My question is about how the Book of Revelation is dated. Some say it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and others say it was written later (maybe around AD 96.)

Obviously the proper dating of the book would have huge implications for how the contents were interpreted (I'm guessing that's why there is a pre-AD 70 camp and a post-AD 70 camp!)

But I am really curious how the book is dated. What are the arguments for and against an early date? For and against a late date?

  • 2
    I recommend to you Kenneth Gentry's 'Before Jerusalem Fell.'
    – Mike Bull
    Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 4:49
  • I'm watching this video series now... pretty good so far: youtube.com/watch?v=hVcvFwt9-kY
    – Jas 3.1
    Commented Nov 8, 2013 at 22:23
  • See other answers here, here, and here for information that also substantiates the post-70 origin of the book. The overall context of the book's message and symbolism fit the historical context of 90s Asia far better than 60s Asia.
    – user2910
    Commented Jan 12, 2018 at 2:01
  • Two related questions.
    – Lucian
    Commented Aug 18, 2021 at 23:41

7 Answers 7


For an early date

Among the arguments in favor for an early date (i.e. during emperor Nero) is:

  1. A temple seems to exist in Rev 11, but the temple was destroyed in AD 70. The counter argument is of course that this temple is a part of a symbolic vision and should not be mixed up with the physical temple.
  2. Revelation addresses the tension between the Jews and the Christians (2:9; 3:9). You can argue that this tension was not as significant after the fall of the temple and may not have been there if it was written after AD 70.
  3. Rev 17:10 speaks of five kings that have fallen, one that is, and one who is coming. The most natural way to interpret this verse is that five Roman emperors had fallen and the sixth was currently reigning. Nero is the sixth man to be recognized as emperor of Rome. The counter argument is the see those kings as "kingdoms" (i.e. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece and, currently reigning, Rome)
  4. You can make a strong case that the number 666 (Rev 13:15-18) is referring to Nero.

For a late date

Among the arguments in favor for a late, Domitian, date is:

  1. There was a famous legend (The Nero Redivivus legend) that Nero, after his death would return. Some saw Domitian as a "second Nero". This fits very well with Rev 13:11-12 and the mortal wound that had been healed. You can make the counter argument that even if this is referring to Domitian it could very well be prophetical, written in advance.
  2. The churches in minor Asia (Rev 2:10, 2:13 etc.) was facing persecution. Nero's prosecution never extended far beyond Rome itself. While it is claimed (though hard to prove) that Domitians persecution engulfed the whole empire and, thereby, fits better. The counter argument may be that as the persecution in Rome was local, there might as well been a lot of local persecutions in different cities during Neros time.
  3. In Revelation there is hints that suggests that it was a widespread cult to worship the emperor (Rev 13:4, 15-16, 14:9-11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, 20:5). It was during the reign of Domitian when the imperial cult became a factor in unifying the empire in Asia Minor.
  4. You might argue that the churches during the reign of Nero was to young to be in spiritual decline as the churches of Ephesus (Rev 2:4), Sardes (Rev 3:1-2) and Laodicia (Rev 5:15-17) arguably was. But who is to say how fast the spirituality of a church can decline?
  5. Some people argues that there could not have been a church in Smyrna this early. Since it clearly exist a church there during the time Revelation is written (Rev 2:8). Revelation must been written later.
  6. Several church fathers claimed that Domitian was emperor when John wrote Revelation. For example Irenaeus (Against heresis, 5:30:1, 3).

Concluding remarks

This short answer can only give you a sense for the arguments. I recommend that you find a good commentary and read for yourself.

You say that "the proper dating of the book would have huge implications for how the contents were interpreted". This might or might not be true. There are basically four ways of reading Revelation (preterist, historicist, futurist and spiritual). This is a more important "choice". For some of those choices the dating is not an issue at all.

A later date is preferred by most scholars today.

My sources


I did look into this for a paper on Revelation and First Enoch (The Canonicity of Apocalyptic Literature). Whenever it was written, Revelation aims to encourage Christians during an imperial persecution.

Arguments for a Late Date (A.D. 96)

As external evidence they point to the early church writers like Iraneus (Against Heresies 5.30.3), Victorinus of Pettau (Apocalypse 10.11), Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.17-18), Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvetur 42), and Origen (Matthew 16.6) who all agree John wrote during the time of Domitian.1

Several of the churches addressed in the first three chapters had historical circumstances that do not match an early date for Revelation.

