Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[3 Resurrections]

The poster @Wordsmith courteously requested recently that I submit internal evidence from Revelation itself which proves the date of its composition. Many scholars have spent copious amounts of time and full-length books on this very subject of Revelation's composition date, which I believe was written sometime around early AD 60, as I am going to attempt to prove in a comparatively brief series of comments.

As I have written before, my first introduction to the view of Preterism 12 years ago was in a careful study of Dr. Gentry's dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which covers the external evidence that is used for a late date, and proves where it is defective or lacking. On the other hand, some of Dr. Gentry's proofs for an early date are flawed, and he is also missing several proofs of internal evidence for an early date as well. He proposes a mid-to-late 60's date, which is a few years too late by Revelation's own internal witness.

For the Preterist views to hold water, this evidence of the dating of Revelation is an absolute must, since so many of the prophecies hang on the time-relevant language which John used extensively throughout the book. This language itself is the determining factor for anyone trying to interpret Revelation's visions. When John announced that all his visions of the future were "at hand" in his Revelation 1:3 introduction and his Revelation 22:10 conclusion to the book, if we don't know what year the book was written, then we can't understand which generation these "at hand" visions applied to.

There are enough pieces of internal evidence in Revelation itself to cross-reference and triangulate with each other, which all unite to present a very precise time frame for the composition of the book around early AD 60.


Revelation written just after early AD 60

We can begin with John's own statement in Revelation 1:9 of his then-current situation of a tribulation period which he was experiencing at the time. "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."
Christ had predicted for His disciples that they would endure tribulation and be persecuted from city to city in their evangelistic efforts during those early years of the church. So, which particular period of "tribulation" was John then experiencing? It has to be the one which coincides with all the other early-date internal evidence in Revelation - the one which occurred in the aftermath of the Ephesian riot of the silversmiths in AD 57; Ephesus being the capital of all Asia at the time, with the island of Patmos some 60 miles southwest of Ephesus, and under its jurisdiction.

Paul spoke about this period of persecution in Asia in 2 Corinthians 1:8 (written around AD 57). "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:" Paul said that in this case God had "delivered us from so great a death..." on this occasion, was even then continuing to deliver them, and would yet deliver them.

The riot in Ephesus instigated by Demetrius and the silversmiths against Paul's teachings was described in rather understated terms in Acts 19:23. "And the same time there arose no small stir about that way..." We've all read about the screaming 2-hour pep rally for the goddess Diana in the Ephesus theater which seated some 24,000, with Paul's two traveling companions dragged into the theater in front of the screaming throng. Paul desperately attempted to join his companions, but was prevented by other disciples - quite possibly Aquila and Priscilla, whom Paul later praised for "laying down their necks" on behalf of his life (Romans 16:3-4). The murder of the faithful Antipas on the Pergamos altar in Revelation 2:13 probably took place during this same time in Asia, as a fallout effect of this Ephesian riot.

Once the riot was finally calmed down by the town clerk, the Jews present in that capital city of Asia still remained actively opposed to the widespread success which Paul's teaching had caused in all of Asia (Acts 19:10, 26). Taking advantage of the Greeks' hatred for Paul's teaching, the similar hatred that the Ephesian Jews hostile to the faith bore for Paul continued to stir persecution afterward for the saints in Asia; so much so, that during Paul's AD 60 visit to Jerusalem, those Ephesian Jews seeing him there in the temple stirred up the people against Paul and attempted to kill him then and there on the temple stairs (Acts 21:27-31).

Paul had been continually warning the Ephesian elders for three years that after he left them in AD 60, "grievous wolves" entering the church would begin to draw the disciples away from the faith by perverse teachings (Acts 20:29-31). The faithfulness of the Ephesian church would begin to drift from the time of Paul's departure in AD 60 onward. This same defection was recorded by John as an accusation against the Ephesian church of having "left your first love" in Revelation 2:4.

In general, the Ephesian church had a commended record of their past labor, patience, a refusal to tolerate evil, having borne times of testing with patience, and not fainting under it (Revelation 2:2-3). This applied to their faithfulness in the period of persecution for the Ephesian church between the Ephesus riot in AD 57 and when Paul finally left them in AD 60. That was the point when their faith quickly began to drift. John noticed this and rebuked them for leaving their "first love" in Revelation 2:4. This means that John was writing Revelation in AD 60 when that defection was first starting to evidence itself in Ephesus. This defection would grow progressively worse in Asia towards the end of Paul's life before his AD 67 martyrdom.

