A Late-Date for Revelation: A Church-Centric Interpretation

Introduction

A common hermeneutic in Biblical Studies is to consider a text alongside its historical context (i.e. “What might the text have meant to its initial readers?”). Many would advocate this hermeneutic for the Book of Revelation and indeed much of modern scholarship has focused on the search for a first-century application. It is partly for this reason that scholarly consensus has moved away from the traditional Preterist-Historicist-Futurist battlegrounds and turned the attention towards the Roman persecution of Christians in the first century as the major catalyst for the composition of the book. The Beast is identified with Nero for a mid-60s dating or Nero-Redivivus (i.e. Domitian) for a mid-90s dating. The author comforts his readers with pipe-dreams of the advent of Christ and renewal of the world.  A clear application for the first century reader; as for future generations, well, predictive prophecy isn’t fashionable these days anyway.

I have argued elsewhere that a Nero-centric interpretation will not work, not least because 666 will only equal “Nero” if you choose to spell the name incorrectly.[1] Regrettably, the scholarly consensus is that Nero is the Beast, rendering most modern scholarship useless as to the question of dating the composition of the book. This is not to deny the importance of historical context as a hermeneutic, yet taken to the absolute such a principle binds the message of the book within the constraints of human scholarship. I want to propose that Revelation is bigger than that. The date of composition is just a starting-point; the warning is for all generations.

Almost all OT prophecy, and Jesus’ Olivet Prophecy, is Israel-centric. If we date Revelation to the mid-60s – the Jews are still in the Land, Jerusalem is still standing, the Temple remains intact – then the wealth of OT allusions throughout the book might lead us to an Israel-centric interpretation for the book. However, if the book is dated post-70, i.e. to the mid-90s – the Jews are scattered, Jerusalem is in ruins, the Temple rituals have ceased – then perhaps Spiritual Israel should be our focus.

In this essay, I will put forward the case for a late-date for Revelation, a case based largely upon external evidence.[2] Having done so, I will propose the basis of a Church-centric interpretation.

Persecution

For many commentators it is the issue of persecution that is central to the dating of Revelation, and specifically which period of persecution best fits the composition of Revelation. Two Roman emperors are accredited with persecuting Christians in the first-century, Nero and Domitian.

The persecution by Nero is well-attested by Roman historians Tacitus (Annals XV.44.2-8) and Suetonius (Life of Nero XVI.2). According to Tacitus, the reason for the persecution was to fasten the guilt for the burning of Rome on Christians and so deflect accusations that Nero himself had started the blaze. Whatever the excuse, the Christians were clearly hated by the Roman populace and the initial reaction to the state-sanctioned persecution was probably favourable. However, Tacitus records that Nero’s tortures were so cruel that many began to feel compassion for these otherwise despised Christians.

It is probable that it was during this persecution that both the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death.[3] Prior to his death, Peter writes to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia of the sufferings being experienced by “your brotherhood in the world” (1 Pet 5:8-9; cf. 1:6, 4:12-13). This confirms that the Neronic persecution was not confined to the city of Rome and implies that some edict for the persecution of Christians was enacted throughout the provinces.

The evidence of persecution during the reign of Domitian is less substantial. Tertullian makes passing reference to Domitian, “who almost equalled Nero in cruelty”, initiating a short persecution of Christians but he gives no particulars (Apology 5.1-4). Eusebius records the persecution in greater detail, quoting a story (probably apocryphal) from Hegesippus relating to the grandsons of Jude appearing before Domitian. Eusebius does give some particulars, stating that Flavia Domitilla, niece of a Roman consul, was exiled because she was a Christian (History of the Church 3.18.3). However, the Roman historian Dio Cassius records the charge against Domitilla as “atheism” and “Jewish ways” (Epitome LXVII.14). There is scarce little evidence of a state-initiated persecution in Asia Minor during this period.

However the emphasis placed upon these two emperors is probably unwarranted. Tertullian seems to indicate that the laws against Christians were never repealed (Apology 5.5-8) so that there may have been a legal basis for the persecution of Christians from the reign of Nero onwards. The correspondence between Pliny, governor of Bithynia (c.112), and the emperor Trajan demonstrates that a governor could initiate proceedings against Christians without any edict from Rome, indeed Trajan states that “nothing can be laid down as a general ruling” but that Christians are nevertheless to be punished (Epistle X.97). As for individual cases, such as that of the apostle John, a Roman governor was the supreme judicial authority in his province – no governor would need the emperor’s sanction to banish someone deemed to be a trouble maker.

