THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATE OF REVELATION
I, John, your brother and fellow-partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev.1:9).
The Issue
The present section of this book is given over to the vitally important question of the date of the composition of Revelation, which was written while John was banished to Patmos. The reader should recall that in the Introduction I noted that this matter is a major difficulty confronting the student of Revelation. The position taken on this issue has a great bearing on the interpretive possibilities available to the interpreter. Indeed, the view of the Beast presented heretofore could well be affected by the question we now approach.
The Debate
Unfortunately, there is much lively debate over the question of the date of Revelation. In fact, scholarly opinion has shifted back and forth between two major viewpoints. The two leading views held by New Testament scholars are: (1) The early date view, which holds that John wrote Revelation prior to the August, A.D. 70, destruction of the temple. (2) The late-date view, which argues that John composed his work around A.D. 95-96, in the last days of the principate of Domitian Caesar, who was assassinated September 18, A.D. 96.
My Position
The position I will set forth in the following pages is that of an early date prior to A.D. 70, somewhere in the time-frame of late-A.D. 64 (after the initial outbreak of the Neronic persecution) to A.D. 67 (prior to the Jewish War with Rome). For too long, popular commentaries have brushed aside the evidence for the early date for Revelation. Despite the majority opinion of current scholarship, the evidence for an early date for Revelation is clear and compelling.
Almost invariably the major reason for the dismissal of the early date for Revelation is due to one statement by an early church father named Irenaeus. Other supportive evidences for a late-date are brought into the discussion later. Initially, however, almost all commentators begin with and depend upon Irenaeus’s statement in his late second century worked entitled Against Heresies. Pick a Revelation commentary off your shelves and see for yourself.
There is one particularly frustrating aspect of the debate for early date advocates. When one mentions that he affirms a date for Revelation prior to the destruction of the temple, a predictable response all too often heard is: “Aren’t you aware that all scholars agree it was written at the end of the first century?” Or, if talking with a seminarian, the reply might be “Don’t you realize Irenaeus clearly settled this question?” In such encounters the early date proponent is deemed intellectually naive and historically misinformed. He is thought to be throwing objective evidence and assured conclusions out the window on the basis of sheer presumption or theological bias.
Early Date Advocates
Holding to an early date for Revelation does not, however, prove one is in defiance of “historical facts.” This should be evident in the list of names of those who have held to an early date. An appeal to venerated scholarship cannot settle the issue, to be sure. But the very fact that a good number of astute biblical scholars hold to a minority position should at least forestall too hasty a dismissal of that position.
We herewith list a number of noted scholars who have discounted the late-date for Revelation in favor of an earlier date. Some of the following are noted liberal scholars, some orthodox. The historical facts of the matter are not necessarily determined by a particular school of thought. In fact, that some of the scholars are liberals is quite remarkable in that the liberal view usually tends to push the dates of biblical books to a later, not an earlier, period.
We list these names in alphabetical, rather than chronological, Order: Jay E. Adams, Luis de Alcasar, Karl August Auberlen, Greg L. Bahnsen, Arthur S. Barnes, James Vernon Bartlet, F. C. Baur, Albert A. Bell, Jr., Willibald Beyshclag, Charles Bigg, Friedrich Bleek, Heinrich Bohmer, Wilhelm Bousset, F. F. Bruce, Rudolf Bultmann, W. Boyd Carpenter, David Chilton, Adam Clarke, William Newton Clarke, Henry Cowles, W. Gary Crampton, Berry Stewart Crebs, Samuel Davidson, Edmund De Pressense, P. S. Desprez, W. M. L. De Wette, Friedrich Dusterdieck, K. A. Eckhardt, Alfred Edersheim, George Edmundson, Johann Gottfiied Eichhorn, G. H. A. Ewald, F. W. Farrar, Grenville O. Field, George P. Fisher, J. A. Fitzmeyer, J. Massyngberde Ford, Hermann Gebhardt, James Glasgow, R. M. Grant, James Comper Gray, Samuel G. Green, Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand Guerike, Henry Melville Gwatkin, Henry Hammond, H. G. Hartwig, Karl August von Hase, B. W. Henderson, Johann Gottfried von Herder, Adolf Hilgenfeld, David Hill, F. J. A. Hort, H. J. Holtzmann, John Leonhard Hug, William Hurte, A. Immer, Theodor Keim, Theodor Koppe, Max Krenkel, Johann Heinrich Kurtz, Victor Lechler, Francis Nigel Lee, J. B. Lightioot, Gottfried C. F. Lucke, Christoph Ernst Luthardt, James M. Macdonald, Frederick Denisen Maurice, Charles Pettit M’Ilvaine, John David Michaelis, Theodor Mommsen, A. D. Momigliano, Charles Herbert Morgan, C. F. D. Moule, John Augustus Wilhelm Neander, Bishop Thomas Newton, A. Niermeyer Alfred Plummer, Edward Hayes Plumtree, T. Randell, James J. L. Ratton, Ernest Renan, Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss, Jean Reville, J. W. Roberts, Edward Robinson, John A. T. Robinson, J. Stuart Russell, W. Sanday, Philip Schaff, Johann Friedrich Schleusner, J. H. Scholten, Albert Schwegler, J. J. Scott, Edward Condon Selwyn, Henry C. Sheldon, William Henry Simcox, D. Moody Smith, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Edward Rudolf Stier, Moses Stuart, Milton S. Terry, Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck, Charles Cutler Torrey, Cornelius Vanderwaal, Gustav Volkmar, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Arthur Weigall, Bernhard Weiss, Brookes Fost Westcott, J. J. Wetstein, Karl Wieseler, Charles Wordsworth, Herbert B. Workman, Robert Young, and C. F. J. Zullig. Can it be that these scholars are intellectually careless and historically naive?