  1. Several of the churches addressed had lost their ardor for Christ, and heresies had infected others. Churches usually do not lose their ardor or find heresies in their first generation.2
  2. John calls Laodicia rich, but an earthquake almost leveled the city in A.D. 60. The city took many years to rebuild its wealth.
  3. The church at Smyrna was not founded until A.D. 64, so it cannot have endured for a long time (as Revelation 2:8-11 seems to imply) if only three years old.3
  4. The emperor worship described in chapters 13-20 matches best with Domitian.4 Though some earlier emperors proclaimed themselves gods, Domitian took the title "Lord and God," usurping kyrios a title of Christ.5
  5. The use of "Babylon" as a code word for a city in Revelation points to Rome. Though early daters say Babylon refers to Jerusalem, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and The Sibylline Oracles all refer to Rome as Babylon. Jews and Christians linked the cities together because both powers had sacked the holy city.6
  6. The Pauline epistles refer to several heretical groups but never to the heresies plaguing the churches of Asia Minor, the Nicolatians.

Arguments Against an Early Date (A.D. 65)

Those who argue for an early date tend to see Revelation as a polemic against the Jews who rejected the Messiah.7

  1. They see at least partial fulfillment in the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Though proponents of the early date read Revelation 11:1-2 literally with its temple measurements, the measurements better match Ezekiel's eschatological temple.
  2. The early daters insist that the number 666 refers to taking the Hebrew letters of Caesar Nero(n) and adding them up in a gematria. Though the arithmetic does indeed come to 666, such a view supposes a knowledge of Hebrew in a thoroughly gentile audience.
  3. With little to no justification in the Greek, they tend to read Revelation 1:7's "all the tribes of the earth will mourn Him" as "all the tribes of Israel will mourn Him."8

I concluded that John wrote Revelation about A.D. 96 during Domitian's anti-Christian persecution, which John saw would expand in later years. Thus, Revelation serves to encourage to Christians facing their first major (non-localized) persecution that the Messiah will be victorious over their enemies. However, it also warns them of persecution for keeping the faith.


  1. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 19.
  2. Edward McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation, 4.
  3. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 16.
  4. Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1977), ci.
  5. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 5.
  6. Ibid., 18-19.
  7. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. “A Preterist View of Revelation” in Four Views, 51.
  8. Ibid., 48.
  • 2
    Your answer is good. More in depth then mine. But with your knowledge about the subject I love to hear you try to step back from your own opinion (which in fact is the same as mine). But maybe you can't see any strengths with the early dating at all? And no problems with your own view? I can't give you more then the +1 I already given. But it would really add to the answer if you tried to say something about the opposing view. Commented Oct 4, 2013 at 20:44
  • I would love to expand this to show both sides, but this came from notes of a term paper. I don't have the research notes anymore (where I explored both sides to come to this conclusion). The date wasn't the thesis, so I didn't have to explore both sides. This was a side issue. I'd have to do that research anew and time is compressed these days.
    – Frank Luke
    Commented Oct 6, 2013 at 23:37
  • Ok. I understand.... :) Commented Oct 7, 2013 at 14:55
  • Laodicea was in fact so rich, that when the Emperor offerred financial assistance to rebuild it, the city turned him down as they had enough funds to rebuild themselves. That bolstered the fame of Laodicea as a rich city post AD 60. See turkisharchaeonews.net/site/laodicea-lycus
    – Robert
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 2:48

A piece of numismatic evidence from the time of Domitian goes a long way, in my view, of dating the Apocalypse.

See here:

enter image description here

The coin seen above depicts Emperor Domitian's wife, Empress Domitia, on the face, with an engraving of their son, on the reverse, who died in early childhood, holding seven stars above himself while sitting over or upon, the earth.

The Latin phrasing is as follows:

On the face, it reads "DOMITIAAVGVSTAIMPDOMIT"

On the reverse, it reads "DIVVSCAESARIMPDOMITIANIF"

Essentially, Emperor Domitian had the coin struck then minted to commemorate the death of his son, whom he had deified by calling himself "Divine Caesar". Additionally, Emperor Domitian took the title "Dominus et Deus", meaning "Lord and God".

And so, for his, that is, Domitian's son, to be likewise deified, it made Domitian's son the son of the "Lord and God".

