The dating of the book of Revelation is often a point of contention within evangelical Christian circles. When one begins to enter the arena of eschatology (study of end-times) they are often faced with the question surrounding the dating of this book. In my many years of study, I have found the only viable position to stand on, is that of the Domitianic Dating.

It is my desire here in this post to set forth a defense of the Domitianic Dating of Revelation (95-96 AD) over and against the Neronic Dating of Revelation (60-64AD). It is my contention that the Neronic Dating of Revelation is the mother of invention derived from “necessity” not from the evidence (internal and external). The Neronic Dating must be true for the Partial/Full-Preteristic position to work at all. It is entirely contingent upon the dating of Revelation. If it can be demonstrated that Revelation was written later (i.e. during the Domitianic period), then it necessarily follows that John’s vision pertains to events that will occur in the future after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, and not before the fall of Jerusalem as the Neronic proponents speculate.

Domitianic Dating (95-96AD)

1.) The External Evidence for the Late Dating

The external evidence for the late dating is extremely persuasive for anyone that is investigating the topic. It won’t take very long to see the powerful support for the late date.

a.) The Majority of Scholars Affirm the Late Date

It is no surprise that when one begins to look at what scholars see as the accurate dating of Revelation that they all harmoniously state that the date is later, independent of their eschatological beliefs. It is only a small group of Preterist’s that advocate for the earlier date, which should raise flags for anyone that is starting to study this topic. As you will see below, many scholars (not just Dispensationalists) advocate for the later dating, because this is where the evidence takes them.

Charles Pope: “The Majority of modern scholars place the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation between 90-110 AD. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the testimony of several Fathers of the Church. Irenaeus places the work at 96 AD. Victorinus places the writing in the context of the persecution of Domitian, and indicates it was thus that John was imprisoned on Patmos. Jerome and Eusebius say the same. This date of composition (90-110) also flows well with modern theories of biblical dating which tend to favor later dates as a general rule.”¹

W. A. Elwell: “The traditional view for the date of the composition of Revelation is during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). The early church fathers affirmed this and most scholars since then have accepted this… For those who want precision in such matters, there is a virtual consensus that Revelation was written between AD 94 and 96.”²

G. R. Beasley-Murray: “The majority opinion as to the date of Revelation is that of Irenaeus, who wrote concerning the book, “There has been no very long time since, but almost in our own day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign” (Irenaeus Haer. 5.30.3).”³

Tim Warner: “All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John’s banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero’s reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John.”⁴

Howard Winters: “When the interpretation depends upon the date, the interpretation can never be more certain than the date itself—if the date is wrong, then, of necessity the interpretation is wrong. The whole business of making the interpretation depend upon the date is therefore built upon a sandy foundation. . .. But if the late date is correct, the whole approach that assigns Revelation as a prophecy fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem is false and must be totally rejected.”⁵

Mark Hitchcock: “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes Mark Hitchcock. “Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant “evidence,” needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date “has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in a.d. 150. . . . The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.”⁶

Mark Hitchcock: “John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.”⁷

B. B. Warfield: “The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98.”⁸

William Hendriksen: “The question now arises, when did John write the Apocalypse? In the year 69 (or even earlier), or must we reverse the figure and make it 96 (or perhaps 95)? One cannot find a single really cogent argument in support of the earlier date. The arguments produced are based on late and unreliable testimonies, on the wholly imaginary idea that John did not yet know his Greek when he wrote the Apocalypse, and on a very questionable literal interpretation of certain passages . . . The late date has very strong support. Says, Irenaeus: “For that (the apocalyptic vision) was seen not a very long time since, but almost in our own day, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” Again he says: “. . . the church in Ephesus founded by Paul, and lived in by John until the time of Trajan (AD 98-117), is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.””⁹

G. K. Beale: “To sum up, the earlier date may be right, but the internal evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the firm tradition stemming from Irenaeus.”¹⁰

John MacArthur: “Those who hold to the early date [pre- A.D. 70] see in Jerusalem’s destruction the prophesied second coming of Jesus Christ in its first phase. External evidence for the earlier (Neronian) date is almost nonexistent. On the other hand, the view that the apostle John penned Revelation near the end of Domitian’s reign was widely held in the early church. The second-century church father Irenaeus wrote . . . [see above quote] . . . The church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome also affirm that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign . . . The testimony of the early church that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign is difficult to explain if it was actually written during Nero’s reign.”¹¹

H. B. Swete: “Early Christian tradition is almost unanimous in assigning the Apocalypse to the last years of Domitian.”¹²

Donald Guthrie: “Undoubtedly a strong argument in favor of a Domitianic date is the fact that the earliest and the weightiest external witnesses attest it.”¹³

Robert L. Thomas: “A date during the last decade of the first century, about A.D. 95, is the traditional time assigned to the publishing of the Apocalypse. This tradition is substantiated by contemporary majority opinion as well as those who suggest alternatives. . . The case for the traditional date of about A.D. 95 remains the most probable option.”¹⁴

