The Date of the Book of Revelation:

Neronic or Domitianic?


Introduction
The interpretation of no other book in the canon is affected by the date in which
it was written as much as the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
1
Ice, writing from the perspective
that the book was written after the fall of Jerusalem, is correct in saying that the date of
Revelation is paramount in determining its setting. One entire school of interpretation,
namely the Preterists, depends upon an early date. If it can be proved that Revelation was
written before 70 A.D. then Preterists have good reason to believe that the events in
Revelation describe the divorce of God from promiscuous Israel.
2
That is, Revelation could
be describing events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem.
3
If, however, it can be
shown that a pre 70 date is unwarranted, the entire Preterist system falls apart; for what kind
of prophecy describes past events? Further, to accept the Preterist position with a late date
would be to ascribe to a broad system of interpretation that destroys the authority of biblical
prophecy.
But further problems arise when one accepts a Preterist position. The literal
interpretation that is normally given to prophecy is decimated; a dispensational framework is

1
Thomas Ice, Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?, Conservative Theological Journal 4
(2000): 308.
2
The most thorough study to date concerning a pre-70 interpretation comes from Gentry who holds
to this view that Revelation describes Gods divorce from Israel. See, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Beast of
Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 2002), 183.
3
Some Preterists hold that the predictions include the fall of the Roman Empire as well.

2
impossible; and a deconstructive bias is applied to the Holy writ. While proving that an early
date for Revelation will not solve all of these interpretive dilemmas facing the book of
Revelation, it will certainly exclude one of the more prominent systems evangelicals have
used to support these practices.
4
Therefore, this paper is designed to prove that the evidence
presented in church history and inside the book of Revelation indicate that Revelation was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem and before the turn of the century.
5

External Evidence
Within the discussion of dates there are two distinct groups of evidences;
external and internal. Within the external discussion the text itself will not be examined.
Instead, the focus will be on the writings of church fathers. Historically, external evidence
has been heralded as conclusively Domitianic in outlook. In fact, the entire section dedicated
to the date of Revelation in Ladds commentary reads, Tradition has ascribed the Revelation
to the last decade of the first century when Domitian was emperor in Rome (A.D. 81-96).
Some scholars have argued for an earlier date, but this is unlikely.
6
Proponents of the early
date, however, argue that the external evidence is far from conclusive. In the discussion
below, the external arguments for and against both dates will be examined.

4
For more of the problems with Preterist teaching see, Mal Couch, Inerrancy: The Book of
Revelation, Conservative Theological Journal 5 (2001): 212-13.
5
The argument of this paper is that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian (81-96).
Preterists believe that the book was written during the reign of Nero (54-68). Other dates have been suggested
through church history such as during the reign of Claudius (41-54) or the reign of Trajan (98-117), but these
have such little support that they will not be dealt with here. See, D. A. Carson and Douglass J. Moo, An
introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 708.
6
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 8.

3
Irenaeus
Due to his relation with the Apostle John, Irenaeus (130-202) is unarguably the
most important witness to the date of Revelation.
7
Not only was he a disciple of Polycarp
(who was a disciple of John), but his writings give the earliest evidence concerning the date.
Mayhue notes, A general axiom states that ancient documents whose date is closest to the
historical event reported contain more accurate and reliable information than the documents
further removed in time.
8
According to this principle Irenaeus statement should be
considered a potent witness. For this reason it is important to quote Irenaeus statement in
full:
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 (evwraqh) no very long time since,
but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.
9


The key statement is made at the end of the entry when Irenaeus seems to say that the vision
was seen during Domitians reign. Obviously, if the vision was not seen until Domitians
reign then Revelation could not have been written anytime before that time.
While most scholars accept Irenaeus statement without hesitation, there are a
group of scholars, of the Preterist interpretation, that question its translation. That is, they

7
Couch notes that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor (where John last ministered), was discipled in
Ephesus (where John was for the last years of his life), was trained by Johns immediate disciple (Polycarp),
and was within a generation of John. He concludes, Therefore the quality of his evidence is as strong and
reliable as any we have for any book of the New Testament. See, Mal Couch, Introductory Thoughts on
Allegorical Interpretation and the Book of Revelation Part I, Conservative Theological Journal 1 (1997):, 24.
8
See, Richard L. Mayhue, Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist?, The Masters Seminary Journal 14
(2003): 16.
9
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Columbia University, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/
arch/irenaeus/advhaer5.txt (Accessed 30 November 2007), 5.30.3.

