Revelation Introduction (Part 3) - Dating Revelation

Revelation — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Revelation Introduction (Part 4) - Four Views

00:00

Revelation Introduction (Part 3) - Dating Revelation

RevelationSteve Gregg

Steve Gregg explains in this talk that while many scholars believe that the Book of Revelation was written in 96 AD, some hold opposing views. The internal evidence suggests that the book was written during the reign of Nero, leading to him being a convincing candidate for the number 666. However, it is not necessary to know the exact date of writing to understand the fundamental message of the book. The point is to look at the scriptures and study the teachings of Jesus.

Transcript

Tonight I want to say that one of the views, at least, is that Revelation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. That view is called the Preterist view. That's only one of the four, but it is one of the views.

Now the reason I say that is because we have to consider the date that Revelation was written. And most modern commentators, most modern study Bibles, if they give introductions to the book of Revelation, they say Revelation was written near the end of the reign of Domitian, around 96 AD. That is the majority view among scholars these days.

That Revelation was written about 96 AD. Now it takes only a moment's reflection to realize that this rules out at least one of the four views of Revelation. The one that says Revelation was writing predicting the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

How could it be that an author writing 25 years after that event would write a book predicting it? Of course, one might say, well, it's written after the event, pretending to be written before. But that book doesn't belong in the Bible, though. I believe that Revelation is a genuine prophecy predicting something.

Therefore, it must have been written before that something. Now, if it was AD 70, then the book would have to be written before AD 70. And therefore, the popular view that Revelation was written in 96 AD would rule out the preterist view.

And it would leave the other views still standing. In fact, the other three views really are not vulnerable on the matter of the date. The book of Revelation could be written in the year 50 AD or the year 100 AD, and it would make no impact on the futurist view, the historicist view, or the idealist view.

The date of writing is irrelevant to them. But to the preterist view, the date of writing is all important. Because whatever the view may have in its favor, it has one fatal flaw.

If the book was written after 70 AD, the view goes down the toilet. It doesn't belong even under consideration. It requires a pre-70 AD date.

Now, I said the majority of scholars today believe that the book was written in 96 AD. But not all scholars. There are excellent scholars of the highest rank who also hold that the book was written in the reign of Nero.

Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. So if it was written during his reign, it was written in or before 68 BC, which places it before 70. So the preterist view has a vested interest in an early date, a Neroian date.

The idea that Nero was the emperor at the time of writing is very important to somebody who believes that the preterist view is correct. Now, without talking about the merits of the preterist view or other views at this time, and we'll save that for another lecture, let me talk about the evidence for when the date was of the writing. And while I would say, as I did, that the majority of modern scholars think the later date, 96, the reign of Domitian, is the correct date, in the 19th century, the majority of evangelical scholars thought it was written during the reign of Nero.

The opinion has shifted, but not because of new evidence. It's just that new arguments become popular, and the scholarly world shifts its favorite views from time to time, just because some favorite son of the academy has written a theory that sounds good, and they follow that for a while. Almost all scholars, and I say this as one who's read 50 commentaries on Revelation and can see the trends, almost all scholars are lemmings.

A few are not. A few scholars are innovative. A few scholars think for themselves and outside the box.

And every once in a while, a scholar comes up with a new idea that everyone else isn't saying. And if it's clever enough, then the lemmings all start following him, and follow him for maybe decades, maybe centuries, and then another thinking scholar arises, and the lemmings all follow him. And so, you have to realize that just because the majority of scholars think any given thing, it's not an argument for it being true.

It's an argument for it being the current vogue, the current academic fad. Now, academic fads can be valid or not. That's why they shift as new arguments arise.

So, just so we'll put this in perspective, in the 1900s, most evangelical scholars thought the book was written in the reign of Nero, the earlier date. In the 20th century, I said in the 1800s, in the 19th century, that was the main view. The 20th century, most shifted to believe it was in the reign of Domitian.

But why? What are the evidences? Now, that's what I want to talk about in the remaining few minutes I have. What evidence is there to point to one date or another? Now, there are evidences for both. It's not like it's a slam dunk for one or the other date.

What we really have is a tension between the weight of external evidence on the one hand, and the weight of internal evidence on the other. Now, what I mean by that, when scholars talk about a book of the Bible, and let's say it's authorship or it's date or some objective data about a book, they say there's internal evidence and external evidence. What they mean is, inside the book, there are statements that give us clues, that might help us answer the question.