My Approach
Since I have already begun swimming against the tide of contemporary opinion on this point, why not continue the swim? Whereas most approaches to the question of Revelation’s date begin with the evidence from church tradition (often called “external evidence”), I will begin with evidence drawn from Revelation’s self-witness (usually called “internal evidence”). Holding to an unshakable conviction regarding Scripture’s divine inspiration, I also affirm its inherent authority, infallibility, and inerrancy. Hence, I am convinced the self-witness is the superior and determinative evidence. I will turn to the evidence from tradition in due time, however.
The reader should note that this part of the book is a condensation and popularization of a fuller, more technical doctoral dissertation. In the larger work will be found much fuller exegetical and historical argumentation.
The Significance of the Issue
If the earlier date for Revelation be adopted, an interesting result presents itself to the interpreted Most of the judgment visions in Revelation (chs. 4-19) could easily be applied to the historical turmoil which came to a head shortly after John wrote. The fulfillment of the majority of its prophecies would then apply to the very beginning of Christianity, rather than to its conclusion. Contained in Revelation might be prophetic allusions to the first Roman persecution of Christianity (A.D. 64-68), the Jewish War with Rome (A.D. 67-70), the death of Christianity’s first persecutor (Nero Caesar, d. A.D. 68), the Roman Civil Wars (A.D. 68-69), and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (A.D. 70).
If such were the case, then the fulfillment of many of Revelation’s prophecies would be subject to documentation from history. Furthermore, the book would then be intensely relevant to the suffering churches to which John addressed it (Rev. 1:4, 11; chs. 2-3; 22: 16). Revelation’s initial purpose would have been to steel infant Christianity against the tribulation into which it was entering (Rev. 1:9; cp. 2:10, 22; 3:10; 6:9-11). In addition, John would also be explaining to the early Christians and to us the spiritual and historical significance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the demise of Judaism. Such a preparation of first-century Christianity would be of immense practical and spiritual importance. Apostolic Christianity tended to focus around Jerusalem and the temple (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, 12; 3:1, 2, 11; 5:12-16, 42; 8:1; 11:1, 2; 15:1, 2) and the early converts to Christianity were predominantly from Judaism (Acts 2:14,41, 47; 41-4).
If the late-date of around A.D. 95-96 were accepted, a wholly different situation would prevail. The events of the mid- and late 60s of the first century would be absolutely excluded as possible fulfillments. The prophecies within Revelation would be opened to an abundance of speculative scenarios, which could be extrapolated into the indefinite future. Revelation might outline the course of Church history according to any number of outlines or to certain general principles. Or it might focus exclusively on the end of history, which would begin approaching thousands of years after John’s time, either before, after, or during the tribulation or the millennium.
The purpose of Revelation would then be to show early Christians that things will get worse, that history will be a time of constant and increased suffering for the Church. This understanding, of course, would be tempered by references within Revelation to the spiritual reality of heaven above to which the martyrs go upon departing this Me. And, in the case of premillennial systems, the latter chapter:; would hold forth the ultimate hope of Christ’s intervention in the course of history to impose His triumphant kingdom over the agelong harriers of the Church.
Conclusion
The impact or the question of the dating of Revelation is of great significance. Though the majority of current scholars calls for a Domitianic date for Revelation (A.D. 95-96), there is a growing movement away from such a position to the more conservative Neronic dating which predominated in the late 1800s. I trust that this section of the present study will be used in some small way to interest Christians in the important debate. I hope that the evidence rehearsed below will draw many to the early date view of the writing of Revelation.
-
I would like to thank Dr. George W. Knight III for his suggestions on the following order of arrangement, which differ from my dissertation’s order.
-
One notable exception is Leon Morris in his The Revelation of St. John[/size] (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969).
-
For source documentation, see my Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
-
See footnote 2 above.
-
Adherents to this view include David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the of Revelation (Fort Worth, TX Dominion Press, 1987); Cornelius Vanderwaal, Search the Scriptures, trans. Theodore Plantinga, 10 vols. (St. Catherines, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1978), vol. 10; and Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), vol. 1.
-
Adherents to this outline-of-history view include: Albert S. Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, rep. 1962); and W. Boyd Carpenter, “The Revelation of St. John,” in John C. Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. n.d.).
-
For example, John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966); Herman Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh! (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1969); and Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).