4
question the referent of the verb (evwraqh) in the last sentence. The assertion is that Irenaeus
actually meant that John was seen towards the end of the Domitians reign.
10
The problem
with this interpretation, however, is twofold. First, the closest antecedent is the apocalypse
which argues for its reception as the subject of the verb. Also, the context of Eusebius (when
he quotes this section of Irenaeus) indicates that it was the churchs belief that Irenaeus was
referring to the apocalypse and not the apostle.
11
Any attempt to make this text say that John
was seen during Domitians reign should be questioned. In fact, Robinson, one of the most
eloquent defenders of the early date, says of this text that The translation has been disputed
by a number of scholars, on the ground that it means that He (John) was seen; but this is very
dubious.
12
Though ambiguity will always exist concerning this reference, the meaning that
was portrayed to all of the church fathers and their subsequent readers was that John saw the
apocalypse during Domitians reign.
Clement and Origen
Two of the early fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Origen) mention Johns
exile to Patmos (1:9). The problem with the evidence from these fathers is that they say that
John was exiled, but they fail to say by whom. Clement says it was the tyrant,
13
and

10
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,
1999), 48-57.
11
Ice says of the interpretation that john was seen rather than the apocalypse, If such were the case,
it would seem odd that Eusebius, who was a theological opponent of Irenaeus in the area of biblical prophecy,
clearly thought that it was John who saw the apocalyptic vision. See, Ice, Has Bible Prophecy, 313.
12
John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 211.
13
Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, Early Christian Writings,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-richman.html (Accessed 30 November 2007), XLII.

5
Origens statement is just as ambiguous.
14
Gentry, in his monumental work defending the
early date, argues for an early date since the church fathers called Nero a tyrant.
15
While this
is undoubtedly true, Domitian was called a tyrant as well. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History,
says that At that time the apostle . . . John . . . was still living in Asia . . . having returned
after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
16
Later in the same chapter
Eusebius says, For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to
Ephesus. . .
17
Obviously, then, tyrant is simply an adjective used to identify all those who
oppose the faith. Nero was one, but Domitian was also. Therefore, it is best to interpret these
fathers in light of their interpreters and those who came before them. In this way, the
evidence points to Domitian.
Victorinus
Victorinus (270-303) wrote a commentary on the apocalypse around the turn of
the third century. His comments on 10:11 are pertinent to this discussion: [John] says this,
because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour
of the mines by Csar Domitian.
18
This seems to be as clear a reference as possible, but
Gentry still finds fault. His contention is that Victorinus is wrong because John would not

14
See Beale, NIGTC, 19.
15
Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 157-161
16
Eusebius, Church History, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
(Accessed 30 November 2007), 3.23.1.
17
Ibid., 3.23.6.
18
Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0712.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007), 10:11.

6
have been able to work in the mines at the age of 90.
19
Gentrys argument is understandable,
yet the advancement of age does not take its toll on each individual the same. There are some
people at the age of 90 who can do more than others could at 60. Therefore, it is altogether
feasible that John could have worked in the mines at 90. Furthermore, this sort of cruel
punishment inflicted on the elderly does not seem foreign to the savage nature of the Roman
dictatorship.
Jerome
Jerome (347-420) adds value to this discussion by saying that John was a
prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor
Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the
future.
20
Again, this church fathers work is not left uncriticized by Preterists. Here Gentry
questions Jeromes sources. The doubt surrounds Jeromes quotation of Tertullian who said
that John was dipped in oil. Gentry argues vociferously that this had to be during the time of
Nero since Nero lighted his parties with Christians bodies.
21
Gentry then argues that either
John was exiled during the reign of Domitian, or he was dipped in oil by Nero. And because
Jerome records both, Gentry believes that the statement from Jerome should be disregarded.
But one should ask whether being exiled by Domitian and being dipped in oil are mutually

19
Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 163.
20
Jerome, Against Jovinianus, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm
(Accessed 1 December 2007), 1:26.
21
He also argues that Tertullian thought Paul and Peter were killed at the same time that John was
banished. A closer look at the text, however, seems to show that Tertullian was merely mentioning the famous
apostles who were martyred (Tertullian, Exclusion of Heretics, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0311.htm [Accessed 30 November 2007], 36.). Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 144-145.

