When Was Revelation Written?

One of the most important factors in understanding the book of Revelation is in dating the book. Knowing when the book was written impacts what we believe the book to have been about, and there is much discussion concerning the date.

That being the case, it must be admitted that the most prominent doctrine concerning the book (premillenialism) disregards the importance of the date, primarily because premillenialists believe the book is written, not to seven churches in the first century, but to much later readers (themselves in particular). This is one of the great flaws of the premillenial system, for if the book is intended for today's audience, of what possible good was it to these first century Christians?

For those who do not subscribe to premillenialism, there are two prominent dates mentioned. First, some say the book foretells the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, placing the actual writing around AD 65-67. Others, believing the destruction comes upon Rome, believe the book was written circa AD 95-96. An examination of the positions is beneficial.

Adherents of the later date place a good deal of significance on a statement from the historian Eusebius (AD 263-339), in which he quotes Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp, who in turn, was a student of John. Irenaeus quotes Polycarp concerning the vision of John's Apocalypse, saying ""seen toward the end of Domitian's reign."" Domitian was Roman emperor from AD 81-96, thus placing the vision in the mid-90's. This is the key external argument for the later date, while the internal arguments center on three themes: 1) Emperor worship, with which the book deals, is said not to have been widespread prior to Domitian; 2) Domitian is said to have led the first empire-wide persecution of the saints; 3) the 7 churches would have been too ""young"" to already be experiencing such characteristics as apathy (Laodicea) or spiritual death (Sardis).

In truth, it is Nero's reign (AD 54-68) in which the cult of emperor worship takes off, with inscriptions at Ephesus calling him, ""Almighty God"" and ""Savior"", while in the temple of Mars in Rome, the statue of Nero was bigger than that of Mars himself. As for the churches, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians should serve as evidence of the turmoil and degradation which could overtake a church in a relatively short time (see 1 Cor. 1:11-15; 3:1-5; 5:1-13; etc.). Finally, it is clear that Nero also persecuted Christians, going so far as to even blame them for the fire in Rome which he started (AD 64).

As for the testimony of Irenaeus, it is compelling, but there are problems with it: it is third-hand and it is very ambiguous. Translators have struggled with whether Eusebius means John saw his vision, or that Polycarp saw John, at the end of Domitian's reign. It is not enough, alone, on which to base a theory.

Those who adhere to the earlier date are not without their external evidences, particularly the historian Tertullian (a contemporary of Ireneaus) who dates John's banishment to Patmos (see Rev. 1:9) during Nero's reign, just as he dates the deaths of Peter and Paul. In addition, the Syriac Version of the New Testament (an early manuscript) contains a title page for Revelation (which is uninspired) which also dates it to John's banishment by Nero.

The internal arguments for the earlier date are strong. First, of Jesus coming in judgment it is said, "". . . every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him"" (1:7). It is hard to conceive many of the murderers of Jesus surviving into the mid-90's, even without the terrible destruction of AD 70. There is also expectation of speedy fulfillment of these prophecies (1:1, 3, 19; 2:25), something which doesn't fit the destruction of Rome. And there is the turmoil of the AD 60's which, better than any other time period, fits the terrible descriptions which fill these prophecies.

For the purposes of our study, then, we will focus on the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of the apocalypse.