Richard L. Mayhue: “In regard to the writing date of Revelation, the overwhelming consensus of second to twenty-first century scholars, with good reason, embraces a late writing date of Revelation (ca. A.D. 95) rather than the early date (pre-A.D. 70), with the exception of the nineteenth century when postmillennialism was the majority opinion. This one conclusion alone eliminates a preterist approach from viable consideration.”¹⁵

Sam Storms: “The most widely held date for the composition of Revelation is sometime in the early 90s of the first century.”¹⁶

Charles L. Feinberg: “The date of the book is ca. A.D. 95/96 in the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, which is the most generally accepted view. Most authorities feel the background of persecutions (1:9; 2:10, 13; 3:10; 6:9; 18:24) best fits the reign of Domitian (A.D. 51-96). The date in the reign of Nero (A.D. 37-68) has little to commend it.”¹⁷

Robert B. Hughes & J. Carl Laney: “The weight of historical evidence points to a date toward the end of the reign of Domitian in A.D. 95 or 96. This later date allows for the growth and decline of the churches in Asia. The book reflects considerable persecution (Rev. 1:9; 2:10, 13; 6:9), and this certainly would have been the case during Domitian’s rule. He initiated persecution against Christians who refused to worship him. Revelation is best dated toward the end of the reign of Domitian, around A.D. 96.”¹⁸

Daniel Green: “The consensus view, however, points to a later date during the reign of Domitian (AD 95).”¹⁹

James M. Gray: “The authorship is ascribed to John, who wrote the Gospel and three epistles bearing his name, and who at this time, about A.D. 95, had been banished by the Roman Emperor, to the Isle of Patmos… The date is in dispute, some placing it as early as Nero, A.D. 64 or 65, but the preponderance of opinion is in favor of the later period of Domitian.”²⁰

Matthew Henry: “The time when the Apocalypse has also been the subject of considerable discussion, but it is now generally placed about the year A.D. 96 or 97, after John’s return from the isle of Patmos, whither he had been banished during the persecution raised by Domitian.”²¹

Bruce M. Metzger: “Although some scholars have identified the persecutions alluded to in the book as originating from the Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), it is more likely that the book reflects the conditions prevailing during the latter years of the Emperor Domitian.”²²

Earle, Blaney, Hanson: “The weight of evidence places the writing of the Revelation at about A.D. 95, during the persecution under the Roman Emperor Domitian.”²³

George E. Ladd: “Tradition has ascribed the Revelation to the last decade of the first century when Domitian was emperor in Rome (A.D. 81-96). Some scholars have argued for an earlier date, but this unlikely.”²⁴

David M. Levy: “Conservative scholars believe that the Apostle John wrote the Book of the Revelation during his incarceration on the isle of Patmos around 95 A.D.”²⁵

Ronald H. Preston & Anthony T. Hanson: “A.D. 95-96 is the most likely date, as one of the early Fathers of the Church, Irenaeus, said (c. A.D. 180).”²⁶

T. F. Glasson: “It is generally thought that Revelation was completed in Domitian’s reign; this tradition goes back to Irenaeus (end of second century).”²⁷

Leon Morris: “…it seems that a date in the time of Domitian, i.e. c. AD 90-95, best suits the facts.”²⁸

Craig R. Koester: “Revelation was written toward the end of the first century by an author who was sharply critical of Roman imperialism.”²⁹

R. H. Charles: “This evidence [external] almost unanimously assigns J^ap to the last years of Domitian.”³⁰

---

b.) Early Church Father’s Affirm the Late Date

As you begin looking at what the early church father’s believed, you would also expect to find some clarity on the topic. The evidence is in, the tradition that was past down was that of Hegesippus-Irenaeus. These two clearly, without wavering, report that John was banished to Patmos under Domitian.

Hegesippus (ca. A.D. 120-190)

H.J. Lawlor: “Now evidence from the second century in regard to the date and authorship of the canonical Apocalypse is both scanty and, in some respects, difficult to interpret. But if the two passages referred to are really from Hegesippus we have his testimony that St. John was banished to Patmos under Domitian, and resided at Ephesus under Nerva. That is to say, he must be added to the small band of early witnesses to the late date and apostolic authority of the Apocalypse, and this is full of significance. It is not only that Hegesippus is the earliest writer who can be quoted in favor of that view. That, indeed, we may well claim for him.”³¹

Christopher Scott: “The first person to describe the date Revelation was written in AD 95 is a man named Hegesippus who lived AD 120-190. While there is a limited number of writings that exist today from Hegesippus, Eusebius Pamphili of Caesaria (who lived AD 300-340) heavily relied on Hegesippus’ material when writing his Ecclesiastical History (Andrew James Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements to Viligiae christianae, ed. J. Van Oort, J. Den Boeft, W. L. Petersen, et al., vol. 67 [Leiden: Brill: 2003], 1-36). In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History he mentions a written source that he uses to state that John the apostle was banished to the island of Patmos under the reign of Domitian.”³²

John A. T. Robinson: “This is not of course to say that Eusebius was the source of his identification. Apart from quoting Irenaeus, he refers to ‘the record of our ancient men.’ (i.e., in all probability the Memoirs of Hegesippus) for the tradition that ‘the apostle John also took up his abode once more at Ephesus after his exile’ under Domitian’s successor Nerva.”³³

Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202)

Irenaeus: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”³⁴

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-220)