7
exclusive things. Could not have Domitian dipped John in oil and then sent him off to exile?
In fact, it is highly likely that Domitian followed in the footsteps of his tyrant successor.
Therefore, Gentrys argument fails to persuade any but the already convinced.
Syriac Versions, Arethas, and Theophylact
While not a church father, the Syriac versions (550 A.D.) are some of the earliest
translations of the Scripture and therefore deserve attention. It is within these versions that
the earliest reference to a Neronic date is found. While this constitutes some of the strongest
arguments for the Preterist date, it pales in comparison to the stronger witnesses written
nearly four hundred years previous (Irenaeus).
Arethas (850-944) wrote a tenth century commentary on the book of Revelation.
Within this work, he says that the sixth seal was actually the destruction of Jerusalem. It is
interesting to note that this is the first time in the history of the church that a Preterist
interpretation is found. Arethas, elsewhere in his commentary, noted that he was aware
earlier church history claimed that John was deported under Domitian.
22
Again, it is
surprising to note that the Preterist interpretation does not surface until hundreds of years
after the end of the canon.
Theophylact (d. 1107) is the last of those in history for which reference is made
in this debate. He seems to be confused, however, as to the date he assigns the apocalypse. In

22
Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 146-147.

8
his commentary on John he clearly dates it to Neros reign,
23
but in his commentary on
Matthew he assigns it a date under Trajan.
24

The Syriac versions as well as Arethas and Theophylact indicate that there might
have been a variant tradition which held that the apocalypse was written during Neros reign.
But since church history records other misguided traditions (dating the apocalypse to the time
of Claudius or Trajan)
25
it should be expected that some tradition would claim that it came
under Nero as well.
Conclusion
26

External evidence strongly suggests that the book of Revelation was written
during Domitians reign. Added to this is the fact that the earliest church fathers all looked
forward to the events described in revelation.
27
Overall, this makes a Neronic date seem
unwarranted. Guthrie concludes: On the principle that a strong tradition must be allowed to
stand unless internal evidence makes it impossible . . . the Domitianic dating must have the

23
Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 108.
24
For the reference see, Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1909), p. c.
25
Carson & Moo, Introduction, 708.
26
No mention was made in this section to Epiphanius who says that John was exiled during
Claudiuss reign. He was excluded because no other church father followed his tradition.
27
House and Ice ask, Why is it that all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and
Matthew 24, see these as future events? They all wrote well after A.D. 70. Did even those who knew the writer
of Revelation, the apostle John, not pick up on such an important understanding? See, Wayne House and
Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, Oregon: Multinomah, 1988), 258-59.

9
decision in its favor.
28
Next, the internal evidence will be examined to determine whether it
supports a Domitianic or Neronic date.
Internal Evidence
While the external evidence did not deal with the text of Revelation, the internal
evidence is grounded in proper exegesis of Revelation. Unfortunately, there is some scholarly
opinion that internal evidences are not advantageous to either side. For instance, Richard
Mayhue says, Regarding internal evidence, this writer has foregone any discussion . . .
because of the frequent use of figurative language in Revelation, one could easily read ones
own prophetic voice into the interpretation to prove his historical and/or theological
conclusions.
29
Unfortunately, Mayhue seems to believe that Revelation is such an
allegorical mess that anyones interpretation fits. He overlooks, however, that a literal
interpretation puts the proper restraints on the passage so that it can be understood.
Therefore, since the internal evidence comes from the inspired text it must be examined in
full. The first five evidences mentioned below are those often cited by early date advocates.
These will be examined for their integrity. The latter four evidences overtly support the late
date.
Theme
Almost every commentator on Revelation agrees that 1:7 is the theme verse of
Revelation: Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those

28
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970), 957.
29
He also mentions that space restraint limits him. See, Mayhue, Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist?, 15.