That's internal evidence. The author himself is giving us the data. But there's also external evidence, which means what the early church thought about it.

What was their opinion? What did Tertullian think? What did Irenaeus think? What did Justin Martyr think? What did Hippolytus think? What did the early church think? The testimony of the early church, the first people to actually possess the book from the hands of the author, who did they think wrote it? You'd think they would know. After all, they received it from them. Unless it came in a plain brown package by post without a return address, they would probably know where they got it from, who wrote it.

Therefore, the testimony of church fathers is also considerable evidence, but it's external. The church fathers were not inside the book. They're outside the book.

So their testimony is evidence that's external to the book itself. Internal evidence is drawn from what's in the book itself. Evangelicals, I think, should be committed to the belief that internal evidence should trump external evidence.

Why? Because the book's inspired. Whatever the book itself tells us should be more important than what anyone outside the book may have thought about it. The opinions of any group of men are not as authoritative as God's own testimony.

And therefore, the internal evidence for a biblical book weighs more than external evidence. Now, I'm going to give you details, but just to summarize it, in general, the internal evidence of Revelation, I believe, supports the early date. The external evidence seems to support the later date.

So the scholarly vogues about which is the better date depend very largely on what do we prefer, internal or external evidence. That is to say, I think the evidence within the book would, in general, on balance, point to a date of writing during the reign of Nero. But the testimony of the Church Fathers generally place it in the reign of Domitian, 25 or so years later.

Now, those who take the late date also point to internal evidence. But to my mind, it's all very weak. They've got a pretty strong case, external evidence, for the late date.

But the internal evidence they point to for the late date is not very strong, in my opinion. Let's look at it. First of all, what evidence is there for a date during the time of Nero? Among those scholars who are alive today, or who have been alive in recent times and are highly recognized as authoritative, who hold the early date would include J. Adams, Adam Clark's commentary is not exactly contemporary, Alfred Edersheim's about a century ago, although Alfred Edersheim was a Jewish Christian living in Palestine who wrote the Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, and an equally large volume on the Old Testament history.

A pretty respected scholar, J.B. Lightfoot, John A.T. Robinson, Philip Schaft, the great church historian from Switzerland, and many others have held or do hold to the early date. A very long list can be given. Most of the names I did not include because you wouldn't have heard of them.

I'm not sure you've heard of the ones I gave, but I have. Some of the names on the list I don't know much about. But these are reputable scholars of high rank, and they are convinced of the early date.

Now you can also find a long list of scholars who believe the late date. We're not going to count noses here. I just want you to know there are reputable scholars today who believe both views.

What arguments can be given for the early date? One is chapter 17, verses 9 and 10. Revelation 17, verses 9 and 10. I made reference to this before, and it is indeed an obscure statement, possible of being interpreted more than one way.

That is, there's more than one option in interpreting this statement. But in Revelation 17, verses 9 and 10, when the beast that the woman is riding on is being described by the angel, it says, Here is a mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes he must continue a short time, and the beast that was and is and is not is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.

This is that passage I quoted saying, that's the clarifying of the vision. It's obviously very obscure. But the reference to seven kings has often been seized upon as a help to knowing when the book was written.

Because it says, five kings have fallen, one now is. Now on the assumption, and a great number of scholars assume, that John means by kings, emperors. John wrote this during the Roman, of course, the Roman Empire's ascendancy.

And so they say he's talking about Roman emperors. Five Roman emperors had fallen at the time he was writing. But at the time he was writing, the sixth Roman emperor was seated, was reigning.

Nero was the sixth of the Roman emperors. And so some feel that John is telling us here, that he was writing during the reign of Nero. Now it'd be nice if that was a slam dunk, it is not.

One of the problems with it is, it's assuming that the kings are emperors. In fact, in Daniel, kings are empires. And John may be using it the same way.

He may be saying not five emperors, but maybe five empires have risen and fallen. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media Persia, Greece, Rome. Rome's the sixth.

So this becomes ambiguous evidence. But on the assumption that he's talking about emperors, he would be identifying Nero as the sitting emperor at the time. What else do we have? Chapter 11, verses 1 and 2. Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod, and the angel stood saying, Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and the house of worship there.