Mark Hitchcock: “First, Clement references to “true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory.” He is clearly referring to some well-known tradition in the church. The only extant tradition that had been handed down and preserved at that time was the Domitianic tradition. Had Clement intended someone other than Domitian he no doubt would have named that person specifically in light of the established Hegesippian- Irenaean tradition of John’s banishment under Domitian. Clement’s reference to “the tyrant” without any further designation implies that there was a generally known tradition concerning the identity of this Roman emperor. Since the Hegesippian-Irenaean tradition is apparently the only tradition that existed at that time, one can logically conclude that Clement’s designation “the tyrant” without any further description points to Domitian.”³⁵

Clement: “And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”³⁶

Dio Cassius (ca. 155-235)

Mark Hitchcock: “While Dio does not specifically mention John’s banishment during the reign of Domitian he does refer three times to Domitian’s practice of banishment. Dio even notes the release of exiles immediately after Domitian’s death. This secular testimony solidly corroborates the ecclesiastical tradition of John’s banishment under Domitian and liberation when Domitian died.”³⁷

Victorinus (ca. 304)

Victorinus: “He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.”³⁸

Victorinus: “The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Cæsar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba. These are the five who have fallen. One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written — Domitian, to wit. The other has not yet come, speaks of Nerva; and when he has come, he will be for a short time, for he did not complete the period of two years.”³⁹

Eusebius (ca. 260-340)

Eusebius: “It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’ To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.”⁴⁰

Eusebius: “Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released, they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.”⁴¹

[Eusebius Quoting Tertullian] “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.”⁴²

[Eusebius Quoting Irenaeus] “We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.”⁴³

[Eusebius next statement after quoting Irenaeus] “He states these things concerning the Apocalypse in the work referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, taking many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter.”⁴⁴

Jerome (ca. 331-420)

Jerome: “In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord’s passion and was buried near the same city.”⁴⁵

Sulpicius Severus (ca. 400)

Sulpicius Severus: “Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this time, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.”⁴⁶

Paulus Orosius (early 5th century)

Paulus Orosius: “In the eight hundred and thirtieth year after the founding of the City, Domitian, the ninth emperor after Augustus, succeeded his brother, Titus, to the throne …. But Domitian, elated by the most distorted form of vanity, held a triumph nominally over the enemy who had been overcome, but actually over the loss of his legions. This same emperor, crazed by his pride because of which he wished to be worshiped as a god, was the first emperor after Nero to order a persecution against the Christians to be carried on. Also, at this time, the most blessed Apostle John was banished to the island of Patmos. Also among the Jews, an order was given that the race of David be searched out and killed by cruel tortures and bloody inquisitions, since the holy prophets were both hated and believed, as if some day there would be One from the seed of David who could acquire the throne.”⁴⁷

The Acts of John (ca. 650)

Ante-Nicene Fathers: “And the fame of the teaching of John was spread abroad in Rome; and it came to the ears of Domitian that there was a certain Hebrew in Ephesus, John by name, who spread a report about the seat of empire [sic] of the Romans, saying that it would quickly be rooted out, and that the kingdom of the Romans would be given over to another. And Domitian, troubled by what was said, sent a centurion with soldiers to seize John, and bring him…. And Domitian, astonished at all the wonders, sent him away to an island, appointing for him a set time. And straightway John sailed to Patmos, where also he was deemed worthy to see the revelation of the end. And when Domitian was dead, Nerva succeeded to the kingdom, and recalled all who had been banished …”⁴⁸

Venerable Bede (ca. 672-735)

Venerable Bede: “And it is told in church history how he was put by the emperor Domitian into a tub of boiling oil, from which, since divine grace shielded him, he came out untouched, just as he had been a stranger to the corruption of fleshly concupiscence. And not much after, on account of his unconquerable constancy in bringing the good news, he was banished in exile by the same prince to the island of Patmos, where although he was deprived of human comfort, he nevertheless merited to be relieved by the frequent consolation of the divine vision and spoken message. Accordingly, in that very place he composed with his own hand the Apocalypse, which the Lord revealed to him concerning the present and future state of the Church.”⁴⁹

---

2.) The Internal Evidence for the Late Dating

Some find it inconceivable that there could also be internal evidence that points us towards a late date. Let’s examine some of these, shall we?

a.) Ephesus Lost Its First Love

Ephesus was founded in the latter part of Claudius’ reign. When Paul writes to them in approx. 61AD, he tells them of their great love. How is it that they’ve suddenly lost their love in approx. 3 years if the Neronic dating is valid?

Ephesians 1:15 NASB
For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints

Revelation 2:4 NASB
But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

Not enough time developed for them to lose their first love, which is why the Domitian dating explains the estimated period of time for them to lose their first love by the Domitian period.

John MacArthur: “The spiritual decline of the 7 churches (chaps. 2,3) also argues for the later date. Those churches were strong and spiritually healthy in the mid-60s, when Paul last ministered in Asia Minor. The brief time between Paul’s ministry there and the end of Nero’s reign was too short for such a decline to have occurred”⁵⁰

b.) Laodicea is Rich

John says that Laodicea is rich, yet that’s impossible if they suffered a horrible earthquake in 60AD. Laodicea needed about 30 years before they would begin to see wealth again, which fits with the Domitian dating.