10
who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Neronic date advocates argue that this text says Jesus was coming back, not in the end to
judge the whole world, but in the near future to judge Israel.
30
In order to interpret the verse
this way, however, they have to do some hermeneutical gymnastics. First, they must abolish
the similarity between Zechariah 12:10-13:3 and Revelation 1:7. The Zechariah passage says,
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace
and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they
shall mourn for him . . . as one weeps over a firstborn. In all scholarly opinion, John is
referring back to this passage when he writes 1:7. If a near judgment of Israel interpretation
of 1:7 is true, then John is quoting Zechariah 12:10ff completely out of context. In Zechariah
the coming will be accompanied by remorse and repentance. But in this interpretation the
coming will actually be in judgment with no thought of mercy at all.
A second problem is that the text clearly says the whole earth will see Him.
Neronic daters circumvent this by focusing on the phrase those who pierced Him. While
this certainly refers to the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Christ, the gospels and Acts
clearly lay blame on gentiles as well for the crime (John 19:31; Acts 4:27). Further, the text
states that all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him.
31
These parameters do not
limit the coming to only Israel or the Palestinian landscape. The Revelation is obviously

30
Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 131-132.
31
Any attempt to make tribes as a reference to Israel or land as a reference to the Promise Land
fail upon investigation of the context of Revelation and the other uses of these words within the text of
revelation. See, Robert L. Thomas, Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation, The Masters Seminary Journal
5 (1994): 191-193 and G. K. Beale, NIGTC: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25-26.

11
worldwide in scope, and this passage, being the theme of the book, is worldwide in scope as
well.
Immanency
Closely related to the theme is the idea that pervades the book concerning the
immediacy of the Revelation (1:1, 3, 19; 22:6, 7, 12, 20). The argument seems strong
enough: if the book says that these things will happen quickly this should not be a period
of at least 1900 years. But there are problems with this understanding of these terms. If, as
the proponents argue, Jesus had to return during this generation (Matt. 24:34) then there is
no doubt that Jesus would be coming within a certain time period. Yet the Scripture clearly
teaches that the time of Jesus coming is not knowneven by Him (Matt. 24:36).
32

Therefore, The teaching of Christs imminent return is not about setting a time limit on
when He will come. It is about teaching an attitude of expectancy that provides motivation
for a godly lifestyle.
33
Overall, then, immanency is largely misunderstood by those who
advocate an early date. Jesus never limited His coming to any specific time frame. Instead,
He taught that people ought to always be ready for His coming.

32
Thomas notes that the passage about this generation occurs within the same teaching that no one
knows the time of Jesus return. See, Thomas, Theonomy, 199.
33
Ibid.

12
Temple in Chapter 11
This much-debated passage in Revelation is touted as one of the strongest
arguments for the early date.
34
Here, John is given a measuring rod and told to measure the
temple. The question that Neronic date advocates ask is, what temple is John measuring if
the temple has already been destroyed? The literal hermeneutic which must be applied to
this text does seem to indicate that John is measuring a real temple. But what is this temple?
Is it Herods temple as the Preterists argue? Or is it a literal temple rebuilt during the
tribulationone that Ezekiel mentions in chapters 40-48 of his prophecy? Interestingly
enough, in Ezekiels vision a temple was measured even though there was no temple in
Jerusalem during his time. Therefore, since John was in a vision, there is no indication at all
that there is a literal temple standing at the time that John wrote.
35
Therefore, the reference is
to a literal temple standing during the tribulation of which John was seeing a vision.
The Seven Kings
Revelation 17:9-11 reads, This calls for a mind with wisdom . . . they are also
seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does
come he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth
but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. Correlating this prophecy with the
Roman kings of Johns day, early date advocates create a compelling interpretation of this

34
Walvoord notes, A comparison of many commentaries will reveal the widest kind of
disagreement as to the meaning of this chapter. See, John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
(Chicago: Moody, 1989), 175.
35
Ice, Has Bible Prophecy, 310.