John himself said he was a fellow "companion" experiencing this "tribulation" period in Asia, which was the fallout effect of the Ephesian riot in AD 57. The persecution and "perverse" teaching which the Ephesus church would experience would shortly result in Paul's discouraging estimate of the state of all the Asian churches in 2 Timothy 1:15 (written around AD 67 just before Paul's martyrdom). "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me..." Only Onesiphoris was then being commended for his ministry to Paul in Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:16-18). The majority of the churches in Asia by then had distanced themselves from Paul under the withering persecution by the hostile Jews and also the Greeks who worshipped Diana.

To be continued...

 

[CrowCross]

It doesn't really matter when Revelation was written by John.

The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It doesn't really matter when Revelation was written by John.

The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened.

It certainly does matter when it was written. All of John's own time-relevant terms combined tell us when the book was written, and to whom those dire prophecies were directed. Please be patient with me. I am not done yet with listing all of the internal evidence for an early date by any means. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

[CrowCross]

It certainly does matter when it was written. All of John's own time-relevant terms combined tell us when the book was written, and to whom those dire prophecies were directed. Please be patient with me. I am not done yet with listing all of the internal evidence for an early date by any means. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

Well, if you believe falsely that the book of Revelation was written to speak of the fall and destruction of Jerusalem then I suppose you might be correct.....it matters.

But, we know the book of Rev wasn't written for that purpose....as I have mentioned there are many, many things that didn't happen back then that are written about in the book of Rev. This clearly means the book of Revelations is future.

Basically the book of Revelation is about the time of Jacobs trouble...the tribulation...which will last 7 years. It is the means in which God will save the Jews.
Though some people will become christians during the tribulation, prior to the tribulation the christians will be "caught up" and taken from the earth.

 

[Josheb]

As I have written before, my first introduction to the view of [partial] Preterism 12 years ago was in a careful study of Dr. Gentry's dissertation, "Before Jerusalem Fell", which covers the external evidence that is used for a late date, and proves where it is defective or lacking. On the other hand, some of Dr. Gentry's proofs for an early date are flawed, and he is also missing several proofs of internal evidence for an early date as well.

This is true. Gentry's book is a very excellent, if imperfect work and I recommend everyone read it. It's content was sufficient to persuade R. C. Sproul to change his mind (no small feat). As for the evidence provided in dissent, all of it could have happened before 70 AD. If Acts, any of the New Testament epistles and Revelation has been written after 70 AD they certainly would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Paul and Peter as having occurred but there's no mention of any of those events in the past tense.

And please, in the future, correctly discriminate between partial preterists and full preterists. There are huge differences between the two.

It doesn't really matter when Revelation was written by John.

Sure it does.

The Preterist still can't show where in history what is mentioned in Revelations has already happened.

rotflmbo! You mean like the destruction of Jerusalem?

 

[Josheb]

Basically the book of Revelation is about the time of Jacobs trouble...the tribulation...which will last 7 years. It is the means in which God will save the Jews.
Though some people will become christians during the tribulation, prior to the tribulation the christians will be "caught up" and taken from the earth.

Correction: The book of Revelation WAS about the time of Jacob's trouble....

 

[CherubRam]

Revelation was written between 60 AD and 95 AD.

 

[Marty]

This link is good showing how other books in the New Testament refer to revelation showing that they were written after revelation or at the same time

https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Revelation-Was-It-Really-Written-After-AD-95

 

[Marty]

Well, if you believe falsely that the book of Revelation was written to speak of the fall and destruction of Jerusalem then I suppose you might be correct.....it matters.

But, we know the book of Rev wasn't written for that purpose....as I have mentioned there are many, many things that didn't happen back then that are written about in the book of Rev. This clearly means the book of Revelations is future.

Basically the book of Revelation is about the time of Jacobs trouble...the tribulation...which will last 7 years. It is the means in which God will save the Jews.
Though some people will become christians during the tribulation, prior to the tribulation the christians will be "caught up" and taken from the earth.

They why isn’t a seven year tribulation mentioned in Revelation or even anywhere in the Bible?
I mean if Revelation is literal then why would a seven year tribulation not be mentioned if that what it’s about?

Where does the bible mention a rapture before a tribulation? Jesus says that the judgement happens when He returns

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

 

[Josheb]

Revelation was written between 60 AD and 95 AD.