Revelation 3:17-18 NASB
Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, [18] I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Wayne Jackson: “Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.”⁵¹

Robert L. Thomas: “How could John dwell on the prosperity of the church in Laodicea when the city had been completely destroyed by an earthquake only five years earlier? Gentry responds to this problem by suggesting that Laodicea’s wealth was spiritual and not material, by supposing the possibility of a quick rebuilding, and by theorizing that the earthquake did not impact the sector of the city where the Christians were. A careful exegesis of 3:17, however, shows that Christians in the city thought their material prosperity was equivalent to spiritual prosperity, not that they were spiritually rich while materially poor. The possibility of a quick rebuilding contradicts the facts. The rebuilding effort was still in progress as late as 79 when a gymnasium that was part of the rebuilding effort was completed.”⁵²

Christopher Scott: “Additionally, Rev 3:17 describes the church as rich and flourishing economically, yet a catastrophic earthquake shook the Lycus Valley in AD 60 or 61. In a primitive time when construction was long and tedious, it is unlikely that the people in Laodicea would have been experiencing a strong economy only five years after a massive earthquake.”⁵³

c.) Smyrna Didn’t Exist in 60-64AD

How is it possible that John is writing to a church that didn’t even exist at that time? Again, the evidence leads to the conclusion Smyrna had been around for some time.

James M. Rochford: “Polycarp—writing in AD 110—states that Smyrnaeans weren’t believers during the time of Paul.”⁵⁴

Christopher Scott: “Regarding the church of Smyrna, this church did not even exist during the ministry of Paul (who likely died in AD 65-68).”⁵⁵

d.) John Wasn’t In Asia Until the Middle to Late 60’s

Another impossible time frame within the Neronic period is the arrival of John to Asia. How could he have been banished by Nero in 64AD, when he wasn’t even there until the late 60’s? How could he have been establishing connections in the Asian churches in this time frame?

Robert L. Thomas: “When did John arrive in Asia? According to the best tradition, John was part of a migration of Christians from Palestine to the province of Asia just before the outbreak of the Jewish rebellion in A.D. 66, so he did not arrive there before the late sixties. A Neronic dating of the book would hardly have allowed time for him to settle in Asia, replace Paul as the respected leader of the Asian churches, and be exiled to Patmos before Nero’s death in 68. Gentry does not respond to this problem, but his dating of the book in 65 or 66 renders its apostolic authorship impossible.”⁵⁶

e.) Nero Wasn’t as Well Known for Exiling as Domitian

Wayne Jackson: “It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).”⁵⁷

Christopher Scott: “First, church history records Peter and Paul being executed in Rome near the end of Nero’s reign. Why would Nero execute Peter and Paul for being Christians only to banish John to an island? Second, Nero did not exile people nearly as often as Domitian. Domitian was known for banishing Christians while Nero was known for killing them. Third, nowhere in history is there a record that says Nero banished Christians. The only punishment known by Nero for Christians was death.”⁵⁸

f.) John’s Work Would Have Overlapped with Timothy and Paul

James M. Rochford: “If the early date is true, then John would have been leading in Ephesus at the same time as Paul and Timothy. Why would Paul leave Timothy in charge of this church, if the apostle John was there? Moreover, at the end of 2 Timothy, Paul mentions 17 coworkers by name, but John isn’t mentioned! Why wouldn’t he mention John? Why wouldn’t John mention Paul or Timothy in his writing to the church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7).”⁵⁹

g.) Antipas Was Put to Death in A.D. 92

Antipas of Pergamum was not put to death until A.D. 92. How could John speak of Antipas being put to death if it happened during the reign of Nero?

Revelation 2:13 NASB
‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold firmly to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

“According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of the Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.”⁶⁰

---

3.) Responding to Advocates of the Neronic Dating

Advocates of the Neronic date assert that they have such a strong line of evidence that they can bypass all the external evidence that has been presented above, to isolate a couple concepts to move their argument forward. Most of these, as I will prove, depend upon a precommitment to Preterism.

1. If the Domitianic dating is true why is there so much internal evidence that would seem to indicate otherwise?

This is one of the responses that I often hear from Preterists when discussing this topic. How could John not have expected his audience to understand (timing indicators, audience relevant themes, i.e. emperor worship, the destruction of the temple, the seven hills, etc.)? These comments usually come from a place of having studied nothing other than Gentry or DeMar on the subject. The internal evidence, as I have demonstrated above, clearly, and without question prove a late dating. I will deal with the “supposed” arguments for an earlier dating in the following sections.

2. If the Domitianic dating is true why is the temple still intact in Revelation 11?

This is another classic argument from Preterists! They read into Revelation 11:1-2 what they need to, in order to solidify their position. They can’t see beyond the fact that if Revelation is written later that it must be referring to a future temple. This is never wrestled with. It is merely assumed that because a temple is mentioned that it must be the temple that was standing in Jerusalem prior to the destruction in A.D. 70. All of this is presupposed not argued. I’d ask Preterist’s why it can’t be another temple that is built at a later point in history? As a futurist, this is no problem for us. We believe this is the temple that will be ransacked in the future (cf. Mt. 24:15, 2 Thess. 2:2-4) prior to the coming of the Lord (cf. Mt. 24:29-31, 2 Thess. 2:8-9).