But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles, and they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. Now, what is going on here is, he's told to measure a portion of the temple. The actual word temple there in the Greek is neos.

It's the Greek word for the holy of holies. He's supposed to measure the holy of holies, but the rest of the temple he's not supposed to measure. Why? Well, he's told the rest of the temple is given to the Gentiles, they're going to tread it underfoot.

Now, that would suggest the part of the temple he's measuring is to be preserved, inviolate. But the rest of the temple is going to be given over to the Gentiles, strongly suggesting that the temple is going to be at least the outward temple is going to be trampled underfoot, going to be destroyed. It sounds as if the temple here is still standing, and he's measuring it.

If the temple indeed was still standing when he wrote this, it was before 70 A.D., because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. And this seems to be predicting the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. It may be saying something else, and therefore people don't all agree on the importance of this particular information. To my mind, this is pretty important, because it does sound like the temple is still standing at the time he's writing, so that he can go and measure it and so forth. Though, of course, the thing did happen in a vision, and a vision may include features that are not historically contemporary, and therefore it doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the temple was really standing at the time.

But it does give that impression. To my mind, that's the first impression we receive. It is not something that cannot be challenged.

Then, we have the situation between the church and the Jewish community. Two of the churches that are mentioned, the Church of Smyrna and the Church of Philadelphia, seem to be persecuted by the Jewish population in their town. Jesus speaks to them to encourage the church that he knows these Jews, who claim they're Jews.

He said they're not really Jews, they're really the synagogue of Satan, but he said he's going to humble them. He's going to make them come bowing to them and acknowledging that he loves them. But the point here is that these churches, these Christians, are being persecuted by Jews.

Though this is not a solid proof, there is serious doubt that the Jewish community would be of a mind to persecute anybody after their temple had been destroyed, after their commonwealth had been judged, when they've been scattered like sheep throughout the empire. They would be, of course, existing in the cities where the church was, but greatly demoralized, one would think. Not really that cocky.

Not in a position to feel their oats to the point where they feel like they can pick on another group of people in town. It seems, although this is not proof positive, it seems like the Jewish people in those towns are not in the mood one would expect them to be if the temple had been destroyed and their nation had been humiliated and judged. They seem to be a little too self-confident and considering themselves to be more or less in power.

Now, maybe the most interesting evidence is the number 666, which, of course, everybody speculates about. In the final verse of chapter 13, it says in verse 18, Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast.

For it is the number of a man. His number is 666. And all scholars have pretty much agreed that this is referring to the numeric equivalent of the letters of the man's name.

The names, as I'm sure most of you know, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are all languages where the letters of the alphabet double for numerals. We're very familiar with that in Latin. We have the Roman numeral system.

X is 10, V is 5, and so forth. It's the Roman alphabet, also is numbers. Same is true in Greek and Hebrew.

That means that any word and any name in these languages could be, you could add up the numerical value of the letters in it and total it up. This, in fact, was done from time to time. Popularly.

Scholars have found graffiti from ancient Rome where somebody said, 387 is in love with 294. It's like they've taken their names and they've given numerical equivalents to make them rather difficult to decipher. John says, this number, the beast, is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Now, most Christians, and it doesn't matter what their view of Revelation is, this is true of almost all of them, believe that this is somebody's name. Now, it's interesting that John felt that the wise among his original readers could figure out who it was. Which means it was someone then living, not someone who's going to be born 2,000 years later.

How could John possibly hope for even the wisest among them to calculate the name of the beast if he wasn't going to be born for another 2,000 years? He's writing to people who were really alive at the time and saying, those among you who have wisdom, figure this out. I think you can do it. Calculate the number of the beast and you'll know who I'm talking about.

His number is 666. Obviously a contemporary person in John's day. But who? Well, if we, you know, don't restrict it to people in John's day, all kinds of suggestions come up.

People thought it was Mussolini. Some thought it was Henry Kissinger. Some people thought it was Ronald Reagan.

Some people have all different ideas about who it is. Some people think it's King Ferdinand of Spain. All kinds of ideas have been floated.

And innovative ways of calculating the number 666 from their actual name. Like Ronald Reagan, I don't remember what his middle name is, but all his first, middle, and last name all have six letters. Wilson.

Wilson. Okay. Ronald Wilson Reagan.

666. I actually heard people suggest that. Well, first of all, 666 isn't what it is.

It's 666. Only in English letters does that look like 666. The number 666 is what it is.

