the Apostles, themselves. He makes a statement which is worthy of our consideration. He says:
“How happy is its church [talking about the church at Rome, now], on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like the Lord’s [that is, through crucifixion]; where Paul wins his crown, and a death like John’s [you will recall that John the Baptist was beheaded]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”
Now, this quotation that we are talking about, proves nothing as to the date of the Apocalpse, but it lends itself more to the earlier moreso than the latter date -- these two alternative dates that have been proposed. Now, let’s note some things about this statement that we have here, as it relates to Tertullian. First of all, it closely associates the banishment of John with the deaths of Peter and Paul, who were generally believed to have suffered martyrdom under Nero. So what that does, then, is to tie John in with the first Christian persecution.
It expressly states that the banishment of John took place at Rome, which answers some objections that people have made about the early date, that some of the persecution was limited to and in the vicinity of Rome, whereas the point is sometimes made that Domitian’s was throughout the empire. What we can see from this statement by Tertullian is that it places Paul and Peter in the vicinity of Rome, where they are persecuted and killed. He also brings John into that and from here, he was banished to the Isle of Patmos. John was imprisoned in Rome; he was tried and he was banished from there. So it brings in a chronology of events that is important and seems to fit a lot of things.
The next thing that we want to look at is what I consider to be a classic work, a recent work, called, “The Redating of the New Testament”, by John A. T. Robinson. This is one of the better works that I have examined on this subject. It is very scholarly, and is a rather recent work from our own generation. It challenges many traditional ideas concerning the dates of the New Testament books. He wrestles with many facets of the internal and external evidence for dating -- every one of the individual books. He concludes in a very convincing manner that none of the New Testament books should be dated after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. That is his conclusion.
I believe that is a valid conclusion that he has drawn. He gives a lot of evidence to show that many people would date, for example, the Gospel of Matthew in the next decade after the fall of Jerusalem, around AD 80, have no basis for doing that, except when you understand that many of them did not really believe that Jesus really had the ability to prophesy the fall of Jerusalem and predict when it was going to happen. So they are crediting Matthew as having been written after the event and then quoting Jesus as having said it was going to happen, and then writing it up as a statement of prophecy that He had made. However, what John Robinson points out is that all of the record of the New Testament books were completed before the fall of Jerusalem, and the prophecies that Jesus made were valid and they did come to pass after the New Testament was written.
I think that this is a great contribution to the work. I got Brother John to borrow a copy from the Library of Congress. Since then, I found a copy in a used book store. So, we have access to that on a continuing basis now in making references to that excellent work. It has only been printed in the last few years, but it is already out of print. It is a rather technical kind of work, not all that hard to read, but rather technical in what he attempted to do, very important in establishing the dates. He said, “redate them all, and get them in before the fall of Jerusalem.” I think that he had a very valid conclusion that he has drawn.
Other Evidence Supporting the Early Date
I would like to look at some other convincing evidence supporting the early date. I have about half a dozen reasons for choosing this early date, and I would like to take these one by one. The first one that I would like to look at is that the early date makes room for many false apocalypses. In Sir Isaac Newton’s work in 1733, he introduces a very unique idea to confirm the existence of the Apocalypse at a very early date. He observes that the early date is confirmed by many false Apocalypses as those of Peter and Paul and Thomas, Stephen, Edious, Sorenthus, and all of those being written in imitation of the true Apocalypse.
Just as there were many false gospels and false Acts and false epistles that were occasioned by the true ones, the writing of many false Apocalypses and ascribing them to the Apostles and Prophets argues that there was a true Apostolic one which preceded the false ones. If you think about that for a moment, that would almost have to be true, and these false ones are dated prior to the fall of Jerusalem. So, the true one had to predate that, as well. Such would necessitate that the true one be written at the earlier time. This would then make room for the false ones to appear that were attributed to Peter and Paul and Thomas and others. I might point out that they were dead before John. So, if these false ones were attributed to Peter and Paul and others who died in this first persecution, the true one had to predate that time. Such a possibility, I think, is corroborated to some extent by the Apocalypse itself in Revelation 2:2. John wrote unto the angel of the church at Ephesus, saying:
Rev 2:2: " ... thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" (KJV)
John is predicting there in the period of the church that there were false apostles who were putting forth false information.