Now, compare this to Revelation 1:16 KJV

  1. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

And, also Revelation 2:1 KJV

  1. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks...

Then, finally, Revelation 2:18 KJV

  1. And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass...

It seems pretty clear that at the very least, chapters 1 & 2 of the Apocalypse were written after this coin was struck as a response to Emperor Domitian's claim to Deity, and to the apotheosis of his deceased son.

It would seem the author wanted to make the point that it was neither the Emperor Domitian or his son, who is Lord God (See and compare Revelation 1:8 NASB) and Son of God, respectively. Rather, it is God the Father and Jesus of Nazareth, who ought to bare these titles.

Hence, if these things are so, the dating of the Apocalypse has to be given as some time after the coin was minted and circulated. This occurred in circa 82-83 CE.


Revelation was written before the destruction of that temple in Jerusalem, before A.D. 70.

There are very many evidences within the scriptures that are time texts and indicators for that generation in which Christ was made manifest on earth. The Bible is the Holy Spirit's record who provided us with God's word, and should be our first and final authority / source for all things pertaining to God. (sola scriptura)

Many people insist that all of the Bible is to be taken literally, yet they seem to twist the meanings of very explicit and plain words into nonsense, and then proceed to make the symbolic and metaphorical prophetic language into absolute literals. They have turned the literal statements inside out, and upside down.

Surely we can all agree that Christ was manifested on earth in the first century AD. He came in the fullness of time (Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4). Therefore, the time was important, and the time in which Christ spoke and of which He promised is important.

Christ came preaching that the kingdom was "at hand". Let's explore some of the time statements in the Bible.

At Hand:

Gen. 27:4, when Esau knew Jacob had received the blessing of the first born,

"And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." (KJV)

It is clear that "at hand" in the above verse meant the present days with Esau. The sense doesn't even allow for a week or a month later. The days of Esau's mourning were those days immediately following the death of his father, Isaac.

Matt. 26:45, Jesus said just within hours of his betrayal,

"Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." (KJV)

John 2:13,

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." (KJV)

2 Tim. 4:6, Paul speaking of his soon death,

"For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." (KJV)

The sense of these verses is clearly of a time that was either instantly present, or within hours, or days of happening. Then, when Christ said that the kingdom was "at hand" in the first century A.D., we can know that "at hand" meant soon. It was nearly there when He spoke those words in 28 - 30 AD.

The meaning of "at hand" cannot be stretched across 2,000 + years.

Since Christ came to them in the fullness of time, and since He told them the Kingdom was "at hand", then the kingdom was associated with His manifestation on earth in the first century A.D.


Gen. 18:6,

" And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth." (KJV)

The word "quickly" meant hurry, or do it as fast as you can.

Gen. 27:20, Isaac speaking to Jacob,

"And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought it to me." (KJV)

Josh. 8:19,

"And the ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand: and they entered into the city, and took it, and hasted and set the city on fire." (KJV)

Matt.28:7, of Jesus' resurrection,

"And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (KJV)

Mark 16:8,

"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." (KJV)

John 13:7, Jesus speaking to Judas,

"And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly." (KJV)

"Quickly" as used in the NT had the same sense of urgency as when used in the OT. They were to hurry.


Gen 12:11, Abraham speaking to Sarai,

"And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:"

The word "near" meant about to happen, close to, or ready.

1 Sam. 4:19,

"And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered:..." (KJV)

Esther 9:1,

"Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them,..." (KJV)

And, in the NT, Luke 15:1,

"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him." (KJV)

Luke 19:41, Jesus looking upon Jerusalem,

"And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it," (KJV)

Acts 9:3, of Paul on the road to Damascus,

"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:" (KJV)

The meaning did not change from the OT to the NT. "Near" still meant close.

So, when Christ said in Matt. 24:33,

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." (KJV)

He didn't mean thousands of years later. The prophesy of the end in Matthew c. 24 was close to them in that century in which He spoke the words.


Gen 41:32, Joseph explained Pharaoh's dream of the famine,

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." (KJV)

The word "shortly" meant the time was close, or near, or soon.

Ezek. 7:8, speaking of Babylon's destruction of Judah and Jerusalem,

"Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations." (KJV)

This prophesy came upon Jerusalem about three (3) years after it was spoken.