13
passage. Under this interpretation, the first king was Julius Caesar, the sixth Nero, and the
seventh Galba. If this elucidation stands, then an early date is proved.
The problem with this interpretation, however, is that it is not altogether clear.
Why should the number of emperors start at Julius Caesar when the first emperor was
actually Caesar Augustus? Further, within the early date camp there are disagreements as to
who should be the sixth emperor. Gentry believes that it is Nero,
36
but Robertson believes it
is Galba.
37
The incongruity here points to the fact that what is claimed by early daters as
clear is in fact not clear at all. Walvoord comments, The explanation of the beast
introduced by the unusual phrase, here is the mind which hath wisdom anticipates the
difficulty and complexity of the revelation to follow. The reader is warned that spiritual
wisdom is required to understand that which is unfolded.
38
Interpreters should take heed that
the interpretation of this passage is not as evident as many would like to make it. In fact, the
best interpretation of this passage does not refer to kings at all. Instead, it refers to
kingdoms.
39
Ice comments on this analysis when he says, The five fallen refer to Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time John

36
Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 104.
37
Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 248.
38
Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 250.
39
Some might assert that the normal interpretation of the passage demands that it be kings in view.
Kistemaker speaks directly to this question when he says, Although this is true, there is validation for the word
Kingdoms. . . The term Kings is translated in numerous versions, including the Septuagint, as Kingdoms,
because kingdoms over which kings rule are greater and more enduring than their rulers. See, Simon J.
Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 33.

14
wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist,
known in the Revelation as the beast.
40

Due to the mess of interpretive issues that naturally arise by identifying the
prophecy with Roman kings (who was the first, who was the sixth, etc.), it is hard to
understand why early date advocates claim this passage lucidly teaches their interpretation.
This is especially true when it is seen that many exegetes deny this passage speaks of kings at
all. Instead, many believe it speaks of kingdoms. Therefore, what was looked at as a strong
proof turns out to be the creativity of the early date interpreter.
The Number of the Antichrist
Gentry, as well as almost every other early date advocate, argues that the number
assigned to the antichrist is a cryptogram (numerical puzzle).
41
According to the relation of
letters with numbers in the Hebrew language Caesar Neron adds up to 666. This would
seem to indicate then that the prophecy of Revelation was written some time during or before
Neros reign. But there are problems with this line of reasoning. Cryptograms certainly
existed during the time of Johns writing, but there is little reason why John, who was writing
in the Greek language to Greek speaking people, would have written a cryptogram in the

40
Ice, Has Bible Prophecy,, 311.
41
Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 193-219.

15
Hebrew language.
42
Further, Nero was called by many names. Therefore, to use the particular
name Caesar Neron for the cryptogram is altogether too convenient.
43

A final argument against ascribing the identity of the antichrist to Nero is that
Irenaeus, when discussing this passage in depth, never mentioned Nero as a possibility
though he did mention some names. It is hard to imagine that one so close to John would
have missed such an immediate application.
44

Persecution
Having looked at the main evidences used by early date advocates, the next task
is to examine the evidence in favor of a late date. The first evidence concerns the nature of
persecution in Revelation. Revelation shows two tendencies (1) emperor worship and (2)
empire wide persecution. It is generally agreed that, in the case of Christians, the former is
the cause of the latter
While there is some early evidence that some of the emperors thought of
themselves as gods, Domitian took it a step furtherhe told people to call him our lord and
god.
45
Thus, Domitian demanded worship.
46
Obviously, this was not acceptable to a

42
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 959.
43
Beale, NIGTC: Revelation, 24. Beale also notes that the Greek word qurion also adds up to 666.
He questions whether this is a coincidence.
44
Zahn argues that it was not until the nineteenth century that Nero was associated with the
antichrist.See, Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament Vol. III (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock
Christian Publishers, 1977), 447 n.4.
45
Bruce M. Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1993), 16.
46
Warden, in his paper devoted to imperial persecution, says, The record is considerably stronger
that Domitian did, in fact, demand divine recognition to a degree that his predecessors generally had not done.

