Judea CaptaPMT 2015-070 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part series briefly presenting the evidence for the early dating of Revelation. That is, for a date prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. In the preceding article I presented the evidence from Revelation 11 regarding the presence of the temple in Revelation. In this article I will pose two more lines of argument.

The Seven Kings in Revelation 17

In Revelation 17:1-6 a vision of a seven-headed beast is recorded. In this vision we discover strong evidence that Revelation was written before the death of Nero, which occurred on June 8, A.D. 68.

John wrote to be understood. The first of seven benedictions occurs in his introduction: “Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein” (Rev. 1:3). And just after the vision itself is given in Revelation 17:1-6, an interpretive angel appears for the express purpose of explaining the vision: “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns” (Rev 17:7). Then in verses 9 and 10 this angel explains the vision: “Here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”

Most evangelical scholars recognize that the seven mountains represent the famed seven hills of Rome. The recipients of Revelation lived under the rule of Rome, which was universally distinguished by its seven hills. How could the recipients, living in the seven historical churches of Asia Minor and under Roman imperial rule, understand anything else but this geographical feature?

Theological Debates Today
(5 mp3 messages by Ken Gentry)

Conference lectures on contemporary theological issues:
1. The Great Tribulation; 2. The Book of Revelation;
3. Hyperpreterism; 4. Paedocommunion; 5. God’s Law

See more study materials at: 

But there is an additional difficulty involved. The seven heads have a two-fold referent. We learn also that the seven heads represent a political situation in which five kings have fallen, the sixth is, and the seventh is yet to come and will remain but a short while. It is surely no accident that Nero was the sixth emperor of Rome, who reigned after the deaths of his five predecessors and before the brief rule of the seventh emperor.

Flavius Josephus, the Jewish contemporary of John, clearly points out that Julius Caesar was the first emperor of Rome and that he was followed in succession by Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero (Antiquities 18; 19). We discover this enumeration also in other near contemporaries of John: 4 Ezra 11 and 12; Sibylline Oracles, books 5 and 8; Barnabas, Epistle 4; Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars; and Dio Cassius’ Roman History 5.

The text of Revelation says of the seven kings “five have fallen.” The first five emperors are dead, when John writes. But the verse goes on to say “one is.” That is, the sixth one is then reigning even as John wrote. That would be Nero Caesar, who assumed imperial power upon the death of Claudius in October, A.D. 54, and remained emperor until June, A.D. 68.

John continues: “The other is not yet come; and when he comes, he must continue a short space.” When the Roman Civil Wars broke out in rebellion against him, Nero committed suicide on June 8, A.D. 68. The seventh king was “not yet come.” That would be Galba, who assumed power in June, A.D. 68. But he was only to continue a “short space.” His reign lasted but six months, until January 15, A.D. 69.

Thus, we see that while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. Revelation could not have been written after June, A.D. 68, according to the internal political evidence.

The Jews in Revelation

The final evidence from Revelation’s self-witness that I will consider is the relationship of the Jew to Christianity in Revelation. And although there are several aspects of this evidence, we will just briefly introduce it. Two important passages and their implications may be referred to illustratively.

Revelation, God, and Man
(24 Gentry Lectures in mp3 on USB)
Formal Christ College course on the doctrines of revelation, God, and man.
Opens with introduction to the study of systematic theology.
Excellent material for personal study or group Bible study.
Strongly Reformed and covenantal in orientation.

See more study materials at:

First, when John writes Revelation, Christians are tensely mingled with the Jews. Christianity is presenting herself as the true Israel and Christians the real Jews (cp. Gal. Gal. 3:6-9, 29; Phil. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:9). In Revelation 2:9 we read of Jesus’ word to one of his churches of the day: “I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Who but a Jew would call himself a Jew? But in the early formative history of Christianity, believers are everywhere in the New Testament presented as “Abraham’s seed,” “the circumcision,” “the Israel of God,” the “true Jew,” etc. We must remember that even Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, took Jewish vows and had Timothy circumcised. But after the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70) there was no tendency to inter-mingling. In fact, the famed Jewish rabbi, Gamaliel II, put a curse on Christians in the daily benediction, which virtually forbad social inter-mingling.

In Revelation the Jews are represented as emptily calling themselves “Jews.” They are not true Jews in the fundamental, spiritual sense, which was Paul’s argument in Romans 2. This would suggest a date prior to the final separation of Judaism and Christianity. Christianity was a protected religion under Rome’s religio licita legislation, as long as it was considered a sect of Judaism. The legal separation of Christianity from Judaism was in its earliest stages, beginning with the Neronic persecution in late A.D. 64. It was finalized both legally and culturally with the Temple’s destruction, as virtually all historical and New Testament scholars agree. Interestingly, in the A.D. 80s the Christian writer Barnabas makes a radical “us/them” division between Israel and the Church (Epistle 13:1).

Second, at the time John writes, things are in the initial stages of a fundamental change. Revelation 3:9 reads: “Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie — behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you.”

John points to the approaching humiliation of the Jews, noting that God will vindicate his Church against them. In effect, He would make the Jews to lie down at the Christian’s feet. This can have reference to nothing other than the destruction of Israel and the Temple, which was prophesied by Christ. After that horrible event Christians began making reference to the Temple’s destruction as an apologetic and vindication of Christianity. Ignatius (A.D. 107) is a classic example of this in his Magnesians 10. There are scores of such references in such writers as Melito, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, and others.