Acts 25:4,

"But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither." (KJV)

Phil. 2:19,

"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state." (KJV)

2 Pet. 1:14, speaking of his near death,

"Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me." (KJV)

The meaning of the word "shortly" as used in the NT did not change from its use in the OT. It still meant "soon" or "near" or "close", within hours, or days, or very few years.

So, when Holy Spirit said in Rev. 1:1,

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

the word "shortly" still had the same meaning of soon, or close, or within just a few years.

Rev. 1:3,

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

Rev. 22:10,,

"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."

Rev. 3:11, Christ to the church at Philadelphia,

"Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."

Rev. 22:7,

"Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."

Rev. 22:10,

"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."

Rev. 22:12,

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

Rev. 22:20,

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

Christ was most emphatic that all of the things prophesied in Revelation from the first chapter to the last chapter was close to them when the words were given to John. They were not going to be stretched out in time. They certainly were not prophesied for 2,000 or more years into the future.

In Heb 10: "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.". The Hebrew for 'little while' is actually 'very very little' and yet people have twisted the clear meaning and have been teaching that our Lord has not come for the last 2000 years.

As the prophesy of Matthew c. 24 was about the end of that temple in Jerusalem which occurred in A.D. 70; and since Christ came preaching and promising that the kingdom was "at hand" in the first century AD (Matt. 4:17); and since Christ told them that the men of Nineveh would rise up in judgment of that generation (Luke 11:32); and since Christ told them that all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zacharias was going to fall upon them (Matt. 23:35); and, since Christ told them that all of the blood of the prophets shed from the foundation of the world was going to be required of that generation (Luke 11:50) - then we can know for a certainty that the judgment was to come upon that generation in which He was manifested on earth, and in which He spoke those words.

And, as Christ told His disciples that they would not finish going through the cities of Israel before He came (Matt. 10:23); and as Christ told His disciples that John would live to see His coming (John 21:22-23); and as Christ told His disciples that their generation would not pass till all of those things were fulfilled (Matt. 24:34); and since Christ told the disciples that their days were the days of vengeance (John 21:22) - then we can know assuredly that He literally meant He was coming back to them in their generation, in their lifetime.

Revelation was about His return, about His second appearance as promised to them of the first century A.D. (Heb 9:28).

Rev. 1:7,

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

Those who pierced Him lived in the first century A.D. They could not see His "second" coming if they are already dead.

Therefore, the scriptures literally prove that His second "coming" was accomplished in the lifetimes of those who heard Him speak, of those who touched Him, and witnessed His death on the cross (1 John 1:1-3) in the first century A.D.

The current teachers of future "end times" eschatology claim that they are "interpreting" the Bible literally, but they then twist the clear meanings of the time statements in the scriptures in order to accommodate a biased point of view that suits their learned and taught perceptions of traditions of men.

They skew the clear time statements into future years, and future generations which were never taught by Christ or the apostles. But, their desire to stretch the meanings of the words "near", "soon", and "shortly" into thousands of years presents our Lord and Savior as a liar and deceiver to all of the world.

If Christ didn't say exactly what He meant, then why should anyone believe Him? And, as they are constantly saying they must "interpret" the scriptures literally, then why are they not taking the literal meaning of these time statements?

Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that temple, most probably in AD. 66 - 68 within a very short time of A.D. 70. As that temple was the center of the Jewish life, if Revelation had been written after its destruction it could not have failed to have been mentioned in the book.

Persecution from the Sanhedrin before A.D.70

Jews were present throughout Asia in the Roman provinces, and their synagogues were under control of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for all matters including collection of the temple tax. A decree by Julius Caesar issued in 47 BC reinforced the practice originally allowed under the Hasmoneans for the Sanhedrin to police their own. The high priest had complete sovereignty over all matters of their Jewish religion.

This religio licita was a privilege for the traditions and religions of the peoples of the Roman provinces as long as they were not offensive to Roman laws or gods. That Paul requested and received letters to arrest or extradite any man or woman in Damascus that had converted to The Way (Acts 9:1-2) in order to bring them back to Jerusalem for trial indicated this was an established practice.

So, the Sanhedrin regulated the synagogues of the diaspora cities throughout the Roman empire, and was operating under Roman law to persecute any Jew that converted to Christianity. They held this right of "extradition" privileges over any synagogue in any of the Roman provinces until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See: here.

After AD 70 the Sanhedrin no longer held that sovereignty or authority in any province of Rome. Therefore Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 referring to those who say they were Jews of the synagogue of Satan would not have been of such import if the book had been written after A.D. 70.