The seven letters to the churches does not reflect a situation of universal persecution. Whilst at Pergamum Antipas has been killed (Rev 2:13) and the church at Smyrna will shortly suffer troubles (Rev 2:10), the other churches seem unaffected – Laodicea is described as being materially rich (Rev 3:17)! Even John’s exile, assuming he was exiled (this is not stated in Revelation), appears to be past (“I was on the island of Patmos …”, Rev 1:9). Persecution, then, was not unique to any particular period(s) during the first century and the sporadic troubles suffered by the seven churches may be consistent with any date (though perhaps less suitable for a Neronic dating).

External Testimony

Early Christian writings provide important testimony for the dating of Revelation. Though these testimonies are divided between the Neronic and Domitian dating, it is the later date that has the strongest support amongst these writers.

The earliest testimony we have is from Irenaeus of Lyons who writes, regarding the number of Beast (c.174):

However, we will not risk a pronouncement on this or assert positively that he will have this name, for we know that if his name had to be proclaimed openly   at present, it would have been spoken by the one who saw the Apocalypse. It was seen not long ago but nearly in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian (Against Heresies 5.30.1)

Victorinus of Pettau (c.305) records in his commentary that:

When John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian (Comm. Apoc. 10.1)

Jerome, also, states that:

In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised a second persecution, he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries (Lives IX)

Other writers concur with this testimony, including Eusebius, Crosius, Sulpicius Severus and Primasius. The weight of this testimony may be called into question by the fact that Irenaeus is the only source for Eusebius’ testimony on this matter. Jerome also appears to be dependent upon the commentaries of Justin and Irenaeus, and it is not clear whether he or Victorinus have independent verification of this detail. Despite this, the testimony of Irenaeus is still significant as he is the earliest witness to the date of Revelation and he, apparently, knew Polycarp who knew John.

The witness to an early date is weak in comparison, and seems confined to the Syriac Church. The Syriac version of the Apocalypse states that John was banished during the reign of Nero, but the earliest known copy to bear this information dates from c.600. An apocryphal work, also written in Syriac, entitled The History of John the Son of Zebedee, also records that John was banished during the reign of Nero, presumably based upon the same tradition. Other writers that include this information include Arethas, Theophylact and Photius – all from the Eastern Church and all considerably later than Irenaeus.

Internal Evidence

Indications from within the book as to its date of composition are less conclusive. It may be argued that the circumstances of the churches described in the seven letters better fits a later date, however, in every case our lack of knowledge is a determining factor.

 

• The city of Laodicea was devastated by an earthquake in 60 AD. Is six years too short an interval for the church at Laodicea to become materially rich (Rev 3.17)?
• Paul, writing c.61, commends the Ephesians[4] for their faith (Eph 1:15f). Is it conceivable that the church could have left its first love so quickly (Rev 2:4)?
• Some of the churches named in the seven letters are not mentioned in Acts or the other NT writings; it may be that they did not exist at this point. Is the early date too early for the establishment of these churches?

These, and similar arguments, are inconveniences for the argument for the early-date of Revelation but are not real hurdles in themselves. They only lend credibility to the date established by external testimony.

Perhaps more fruitful internal data comes from literary allusions of which Revelation abounds, though mostly alluding to the OT. The tricky part comes from identifying which way the river flows. Take the repeated phrase “he who has an ear, let him hear” (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). It has clear resonances with the gospel sayings of Jesus (cf. Matt 11:15; 13:9, 13:43), but there are a variety of explanations for this resonance. While this may be an allusion to the gospels, it may equally be an allusion to an oral tradition of the sayings of Jesus. Though it is almost certain that Jesus is not alluding to Revelation when he uses these words, it is possible that both are alluding to OT texts (cf. Deut 29:4; Ezek 12:2). More importantly, we cannot rule out the explanation that unity of language is based upon unity of inspiration. Nevertheless, from the perspective of a reader, certain allusions are only meaningful if it is assumed that they imply knowledge of the gospels. For instance, the Seals sequence parallels the Olivet prophecy (cf. Rev 6; Matt 24), the harvest of the earth parallels the judgment parables of Jesus (cf. Rev 14:14-20; e.g. Matt 13:24-30) and the marriage of the Lamb parallels the wedding parable (cf. Rev 19:6-10; Matt 22:1-14). The reference to the Gentiles treading the holy city under foot (Rev 11:2) is almost certainly an allusion to Luke 21:24.

If then Revelation presupposes that its initial readers were familiar with the contents of one or all of the synoptic gospels then this has implications for what date we can reasonable suppose Revelation to have been written. The earliest estimates for the synoptic gospels place their composition in 50s,[5] which might accommodate a mid-60s date for Revelation. However if we date the gospels any later, mid-60s, or even mid-70s, then a late-date for Revelation is more probable. In fact, the UBS/GNT⁴ appendix finds allusions and parallels with almost every NT book, including all four gospels and later epistles like Hebrews (4:10; cf. Rev 14:13) and 1 John (4:1; cf. Rev 2:2). It seems preferable to suppose that Revelation was one of, if not the, last books of the NT to be written, a fitting corollary for its position as the closing chapter of our Bibles.