16
Christians who knew only one Lord (Eph. 4:5). Further proof for Domitians desire for
worship came in 113 A.D. when Pliny wrote to Trajan, the emperor following Domitian,
asking how to treat Christians.
47
Trajan responded by saying that Christians should not be
looked for, but if accused and convicted they should be imprisoned. It was quickly added,
however, that Christians could avoid punishment if they would worship the emperor along
with other gods. For the subject at hand, the most interesting part of the letter was that Pliny
said some had recanted Christ up to twenty years earlier.
48
By subtracting the years, one finds
that this was during the reign of Domitian! Therefore, while there was probably not a
programmatic system of persecution for those who did not worship Domitian, evidence
suggest that during his reign there was persecution for not worshipping him. Furthermore,
there is evidence that a temple was dedicated to the family Sebastoi (Vespian, Titus, and
Domitian) in 89-90 in Ephesus. This provides further proof that within the area for which
John was writing there was pressure to worship the emperor.
49

That the book of Revelation relates persecution amongst Gods people is
undeniable. The letters to the churches declare a situation in which there was already some
persecution (exiling [1:9], martyrdom [2:13], and imprisonment [2:10]), but the idea John
portrays is that persecution would increase.
50
The question which must be answered,

See, Duane Warden, Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation, Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 208.
47
Pliny, Ancient History Sourcebook: Pliny and Trajan, Fordham University,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.html (Accessed 30 November 2007), 10.96-97.
48
Ibid.
49
Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 36-37.
50
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 951.

17
however, is whether this persecution fits within the timeframe of 90 or 70 A.D. While Nero
and his infamous persecution of Christians is a likely candidate it is excluded because the
effects probably never reached Asia. The whole point of Neros persecution was that he
wanted a scapegoat for his act of arson in Rome.
51
Therefore, Neros persecution was only
local, though extreme. On the other hand, the persecution under Domitian seemed to be
instigated by emperor worship.
52
And as Guthrie concludes, The strength of the Caesar-cult
in Asia and the fact that a new Caesar-temple was erected during Domitians reign would
make persecution there in his time highly probable.
53
Overall, the proof for Asiatic
persecution under either Nero or Domitian is weak, but the evidence suggested by emperor
worship does point toward the latter.
Nero Myth
There was a popular myth spread during the Roman Empire that Nero was going
to come back from the dead. Early on it seemed to originate that he did not die, and then later
developed into the idea that he would come back to life to rule the empire. Swete argues
persuasively that many texts in Revelation are greatly influenced by this myth (13:3, 12, 14;
17:8).
54
The general argument is that myths take time to develop. This myth had certainly
come to full circulation by the time of Tacitus (living during the time of Domitian) who

51
Leon Morris, Tyndale NT Commentaries: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 36.
52
Revelation is full of references to emperor worship (13:4-8, 15-16; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2 19:20;
20:4) see, Beale, NIGTC: Revelation, 5.
53
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 953.
54
Swete, The Apocalypse, p. ci.

18
called it a joke.
55
Overall, however, the reliance of John on the Nero myth is
questionable and if it could be ascertained would not conclusively settle the matter.
Therefore, sole reliance upon this proof is unwarranted. Guthrie concludes, The most that
can be said is that it may possibly point to [a Domitianic date].
56

Chronology of Church Leaders
According to the Preterists Revelation was written in late 65 or early 66 A.D.
57

This creates some chronological problems as to who was the leader of the Asiatic churches. It
is evident that John had risen to a prominent position in these churches (Rev. 2-3). But if
Revelation was written at the time Preterists hold then John would not have been able to gain
a sufficient influence in the church.
58
Paul was unarguably the most dominant leader in these
churches and his final visit to these believers was in 65 A.D. Therefore, as Thomas states, A
Neronic dating would hardly have allowed time for him to have settled in Asia, to have
replaced Paul as the respected leader in Asian churches, and then to have been exiled to
Patmos before Neros death in A.D. 68.
59
Added to this chorological issue is the fact that
Paul, near his death, placed Timothy in charge of the Asiatic churches (I Tim. 1:3). Why

55
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 954.
56
Ibid.
57
Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 336.
58
Thomas argues that Paul would have had to be in Asia for at least 5 years to become a dominant
figure. If that were the case, he argues that Paul would have had little reason to re-visit Asia after his
imprisonment. Further, he sees no reason to place Timothy in charge if John were already there. Thomas,
Theonomy, 201.
59
Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 22.

