The date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is crucial to its interpretation.
There are two main views of the date of the writing of the book of Revelation: (1) in the time of Nero, before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and (2) in the time of the reign of Domitian during the persecution of AD 96. My view is that the book was written in AD 68 during the reign of Galba. (See my Commentary at 17:10 “Roman Appointed Kings of Judea”).
Some of the evidence that favors the earlier date for the writing of the book of Revelation is that the temple is mentioned as if it were literally extant in 11:1-2 which favors a date in Nero‘s reign. The numerical value of Nero’s name, Neron Caesar, can be calculated to equal the cryptic number of the Beast, 666.[1]
Those who favor a date in the reign of Domitian, (AD 81-96), do so on the basis that Mystery Babylon, depicts the Roman empire and that this date more accurately depicts the conditions of the empire at that time than at the time of Nero and that the later date gives more time for the decline of the churches shown in the letters in chapters two and three.[2] It is clear from these facts that the dating of the book as well as the attributing of authorship depend upon the interpretation of the symbols of the book and the interpretation of the symbols depend upon the dating of the writing..[3]
The internal evidence of the book itself, if we take it to be the infallible, inspired Word of God, should be determinative. The witness of the inspired writing itself is that it was written by the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel and the Epistles of John. One of the criteria for canonization of a writing in the early Church was apostolicity, that is, that it was written by or was based upon the witness of an apostle.[4] This fact shows that the Church probably believed it to be written by the Apostle John when they accepted it into the Canon as Scripture.
The internal evidence is also that Babylon the Great was not Rome but rather the wicked city of Jerusalem which had been persecuting the Church of Jesus Christ and whose destruction had been predicted by Christ to be within the generation that heard Him. (See Commentary at 1:1 “Must”.) The identity of Babylon must be seen in relationship to the referent in Matthew 23:34-35. In the context of His condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees and His description of the predicted destruction of Jerusalem, Christ said:
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zecharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The fact that it was the fallen Jerusalem who was to bear the guilt of “all the righteous blood shed on earth,” and the fact that it is Mystery Babylon in whom is found the blood of “all who have been slain on earth,” conclusively shows that Mystery Babylon symbolizes the fallen Jerusalem. Mystery Babylon is clearly said to have slain “the saints and martyrs of Jesus,” (Revelation 17:6). In the context of the Scriptures, this can be none other than the fallen Jerusalem under the rule of that division of Jews who followed the Pharisaical religion. If Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem, then the Book would have been written prior to AD 70.
The entire New Testament witnesses to the fact that it was the Pharisaical sect of the Jews that persecuted and killed Christ and His Church, the Christian branch of the Jewish race. The Book of Acts is also full of references to this fact. On the other hand, there are no references in the Scriptures to Roman persecution of Christians as such. Although the Romans did get involved in the legal disputes, that should not be called persecution. Secular historians show that the Roman government did not recognize that there was a difference between the Christians and other Jews until after the great fire in approximately AD 64.[5]
The Jewish nation as a politico/religious state was ruled by a class of Priests, Pharisees and Scribes who curried the favor of Roman power in a love/hate relationship. On the one hand, they coveted the power and economic gain from Rome; on the other hand, their conscience forbad them to neglect their religious Law. Therefore the people who observed their traditional religion were in rebellion, either overtly or covertly, against Rome throughout the New Testament era. Although the religious Jews considered themselves persecuted by Rome, they were not persecuted as followers of Christ. Neither were the Christians persecuted by Rome as followers of Christ. Persecution of Christians by Rome was because they were perceived to be Jews who were in rebellion against Rome, not because they were followers of Christ. If the persecutor of the saints was Jerusalem, not Rome, then the Book was written prior to 70 AD
The book of 2 Esdras has many parallels to the book of Revelation and is believed to have been written very near the same time, i.e., near the close of the first century AD.[6] In chapter 12, verse 18, Metzger believes a reference is made to the time following the death of Nero, AD 68 (ibid., n. 18, p. 52). The writer of 2 Esdras, however, is recounting a vision he has seen revealing events which were to come. If this is indeed a reference to the time following Nero’s death, then 2 Esdras would have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parallels to the book of Revelation would serve as a second witness that the Revelation was written prior to AD 70.