3. If the Domitianic dating is true why does John use terms like “near and soon” to describe the timing of these events?

When studying terms like “near and soon” it is appropriate to look at how they are used in the Old Testament. The terms near and soon are often used in conjunction with the Day of the Lord. They speak of “imminency” not absolute timing because the prophets were uninterested in perfect chronology of all details. Old Testament scholars know full well that the chronology is not in view, imminency is.

“The problem is raised by the fact that the prophets were little interested in chronology, and the future was always viewed as imminent. Biblical prophecy is not primarily three-dimensional but two; it has height and breadth but is little concerned about depth, i.e., the chronology of future events. There is in biblical prophecy a tension between the immediate and distant future; the distant is viewed through the transparency of the immediate. It is true that the early church lived in expectancy of the return of the Lord, and it is the nature of biblical prophecy to make it possible for every generation to live in expectancy of the end. To relax and say “where is the promise of his coming?” is to become a scoffer of divine truth. The “biblical” attitude is “take heed, for you do not know when the time will come (Mark 13:33).”⁶¹

Secondly, we have examples in the Old Testament of events that were said to occur quickly that didn’t.

Isaiah 13:22 NASB
Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers And jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come, And her days will not be prolonged.

Reading this we can pull out several details. Isaiah was speaking about the imminence of judgment that was going to come upon Babylon (vs.19). It was said to happen soon. Isaiah wrote somewhere between 740-701 B.C. which means that based upon the preterists logic, the events should have happened no more than 30-40 years for soon to be validated. What does history tell us? Babylon fell to the Persians in 539 B.C. Which means that at the latest date (740 B.C. of the prediction) to the actual date of the event (539 B.C.) we have almost 200 years. This seems hardly to be an issue for anyone. Yet, “soon” is used. Why can’t this also apply to John’s writings?

Even Preterists know this argument doesn’t hold water:

“Isaiah 13:22 and Habakkuk 2:3-4, for example, speak of the imminence of the judgment to come upon Babylon. It is interesting to note that Isaiah was writing between 740 and 701 B.C., while Habakkuk wrote sometime between 609 and 598. Yet both spoke of Babylon’s judgment using short-term time texts. Isaiah says it is “near.” Habakkuk tells the people that “it will not tarry.” Babylon fell to the Persians in 539. . . . Isaiah 56:1 says that God’s salvation is “about to come.” Writing in the early sixth century B.C., Ezekiel says that “the fulfillment of every vision” is “at hand” (12:23). Writing after the Exile, in approximately 520, Haggai proclaims the following word from God: “Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land . . . (2:6-7). If this prophecy was fulfilled at the coming of Christ, as Hebrews 12:26-28 seems to indicate, then “a little while” was more than 520 years.”⁶²

If we grant that there were large gaps of time, yet the word “soon” was used, and John is drawing largely off of the Old Testament than it seems quite likely that we should understand the words used in Revelation 1, 22 etc. simply as events that are imminent, not the way that preterists use them.

“Preterists are faced with a critical dilemma. They insist that the time indicators “near,” “soon,” and “at hand” in the Book of Revelation must refer to first-century events and not to events that will immediately precede the Lord’s return. Nevertheless, as Mathison explains, the apostle John borrowed these time statements from the day of the Lord passages found in the Old Testament Prophets, passages that prophesied events that did not take place for at least several centuries after the prophecies were written. These same preterists condemn futurist interpretations of John’s time indicators on the grounds that they require several centuries for fulfillment! In addition, a general consensus exists among biblical scholars that the “little while” of Hebrews 12:26-28 is an allusion to the “little while” prophecy of Haggai 2:6. Consequently, preterists must either admit that the writer of Hebrews referred to a different “little while” than Haggai intended or that such day of the Lord passages can have both a near and a far fulfillment. This would mean either a dual fulfillment or an ““already and not yet”” aspect of fulfillment of Haggai’s original prophecy, both of which are devastating to common preterist thinking about how prophecy is fulfilled.”⁶³

4. If the Domitianic dating is true why does John not mention the Temple destruction?

This one is easy. John is given a prophetic vision and tells us in Revelation 1:19 that he was told exactly what to record. Nothing about the vision he was shown required him to explain anything in the past, let alone to an audience that would have no concern over the temple destruction which occured 25 years earlier.