The Sure Word of Prophecy
The second thing that I would like to look at would be to talk about the sure word of prophecy they had. This is a very strong argument in support of the early date. It is contained in:
2 Pet. 1:19: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (KJV)
The Greek text includes a definite article before the word "prophecy". It could be translated the prophetic word. Thus, the writer of 2 Peter is referring to a specific body of information which he expands upon in the succeeding chapters, there, in the book of Peter. I would like to note that the writer said, we have it! We have this prophecy! In other words, that is in the present tense. With that prophecy in hand, the writer proceeds to describe, out of this prophecy, how there would arise, in the church, false prophets and false teachers, etc. He goes on to include many specific details which would assist the faithful in identifying and coping with the problem that they had. It is no wonder that we find the Revelation containing many literary topics and expressions which are subsequently cited in the book of Hebrews, 2 Peter and also in the book of Jude. So what I am trying to say, then, is, evidently the date of the Revelation preceded that to the point that the other inspired writers would make reference to that, and Peter said, “We have ...[this] ... sure word of prophecy." THE sure word of prophecy! So, that definite article that I was talking about, a very specific body of information that they had at the time that Peter was writing. So, that was before the death of Peter in AD 64.
Thirdly, I would like to talk about the interrelationship of Revelation with Peter, with Jude and with Hebrews. There are, obviously, interrelationships between many passages of scripture, but that does not necessarily mean that an inspired New Testament writer was dependant upon having a complete document in order to comment or to expand upon the subject. Nevertheless, the book of Revelation contains the most comprenhensive description of the overall prophetic framework that we have in the Bible. It compliments that of book of Daniel, and those two together give you a very good chronological order of events.
However, to meet the immediate and specific needs, the other New Testament writers often expanded upon some particular facet of the prophecy which pertained to the immediate audience that he would be writing to. In doing so, we should not expect them to be operating on what we might call literary isolation. Rather, they would refer to the literary works in their possession and for clarity of communication. I think that we could expect them to use the same expressions found in the inspired documents that they had at their disposal.
Now, these Biblical interrelationships, this whole idea, was used by Sir Isaac Newton to establish the date of the Apocalypse as being during the reign of Nero, and before the fall of Jerusalem.
Number of Expressions Used in Revelation
I would just like to cover a number of the expressions that are used in of Revelation, that are also presented in other books, such as Peter and Jude and Hebrews. This would show, then, that the Apocalypse actually predated those books. The Epistles refer to many items covered in the Apocalypse such as:
1) a sharp two-edged sword (Rev 1; Heb 4)
2) the doctrine of Balaam (Rev 2; 2 Pet 2; Jude 11 & 12)
3) the faith and patience of the saints (Rev 13; Heb 6)
4) resisting unto blood (Rev 17 & 18; Heb 12)
5) judgment against the false prophet (Rev 19; 2 Pet 2)
6) Mount Zion (Rev 14; Heb 12; 1 Pet 2)
7) Babylon (Rev 14; 1 Pet 5)
8) New Heaven and New Earth (Rev 21; 2 Pet 3)
9) Inheritance for the undefiled (Rev 21; 1 Pet1)
So, we can see, then, the epistles make reference to many items that are covered in the Apocalypse.
Construction of the Greek
Next, I would like to notice that Peter addresses the churches in Asia in 1 Peter 1:1, and those surrounding regions there who already had the Revelation which John had sent to the churches in Asia. So, he addressed those same churches in Asia, and he said in
2 Pet 1:19: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy.”
The construction of the Greek is present tense, active voice, showing that those churches in Asia had that prophecy, the Apocalypse.
Peter also described in 2 Peter 2:2 how, specifically, to recognize the false teachings predicted in Revelation, and how the prophecy particularly concerned the brethren there. The Epistles were written during times of affliction and tribulation under the heathens, and a greater distress and fiery trial was predicted for the immediate future. That is in 1 Peter 4:12. Notice the connection here. He is talking to them specifically. Peter refers to the church in Rome, where he currently was, as being “in Babylon”. That is the designation for Rome in the Apocalypse (1 Pet 5:13; and Rev 14:8). The disciples addressed in the Epistles had been scattered because of persecution (1 Pet 1:1). There is a clear interrelationship, then, between the Apocalypse, and Peter and Hebrews and Jude. I think that this can be attributed to one thing -- the Holy Spirit showing them the same information and helping them to provide a specific information that those immediate congregations needed.
Do the Seven Churches Preclude the Early Date?