Other external evidences you may like to explore are:

Robert Young's Analytical Concordance on Revelation,

"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syria version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.”

J.A.T. Robinson (1976) from Redating the New Testament, p. 13:

“One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a past fact. . . . [T]he silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark”.

There just is not space here to provide all of the abundant proofs that exist for the early date of Revelation. I have presented many more scriptural evidences for the "second" appearance of Christ and for the date of the book of Revelation in that same century in which Christ was manifested on earth at my blog [ShreddingTheVeil]. ["It's Not the End of The World, Part V - Dating the Book of Revelation"], and ["The Signs of Revelation, Part I - The Time of His Coming"] provide many references to consider.

  • After the destruction of the Temple the synagogue became the center of Jewish life; after the destruction of Jerusalem there was no clear location of the seat of authority for the Christian church. Doesn't the first 3 chapters of Revelation reflect both of these facts? Commented Aug 2, 2017 at 14:35
  • The reference to the synagogue of Satan... those who were claiming to be Jews but were not... were the persecuting Jews who betrayed their fellow countrymen to the tyranny of the Sanhedrin. Look at Matt. 24:9-11. It also refers to the Jews continued practice of animal sacrifices in the temple which had become profane once Christ became the sacrifice for all time. After the temple was destroyed, those unbelieving Jews were either killed, or enslaved, or lost their authority. Any survivors may very well have established new assemblies, but they were not persecuting the Christians anymore.
    – Gina
    Commented Aug 3, 2017 at 2:01
  • 2
    Why would the author write to Christians in Asia about persecution from the Sanhedrin in Judea? The Sanhedrin was not a threat to them in any way.
    – user2910
    Commented Jan 10, 2018 at 16:12
  • 1
    What historical evidence is there that the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem had any authority over Jews in Asia, hundreds of miles away? What historical evidence is there that Jews in Asia persecuted Christians? Paul wielding the priest's authority all the way in Damascus gives us a sample set of one (and many historians doubt the veracity of this account in Acts based on other evidence), so we can't use just him to make huge sweeping claims about persecution of Christians by 'the Jews' across the entire empire.
    – user2910
    Commented Jan 11, 2018 at 5:52
  • 1
    You have done well to support your position but what of these Scriptures: The Lord is willing to cut short days for the sake of the elect during the tribulation (Matthew 24:22 & Mark 13:20) isn’t it reasonable He would lengthen the days for the sake of the unsaved (2 Peter 3:9)? And the OT has examples of people getting a message of imminent action, repenting and the action is delayed. Also the first example of a temporal response for judgment is Genesis 2:17 “…for in the day you eat of it you will surely die.” Yet “all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” (Genesis 5:5) Commented Jan 11, 2018 at 20:34

The book was written during a time when Christians were persecuted (Rev 1: 9 etc) and this was taken to be during either the reign of Nero (54 -68 CE) or Domitian (81 - 96 CE). My opinion on this is that we do not know enough history to make a judgement like that. All the rulers of that period (Vespasian, Titus, Trajan) were capable of persecuting Christians. They were hard people. It could also have been a localized event. Because of the uncertainty it would be adventurous to base a point of view on a date.


In 1:4, we are told that John wrote Revelation to a specific group of churches in Asia Minor. This is a critical point that has been overlooked by many scholars, commentators, and historians. This shows that Revelation could not have been written before AD 61. This would suggest that John's exile was during the reign of Nero rather than Domitian.

There was only a very small opportunity of time in which these seven churches in Asia existed at the same time. This was in the late 50’s to early 60's A.D.

The apostle Paul established nine churches in the area of Asia Minor, but only seven are addressed in Revelation. This is a good indicator that places the writing of Revelation sometime after two of these churches had disappeared. Around AD 60 or 61, the cities of Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, were all destroyed by an earthquake. Laodicea was soon afterwards rebuilt, but Colossae and Hierapolis were not. This left only seven churches in Asia during the five years just prior to the beginning of the Roman/Jewish war.