The Continuous-Historic Interpretation

The traditional Christadelphian approach to Revelation has followed the scheme developed by expositors like Joseph Mede and adopted in most of its particulars by John Thomas. The scheme follows a “telescopic” model. The Seals, the Trumpets and the Vials correspond to periods of European history, starting immediately from the book’s composition and ending with return of Christ. The Seventh Seal encompasses the period of the Trumpets; the Seventh Trumpet encompasses the period of the Vials. The seventh instance of each series ends with the establishment of the Kingdom; the “telescopic” scheme means that as we approach the eschaton we have more and more detail.

The Continuous-Historic (C-H) interpretation, as detailed in John Thomas’ Eureka, presupposes the late-date for the composition of Revelation. The First Seal is identified as the period between the death of Domitian and the accession of Commodus (96-183), apparently a period of peace and righteousness corresponding to the white horse (Rev 6:2). I have outlined elsewhere why I feel this interpretation to be inadequate.[6] In principle, a continuous historical interpretation could begin with another start date and so the date of composition need not determine our general approach to the book.

The C-H interpretation has often been criticised for focusing heavily on secular Western European history. This is a natural consequence of the Western European origins of the C-H interpretation, but it can feel constrictive to those from elsewhere in the world. This criticism is valid, as far as it goes, since there is no reason for the prediction of European history per se. However, inasmuch as the history of Christianity is for large part centred on Europe, particularly Rome, it is not incongruous to interpret the symbols in light of European histories if a Church-centric approach is adopted. The late date for the composition of the book forces us to move away from the Israel-centric hermeneutic of OT prophecies and look instead towards a Church-centric interpretation, i.e. focusing on the fortunes of the Church and warning against future corruptions of Lamb’s bride.

A Church-Centric Approach to Revelation

In the fourth appendix of Graham Pearce’s The Revelation – Which Interpretation? an interesting hermeneutic is briefly discussed. The writer (“A.C.”) notes how seven separate lampstands signify the seven churches, evoking the seven-branched lampstand of the Temple. Thus, it is argued, the book directs own attention to the “new constitution” (i.e. Christianity), and away from the Jewish nation, by applying OT symbols to the “Ecclesia of Christ”.[7] I have previously written that this is a “hasty” conclusion but also criticised traditional C-H expositors for not applying this principle, ignoring OT precedents for Revelation’s symbology.[8] Nevertheless, I believe that this is one indication, which, when coupled with several other observations, points to the fact that Revelation concerns the Christian Church and not the Jewish nation.

Twice in the seven letters to the churches we find the phrase “those who say they are Jews and are not” (Rev 2:9; 3:9). This phrase distinguishes two types of Jews: there are those who say they are Jews and those who actually are Jews. This reinforces a distinction made elsewhere in the NT between natural Jews and spiritual Jews; “know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham” (cf. Matt 3:9; John 8:39-44; Rom 2:28-9). It is apparent that by the time Revelation was being written there had already been a parting of ways between Jews and Christians. There is now a definite division between the ecclesia of Christ and the “synagogue of Satan”. This corresponds better with a late-date for Revelation, but also indicates that Revelation is not concerned with natural Israel.

We find this principle again when we meet the 144,000. In Revelation 7, these “servants of God” are said to be from “all the tribes of the children of Israel” (Rev 7:4) and so might be supposed to be natural Jews. Yet when we meet the 144,000 again in Revelation 14 they are described as “firstfruits to God and to the Lamb”, who are “redeemed from the earth” and “redeemed from mankind” (Rev 14:3-4). The 144,000 of Israel are not natural Israel but spiritual Israel – “who follow the Lamb wherever he goes”.

Again, this principle is evident in descent from heaven of “the holy Jerusalem”, which is clearly identified by the angel as “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Rev 21:9-10). The city has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev 21:12) and the foundations are of twelve stones like those of the breastplate of the High Priest (Rev 21:19-21; cf. Exod 28:17-20). The city also bears the names of the twelve apostles, its wall measures 144 cubits, and the city has no temple (Rev 21:14, 17, 22). This city, called both “new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:2) and just “Jerusalem” (Rev 21:10), has nothing to do with natural Israel but is a symbol of spiritual Israel, that is, the ecclesia of Christ.

Now we may choose to take a dispensionalist view of these facts. We might say that the dispensation of Israel is past, and Revelation is concerned with the dispensation of the Church. However, I think something more subtle is going on. We saw that the seven letters refer to “those who say that are Jews but are not”, indicating that true Jews were not defined naturally but spiritually. Followed to its natural conclusion this would mean that true Israel is that continuous line of believers from Abraham to the followers of Christ, including Gentiles. Revelation does not make a distinction between Israel and the Church, but rather makes a distinction between true Israel (i.e. those who follow the Lamb) and false Israel (i.e. “the synagogue of Satan”).