The fourth point that we want to look at, following this interrelationship, would be to ask the question, “Does the condition of the seven churches preclude the early date?” I think that a lot of people have drawn the conclusion that it would have to preclude that. Let’s look at the Asian conditions that are noted in Revelation:
1) in Rev 2:4, they had left their first love
2) in Rev 2:5, he said, “...thou art fallen...”
3) he said they held the doctrine of Balaam
4) they had committed fornication
5) they had eaten things sacrificed to idols
6) In chapter 3 he said that they had a name “...that thou livest, and art dead...”
7) In 3:16 he said, “thou art lukewarm”
Now, B. W. Johnson and other notable commentators have concluded that the condition of the churches indicated in chapters two and three renders the “Early Date Argument” as being very improbable. Their reasoning was that the conditions could have evolved and degenerated into such a state only with a generation or more of time that would be needed from the time that Paul was there until they had become such a degenerate state. But I would like to take some time and notice some other deteriorations that were very rapid that were noted by Paul.
Rapid Deteriorations of Churches Noted By Paul
I think that one can see from Paul’s writings that worldliness and error and uncharitable feelings did not require a long period of time to develop. They could spring up and did spring up in the primitive churches and in Asia Minor and elsewhere. For example, he accused the church at Corinth there, in 1 Corinthians 3:3 -- he said, “...ye are yet carnal, and whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions...” Well that was a very short time from the time that he was there until that had happened. He also said in 1 Corinthians 5:1 that there “...is fornication among you...” In writing to the Galatian brethren he said that they had been " ... so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal.1:6). All of those show that the degeneration occurred very, very rapidly.
In fact, overall, let’s look at the condition in Asia. What was Paul’s assessment of the situation in Asia at the time that he was writing from prision? He wrote to Timothy in 2 Tim 1:15, and he said:
2 Tim 1:15: "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;" (KJV)
So, the writings of Paul portray a very comprehensive view of the state of the churches in Asia during the reigns of Neroan period, and not only was it possible for this state to evolve, but it was actually the case! So, during the time that Paul was writing from prison here, he said that “... all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.” So that shows, then, that, yes, they had. The condition of the seven churches does not preclude the early date at all! We can see that that had already happened here before the first persecution. So, that does not in any way preclude the early date. In fact, it tends to support it, now that it had happened, and the conditions described in chapters 2 and 3 already existed.
Jesus’ Prophecy of the Fall of Jerusalem
The next thing that I would like to look at, I think, is one of the more important arguments that can be made for the early date. That is the significance of the fact that no New Testament writer mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem. Now, any student of the Bible knows that the prophecy by Jesus concerning the fall of Jersusalem is really one of the most profound utterances that He ever made! The prophecy is recorded in detail in Matthew, chapter 24 and also covered in Mark, chapter 13, and also in Luke, chapter 21. All of these talk about the prophecy that Jesus made. But, I ask the question: Where is the Biblical record that the event followed the prophecy? Now, that is a key question, here! We have a great prophecy given talking about the fall of Jerusalem, but if we were to look through the entire New Testament for the fulfillment of that, we will not find any reference to it anywhere in any of the books in the New Testament. Now, does that sound a little strange, that such an important thing such as this would not be followed by a fulfillment? That becomes a very important thing to pursue. Let’s chase that a little bit further.
Biblical Tests for Prophets
I want to look at some Biblical tests for determining whether a prophet and his sayings are from God. In Deuteronomy, God, through Moses, provided what I call an acid test for determining whether a prophet and his sayings were not from the Lord. Now here it is in full:
Deut 18:21: "And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? (KJV) 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (KJV)
Now, let’s just get a fix on what he is talking about. He said, “Here’s the prophet and he speaks. It does not come to pass. What is your conclusion from that? If it does not come to pass, then he has spoken presumptuously.” That is your conclusion! He is not from the Lord, if it does not come to pass! That is an acid test -- a negative test!
Let’s look at the next one. We have a compliment to that by Jeremiah. In:
Jer 28:9: "The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him." (KJV)
So, he says what happens here is that this prophet would prophesy and it comes to pass. Your conclusion from that is that he is from the Lord. So, you have both a negative and positive tests. So, he said if comes to pass, you know that he is from the Lord. If he speaks and it does not come to pass, he’s spoken presumpuously. Alright, now that is from the Old Testament, the tests that we have for whether a prophet is true or not.