“Preterists argue that it is bizarre that John would fail to mention the destruction of Jerusalem, if he was writing in AD 95. Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem was an excellent apologetic for supporting the veracity of Christ’s claims. Preterists argue why John would fail to point this out in his letter. However, a number of counterarguments can be made: First, the original audience was ethnically and geographically different than Jerusalem. When we look at the churches in Revelation 2 and 3, these are all Gentile churches—not Jewish believers. They were 800 miles from Jerusalem. Second, the original audience was chronologically different than Jerusalem. If the late date is true, then the destruction of Jerusalem would’ve been 25 years in the past. Third, John was commanded to write about prophecy (Rev. 1:3)—not apologetics. In Revelation 1:19, Jesus commands John: “Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.” John was a prophet who was writing about the future—not a historian or an apologist who was writing about the past. If Revelation was an apologetics text, we might expect him to mention this fulfilled prophecy. However, Revelation is a book of prophecy—not apologetics or history.”⁶⁴

5. Well what about the Mark of the Beast? Isn’t that Nero?

Another common argument brought out by Preterists. This one is absolutely bizzare to me. The lengths that Preterists go to make this one work is brutal. Several counter arguments have been brought out over the years debunking this:

“1. First, for 666 to fit the gematria of Nero, his name and his title must be used. This would be, “Nero Caesar.” There were many names and titles that could be used. For example, coins have been found with titles of Domitian that equal 666 as well as a coin issued in AD 72 that has a legend which equals 666. 2. Second, the text says that 666 will be the number of his name. Nero Caesar was not his name. It was his name with a title added. This would be the same as adding “President” to the name of George W. Bush. 3. Third, a gematria that fits Nero for 666 must be translated from Greek into Hebrew. The numerical value of Neron Kaiser in Greek is 1005. John, writing to a Greek-speaking audience is western Asia Minor would likely have used a Greek form, not Hebrew. 4. Fourth, within the Hebrew gematria of Neron Kaiser, interpreters still have to decide whether the Hebrew letters י or ן be included? The gematria for Nero only equals 666 if י is omitted after the letter ק in Ceasar (קיסר). 5. Fifth, to arrive at 666 for Nero the ן in Neron must be retained. In other words, to arrive at Nero as the gematria of 666 you would have to omit a letter and keep another, which is odd. 6. Sixth, identification of Nero as the beast of 666 is not supported by the early church. Irenaus wrote extensively about the possible identity of this beast and named three options: Evanthas, Lateinos, and Teitan. Yet, Irenaeus never named Nero. Interestingly, this view did not arise until the 1830s by four German scholars (O. F. Fritsche, Ferdinand Benary, Ferdinand Hitzig, and Eduard Reuss). 7. Seventh, there is no historical figure during Nero’s time that corresponds to the beast of the earth in Rev 13:11-13. 8. Eighth, Nero did not fulfill the tasks of the beast of Rev 13 or his other descriptions in the book of Revelation. If someone is going to take a literal interpretation of 666 and a literal understanding of the forty-two months in Rev 13:5, then there needs to be a literal fulfillment of the duties of the beast (Hitchcock, “Domitianic Date of Revelation,” 139-142, 146-154; Hitchock, “A Critique of the Preterist View of Revelation 13,” 341-356).”⁶⁵

“… neronic calculation requires using a Hebrew transliteration of the Greek form of a Latin name for a readership who knew no Hebrew. It also involves a defective spelling.”⁶⁶

“Not only does the evidence suggest that John was given his revelation after AD 70, but preterist interpretations of the beast, his image, and his number are also not exhaustively fulfilled by Nero and the events of AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.”⁶⁷

“666 does not have anything to do with Nero Caesar.”⁶⁸

“A popular interpretation of many scholars is that the number 666 has the numerical value of the name Nero Caesar. We should keep in mind, however, that it was not until the 1830s that four German scholars proposed the name Nero for the number 666. But the choice of Nero’s name creates many difficulties. First, to arrive at the number 666 as the numerical value of Nero’s name, one has to add the name Caesar. But even then, the expanded name Nero Caesar has the numerical value of only 616. Only when one adds an extra letter n to the name Nero, resulting in Neron Caesar, is the full number 666 achieved. But then one has to resort to the Hebrew spelling of Neron Caesar, which is nun = 50, resh = 200, waw = 6, nun = 50, qoph = 100, samech = 60, resh = 200, for a total of 666. But the normal spelling of the transliterated Hebrew word for “Caesar” is qysr, which includes the letter yodh. This letter, with the numerical value of 10, makes the total 676; therefore, proponents of this numerical scheme have searched for a manuscript that lacks the extra letter yodh. Among the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeologists have discovered a fragment that has the Hebraic (Aramaic) spelling of the name Neron. The next word qysr has two damaged consonants after the letter q, but there is no room for a vowel. Nevertheless, the questions must be asked, “Why would the author not use a Greek form instead of a Hebrew form?”⁶⁹

“The discerning Christian should understand that the calculation of the Beast’s number 666, using either gematria or
isopsephy, does not result in the name Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus or any of its derivatives. As many preterist teachers admit, they must reject the usual spelling for Nero and choose an extremely rare form of his name, which has been reconstituted from a damaged manuscript that may have originally included an extra Hebrew letter. This is nothing short of exercising selection bias and conforming data to fit a predetermined conclusion.”⁷⁰

6. What about the 7 heads on the 7 hills in Revelation 17? Aren’t they the 7 kings/emperors of Rome?

Another odd attempt by Preterists to make the text fit their pressupositions. There are so many problems with this interpretation it is difficult to know where to begin. Let me attempt to demonstrate several of the issues.

