Better Early Than Late!

Revelation’s bookend time stamps raise important questions. If we interpret them as literal truth statements, what profound event(s) happened soon after John saw these visions? What fulfilled his about-to-be prophecies?

The answer depends on another important question: When did John see these visions? Most conservative scholars limit the possible date range to sometime between AD 50 and AD 100.¹ Within this range, commentators fall into two groups: those holding an “early” (pre-AD 70) date and those who adhere to a “late” (post-AD 70) date.

The late-date option—a mid-AD 90s date being most common—creates a major problem for interpreting Revelation. We know of no historical events that would fulfill John’s at-hand visions in this timeframe.

This forces late-date adherents into an uncomfortable position. They must either ignore the bookend time statements or interpret them in a non-literal manner. Two representative examples follow.

Jack Hayford and Gary Curtis take the first option. They “take an intriguing journey through Daniel and Revelation”² without commenting on any of the eight “bookend” time statements! They ignore what does not seem to fit their prophetic model.

John MacArthur takes the non-literal approach. Regarding the Apostle’s assertion, “the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:3), MacArthur says: “‘Time’ refers to epochs, eras, or seasons. The next great epoch of God’s redemptive history is imminent. But although Christ’s coming is the next event, it may be delayed.”³

We should note the subtle word change. These prophecies were not “imminent,” meaning they were “ready to take place,”⁴ but might not. John used a more definite Greek word (engus): the events of which he spoke would occur in his near future.

We see John’s understanding of this word in another context: “the passover … was nigh (engus)” (John 6:4). He does not mean the feast might happen soon but might not; he meant it would happen soon. This Greek word shows an actual, literal nearness,⁵ not a possible nearness. John’s Revelation prophecies would, without a doubt, happen in his near future.

The early date for Revelation eliminates these time-statement problems. A major prophetic event occurred during this period: Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The prophets, beginning with Moses, had foretold this judgment (cf. Deut. 31:29; 32:1–43; Isa. 61:1–3; Mal. 3:18–43; etc. Cp. Luke 24:27; Acts 3:19–24). Jesus reiterated the importance of this development and fixed a timeframe for its occurrence (Matt. 24:1–3, 34; Luke 21:20–23, 32). God fulfilled these prophecies in the Jewish wars of AD 66–70.

The early date vantage point allows John’s visions to refer to this event. The Roman Emperor Nero—whose bust is in the above picture⁶—ordered Vespasian, a general and future emperor, to invade Israel. Roman troops sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in AD 70. Assuming an early date for Revelation, this devastation came to pass “shortly” (Rev. 1:1) after God gave these prophecies; it was “at hand” (Rev. 1:3), “about to come” (Rev. 1:19 YLT), etc.

But, as one brother asked, are we claiming an early date for the Revelation just to confirm our prophetic view (i.e., inmillennialism)? May it never be!

Kenneth L. Gentry, in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, examines the evidence for both early and late dates.⁷ He concludes in decided favor of the early date and notes late-date advocates rest most of their case on a single ambiguous quote from the church father Irenaeus.⁸

We recommend that our readers consider Gentry’s arguments. The curator of Preteristarchive.com offers a free PDF copy of the first edition (1988) of Gentry’s book.⁹ The current (2010) edition contains a valuable preface in which Gentry responds to criticisms by late-date scholars. It is available here.

The following list summarizes Gentry’s major arguments for an early date:¹⁰

1. The theme of Revelation. The judgment-coming of Christ in Rev. 1:7 seems to be the same as the “coming” depicted in Matt. 24:30.
2. The temporal expectation of the author. (See our Bookends post.)
3. The identity of the sixth king.  (Rev. 17:10) Nero, the sixth Roman emperor, ruled AD 54–68.
4. The contemporary integrity of the temple. (Rev. 11:1–2)
5. The name “Nero Caesar.” The number of this name, in Hebrew, is 666 (Rev. 13:18).
6. The role of Jewish Christianity. Christianity was still operating within Jewish circles and institutions. “Historically we know that this simply was not the case in the post-temple era beyond A.D. 70.”¹¹
7. The looming Jewish war. “Revelation’s vivid imagery lends itself admirably to the catastrophic events of the Jewish War.”¹²

We hope to provide further explanations for some of these in future posts. How, for example, can we identify Nero as the sixth king (Rev. 17:10) and also as the beast (Rev. 13:18) who was the eighth king (Rev. 17:11)?

Scholars still debate the date of Revelation. Many agree with Gentry regarding the early date as his extensive list of sources shows. Phillip Schaff says, “The early date is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars.”¹³ Others continue to defend the late date view.

One line of reasoning will interest those who believe God inspired the Bible: “It thus follows that the date of the Apocalypse, according to this [early date] school, was about  67-68 or thereabouts. And if the absolute unity of the Apocalypse be assumed, there is no possibility, I think, of evading this conclusion.”¹⁴

Revelation’s date does not decide the truthfulness of inmillennialism because it rests on an exegesis of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25) and First Corinthians 15. But, an early date allows this framework to offer a straightforward (and orthodox) interpretation of John’s difficult book.

The possibility of a clear explanation of this enigmatic book—one that also serves apologetics well—solidifies our own opinion: for the date of Revelation’s composition, better early than late!

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

1. Cp. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998), 27.
2. Jack Hayford and Gary Curtis, Until the End of Time: Revealing the Future of Humankind, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994). The same is true for George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things: An Eschatology for Laymen, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978).
3. John MacArthur, Revelation: The Christian’s Ultimate Victory, MacArthur Bible Studies (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 10. Emphasis added.
4. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1996).
5. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 468.
6. Picture by Bibi Saint-Pol.
7. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell.
8. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 334.
9. This site that contains some unorthodox material in its attempt to provide a complete repository. Gentry is orthodox.
10. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 113–256. This summary is a slight modification of Gentry’s reasons.
11. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 231.
12. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 239.
13. Editorial note in Benjamin B. Warfield, “Revelation, Book of,” in A Religious Encyclopædia (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884), 2036.
14. R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse: Being Lectures Delivered Before the University of London, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), 57. Emphasis added. Charles rejected the unity of Revelation, believing it was written by multiple authors.