Jesus Christ was a prophet. He was that prophet that was spoken of by Moses. In Acts 3:19-26, Peter clearly showed that Christ was that prophet that was spoken by Moses. He said that we should hear Him concerning anything whatsoever it was that He said! We were to listen to Him. That’s what Moses had said, and Peter was saying, “He’s the one! It has come to pass!” Now, what basis did he have to show that we should to listen to Jesus? Well, what happened? Jesus foretold his death, burial and resurrection. Let’s look at what He foretold: 1) He foretold His death; 2) His burial; and 3) His resurrection. That came to pass. That’s what he foretold. It happened. It had come to pass. He was killed. He was buried. He did arise from the dead. So, it happened!
What was happening here in the early days of Pentecost and the early days thereafter, we can see that the apostles made a lot of capital out of that. Peter, in Acts chapter 3, was referring right back to this point here. He did it on the Day of Pentecost. He convicted those people there. He said, “He’s not in the grave anymore, for He’s already ascended back to the Father.” So, he said, “This has happened! Jesus had foretold that it would happen!” In Chapter 3, he brings it out again and again. They made a lot of capital out of the fact that Jesus had prophesied that and he shows that it had come to pass and therefore, they ought to believe him! So, this greatly influenced the people in that day and time that they were declaring this to. And what were they trying to show? They were assuring the people that Jesus is the Saviour that is come from God! Now, remember that He’s from the Lord, if it comes to pass. So, the conclusion here is that Jesus says He is from the Lord! In other words, he is pointing out that He has come from Heaven. He is pointing out that He is come from God -- HE is the Saviour!
All of the New Testament books were written here in the forties, fifties and sixties, and we can see the fall of Jerusalem happen in AD 70. They had all been written before the fall of Jerusalem! That is why there is no capital made out of the fall of Jerusalem, as we can see. Surely, the Wisdom of God would not permit, then, that such a gross omission would be left out. So, I think we can see, then, that this would demand that we place the date of the New Testament books before the fall of Jerusalem. That is the position that Robinson and others have taken, including Sir Isaac Newton.
The Space Allotted in Prophecy For Completion of the Marvelous Things
One final point that I would like to look at is that the space alloted in prophecy for completion of the marvelous things was a very specified allottment of time that the Bible speaks of in the Old Testament.
Now, I think that we can prove that the magnificent Revelation that John received did, indeed, precede the fall of Jerusalem. Now, we are going to see that that, too, fits in very carefully. The Prophet Micah wrote in:
Micah 7:15 According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things. (KJV)
This reference to those “days”, in speaking of a very specific amount of time, a forty year period of God’s deliverance of the Israelites. What we are looking at, here, is that we know that from the time that they crossed the Red Sea, there was a period of forty years that elapsed from the time of deliverance until they crossed the river Jordan and went in to the land of Canaan. So, he said in this prophecy, here, specifically, “according to” that forty year period will He do marvellous things. So there would be marvellous things happening for a forty year period. What is the beginning and the end of that bracket of forty years? I am going to the year AD 30 for the beginning point. Why would we want to do that? I use that because of two or three statements we have in scripture.
First of all, Jesus was baptized at age thirty (Luke 3:21-23). Secondly, John the Baptist did no miracle (John 10:41). Thirdly, that Jesus turned the water into wine on the third day of His ministry (John 2), and this event was marked as the “beginning of miracles”. That is the words of inspired writings. So, in the year AD 30, we have, from those passages, that this was the beginning of miracles. So, marvelous things began to happen with the water being turned into wine. John did no miracle. What we see, then, with the beginning of that ministry in AD 30, that was the beginning of miracles.
Now, if you simply add to that “forty years”, that brings us to AD 70. What happened in AD 70? We can see that AD 70 was the time of the fall of Jerusalem. So what we certainly would expect, then, is that all of the inspired writings of the New Testament would occur during this time, and the miraculous things that occurred would be during that forty year period.
Conclusion
So, what we have concluded, then, is that God, Himself, bracketed this time-frame for miraculous things. It absolutely follows, then, that all of the inspired books of the New Testament, including the book of Revelation, was completed before the end of that period. It was a marvelous thing, the giving of the Revelation to John, foretelling the events of church history all the way to the end of time. That was a marvelous thing, but it happened before the fall of Jerusalem, during that bracketed forty year period that He said that He would use.
So my overall conclusion would be that the evidence supporting the early date of the Apocalypse is most convincing, both from a circumstantial view and from its relation to all the other New Testament books that were written before the fall of Jerusalem.
John Clark
Update: It is with great personal sadness that I announce that brother John Clark passed away on July 30, 2006.
Please email any comments on the article above to:
mtymousie@yahoo.com