1. As we already mentioned John is drawing off of Old Testament language. The 7 heads of the Beast in Revelation 13, As we already mentioned John is drawing off of Old Testament language to assist drawing his readers to the conclusions he is making. The 7 heads of the Beast in Revelation 17 was previously mentioned in chapter 13. The Beast that came out from the Abyss had 7 heads and 10 horns. If one is to be consistent, one must look elsewhere in scripture to understand what “Beast” means. We see the “Beast” language used in Daniel’s book. Daniel 2 and 7 lean heavily on the usage of “Beast” and should inform us of our understanding in Revelation. Daniel always ties together his concept of King/Kingdom in his book to describe these beasts (Dan. 7:17, 23). This means that when we come to Revelation 17 we know who the 7 Kings/Kingdoms are. They are the 6 Gentile Kingdoms that have come before (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome), because Daniel has already told us about 4 + 1 (little horn). The 7th and final manifestation is believed (by many) to be a revived Roman Empire. The breakdown would look as follows:

◾ 7 Heads = 7 Mountains/7 Kings (7 World Empires)
◾ 5 Fallen (Rev. 17:10) = Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece
◾ 1 Is (Rev. 17:10) = Rome
◾ 1 Has Not Yet Come (Rev. 17:10) = Revived Roman Empire

“It has been popular to take the seven kings as literal kings or emperors of Rome (e.g., Beckwith, Sweet). The view is promising only until one tries to apply it to specific kings. Does one begin counting with Julius Caesar or with Caesar Augustus? The answer to this is purely arbitrary (Johnson, Sweet). Are all the emperors counted or just the ones that emphasized emperor worship? This, too, is arbitrary (Caird, Johnson). Are Galba, Otho, and Vitellius excluded because of the shortness of their reigns? If so, this is quite arbitrary (Kiddie, Johnson). For those who resort to counting emperors, the text is enigmatic beyond hope. If John wrote Revelation during Nero’s reign, the Roman emperors are too few. If he wrote it during Domitian’s reign, they are too many (Johnson, Hailey). This method of identification cannot be the answer. The best solution is that the seven kings represent seven literal Gentile kingdoms that follow one another in succession (Walvoord). In Dan. 7:17, 23 kings and kingdoms are interchangeable, showing that a king can stand for the kingdom ruled by that king (Swete, Lee). The seven kingdoms are the seven that dominate world scene throughout human history: Egypt (or Neo-Babylonia, Gen. 10:8-11), Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the future kingdom of the beast (Seiss, Hailey).”⁷¹

2. The Preterist argues that the 7 kings are 7 emperors within the Roman Empire. There are many problems with this interpretation. Firstly, we don’t know who to start with and there is no guide to solidify why Julius Caesar is the first that is selected, other than bias sampling. Secondly, Julius Caesar isn’t actually a King by Roman standard. He was never declared to be a King/Emperor because the Republic didn’t have kings. Rather, he was known as a “dictator” not a King or Emperor. This is a well known historical fact. Yet, Preterists (most not all) decide to appeal to Julius as the 1st King. If Julius isn’t the first king, then who would technically fit the bill? It would have to be Augustus. He was the first leader of the Roman Empire in 27 B.C. which thus ended the Republic. If Augustus is the first, the whole list is in shambels. Thirdly, what do we do with Galba, Otho, and Vitellius? Do we exclude all three, include one? Where does this end in solidifying a result? There are either far too many emperors or far too little depending on when John was writing the account.

As we can see these arguments when dealt with break down the shallow barracade that Preterist interpreters have put in place. There are many many more holes, but you can plainly see how these arguments fail to stand up against scrutiny.

Conclusion:

It is clear that the vast majority of scholars have believed that the tradition that was passed down (Hegesippus-Irenaeus) is the accurate depiction of the timing of John’s banishment. There is nothing within the first 500 years that would challenge this tradition. The early church father’s are harmonious in their belief that John was exiled by Domitian, such that they often cited each other as a valid authority on the subject. The internal evidence also makes some compelling arguments as to why it is impossible that John was exiled during Nero’s reign. It is my conclusion that the dating of Revelation is more accurately depicted during Domitian’s reign, and based upon the evidence there is no reason to conclude otherwise. Any position that is built solely upon the dating of a singular book is subject to fall. Preterism, with all its attempts to harmonize the events of history surrounding the destruction of the temple, fall, quite literally, just as the temple did. The Preteristic position ought to be questioned, as it is entirely built upon an erroneous dating structure that leaves one to question the entire position. The Domitianic Dating leaves no questions unanswered, and stands as the tradition of the book passed down throughout the generations.

---

References:

