Date
The date of The Revelation has also been a matter for debate fueled again by the biases of the different schools of thought. Futurists and historicists favor a late date after 70 AD while preterists argue for an earlier date.
The date of The Revelation is probably another debate that will never be resolved and which really is incidental to the message of revelation. Once the study of The Revelation moves away from the scholarly to the spiritual, the date becomes less important and the author more recognizable. The Revelation will then become one of the most important books of the New Testament for the end times.
The limited discussion below on the date of The Revelation is only for those who are interested in a scholarly survey.
External evidence from the early traditions of the church popularly put the date at about 95AD in the reign of Emperor Domitian (81-96AD) and this is the position of most historicists and futurists. This is largely based on statements from early church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus (120-200 AD). In his discussion on the number of the Antichrist, Irenaeus makes reference to the date of the revelation:
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 no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (Irenaeus 120-200).
Other documents from early Church tradition also tell us that John was banished to the Island of Patmos in the reign of Domitian (Ignatius). Some commentators believe that Babylon as used in the revelation is symbolic of Rome and that therefore the revelation must have been written after 70 AD since Rome had destroyed Jerusalem at this time. They regard this as internal evidence for a late date after 70 AD.
Preterists however argue for an earlier date, about 64 AD (Gentry, 1989), which will fit more with their contention that the events of the revelation represent occurrences in the very beginning of Christianity. The external evidence for an early date held by the Preterist is based on a quote attributed to Papias that John the Apostle was martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and on Cerinthus, a first century AD author who wrote The Pseudo-Apocalypse. Cerinthus was believed to have died before 95AD, but his Pseudo-Apocalypse contains references to John's Apocalypse.
The internal evidence often cited for the date of the revelation refers to Rev.11, where John is told to measure the Temple (which was destroyed in 70AD). This assumes a literal interpretation, but the context may not be referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem as will be discussed later.
Both the preterists and the futurists buttress their arguments with a quote from Clement of Alexandria.
… Hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit (Clement of Alexandria).
This states that John left the island of Patmos for Ephesus after the death of the tyrant. The Preterist regard the tyrant mentioned as Nero (54-68AD), while the Futurists insist that the tyrant named is Domitian (81-96AD). The futurists further support their position from Eusebius (300-340AD) reference to Irenaeus’ work against heresies (referred to above) and his position that Clement was indeed referring to Domitian’s reign (Eusebius).
Style
The difficulty with this great work lies mainly in its style and content. It must be understood from the beginning, as the work itself declares (Rev. 1 v.1), that this is a spiritual work, which as such should never be analyzed intellectually. This is the failing of the various schools, which have attempted to limit its scope to time and place. It is a spiritual work and must be understood spiritually.
The Revelation is not written in a chronological sequence and without taking this into consideration, it will be impossible to understand it. Within the experiences of John in the spiritual, time is measured differently. There are sections in the book where John looks far back to indicate the origin of the current problems of Creation and of humanity and sections where he looks into the future to explore the consequences of the current trend in human and world activities. Yet, he sees both the past and the future almost simultaneously. The revelation embraces the past, the present and the future (Rev. 1:19).
Some scholars believe that the style of the revelation can best be described as ‘recapitulation’. Reddish argues that the structure of revelation is spiral in progression instead of linear and likens it to looking through a kaleidoscope or to listening to musical compositions where certain themes of the piece are repeated.
The Revelation understandably has many parallels from the Old Testament. This is expected since spiritual understanding builds on previous knowledge. However, given that the Son of God had manifested in the interval, the Revelation deviates significantly from the writings of the Old Testament in a number of ways. First, it recognizes the unity in the Trinity and describes the activity of the Creative Will, the Holy Spirit as One with the Love of God, Jesus. Consequently, it did not bother in many instances to distinguish between the two. Where John has to get his audience to relate more intimately with the work of the Light, he does indicate the activity of Jesus on earth at that time more clearly, since the primary audience being adherents of the Truth personified in Jesus, will identify more easily with such detail.
Throughout the work however, the activity of the Will of God is paramount and it may be said that the emphasis in the Revelation is on the activity of the Will of God in Creation unlike the rest of the New Testament that focused on the activity of the Love of God embodied in Jesus.
Secondly, John is here writing from the basis that the events are not only imminent, but are already beginning to happen and so unlike the earlier visions of the prophets documented in the Old Testament, John’s apocalypse represents a higher revelation; more intense and with greater immediacy. Since prophecies are predicated on human responses to the message given, we may conclude that given the timeline, the Revelation also deviates from the pattern of prophetic writings of the Old Testament. The sense of inevitability indicated from the beginning suggests that the primary event, the approach of the judgment is no longer subject to human will. This is different from prophetic pronouncements which are predicated on human will and which tend to change in detail depending on how the target audience receive and adapt to it (see Jonah to Nineveh).
In The Revelation, which came after the incarnation of the Son of God and humanity’s rejection of Him, the pattern became more firmly set and the prophecies of end time events could now be set as certainties, i.e. as a revelation of the inevitable. There are however some prophetic parts to the book and the author indicates as such (Rev. 1:3; 22:7,10,18,19). The messages to the seven churches are clearly prophetic and as indicated, if the peoples change, their final circumstance will change, which satisfies the criteria for prophecy. In addition, although the judgment is set and inevitable, its effect on the individuals remains subject to their adaptation to the message that precedes the onset of the judgment. Thus, the book is largely prophetic until the Son of Man manifests.
Thirdly, although the book is apocalyptic in its symbolism and imagery; it lacks many characteristics of the genre. This fact is well argued in the scholarly study of the revelation by Leon Morris (1989).
Thus,