I'd place it about 65-66 because nowhere do we read any report Jerusalem had been surrounded. That too would have been a matter of record had any of the books been written after that event. Acts would have ended with a report of the deaths of Paul and Peter.

 

[CrowCross]

They why isn’t a seven year tribulation mentioned in Revelation or even anywhere in the Bible?

Daniel 9.

I mean if Revelation is literal then why would a seven year tribulation not be mentioned if that what it’s about?

Where does the bible mention a rapture before a tribulation? Jesus says that the judgement happens when He returns

The rapture isn't judgement.

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Jesus comes back twice....first at the rapture then as described in Rev 19:11 and onward.

 

[CherubRam]

I'd place it about 65-66 because nowhere do we read any report Jerusalem had been surrounded. That too would have been a matter of record had any of the books been written after that event. Acts would have ended with a report of the deaths of Paul and Peter.

I think you are correct because of what is written in Revelation.
Revelation 12:15
Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent.

Revelation 17:15
Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.

 

[Arial]

I'd place it about 65-66 because nowhere do we read any report Jerusalem had been surrounded. That too would have been a matter of record had any of the books been written after that event. Acts would have ended with a report of the deaths of Paul and Peter.

Not if Luke died first. Tongue in cheek response, as I would need to recheck some history in order to know if we have any evidence as to whether he did or didn't.

 

[Marty]

Daniel 9.

The rapture isn't judgement.

Jesus comes back twice....first at the rapture then as described in Rev 19:11 and onward.

Daniel 9 and the 70th week says nothing about a future seven year tribulation.

If you read the first half of Daniel 9 you will see that the reason the angel came to tell Daniel about the 70 weeks was an answer to Daniels prayer in the first part of Daniel 9. The 70 weeks was for Daniels people’s not us today

The 70th week was fulfilled by Antiochus Epehanies

True the rapture isn’t judgement I didn‘t say that it was I was saying that the rewarding and judgement happens right after the rapture

 

[3 Resurrections]

Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

A better translation that is more accurate..."For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then hewill reward each, according to his work." (YLT).

 

[3 Resurrections]

A little more internal evidence from Revelation...

Revelation written in early AD 60 , and no later

On another post, some of the external evidence for a later date included the Laodicean earthquake of AD 60. The line of thinking is that a number of years would have had to pass after the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake for that church to develop into a self-satisfied, complacent condition after the city had been rebuilt. They figure that an AD 95 composition date for Revelation would allow enough time for a slow, eventual drift into a "lukewarm" status for the church after the city's rebuilding had been completed.

My question is, why must it be AFTER the AD 60 earthquake for that complacent condition to be a problem for the Laodicean church? Why couldn't John's rebuke for that Laodicean church's complacency be given BEFORE the AD 60 earthquake took place, decimating the city?

The reason why I believe that this letter to the Laodicean church was written shortly BEFORE the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake is the time-relevant language that God used in Revelation 2:15-17. "I have known thy works, that neither cold art thou nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth; because thou sayest I am rich, and have grown rich, and have need of nothing..." (YLT). A number of other translations also catch this sense of an imminent judgment for the Laodicean church. That judgment would soon arrive for them after John had written Revelation's letter to them.

One question I have heard before about this judgment is "Why must it be an earthquake that was the imminent judgment for this Laodicean church?" We have grounds for believing this judgment of Laodicea to be an earthquake because Christ promised His disciples that for the "beginning of sorrows", even before the Great Tribulation period began, that there would be "earthquakes in divers places" (Matthew 24:7-8). As an aside, Seneca the Younger composed a volume of work, including a section called "Concerning Earthquakes" written after AD 63, related to the increasing level of seismic activity in the Roman world at the time. Seneca was only a recording observer of what Christ had already predicted would happen in that generation.

To be continued...

 

[CrowCross]

The 70th week was fulfilled by Antiochus Epehanies

How's that?

 

[3 Resurrections]

This link is good showing how other books in the New Testament refer to revelation showing that they were written after revelation or at the same time

https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Revelation-Was-It-Really-Written-After-AD-95

He makes a lot of good points, some of which I may also repeat here in this post. But he is falling into Dr. Gentry's same mistake in using the sixth "king" which "IS" when John was writing as being the emperor Nero. The seven and the eighth "kings" in Revelation 17 were not the Roman emperors, but the eight members of the Jewish high priesthood which came from the family of Annas the high priest. The language describing these high priest "kings of the earth" is very precise, and fits the history of those seven and eighth members of the house of Annas perfectly. We are able to use the dates of those eight "kings" and their appointed terms of service in the high priesthood role to date Revelation's composition prior to AD 63 at the very latest.