1. Charles Pope, Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed, (November 25, 2012 by MSGR).
2. W.A. Elwell, Revelation, in W.A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 1199.
3. G.R. Beasley-Murray, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids, eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 1028.
4. Tim Warner, Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse, 2003.
5. Howard Winters, Commentary on Revelation (Greenville, SC: Carolina Christian, 1989), 15-16.
6. Mark Hitchcock, Date of Revelation, in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), 337.
7. Ibid., 338.
8. B.B Warfield, The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament (American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa. 1892), n.p.
9. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of Revelation (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967), 14.
10. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 27.
11. John MacArthur, Revelation 1-11, (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Moody Press., 1999), 7-8.
12. H.B. Swete, Apocalypse, xcix.
13. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 956.
14. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7, An Exegetical Commentary, (Moody Press, Chicago, 1992), 20, 23.
15. Richard L. Mayhue, Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist, TMSJ 14/1 (Spring 2003), 23.
16. Sam Storms, Kingdom Come, The Amillennial Alternative (Mentor Imprint of Christian Focus Publications, Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, IV20 1TW, Scotland, U.K., 2013), 412.
17. Charles L. Feinberg, The Book of Revelation in the King James Version Bible Commentary, (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee, 2005), 1775.
18. Robert B. Hughes & J. Carl Laney, Revelation in the Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary, (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois, 1990), 728.
19. Daniel Green, Revelation in The Moody Bible Commentary, (Moody Publishers, Chicago, 2014), 1999.
20. James M. Gray, Revelation in The Concise Bible Commentary, (Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 782.
21. Matthew Henry, Revelation in Commentary on The Holy Bible (Volume 3: Matthew – Revelation), (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nasville, Camden, New York, 1979), 446.
22. Bruce M. Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation, (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1993), 15-16.
23. Ralph Earle, Harvey J.S. Blaney, Carl Hanson, Exploring the New Testament, (Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo, 1955), 427.
24. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972), 8.
25. David M. Levy, Revelation: Hearing the Last Word, (The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc. Bellmawr, New Jersey, 1999), 6.
26. Ronald H. Preston & Anthony T. Hanson, The Revelation of Saint John The Divine, (The Torch Bible Commentary, SCM Press, 56 Bloomsbury Street, London, 1957), 25.
27. T. F. Glasson, The Revelation of John, (The Cambridge Bible Commentary on The New English Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1965), 8.
28. Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981), 40.
29. Craig R. Koester, Revelation (The Anchor Yale Bible, Volume 38A, Yale University Press, 2014), 29.
30. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Revelation of St. John, (Volume 1, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1920, xci. [brackets added by me]
31. H.J. Lawlor, Hegesippus and the Apocalypse, JTS 8 (1907) : 436-444. Kistemaker agrees with Lawlor’s conclusion that Hegesippus was Eusebius’ source for the information about John’s banishment by Domitian (Revelation, 28).
32. Christopher Scott, The Date of the Book of Revelation, Website: http://christopherscottblog.com/date-book-revelation/
33. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 223.
34. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:30.3.
35. Mark Hitchcock, A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation, Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary, (December 2005), 43.
36. Clement, Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved, XLII.
37. Mark Hitchcock, A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation, Dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary. December 2005. 33.
38. Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.11.
39. Ibid., 17.10.
40. Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 3:18.1-5.
41. Ibid., 3:20.7-11.
42. Ibid., 3:20.9.
43. Ibid., 5:8.6.
44. Ibid., 5:8.7.
45. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 9.
46. Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History, 2.31.
47. Paulus Orosius, The Seven Books of History against the Pagans, 7.10.
48. Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 8 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1867-72; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1951), 560-562.
49. Bede the Venerable, Homilies on the Gospels, trans. Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst, Cistercian Studies Series: no. 110 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1991), 89-90.
50. John MacArthur, The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Website: https://www.gty.org/library/bible-introductions/MSB66/the-revelation-of-jesus-christ.
51. Wayne Jackson, When Was the Book of Revelation Written? Website: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written.
52. Robert L. Thomas, Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation, TMSJ 5/2 (Fall 1994) 198.
53. Christopher Scott, The Date of the Book of Revelation, Website: http://christopherscottblog.com/date-book-revelation/
54. James M. Rochford, Why is the dating of Revelation important? Website: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/date-of-revelation/
55. Christopher Scott, The Date of the Book of Revelation, Website: http://christopherscottblog.com/date-book-revelation/
56. Robert L. Thomas, Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation, TMSJ 5/2 (Fall 1994), 199.
57. Wayne Jackson, When Was the Book of Revelation Written? Website: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
58. Christopher Scott, The Date of the Book of Revelation, Website: http://christopherscottblog.com/date-book-revelation/
59. James M. Rochford, Why is the Dating of Revelation Important? Website: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/date-of-revelation/
60. https://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=43&sub=1051&cat_name=Bible+Names+A-G&subcat_name=Antipas
61. George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 22.
62. Keith A. Mathison, When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-preterism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004), 165.
63. Brock Hollett, Debunking Preterism: How Over-Realized Eschatology Misses the Not Yet of Bible Prophecy, Kindle, (Morris Publishing, 2018), Location 418, 439.
64. James M. Rochford, Why is the Dating of Revelation Important? Website: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/jude/date-of-revelation/
65. http://christopherscottblog.com/beast-earth-rev-13-11-18/
66. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22, An Exegetical Commentary, (Moody Press, Chicago, 1992), 184-185.
67. Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2013), 152.
68. Jordan, James B. The Vindication of Jesus Christ: a Brief Reader’s Guide to Revelation (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2008, Kindle Edition), 427.
69. Simon J. Kistemaker in When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004), 228-29.
70. Brock Hollett, Debunking Preterism: How Over-Realized Eschatology Misses the Not Yet of Bible Prophecy, Kindle (Morris Publishing, 2018), Location 2232.
71. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22, An Exegetical Commentary, (Moody Press, Chicago, 1992), 297.