19
would Timothy, who was not an apostle, need to take charge over an area for which an
apostle was present?
Further, though consisting from arguments of silence, it is startling that John
would not have mentioned Timothy or Paul to a congregation that was immensely influenced
by them. And, if Revelation were written in 66 A.D., it is also surprising to note that John
was not mentioned by Peter or Paul when they wrote to Asia around that time.
60

Overall, a Neronic date does not suit the chronology that the Scriptures portray.
The only recourse available to early date advocates is to deny the apostolic authorship of
Revelation.
61
The scope of this paper does not allow for an in-depth analysis of the
authorship of Revelation, but it should be noted that any evidence which claims Revelation
was written by someone other than the apostle John is based on sandy foundations.
62

State of the Churches
Arguably the strongest witness to a late date is developed from the second and
third chapters of Revelation.
63
Within these chapters John addresses the seven churches of
Asia. The problem with the early date is that it does not seem to fit the descriptions given of
these churches. On the other hand, a late date of Revelation accords with all of the
descriptions.

60
Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 34.
61
This track has been taken by some early date advocates. Thomas notes that it is the only way to
resolve the chronological issue. Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 22.
62
See, Grant R. Osborne, BECNT: Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 2-6.
63
Osborne found these evidences so compelling that he notes, It is this aspect that first convinced
me to change my earlier view of a Neronian date. See, Ibid., 9.

20
First, the churches as a whole seem to have some history behind them. In fact,
the evidence suggests that these believers were second generation Christiansa conclusion
that would annul the early date hypothesis. Significantly, the three churches indicated as
having spiritual decline were Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea. Why these churches were
significant is that Paul was highly involved in the planting and watering of two of these. If, as
has been duly noted before, Paul wrote Ephesians in 61-62 A.D.,
64
then what is found here is
a stark difference in only five years time! While the Ephesians in 62 A.D. were vibrant to the
extent that Paul thanked God for their vitality (1:15-16) now they are described as having left
their first love (2:4). Furthermore, Kistemaker notes the spiritual atrophy of Asia when he
says, Neither the personal epistles addressed to Timothy in the mid-60s nor the general
epistles of Peter sent to the same region at that time reflect the situation depicted in Jesus
letters to the churches in the province of Asia.
65
The spiritual decline at this time seems
broad and deeply pervasive. While it is true that the Corinthian church struggled to live in
holiness and the Galatian church was allowing some false teaching to creep in,
66
the overall
tenor of the Revelation letters indicates that some of these isolated issues had become
programmatic in the churches. And this would have taken some time to develop.
Closely aligned to the last point is the fact that there was a false teaching
spreading in the Asiatic churches called the Nicolaitan heresy (2:6, 15). While the actual
tenets of this false belief remain an enigma, what is known is that Paul never made mention

64
Peter T OBrien, PNTC: Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 62.
65
Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, 34.
66
For this argument fleshed out see, Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 229.

21
of it or the leader of it (supposedly Nicolai). This would be rather strange if Paul had written
2 Timothy to Ephesus around 65-66 A.D. Again, this is an argument from silence, but if
Revelation was written in 67 A.D. it is a stunning silence.
A third argument for a late date within the description of the Asiatic churches is
the existence of Smyrna. It has been argued from a statement made by Polycarp (70-155), the
bishop of Smyrna, that the church in Smyrna was not even in existence until after the death
of Paul.
67
This would put the date far too close to the supposed early date of Revelation. But,
as Robertson notes Polycarps statement could mean that the Philippians were converted
before the Smyrneans. Robertson then goes on to say, It is astonishing that so much has
been built on so little.
68
Here Robertson is correct and all that can be said of the existence of
the church in Smyrna and Polycarps statement is that it may indicate that the church had not
been built by 67 A.D.
A final argument derived from the epistles concerns the boasting of the
Laodicean church. History proves that in 60-61 A.D. a destructive earthquake shook the city
of Laodicea. The evidence in the letter to the Laodiceans, however, shows no indication that
there are any economic problems in the city at all. In fact, the church was saying, I am rich;
I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing (3:17). This would hardly be the case with a
city going through major reconstruction. Of course, history notes that the city rebuilt itself
without any help from Romesomething nearly unheard of then. But the city could not have

67
Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0136.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007), II.3.
68
Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 229-30.