[1] Kee, Young, Froehlich, Understanding the New Testament, 449. See also the discussion in Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson, ed Betty Radice, with an introduction by Williamson, Penguin Books, the Penguin Classics, ed. E.V. Rieu. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, and New York. (Made and printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay, The Chaucer Press, Suffolk, 1965, 1981 Reprint).
Justin Martyr (AD 135) believed the author of the book of Revelation was the Apostle John. Dionysius of Alexandria (AD 231-65) questioned the authorship of the Apostle John on the basis of grammatical style and the fact that the author clearly states his name, whereas in the Gospel of John he never mentions his own name.
Dionysius is quoted by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiae, 7.25; 3.39), but Eusebius suggests that there were two ‘Johns’ in Ephesus, and one may have written the Gospel and another the Revelation. Eusebius, (3.39.1 and p. 150 n.1), gives reasons why Dionysius’ reasoning concerning ‘two Johns’ is faulty.
[2] Merrill C. Tenny, ed., Zondervan Pictorial1 Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1968) 721. Hereafter referred to in text as ZPBD.
“Grammatical mistakes are chiefly unidiomatic translations of Hebrew or Aramaic expressions which would be impossible to render literally into Greek.” Even though Irenaeus (AD 180) named “John” as the author, he yet favored the date of the writing as in the reign of Domitian, (AD 81-96). “A second view, better substantiated by the early interpreters of the book, places it in the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96),…Irenaeus [AD 180]…, Victorinus…, Eusebius (c. AD 328), and Jerome (c. AD 370) all agree on this date” (ZPBD 721).
[3] Although Irenaeus dated it in the reign of Domitian, Irenaeus wrote more than one hundred years after the writing of the Revelation, (about AD 180); – time enough for much confusion and loss of memory. Irenaeus may have been following the earlier historian Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the early second century. Papias’ account actually differentiates between John the Elder who lived in Ephesus at the time of Domitian’s reign, and the Apostle John, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. We do not know when the Apostle John died. There is some evidence that he was martyred in AD 44 along with his brother James.* However, there is the tradition evidenced by the Scriptures that the Apostle John lived to a great age, John 21:22-3. It is possible that he lived until the reign of Nero and was martyred along with many others during that time of persecution. Before his death, he may have seen the Revelation, or “the coming” of Jesus in glory over the city of Jerusalem. The historical writings are, therefore, not conclusive as to who wrote the book of Revelation, nor the date of its writing.
The other early church writers, Eusebius (of Caesarea, historian, 260?-340?) and Jerome, (Eusebius Hieronymus, AD 340-420? Latin Church Father), may have been following Irenaeus either directly or indirectly on this point. The historical line, then, would have been Papias, who was misunderstood by Irenaeus, then Eusebius and Jerome who followed Irenaeus mistaken interpretation. This could be a typical example of how errors come to be perpetuated.
Eusebius quotes Papias: “He says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a period of a thousand years, when Christ‘s kingdom will be set up on this earth in material form. I suppose he got these notions by misinterpreting the apostolic accounts and failing to grasp what they had said in mystic and symbolic language. For he seems to have been a man of small intelligence to judge from his books. But it is partly due to him that the great majority of churchmen after him took the same view, relying on his early date; e.g. Irenaeus and several others, who clearly held the same opinion” (3.39.11 and p. 152).
Eusebius discounts Papias as “a man of small intelligence,” but the editor’s notes says: “We shall need more evidence before accepting this contemptuous dismissal of Papias.”
*See also Kee, Young, Froehlich, Understanding the New Testament, 70, 247-8.
[4] The book is listed as part of the canon in the Muratorian Fragment circa AD 170 (ZPDB, 721).
[5] M. Cary, and H. H. Scullard, A History of Rome, (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1975, Third Edition reprint 1983), 359 and 364 notes 26 and 27. Hereafter cited in text.
[6] Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version, translated from the Greek and Latin tongues, being the version set forth AD 1611, revised AD 1894, compared with the most ancient authorities and revised AD 1957 with introductions, comments, cross references, tables of chronology, and index, (New York, N. Y., Oxford University Press 1965, and 1977), p. 23. Hereafter referred to in text as OAA, containing the following apocryphal books cited: 1 Esd., 2 Esd., 1 Macc., 2 Macc.