12/14/2018
The debates never end on the subject of when John wrote the book of Revelation. Was it during Nero’s reign (54-68 CE), or Domitian’s (81-96 CE)? (These were both Roman emperors following the days of Jesus.)
Why is the date of its writing so important? Because if John wrote it in the early 60’s, he could have been foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem. If he wrote it in the 80’s or 90’s, it doesn’t qualify for prophesying about the temple’s destruction in 70, so it’s possible he may have been seeing something still to come for us.
I personally believe Revelation was written during the time of Nero’s reign, and that it was a legit prophecy, but we will never know for sure. Scholars have done their best to interpret the info left by ancient historians. All we can do is review the history available to us, read the symbolism of Revelation, then pair those with hugely significant events of the generation prophesied about, which was the people of Jesus's generation. Along with Revelation, it would be wise to learn of other biblical prophecies fulfilled that fit the heart of God and His intentions Jesus revealed to us.
The belief surrounding the date of the writing of Revelation has gone back and forth through history. This is probably because the eschatology of the church has changed over time. Futurism was almost non-existent until the time of the Reformation (1500’s). A large part of the church believed the prophecies in the New Testament were about the past. Suddenly, church leaders started preaching that the enemies of their day had been prophesied about in the bible. This thought pattern grabbed ahold of the minds of the people and has never let go, probably because it gave them hope that their persecutors were destined to receive their own torment from God. During the 1800’s, the belief of Futurism exploded and it has been the most prevalent eschatological belief in the church ever since.
In his book “Before Jerusalem Fell”, Kenneth Gentry writes: “[The writing of the] Revelation was generally considered to belong to the close of Domitian’s reign [mid-90’s]; but during the greater part of the 19th century there was a strong majority of critics in favor of a date some quarter of a century earlier. This view was entertained by both advanced and conservative scholars. But some time before the close of the last century, opinion began to move back to the traditional date, and for several years it has secured the adhesion of the great majority of scholars. Early date advocates were as confident then as late date advocates have been later in the present century [1900’s].”
Meaning the interpretation of its date of writing has periodically changed. Similar to what scientists say today about the health benefits of eating eggs. Or dark chocolate or red wine. This week they might be okay, while next week your doctor’s opinion could support the exact opposite - all based on well-meaning, current research.
So really, all we can say for sure is that the early church leaders and historians all through our history didn’t agree with each other. Yeah, the dating of the book is important. But what’s even more important? The fact that the book describes (either by foretelling or symbolic recordings afterword) the historical changes that happened in the first century.