 

[Marty]

How's that?

170/1 B.C.-164/3 B.C. 70th week or 7 years

170/1 B.C. Onias 3rd is murdered (cut off and has nothing) the second anointed one the last of the Zadokite priesthood which was the start of the 70th week.

167 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th desecrates the temple ½ way through the 70th week. The abomination that caused desolation.

164/3 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies 4th dies and the temple sacrifice is reestablished the end of the 70th week. (the end is poured out on him)

War continued during and until the end of the 70th week

Remember the 70 weeks were given to Daniel as an answer to his prayer in the first part of Daniel chapter 9 thus it was for them in the past before Jesus was born not for us today. All of these events happened to the Jews after Daniel was given the prophecies if you were a Jew living in the time of the Maccabees who would you think that the 70th week was about?

 

[Josheb]

Something needs to be understood by everyone in the thread: The book of Revelation explicitly states the things described in John's vision were near, or at hand. The book does NOT state, "When X occurs then Y will be near." That's how futurists read the "near" but that is not what the text of Revelation ever actually states. However, even if we ignore the "near," we have Revelation 1:19 stating, "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things." That verse means some of what is reporting in Revelation was in John's past. He'd already seen those things. Not a single part of anything that he'd already seen is in the future. That means it is incumbent upon every reader of Revelation - and therefore every participant in this thread - to correctly discern which portions of Revelation were in John's past. All of that then can be removed from this discussion because NONE of it is future. The exact same metric applies to "the things which are." If they were events happening in John's day then only events that have continued to occur over the course of the last 2000 years can be said to be relevant to any futurism. Anything and everything specifically relate to first century Judaism or first century imperial Rome can automatically be discarded from any and all futurism because those two conditions - conditions which John observed - no longer exist. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every reader of Revelation - and therefore every participant in this thread - to correctly discern which parts of Revelation pertain to the things that were in John's day and discard them from any futurism.

That means only the parts of Revelation that pertain to "the things which will take place after these things," are the only parts that could rationally be part of any futurism.

If we were to divide Revelation into thirds based on those three stipulations (and I am not saying equal thirds is correct) then only one third of Revelation could be future. Every poster who wantonly treats the entirety of Revelation as ALL in the future has blatantly ignored what is stated in verse 1:19. We do not need the "near," to understand a significant portion of Revelation had passed before the vision was given.



One example of something in Revelation that John had seen, something that was in his past, is the birth of the son born to the woman in Revelation 12.

Revelation 12:1-17
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. "For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time." And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Most Christians, most eschatologies consider the son to be Christ and the woman to be either Israel or Mary but it does not matter which interpretation is held because the fact is Jesus has already been born, whether he is considered the offspring of Israel or the offspring of Mary, that milestone has come and gone. The entire chapter is past-tense. Jesus has been born. Salvation, his power, and the kingdom with the authority of Christ have come. Many other verses in the gospels, the history of Acts, and the epistolary tell us this is true.


Now here's an example that will shake up this conversation: the binding of satan.

Revelation 20:1-6
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

The one specific thing for which satan was bound was that he would deceive the nations no longer. What if this too was an event in John's past and not our future?

Isaiah records the falling of satan. Jesus stated he'd seen satan fall from heaven (Lk. 10:18). Jude 1 explicitly states the angels who did not keep their proper abode have been bound in bonds of eternal darkness awaiting their day of judgment. Romans tells us the wages of sin is death and sin enslaves. Therefore, satan was bound be sin like everyone else who disobeys God the moment he disobeyed God AND THEN he was cast out of heaven and bound in eternal bonds of darkness.

The gospel spread through the Law into the incarnation through Calvary and the resurrection and then through the NT era in the epistolary right on up to modernity where nowadays the gospel covers the earth.

Colossians 1:21-23
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

According to Paul the gospel had been preached in all creation by the time he wrote to the Colossians .

I am not saying this is correct. What I am saying is that much of Revelation is said to have already occurred in Revelation 1:19 and anyone who ignores 1:19 is going to end up with a bad date for when Revelation was written. So do not ignore verse 1:19.