Applying the Principles

What then do I mean by a Church-centric approach to Revelation? I mean that the book of Revelation is Christ’s warning to his worldwide ecclesia. Revelation as a whole is structured as a letter (cf. Rev 1:1-8; 22:21). More specifically, it follows the structure of the seven letters, beginning with a vision of Christ and ending with a vision of the Kingdom. It should not be surprising then that the book of Revelation contains warnings, just as the seven letters do; warnings of both persecutions without and apostasy within. A good interpretation of Revelation will draw out these warnings for believers. To illustrate this principle, I wish to focus on the two women of Revelation – who I believe are, in fact, one woman.

In Revelation 12 is recounted the vision of the Woman and the Dragon. The Dragon is identified as “the Devil and Satan” (Rev 12:9) and so may reasonably be identified with Sin. However, inasmuch as the Dragon appears to be interacting with the Woman (as well as other characters in the book), I think it necessary to interpret the Dragon as Sin-manifest. The seven heads (Rev 12:3) require some association with Rome (cf. Rev 17:9); the ten horns parallel Daniel’s fourth beast (Dan 7:7) reinforcing this association with Rome.

The twelve stars of the Woman (Rev 12:1) should incline us towards either the twelve tribes of Israel or the twelve apostles. As I have argued above, Revelation is not concerned with natural Israel but spiritual Israel so this Woman may be identified with spiritual Israel accordingly. The allusion to the Song of Solomon (cf. 6:10) may reinforce the point. The offspring of the Woman are those who “have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 12:17) so she cannot be identified otherwise.

As the chapter unfolds, the Woman gives birth to a male child “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron” (i.e. Jesus Christ; cf. Rev 19:15). The child is caught up to God and his throne (Rev 12:5), a reference to exaltation of Jesus to the right-hand of God. As soon as the child is caught up, war breaks out in heaven and the Dragon (i.e. sin) is cast down; he is overcome by “the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 12:11). The Dragon is not yet defeated, and now persecutes the Woman, who bore the child. So the Woman is given two eagle’s wings to fly into the wilderness and there she remains for a set time (cf. Rev 12:6, 14). The final verse of the chapter is telling; the Woman thus protected, the Dragon makes war on those who “keep” the commandments of God – this might imply that the Woman herself no longer keeps the commandments.

In Revelation 17, John is carried out to wilderness and there we meet the Woman again, but now it is not the radiant mother but the scarlet whore. Once persecuted by the seven-headed dragon, the Woman now sits upon a seven-headed beast (Rev 17:3, 7). Once protected from persecution, the Woman is now drunk with the blood of the saints (Rev 17:6). This Woman has taken the simple nourishment she was given and become rich. This is a Church that has betrayed everything for which it once stood.

Summary

The date for the composition of Revelation cannot be reliably established by attempting to determine the contemporary situation. The seven letters do not give a consistent picture of persecution, and so persecution cannot be used as a landmark for dating the book. The prophetic portions of the book could only be used to establish the historical situation if a certain interpretation of the book is presupposed AND if the identification of Nero with the Beast could be made to stick. It is my view that the book refers not to contemporary events but mainly future events and so the use of these details to establish the date of the book is impossible. The external testimony for the late date is strong and this is supported by internal evidence, including literary allusions.

The implication of a late date is that Revelation does not refer to the fortunes of natural Israel, despite the plethora of OT allusions, but necessarily refers to something else. It is the Christian community – Spiritual Israel – to whom our attentions are directed. The book as a whole follows very much the paradigm of the seven letters, providing exhortation and warning to the Christian community as a whole.

---

[1] T. E. Gaston, Come and See: An Exposition of Revelation (Hyderabad: Printland Publishers, 2007), 402-416.

[2] Also see Come and See, 381-397.

[3] Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians 6.1-2.

[4] [Ed. AP]: Of course, the date of the Letter to the Ephesians is contested and could be earlier in the Caesarean Captivity.

[5] [Ed. AP]: A recent doctoral thesis by J. G. Crossley (The Date of Mark’s Gospel, London: T&T Clark, 2004) has argued for a date for Mark in the early 40s.

[6] T. E. Gaston, The Continuous-Historic Interpretation Examined (Oxford: Taanathshiloh, 2006), 30-1.

[7] A.C., “A Principle of Interpretation” in The Revelation – Which Interpretation? (ed., G. Pearce; Torrens Park: Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1982), 136.

[8] Gaston, The Continuous-Historic Interpretation Examined, 26-27.