Author: nickcady

How should we understand the Book of Revelation?

• Does it describe events which are yet to come (futurist view)?
• Does it describe events which were already completed in 70 A.D. (preterist view)?
• Or does it not describe any concrete events in the past or present, but poetically describes the battle between good and evil which will rage in every generation until Jesus returns (idealist view)?

One of the biggest factors in determining how Revelation is meant to be understood has to do with the question of WHEN Revelation was written.

Why I Hold a Futurist View of Revelation

I hold a futurist view of Revelation. This is based on a few factors, including internal evidence from the book, such as Revelation 1:19, where Jesus tells John, “Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.” This verse gives us the outline of the Book of Revelation:

1. “The things that you have seen” = Chapter 1: The vision of Jesus Christ
2. “Those that are (now)” = Chapters 2-3: The messages to the seven churches
3. “Those that are to take place after this” = Chapters 4-22

The words “after this” in Greek are: “Meta tauta.” Revelation chapter 4 begins with those exact words in Greek: “Meta tauta” – which indicates that this is the beginning of the section that will describe the things which are “to come,” i.e. future events.

Additionally, I hold a Futurist view of Revelation because I find the find the Idealist and Preterist views to be unconvincing and/or problematic.

When it comes to the Idealist view, I find it to be too simplistic. This view suggests that Revelation is a fantastical, poetic description of the ongoing battle between good and evil, and that in the end Jesus will win, and that it was written in order to encourage beleaguered and persecuted believers throughout history. If that is the case, then the length of the book is confusing; why write such a long and detailed book if none of the symbols actually correlate to anything concrete? Why not just say, “Things will be hard, but Jesus will win in the end.” Is this book some sort of ancient Manga or Fan Fiction? It seems to be more than that. Also, the book isn’t written only to encourage persecuted Christians, but to challenge complacent Christians.

Why Preterism Requires an Early Date for the Writing of Revelation

Whereas the Idealist view of Revelation takes an allegorical view of what is written in the text, the Preterist and Futurist positions both take a more literal approach to reading Revelation.

So, when we read in Revelation 1:3 that Revelation is a “prophecy” – that indicates that it is describing events which were yet to take place when the book was written.

Preterists read Revelation through the interpretive lens which views Revelation as a fantastical description of the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D.. Adherents of this view believe that this was God’s judgment upon the Jewish people of that city for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, and that this was the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 24 that He would “return.” They say that Jesus did not return physically or literally, but that He returned “figuratively” in the Roman military, in order to bring judgment upon the Jewish residents of Jerusalem who had rejected Him and had Him crucified, and who persecuted the early Christians.

In order for this view to work, Revelation must have been written in the 60’s A.D. in order to be a prophecy which foretold future events.

There are at least two major issues with this view:

1. In this case, the book of Revelation would have only been a prophecy which spoke about future events for just a few years.
2. Early Christian writings tell us that John wrote Revelation in the 90’s A.D.. The Preterist view is a later view, which was not held by those closest to the writing of the book, and it requires a person to dismiss the witness of those who were lived just a few decades after it was written and who tell us when John wrote the book.

Early Christian Sources Universally Support the View that Revelation was Written in the 90’s A.D.

The earliest and most authoritative historical source for the dating of Revelation is Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180). In his work Against Heresies (5.30.3), Irenaeus states that John received his apocalyptic vision “almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign.”

Emperor Domitian reigned from 81 to 96 AD.

This testimony is significant because Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself. If Revelation had been written in the 60’s A.D. during the reign of Nero, we would expect Irenaeus to have been aware of this and to have mentioned it. Instead, he places John’s vision in the time of Domitian, around A.D. 95-96.

Other early church fathers affirm John’s exile under Domitian:

• Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) states that John was released from his banishment to Patmos after the death of “the tyrant,” and that after John’s time on Patmos, he returned to Ephesus and ministered there until his death (Salvation of the Rich 42).
• Victorinus (late 3rd century), in his commentary on Revelation, explicitly states that “He [John] was on the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian, where he saw the apocalypse, which he published after being released on the death of the emperor.”
• Eusebius (early 4th century), in Church History (3.18.1), confirms that John was exiled under Domitian and returned after his reign ended.

Pliny the Younger, not a church father, but a Roman historian, writes that Nerva, who began ruling Rome in 96 A.D. after Domitian’s death, immediately pardoned all of Domitian’s exiles and allowed them to return home (Epistles 1.5.10;9.13.5) – which supports the claim that John was exiled by Domitian on Patmos and was released from exile upon Domitian’s death.

This early testimony is quite clear, and dates the book to the 90’s A.D.. If Revelation had been written under Nero in the 60’s, we would expect at least some early Christian writers to talk about it, but instead they only describe a later date.

Thus, since Revelation itself tells us that it is a prophecy describing future events, that means that the things described in Revelation must all be things which were not fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Internal Evidence Also Supports the Later Date

In addition to the historical evidence, some internal clues in Revelation itself support a post-A.D. 70 date, such as the description of the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3:17, where it is described as wealthy and complacent. Historically, Laodicea suffered a devastating earthquake in A.D. 60, but it had fully recovered by Domitian’s time. If Revelation were written before A.D. 70, it is unlikely that Laodicea would have been in such a prosperous condition.

Conclusion

The argument for an early date of Revelation is largely driven by a theological presupposition that needs to find a way for Revelation to have been written before 70 A.D.. I would argue that this is not the right way to do theology. The historical evidence, particularly the testimony of early Christian sources, supports a later date. The fact that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian aligns with everything we know from early church history and Roman history.

Sources:

• Weima, The Sermons to the Seven Churches of Revelation, Baker Academic, 2021