It is important to note Jesus' particular message to the specific Church of Philadelphia in 3:7-13. In verses 10 and 11. Jesus told John to warn the Church of Philadelphia that an “hour of temptation” was “about to come upon all the world.” That “hour of temptation” was to be the time of persecution executed by the Empire of Roman. Christ then told them that He was coming quickly and he admonished them to “hold fast.” This is important because this warning was given to a specific congregation of Christians in a specified area of Asia Minor in a specific time in history. The first Roman persecution of Christians took place under Nero in AD 64, but at the time of John’s revelation, it had not yet begun. Therefore, Revelation had to have been written before AD 64.

  • Sorry, but it seems your argument all hinges on this: "That “hour of temptation” was to be the time of persecution executed by the Empire of Roman." That this refers to the very first Roman persecution is a big assumption that you haven't even begun to prove.
    – curiousdannii
    Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 13:43

Nero was the fifth Emperor of Rome not the sixth.

the first being Augustus who was ruling at the time of christs birth ( see the ten kings/ horns of daniels last beast) he is the first king of the ten horns ( the same prophecy also reads as the ten kings that come to power one hour with the papal beast king- daniels prophecy is a double prophecy)

Julius ceaser was and even now is never officially considered an Emperor.

The later date is absolutely the preferred historically accurate date As Domitian was the sixth Emperor of the second dynasty, which is what the book of revelation's seven kings is referring to . adding the short lived reign of Nerva who would be the seventh king horn.

The 8th king the beast is the papacy which is connected to Domitian the sixth Emperor of Johns 7 Emperors / kings. due to the fact he like the papacy fulfilled all , all except one that is , of the Prophecy Daniel recieved of the little horn and its prophesied antichristian deeds.

( Domitian was the actual 11 emperor of rome and is also the sixth Emperor of the second dynasty which was known as the year of the four Emperors , that is what revelation is talking about which is the dynasty which was key to the growth of the early church)

Yet unlike the papacy he Domitian was not ruling supreme for 1260 years. That part of the little horn prophecy was fulfilled by the papal seat that is antichrist.

it being the 8th king which did fulfill the whole prophetic number of the little horns reign of 1260 days, or time times and half a time or 42 months and killed the saints.

Nero had only four kings fall before him, and so was not the one that now is nor was he the 11 horn of Rome.

So Nero is not the answer to Daniel nor to Revelation.

But Domitian is.

He being one of the seven and the connector to the 8the king the beast king which is ONE of the seven.

both being of antichrists spirit,

both fulfilling the little horn prophecy.

Though Domitian only in part fulfilled as he did not have the totality of little horns rule hence the need to make the 8th king one of the seven. Hence the beast ( that Was Is not , then goeth to perdition)

the papal throne dragon seat is the 8th and is the fulfillment of both Daniels Roman Beast little horn prophecy which is a double prophecy and the papacy being Johns Roman Beast which picks up the 11 horn as the sixth horn that being Domtion five having fallen before it , it being the one ruling in johns day when he recieved the prophecy,
that then was the one the angel said is now is.

But then it is not when the seventh comes for a short time ( Nerva) But then it that antichrist goeth to destruction as the 8 th king The papacy.

And for those asking how Consider this, was God going to give a prophecy that consisted of a beast with over two hundred heads?

Do not let any man decieve you For many shall come in my name saying they are anointed And they shall decieve many

The beast was given its throne power and great authority by the dragon

The spirit taught that those fallen from the faith Would teach doctrines of demons Forbidding to marry And commanding abstinence from meats.

The papacy forbid any clericals who are considered to be so from marriage And they command men to not eat meat or a food they would ordinarilly eat on fridays every friday of every week of every year.

Those are doctrines of demons issued by papal laws And they the papacy had other laws just like Domitian did and killed the saints Are dressed in purple and scarlet and gold a precious stones And ruled as supreme for exactly 1260 years to the exact day From the last beast empire from its great whore city that woman Rome And according to the spirit they are apostates fallen from the faith. And with such deeds is one really suprised they are apostates? Who should defend such a beast? Does God?

Sources showing the officially recognised Roman Emperors Augustus, the first emperor, was careful to maintain the facade of republican rule, taking no specific title for his position https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors

And here is a link to Domitian eyes being of poor eyes sight

. He was a tall man, with large eyes, though weak sight. http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/domitian-index.html

The little horn had eyes like the eyes of a man. The prophecy of the little horn was to far outlive Domitions 15 years rule. The beast king would fulfil it fully.

  • 1
    Please cite sources. Showing your work is a requirement here.
    – Dan
    Commented Jan 23, 2017 at 21:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.