Editors' Note: Given this issue's emphasis on courtship and marriage, we felt it important to include at least one article on dating.
The dating of the book of Revelation plays a central role in how the book may be interpreted. Was Revelation a warning to churches of impending persecution prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Or did persecution occur much later, in A.D. 95-96 after Jerusalem was destroyed? The argument for preterism, the belief that the destructive prophecies in Revelation described events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, depends on the book of Revelation having been written before that date. Premillennialists, who believe these prophecies of destruction are yet future, are quick to argue for the late date because it "destroys this entire theory"[1] of preterism.
Some significant research on the dating of Revelation has recently been conducted by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in his doctoral research which is contained in the book Before Jerusalem Fell[2] and in an excellent, but less technical summary entitled The Beast of Revelation.[3] Gentry describes the history of the scholarly opinion as an ebb and flow with respect to the dating of Revelation. As liberalism grew in the 1800s, there was considerable pressure to assign late dates to many of the New Testament books. This bolstered the argument by liberals that redactors had added to, modified, or deleted portions of the Bible. Toward the late 1800s, however, the evidence for an early dating of Revelation was considered so compelling that a "strong majority" of scholars favored an early date. Since then, however, opinion has shifted back towards a late date with little apparent reason for doing so.
Gentry lists 145 scholars who advocate an early dating of Revelation, including the great church historian, Philip Schaff, and others such as Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, F.F. Bruce, Alfred Edersheim, John A. T. Robinson, and Milton Terry.
The theme verse of Revelation reads "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen" (Rev. 1:7). Cloud comings refer to swift judgment upon God's enemies (Ps. 18:7-15; Joel 2:1,2, Zeph. 1:14,15) in this case upon "they who pierced him." The Jews were covenantally responsible for Christ's death: they sought His death, paid for His capture, brought false witness, convicted Him, turned Him over to Roman civil authority, and declared "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25).[4] The Greek word for "earth" can also be translated "land," thus the reference here likely refers to the twelve "tribes of the [promised] land," the Jews.
Thus, the judgment Christ prophesied against the Jews (Matt. 21:40-45; 23:32-24:2, Luke 23:23-30) is echoed throughout the book of Revelation. Whereas Christ warned that these prophecies would come within a generation (Matt. 12:41-45, 23:36, 24:34), similarly John in Revelation warns that these events will occur "shortly" (1:1), "the time is near" (1:3), "the hour . . . is about to come" (3:10 NASB), Christ is coming "quickly" in judgment (22:7), and "must shortly take place" (22:6). These judgments culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem under multiple armies under Roman command. Over a million Jews were slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of others were enslaved, the city left in ruins, and the great temple was utterly destroyed within a generation (40 years) of Christ's prophesy (Matt. 24:2).
The late date advocates who believe that Revelation was written around A.D. 95-96 have a problem on their hands. They suggest that persecution under the emperor Domitian was what is described in Revelation, but there is scant evidence that persecution of Christians by Domitian ever took place--a fact that many late date adherents readily admit.[5] The author of Revelation, John, repeatedly alludes to a "great city" which is very likely a reference to Jerusalem and describes the temple as if it were still standing (Rev. 11:2). How can late date advocates make such claims of a city that history records was left in ruins in A.D. 70? Much has been made by late daters of a statement by Irenaeus in Against Heresies that seems to associate John or the book of Revelation with Domitian, but there are a number of translational, interpretational, and historical problems that caution against an overreliance on this ambiguous passage.
Bahnsen and Gentry cite external evidence for an early date: "Clement of Alexandria . . . asserts that all revelation ceased under Nero's reign. The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches (Paul died in A.D. 67 or 68). Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) places John's banishment in conjunction with Peter's and Paul's martyrdom (A.D. 67/68). Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) twice states Revelation was written under `Claudius [Nero] Caesar.' The Syriac version of Revelation (sixth century) has as a heading to Revelation: `written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.'"[6]
Since Nero died in A.D. 68, the writing of Revelation must have preceded that date, most likely having been written sometime between A.D. 64 and 67.
And the beat goes on....
The condition of the 7 churches of Asia is often posited as evidence for the late date, i.e. 95-98 A.D., of the book of Revelation. Stanley Paher, for instance, in an unpublished paper says "the existence of heretical sects such as the Nicolaitans, the Balaamites and Jezebel's group [Rev. 2:6; 14, 15, 20] is not confirmed by anyone in A.D. 64." He then takes note of Ignatius, early 2nd century, and Iranaeus, later in the 2nd century, both of whom referred to the Nicolaitans. Paher then says "It takes time for heresies to arise from within, for in the first place a church must have had developed a more or less orthodox faith as a standard to compare a departure from it."