It's not three sixes. But anyway, it has been pointed out by those who hold to the early date that Caesar Nero, his name translated into Hebrew, and the letters value calculated comes out to 666. Now, of course, that may be true of many people, but it's not true of very many people who are candidates for emperor in the time of the writing of Revelation.

It's not true, for example, of Domitian, or of any other emperor, or of any other known figure from that period that can easily be identified. Irenaeus, who lived a century following, believed that the word meant Latinus, which he said, the word Latinus means the Roman. And he thought since the word Latinus totals up to 666, he thought that was a good guess.

But it's not the number of a nationality. It's the number of a man. And the only known man whose name can be calculated that way in that period would be Caesar Nero.

Now, some of you might say, but wait, you said in Hebrew. Why in the world would we have to transfer his name into Hebrew to get the number? Well, the argument goes the purpose for giving his name in symbolism is so the Romans, if they happened to find the book, would not recognize that it's a reference to the emperor, and not a very flattering one at that. And therefore, since the Romans would know Greek and Latin, using those languages would not be safe.

Using Hebrew would be. The Romans would hardly know Hebrew. And so, yet the readers would perhaps know it.

There are Hebrew words in the book of Revelation. Though it's written in Greek, it's got a number of Hebrew words. Armageddon is a Hebrew word.

Alleluia is a Hebrew word. The angel of the bottomless pit, his name is given in Greek and in Hebrew. Apollyon and the other one, Abaddon.

And so, Apollyon is Greek, but Abaddon is Hebrew. Same word in both languages. So the readers are expected to know something of Hebrew, but the outsiders in the Roman Empire might not be expected to, and therefore, Caesar Nero becomes an interesting, some would say a convincing candidate for it to be the number 666.

So these suggestions are internal evidence that point that direction. They don't prove it, but they can be seen to suggest it, although every one of those evidences could be interpreted differently. But this is true also of the evidences for a late date.

Only the ones for a late date, the internal evidences are weak in the extreme. For example, those who believe in the late days say, well, chapter 13 describes emperor worship, and emperor worship wasn't really an issue until the time of Domitian. Therefore, it must have been written during the time of Domitian because it describes emperor worship.

Well, this might be an interesting argument if we don't believe in predictive prophecy. In other words, if John can only write about things that are already happening in his time, then maybe so. On the other hand, if he can prophesy, he might even write about the time of Domitian, decades before the time of Domitian.

It's not impossible. Isaiah wrote about Cyrus and even named him 200 years before the man did the things predicted, 150 years before he was born. John could predict things that happened in the reign of Domitian if he wished without him living in that time.

Even if we agreed, and I do not, that Revelation 13 is describing Domitian's persecution of the Christians and requiring people to worship him, that would tell us nothing about when it was written unless we rule out predictive prophecy as a possibility. Because in the reign of Nero, a prophet could predict things in the reign of Domitian, so it wouldn't tell us anything about when it was written. Likewise, the extent of the persecution.

They say in the reign of Nero, the persecution didn't extend that far. Nero just persecuted Christians in Rome, but these Christians were in Asia Minor. Only Domitian had an empire-wide persecution, so it must be the reign of Domitian.

Well, again, not a strong argument since the book of Revelation doesn't make any reference to an empire-wide persecution. The seven churches are not told that they were subjected to an empire-wide persecution. Smyrna and Philadelphia were subjected to persecution from the Jewish community in their towns.

The church of Pergamum seemed to be persecuted by the local Roman authorities in the town. Several of the churches didn't seem to be persecuted at all. There's no evidence in Revelation that there was an empire-wide persecution going on, so even if it's true that Domitian was first to bring about one, it's irrelevant.

The book of Revelation does not discuss one. Okay? How about this? The Nero redidivus myth. What is that? It is known that among the Roman people after Nero died, a myth, a rumor, circulated that Nero wasn't really dead.

He was very much hated and feared by the Romans, and they could hardly believe he was dead. It was almost too good to be true. So many of them said, sort of like they said about John F. Kennedy, he's not really dead.

They're keeping him on ice. He's going to come back and be the beast. He had a mortal head wound, but it's going to be healed.

Maybe you never heard that stuff. If so, you weren't talking to people about Bible prophecy in the late 60s. But that's what they said about Nero.