22
done so in the short period between the earthquake and the early date proposed for
Revelation.
Because of the potency of the evidence for Laodiceas destruction, Gentry has
proposed three rebuttals; (1) the earthquake did not impact the Christian sector, (2) the
wealth spoken of was spiritual not physical, and (3) the city was quickly rebuilt.
69
Against
the argument that the Christian sector was not influenced is the fact that nearly every exegete
will admit that gentry is grasping for straws. Further, had something similar to Gods
protection of the Jews in Egypt happened in Laodicea it would most certainly have been
recorded for future generations. The lack of any data confirming this hypothesis strikes it a
fatal blow. Gentrys second argument, also, does not seem to fit the text. As Thomas notes,
A careful exegesis of 3:17, however, shows that Christians in the city thought their material
prosperity was equivalent to spiritual prosperity, not that they were spiritually rich while
materially poor.
70
Finally, against the last argument is the fact that the rebuilding process
was still going on in 79 A.D., and that there was a recorded poverty striking the Lycus
valleyprobably as a result of the earthquake.
71
Altogether, then, Gentrys arguments do not
accomplish their objective; for the evidence of Laodiceas destruction by earthquake still
stands as strong evidence for Revelation being written in the 90s.

69
Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 176-177.
70
Thomas, Theonomy, 203.
71
Ibid.

23
Conclusion
Both internal and external evidences support a Domitianic date for Revelation.
Many have been the tactics to deny this conclusion, but the evidence stands firm. Believers
can rest assured, then, that what is written as a prophecy of the end times will come to pass
just as it is written. Far from becoming a text removed from the audience of the first century,
Revelation is perpetually relevant. The admonition that the Lord is coming back soon
should ignite the holiness of men to greater vibrancy. In the end, all will be made right, Satan
will be bound and cast into the Lake of Fire, there will be a millennial reign with Christ, and
believers will enjoy eternity around the throne. This is the unadulterated interpretation of
Revelation that is upheld by the evidence of a Domitianic date.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beale, G. K. NIGTC: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Carson, D. A. and Douglass J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.
Clement of Alexandria. Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved, Early Christian
Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-richman.html
(Accessed 30 November 2007).
Couch, Mal. Inerrancy: The Book of Revelation. Conservative Theological Journal 5
(2001): 56-63.
____________. Introductory Thoughts on Allegorical Interpretation and the Book of
Revelation Part I. Conservative Theological Journal 1 (1997): 15-31.
Eusebius. Church History. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
(Accessed 30 November 2007).
Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. Before Jerusalem Fell. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1999.
____________. The Beast of Revelation. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics,
2002.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970.
House, Wayne and Thomas Ice. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? Portland, Oregon:
Multinomah, 1988.
Ice, Thomas. Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Conservative Theological
Journal 4 (2000): 165-189.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Columbia University. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/
arch/irenaeus/advhaer5.txt (Accessed 30 November 2007).
Jerome. Against Jovinianus. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm
(Accessed 1 December 2007).
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972.
Mayhue, Richard L. Jesus a Preterist or a Futurist? The Masters Seminary Journal 14
(2003): 10-23.
Metzger, Bruce M. Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1993.
Morris, Leon. Tyndale NT Commentaries: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
OBrien, Peter T. PNTC: Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Osborne, Grant R. BECNT: Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Pliny. Ancient History Sourcebook: Pliny and Trajan. Fordham University.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.html (Accessed 30 November
2007).
Polycarp. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0136.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007).
Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1909.
Tertullian. Exclusion of Heretics. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0311.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007).
Thomas, Robert L. Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation. The Masters Seminary
Journal 5 (1994): 186-203.
______________. Revelation 1-7 An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992.
Victorinus. Commentary on the Apocalypse. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0712.htm (Accessed 30 November 2007).
Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1989.
Warden, Duane. Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation. Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 203-213.
Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. III. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock
Christian Publishers, 1977. 447 n.4