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the Nicolaitans, instead of being evidence for a late date, serve as extremely strong evidence for the early date of the Apocalypse.
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans
The doctrinal identity of the Nicolaitans helps us place them within a definite framework: the Nicolaitans taught that it was alright to "eat meat sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication" Rev. 2:14-15. Why was it wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Why was it wrong to commit fornication? Caution is needed before answering too hastily.
The doctrine of the Nicolaitans was in direct conflict with the Jerusalem Conference, Acts 15:29, the purpose of which was to enhance Jew and Gentile oneness in Christ! This conference is generally dated around A.D. 51.
It is clear from Paul that the eating of meat sacrificed to idols was in and of itself not wrong, Romans 14; I Corinthians 8; but clearly it was offensive to the Jewish segment of the church. Thus for the sake of unity in the body, the Gentiles were told to abstain in those circumstances in which the eating would bring offense to brethren, I Corinthians 10:23ff. The question of fornication should also be seen in light of its association with the idolatrous background so offensive to the Jewish Christians.
The doctrine of eating of meats sacrificed to idols and fornication was then a matter of grave importance and an issue that arose very early in the life of the first century church. It was an issue of body unity; of Jew and Gentile fellowship. If the Gentiles could be convinced that they had the liberty to continue, because of the abounding grace of Christ, to eat meats and participate in the sensual practices of idolatry then the unity of the body of Christ would be threatened if not sundered. The significance of this issue is revealed when one examines Romans 14, I Corinthians 8, and 10 in great detail and see how much time and energy Paul devoted to it. This was not just an issue of setting forth a doctrine of expediency; it impinged upon "unity of the Faith," Eph. 4:13f; the "the fullness of the Gentiles," Rom. 11:25; and the consummation of the mystery of God in Christ, Ephesians 3:3ff.
2 Peter 2 sheds light on the issue before us. If 2 Peter was addressed to the same audience as 1 Peter then it was addressed to "the pilgrims of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" 1 Peter 1:1. Thus, 2 Peter was written to the very churches addressed in Revelation. 2 Peter is, we believe, to be dated circa, 64-66. [See The New Open Study Bible, Nelson, NASV, introduction to 2 Peter]. What issues did Peter address?
Peter says that the false teachers he is addressing "walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness" 2:2:10; they "have eyes full of adultery" and they were constantly "beguiling unstable souls" vs. 14. Further, Peter says what they were doing was "following the way of Balaam the son of Beor" vs. 15. This is precisely the charge against the Nicolaitans, Rev. 2:14! Compare also the epistle of Jude, vss. 7-12. What we find then is that the very things that were troubling the seven churches of Asia were the issues at stake in books generally dated earlier than the Apocalypse.
Revelation deals with those from within the body teaching false doctrine, 2 Peter and Jude do the same, 2 Peter 2:13. Revelation deals with those teaching sexual immorality, as does 2 Peter and Jude. Revelation calls the false teachers Nicolaitans; but they are also called teachers of the way of Balaam; just as in 2 Peter and Jude. Revelation is addressed to the churches in Asia; 2 Peter is also. With these points of parallelism how can one discount the association? And if the early date of 2 Peter is admitted then the early date for the Apocalypse can hardly be denied.
Further, when one considers how early the issue of eating meats and fornication, [cf. I Cor. 6], became an issue, circa A.D. 51, Acts 15; Romans 14, circa A.D. 57; I Corinthians 8, 10, circa A.D. 56, it can hardly be argued that these doctrines were not major issues as early as the 60s. On the contrary, it is seen in the light of Acts, Romans, and Corinthians that the issues of Revelation 2-3 were issues of long standing trouble in the early church. Revelation does not stand isolated therefore from the religious milieu of the rest of the New Testament. Instead, we have the testimony of Acts, Romans, Corinthians, 2 Peter and Jude that the very issues addressed by Jesus in Revelation were part of a widespread endemic problem within the early church.
Instead of the doctrinal problems of the Asian churches being distinctive from the issues in the other epistles we find that they are the identical issues. Instead of Revelation demanding a later period of time allowing for a time of evolutionary doctrinal development and then apostasy we find the standard established very early, Acts 15 and within 5-6 years problems arising in direct relationship to that standard. Instead of the doctrinal aberrations of the Nicolaitans being indicative of the late date for Revelation therefore we find that it provides evidence that the possibility for the early date for Revelation certainly cannot be ignored; the probability becomes apparent; the certainty becomes increasingly likely.