He's not really dead. He's going to come back, and we'll all be in trouble. And you see the beast in Revelation has a head wound, a mortal head wound, that heals.

And many people say, well, what that means is the beast was assassinated or killed, but in the imagery of the Revelation, he comes back. And this is the most amazingly, I was going to say inane, but I don't want to be too insulting, stupid. This is the most amazingly stupid argument.

Imagine an evangelical giving. Now, if a person is not evangelical, they can come up with any arguments they want. But a person who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, what they say is the Revelation and talk about the head wound of the beast that's healed is alluding to the Nero redidivus myth, that is the myth that was circulating in Rome that Nero was going to come back from the dead.

Huh? And then they say, then they say Domitian was referred to by the Latin poets as the second Nero or sometimes the bald Nero. But the point is that when Domitian came along, he was enough like Nero that people likened him to Nero. And so they're saying, you see, the beast is Domitian and he's likened to Nero who's died and is now back according to the mythology of the Romans.

Then are we being told that John is affirming this mythology, that John is affirming that Domitian is in fact a return of Nero from the dead? If not, then the argument makes no sense at all. I don't think so. In fact, in Revelation, the beast never dies.

He has a mortal head wound in one of his seven heads. The other six are perfectly healthy. If you have seven heads and one of them dies, that doesn't kill you unless infection sets in.

But the truth is the beast lived on. It specifically says the beast had a mortal head wound but lived on. It didn't die.

There's no assassination of a man who dies and then comes back. That's the left-behind novels that have that. That's dispensational fairy tales, frankly, that say that there's going to be a world dictator who's going to be assassinated and he's going to come back.

Revelation doesn't say anything like that. There's no mention of the beast dying or coming back. It's just that the beast survives despite one of his seven heads being killed.

Now, what that means, we'll have to discuss another time. But it certainly doesn't mean that John is referring to the Nero redid of his myth as if he's referring to Domitian and the popular notion that Domitian was the second Nero. I'm not going there.

I'm not going to buy that. But here's probably the argument that is given most often. I realize I've gone later than I wanted to, but I'm in the middle of something.

If you have to leave, go. But they say the state of the seven churches as witnessed in the seven letters of the seven churches is not that which would fit the time of Nero. It seems that that was later.

Why? There's a couple of things they say. They say, first of all, the wealth of Laodicea. Laodicea says, I have need of nothing.

I'm rich, I'm powerful, and so forth. And they say, you know, just a few years before 70 AD, there was a devastating earthquake that we know devastated the city of Laodicea. The city was almost leveled to the ground.

And it was like in the early 60s. So, just before 70 AD, the city would not have recovered to the point to be talking about being wealthy. Well, how do we know that? I mean, if the city was destroyed in 63 AD, who's to say it wasn't sufficiently rebuilt for people to be talking about their wealth again by, say, 67 or 68, five years later.

Maybe the city wasn't rebuilt. Revelation doesn't say the city was fully rebuilt. It just says the attitude of the people is that they are wealthy and have need of nothing.

It might even be not talking about physical wealth. They might be thinking about their spiritual wealth. They might be boasting about their spirituality.

It's hard to know. But in any case, the argument doesn't prove anything. But then we have the interesting argument that the Church of Smyrna, which is addressed in the second letter in Revelation 2, didn't exist in the time of Paul.

Now, Paul died probably around 67 AD. And therefore, they say if the Church of Smyrna did not exist in the time of Paul, that means it didn't exist in 67 AD. It could hardly be thought to become a church in the next couple of years and have received a letter like this.

Well, first of all, I'd say that doesn't make sense. What if that is even true, that the Church didn't exist until 67 AD? Couldn't it come into existence in 68 AD or 69 and still be before 70 AD? It seems like 68 and 69 are still years before 70 AD and are years as good as any other for the Church to come into existence. But the very suggestion that the Church of Smyrna didn't exist in the time of Paul is a misnomer.

It's based on a misreading of the letter of Polycarp to the Church of Philippi. Polycarp, who was later a bishop of Smyrna, this very church. In the early second century, Polycarp was the bishop of the Church of Smyrna.

And he wrote a letter at that time to the Philippian church, the same church Paul had written Philippians to. But of course, much, much later, Polycarp's writing to them. And when Polycarp writes to the Church of Philippi, he says this to them.

