He is Sufficient

In his new book, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist (2006), Kim Riddlebarger includes an appendix on “The Date of the Writing of the Book of Revelation”. There are two majority views on this issue: early-date advocates claim that John wrote about his vision in the years before AD 70, during the reign of Nero and before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under Titus, while late-date advocates prefer to see John’s writing around AD 95, under the reign of Domitian and well after Jerusalem’s destruction.

Establishing an early date is foundational to the majority preterist position that many (if not all) of the events described by John were primarily fulfilled in AD 70.† Kenneth Gentry’s book Before Jerusalem Fell (1998) is an exhaustive argument for early-date authorship and set a stake in the ground that has, to this point, not been effectively challenged (as far as I know).

The question at hand now is whether Riddlebarger, in the space of 20 pages, can provide an effective rebuttal of Gentry’s work; as a whole, Riddlebarger is not sympathetic to the preterist position (he is a Reformed amillennialist who advocates a modified idealist interpretation of Revelation) and he interweaves criticism of preterism throughout his book (or at least the half that I’ve read so far!).

Riddlebarger presents arguments in favor of both authorship dates, along with the other side’s rebuttals. First, he presents the arguments in favor of an early date:

1. In Revelation 11, John measures the Jerusalem temple. Early date advocates argue that if the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision, then the book must have been written before AD 70. They see the Gentiles trampling on the holy city as a vision of the Roman armies’ siege of Jerusalem. Riddlebarger’s response is that this argument ignores the symbolism of the outer/inner courts; he argues that the inner court is the heavenly temple, protected by God, while the outer court symbolizes the church on earth, suffering under Gentile oppression.
2. In Revelation 17, John writes about seven heads and seven hills. The early-date position sees these as Roman emperors, beginning with Julius Caesar, so that the seventh is Nero. Again, Riddlebarger counters with the symbolic view that the number of hills, seven, is symbolic of the completeness of the age that the church must face persecution in. The eighth king “will arise at the end of the age in conjunction with the final assault of the dragon, beast, and false prophet.”
3. The number 666 seems clearly associated with Nero; Gentry has made a solid argument for this primary association. Riddlebarger doesn’t challenge this, but adds that “what is symbolized by this number extended beyond Nero to all state leaders who oppose Christ and his kingdom” and is a warning to all Christians who encounter “a deification of power”.
4. Early-date preterists make the argument that “Babylon” in Revelation 11 is a reference to Jerusalem and apostate Judaism (or, more specifically, to the apostate Jewish leadership - a distinction Riddlebarger doesn’t make). Riddlebarger claims that Babylon clearly means Rome (without offering proof) and that the symbolic term “Sodom and Egypt” suggests “that a nonliteral reading of the passage is in order”. He also notes that “virtually all” Jewish writers post-AD 70 connect Babylon to Rome, but never before. He finally claims that Revelation would be the only place that Jerusalem is identified as Bablylon, forgetting Peter’s mention in the conclusion to his first letter (1 Peter 5:13).
5. The early date argument views Christ coming with the clouds (Rev 1:7) as “a prophetic reference to Jesus coming in judgment upon Israel”, fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10-12. Riddlebarger counters that the Zechariah prophecy “is a reference to Israel’s eschatological salvation, not her final judgment.” He also disputes the claim that the “peoples of the earth” refer to Israel.

The next section contains Riddlebarger’s thoughts on the arguments in favor of a post-AD 70 date:

1. Riddlebarger appeals first to the evidence of emperor worship and the imperial cult. He acknowledges that persecution of Christians had begun under Nero in Rome, but hadn’t spread to Asia Minor until the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96). He cites evidence from AD 113 that “refers to Christians who had ‘apostatized’ from the faith as long ago as 25 years” (AD 88). In a later point, he also mentions that the imperial cult of Domitian was well established in Ephesus.
2. The historical circumstances facing the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 fit a late date better. Riddlebarger refers to specific accounts of persecution in the three churches experiencing such (Smyrna, Pergamum and Philadelphia). Ephesus is supposed to be too young a church in AD 65 to have lost its first love already, while a severe earthquake near Laodicea in AD 61 would have warranted disaster recovery status for the region rather than wealth. Riddlebarger notes the disputed founding date of the church at Smyrna, with dates from AD 50-55 to after AD 60.
3. Riddlebarger appeals again to the connection between Rome and “Babylon” (see #4 above), claiming that “in all known Jewish literature written after AD 70 and the destruction of the temple, Rome is universally described as ‘Babylon’.” He simply dismisses the Jerusalem rebuttal as “without merit”, ignoring the vast amount of language in the OT positioning Israel and Jerusalem as the unfaithful harlot in a covenantal relationship with God.
4. Finally, he summarizes the testimony of the church fathers who “all state that the book was written by John during the latter part of the reign of Domitian.” He quotes Irenaeus to mean that “John wrote Revelation as an old man exiled on Patmos before Domintian died in AD 96.”

The whole of Riddlebarger’s argument can be summed up in his final statement: “one wonders if preterist arguments for an early date are based more upon theological necessity than on the aggregate of the internal and external evidence.” He sees the early-date claim as circular in that preterism requires fulfillment in AD 70 in order to be valid, therefore preterists must prove that Revelation was written before AD 70. Once “proven”, then preterism is justified.

* * * * *

† To be fair, there are some preterists who hold to late-date authorship (AD 95, during the reign of Domitian) and find fulfillment of eschatological events in the Roman Empire’s eventual acceptance of Christianity (AD 313) under Constantine, i.e. the victory of the Word of God over political empire (Revelation 19:11ff).

The critique of this position is that the entire Bible has been about redemptive history and the covenantal relationship between God and his people, centered in the land of Israel. If Revelation discusses the final fulfillment of that history and relationship, then it seems awkward and inconsistent to wrench the locale from Jerusalem to Rome, when the latter had never been part of Jewish history to this point. But that’s a discussion for a different post.