There is a great deal more that could be written in regard to the Nicolaitan controversy as it related to the Jew-Gentile one-ness and the attempts to destroy or prevent that unity from becoming reality. I believe, however, that this article has refuted the basic argument of Paher and others that attempt to remove the historical and doctrinal situation of Revelation from the context of the rest of the New Testament. I shall have cause to say more about Paher's article later.
March 21, 1994
The Nicolaitans and the Date of Revelation
In regards to your article, several points should be noted:
First, the author does not include any specific quotes from early Church fathers backing up his assertion of an empty date. I, on the other hand, cited five specific references earlier in this thread supporting a Domitian date of authorship.
Second, the author writes, Cloud comings refer to swift judgment upon God's enemies (Ps. 18:7-15; Joel 2:1,2, Zeph. 1:14,15) in this case upon "they who pierced him." He conveniently fails to note that in Ac. 1:9-11, in which Messiah Yeshua is taken up in a clould, and two angels tell His followers, "This same Yeshua who is taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the way you have seen Him going into Heaven"--that is, He will return on the clouds, physically. I would further note that I believe that all of the passages that the author cites speak of that same literal Second Coming on the clouds of the sky, even as Yeshua Himself said He would return in Mt. 24:29-31.
He also fails to note Zec. 12:9-13:1, which says that when Israel looks on the Messiah that they pierced, they would mourn for Him and that they would thus be cleansed from their sin. Further, 12:9 tells us that on the day that this happens, "I will seek to destroy" not Jerusalem, but rather "all the nations that come against Jerusalem." That hardly seems to fit 70 AD, now does it?
Third, the author further demonstrates himself to be theologicaly anti-semetic when he writes the old cliche, The Jews were covenantally responsible for Christ's death: they sought His death, paid for His capture, brought false witness, convicted Him, turned Him over to Roman civil authority, and declared "His blood be on us and on our children." Yeshua died because of all of our sins--yours and mine--not because "the Jews" betrayed Him. Indeed, historically, those who were directly responsible were a small group of the leadership, primarily the Sadducees; the sin of the rest of the Jews was that they did not recognize the Messiah, trust in Him, and repent.
Yet, let us not forget that Yeshua Himself was a Jew of the Jews, that all of His first followers and Apostles were Jews, and that if it were not for the Jewish race none of us would have any salvation at all. God preserved a remnant, a firstfruits, and the day will come when He will save the rest of the nation, as it is written (cf. Rom. 11).
The author continues on in that vein for another paragraph, and most of its been refuted before. Since that does not contribute to the current discussion of the date of Revelation's authorship, I'll move on.
Fourth, the author writes, They suggest that persecution under the emperor Domitian was what is described in Revelation, but there is scant evidence that persecution of Christians by Domitian ever took place . . . This is a bold-faced lie, since Eusebius does indeed record such a persecution and notes that there were many others exiled besides Yochanan.
Fifth, when the author says, The author of Revelation, John, repeatedly alludes to a "great city" which is very likely a reference to Jerusalem and describes the temple as if it were still standing (Rev. 11:2). How can late date advocates make such claims of a city that history records was left in ruins in A.D. 70? does it not occur to him that Yochanan was recording a vision? In a prophetic vision, the Apostle could easily have beheld Jerusalem standing again and the Temple rebuilt, which the prophets have been consistant in predicting.
Indeed, this author, as many preterist do, speaks as if Yochanan came up with the Revelation on his own and needed recent memory of the city and Temple to do so, instead of having it, well, revealed to him by our Lord.
In other words, he argues in a circle and begs the question.
Sixth, he writes, Much has been made by late daters of a statement by Irenaeus in Against Heresies . . . again ignoring the fact that there are four other references to the Domitian exile.
Seventh, we've already examined and dismissed the Muraturian Canon and the Syriac translation; the first would have Revelation written in the 50s (obviously way off by anyone's estimation), assuming that it has not been misunderstood (which I think likely) and the latter is four to fourteen centuries too late for consideration. Epiphanaeus is likewise from the fourth century, which just goes to prove that the dating hijinks didn't occur until later.
Eighth, he cites Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, but conveniently provides neither quotes nor citations that would enable us to check it out for ourselves.
So sorry, Harley, I appreciate the effort, but until you guys can actually provide actual quotations (or at least citations) by ante-Nicean fathers demonstrating that Yochanan was exiled to Patmos during Nero's reign, your preterist assumptions are still in trouble.
That entire post was shown erroneous by this thread.