He said, Among you, the blessed Paul labored, who are praised in the beginning of his epistle, meaning the epistle to the Philippians that we have in our Bible. For concerning you, he boasts in all the churches who then alone had known the Lord, for we had not yet known him. We, presumably meaning the Church of Smyrna, had not yet known the Lord.

Meaning, presumably, the gospel had not yet come to Smyrna, and the people of Smyrna didn't know Jesus yet. When? In the lifetime of Paul? That's not what he says. When Paul wrote to the Philippians.

That was not at the end of Paul's life. It was near the end. But Paul wrote to the Philippians when he came to Rome after 60 AD.

Could have been 61, 62 AD. We don't know the exact date. But in all likelihood, it was in the early 60s that Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians.

That is the time when Polycarp says the Church of Smyrna did not yet exist when Paul wrote to the Philippians. That's the time he's talking about. Not Paul's lifetime as a whole, but when Paul wrote to the Philippians, we did not yet know the Lord, he said.

But certainly, that gives almost a decade for the Church to come into existence before Revelation. But a church doesn't need a decade to come into existence in order to exist, by the way. Now, there's another thing too, and that is that the letters to the churches testified to a spiritual decline in some of the churches.

Ephesus had left their first love. Sardis had a name that it lived, but was now dead. And of course, Laodicea was blind, naked, you know, pitiful, miserable, poor.

That is backslidden. It was lukewarm, basically. Laodicea was lukewarm.

So, we've got Ephesus has left their first love, Laodicea has gone lukewarm, and Sardis has lost any real life. It only has a reputation for life. They say that takes some time for churches to get that bad.

And these churches were founded during Paul's second missionary journey when he was in Asia, which was in the late 50s. So, they say 10 years, you know, which if Revelation was written to them before 70 A.D., we're talking about maybe only within 10 years after they were founded. 10 years is not long enough for a church to go lukewarm.

Everyone's laughing. Why? Because that's a stupid argument. How long does it take a church to go lukewarm? Depends.

15 minutes? How long did it take the Galatian churches to depart from the gospel and embrace a different gospel? Paul had barely left town. Paul walked away from Galatia and got back home to Antioch and had to write to the Galatians that they'd left the faith and had fallen from grace. And he'd just been there weeks earlier.

He founded the church and came home and they were already gone. What about the Corinthian church? Well, within Paul's lifetime, you know, they were denying the resurrection of the dead. They were allowing people to live in incest.

I mean, what kind of, how long does it take for a church to go bad? Depends on the church. I've seen them go bad faster than 10 years, I'll tell you that. I've seen a whole revival go bad in three or four years.

You know, so I mean, this argument that the churches, they've gone lukewarm, some of them, can't happen within 10 years, so it must not be an early date of writing. The argument makes no sense to me. But I'll give you the last argument and then we'll be done.

I'll release you. I do believe I've gone too long, but I can't stop now. These internal evidences of the late date are not, to my mind, convincing or valid at all.

Now I realize the internal evidences for the early date are not compelling, but they are better. The internal evidence for the early date, to my mind, is better than the internal evidence for the late date. But the real strong evidence for the late date is the external evidence.

And that is the testimony of Irenaeus. Now Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of John.

John wrote the book of Revelation. Irenaeus was removed from the author of Revelation by only one generation, or two, depending on how you figure it. Polycarp, Irenaeus.

Now Irenaeus said something that has become the basis of the belief that John wrote this during the reign of Domitian. And Irenaeus' words are given here in your notes at the bottom of page 5. This is what he said. And this is the basis for the late date of Revelation being a champion.

Here's what Irenaeus said. He's talking about the subject of the mark of the beast. Okay, that's the subject he's writing about.

He says, Now since this is so, and since this number, 666, is found in all the good and ancient copies, that is the good and ancient copies of Revelation, and since those who have seen John face to face testify, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast appears according to the numeration of the Greeks by the letters in it, his assumption, 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 the present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision, meaning John. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign.

Now you see, that statement, that was seen almost in our own day, not so long ago, in the end of Domitian's reign. What was seen? Well, in the previous sentence, it talks about him who saw the heavenly vision. That was seen in the reign of Domitian.

What was seen, the vision or the guy who saw it? Notice earlier in the paragraph, he says, those who saw John testify. There is reference to John being seen, but there is also reference to John seeing the heavenly vision. And there is ambiguity in the statement, that was seen.

What that? John or the vision? Now, almost all scholars who take the late date, all of them, believe it is saying that John saw the vision on the island of Patmos during the late reign of Domitian. However, good arguments can be raised against that meaning of Irenaeus' words. First of all, Irenaeus said that Domitian's reign was not very long before his time, almost in his own day, in his opinion.

Yet, he speaks of very ancient copies of the book of Revelation. The good and ancient copies of the book all testify to this number 666. Wait a minute.

If it was written in the reign of Domitian, which you are saying was almost in your own day, not very long ago, how could there be ancient copies? Presumably, the originals are more ancient than the copies. How could many of the copies of the book, already a second generation of the book, is now also ancient? Now, it certainly sounds like he is saying the book is old, but Domitian's reign was not so long ago. This would argue more that he is saying John was seen during the reign of Domitian.

That is, the last time anyone saw him or talked to him was that recently, but not telling us when he saw the vision. The book, after all, is very ancient and has ancient even copies of the original. So, it sounds like he is not saying that the book of Revelation was written or the vision seen in the reign of Domitian, but John was.

Not all would agree with this. Of course, this is a great debate. But, the argument he is making is we do not have to speculate about who the Antichrist is.

Why? Because, first of all, the name is not given in any of the copies of the book. Secondly, many people have seen John and he did not tell them the name. And, if it was important for us to know, he would have told us.

In other words, the emphasis is on the fact that some people have seen John and he said nothing about it. And, for him to say, for that was seen not so very long ago, meaning that man was seen not very long ago in the reign of Domitian, would say, there are people I know or people you know who knew people who saw John. And, they say he never said anything about this.

Never told us the name. Now, I am not saying that the way I have just described Irenaeus' words are the necessary way to understand them. But, they are an alternative way to understand them.

It seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that Irenaeus is saying that John was last seen alive in the reign of Domitian. But, does not tell us when John was on Patmos or when he saw the vision. But, suggests that in his day the book was very ancient.

Even the copies of the book were ancient. And, the copies would come up and would be the second generation of the book. Now, let's say this.

Suppose Irenaeus actually did mean that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian. How much can we trust Irenaeus? Hard to say. He also said that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old before he was crucified.

That was something Irenaeus says. Jesus lived to be about 50. There's not a living scholar I've ever encountered that would think that Irenaeus was right about that.

The evidence of Scripture is that Jesus lived to be only in his 30's, not 50. So, Irenaeus might not be the most reliable witness on historical data anyway. So, even if he did say that John saw the vision in the reign of Domitian, he could be wrong about that as he is about some other things more fundamental, like Jesus.

So, the external evidence from Irenaeus, which by the way was quoted and followed by later church fathers as if it was valid. Later church fathers also said Domitian was the emperor at the time, but seemingly followed Irenaeus on this. They may have misunderstood him or they may have understood him and he was wrong.

Or he might be right, but the point is, it's merely a man's statement as opposed to the internal evidence of the book, which to my mind, the temple seems to be standing. The man, 666, the best candidate I know is Nero. There may be a better one that we don't know about.

But, we have to leave the matter undecided about the date. And that's okay with me. I don't really care if we can settle the question or not.

The main thing is, if the question is unsettled, then the preterist view remains still a possibility. If the matter is settled in favor of the late date, then preterism can't be considered a possibility. If the late date is proved or even still in the running, then preterism is a possibility and should be considered alongside other views.

I personally lean toward preterism in most parts of the book of Revelation. I'm not fully preterist in the book of Revelation. I have some parts.

I don't take the preterist view, but for the most part, I lean toward that. I do believe the main theme of the book of Revelation is going to be the fall of Jerusalem. And I believe, therefore, the book was written before 70 AD.

I can't prove it, nor do I feel the need to. The fact is, it can't be disproven, and therefore, the question can be decided on questions other than the date, but rather the evidence from the rest of Scripture as to what is under discussion in the book. And that is not as difficult as one might think when you begin to compare the Scriptures with Scripture.

Remember how many times Revelation alludes to Old Testament Scriptures. Looking at those Scriptures can tell us something, and that's what we're going to have to do as we study the book. But I do want to acquaint you with all four views and their strengths and weaknesses, which we will do in our next lecture.