There are other arguments regarding the Jewish character of Revelation, such as its grammar, its reference to the twelve tribes, allusions to the priestly system, temple worship, and so forth. The point seems clear enough: When John writes Revelation, Christianity is not divorced from Israel. After A.D. 70 such would not be the case. This is strong socio-cultural evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 composition.

Righteous Writing Correspondence Course
This course covers principles for reading a book, using the library,
determining a topie, formulating a thesis, outline, researching, library use,
writing clearly and effectively, getting published, marketing, and more!


4 thoughts on “REVELATION’S EARLY DATE (2)

  1. Patricia Watkins December 29, 2015 at 2:54 am

    Dr. Gentry, could I pose some questions related to the designation of the “kings” in Rev. 17:10?

    I have had some qualms concerning just how this woman, Mystery Babylon/Jerusalem, could be said to be seated in a dominant position upon the 7 hills of Rome. Is not Jerusalem itself surrounded by its own set of 7 hills? (Mt. of Olives, Mt. Scopus, etc.) Could the woman not be sitting on these instead of Rome’s hills? And if this great city had “kingship over the kings of the earth” (land of Israel), as in Rev. 17:18, how could Jerusalem possibly reign over these other 7 kings if they represent Roman emperors? Wouldn’t it be more likely that these 7 “kings” are of Judaic origination?

    What if the group of “kings” in Rev. 17:10 – in keeping with the Judaic background of this beast in the wilderness – is NOT a list of Roman emperors, but a list of the high priests of the House of Annas? I believe, Dr. Gentry, that you already consider the “land beast” of Rev. 13 to represent Judaic temple leadership. At this stage in Judea’s history, these high priests were nothing more than political appointees, anyway, with the soul of an abacus. There were 7 members in the immediate family of this House of Annas who monopolized the high priesthood by their wealth and ability to pander to Roman authorities – Annas (Ananus), his 5 sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus), and his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas.

    By the time of Revelation’s composition, I am presuming 5 of these former high priests “had fallen” in death. I believe at least one of them, Jonathan, was murdered by the Sicarii by then. One “is” still living (the youngest brother, Matthias, perhaps), and one “had not yet come”, which would have been Ananus the son, whose high priesthood appointment was revoked after a mere 3 months in AD 62/63 by Agrippa. Surely this qualifies as “continuing for a short space”. In addition, Ananas the son “is also an eighth” of these kings, because he is “ONE OF THE 7” in the list of kings, who had already served as high priest. After temporarily losing political favor in AD 62/63 (when it “was not” in control), the House of Annas (via Ananas the son) came back into influential prominence in AD 66 with a last-ditch effort to preserve peace with Rome, and was destroyed (“goes into perdition”) during the Zealot temple siege of AD 66.

    If the beast (via Ananus the son) was “about to come up out of the abyss” in Rev. 17:8 by being appointed high priest by Agrippa, that would place Revelation’s date of composition just before AD 62/63. This was when James the Just was martyred at the instigation of Ananus the son, who was then deposed for overstepping the bounds of his delineated powers. This still preserves the early-date internal proof for Revelation – it only bumps it earlier in time by a couple of years.

    Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus only adds emphasis to this hypothesis above. It is a thinly-veiled comparison to the avaricious House of Annas. The “rich man” dressed in fine (high-priestly) linen who dines sumptuously every day (on the sacrifices of the people), represents Caiaphas the son-in-law, having 5 “brothers” who are of their “father’s house”, (which would represent Annas). This is 7 men total. Lazarus the beggar (representing a soon-to-come resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany) was laid at the “rich man’s porch” (pool of Bethesda, perhaps, near the sheep gate outside the temple). Christ was at war (Rev. 17:4) with the House of Annas’ corrupt dealings from the very start with his temple cleansing of the money changers, and this parable in condemnation of their “father’s house” probably served to fan the flames of their hatred for Christ even higher.

    If there are any holes in this hypothesis, I would appreciate them being pointed out so that I can scrap this theory if need be. It does NOT dispose of Nero’s identity as one of the ten horns on the “sea beast”, or his fulfillment of the 666 gematria, but I can’t see how he fits into this list of kings in Rev. 17 as well as the House of Annas does.

  2. Kenneth Gentry December 29, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Thanks for reading. And writing a reasonable comment. Much appreciated. I considered the possibility that you suggest, but concluded against the view. The way that Babylon-Jerusalem sits in authority over Rome is due to two important issues: (1) The Jews are the ones who cause Rome to first persecute the Christians. I argue this extensively in my (as yet unpublished) commentary. This is based on the writing of several early church fathers regarding the pogrom in Rome under Nero. This is also expected on the basis of the Jews complaining to Roman authorities against Christianity in Acts. (2) In another of John’s writings, John points out that the Jews are responsible for getting the Romans to crucify Christ (e.g., John 19:15).

    Therefore, in all of this the Jews are using their influence to “control” the persecutional nature of Rome. They cause Rome to kill Christ and to persecute Christians.

  3. Edie Castaneda April 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Timely article ! I loved the insight !

  4. Patricia Watkins May 30, 2017 at 11:39 pm

    Dr. Gentry, here is a different line of argument that can be used to prove Revelation’s early date. It involves the existence of the doctrine of Balaam cult in at least two of the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 2:14,20). This same cult of the doctrine of Balaam is mentioned also in Jude 4-19, II Peter 2:1-22, and even in the same activities described for the “lovers of pleasures” in II Timothy 3:1-13, (just without the label). The shared mention of this doctrine of Balaam makes Revelation’s authorship contemporary with these other books.

    Apparently, this cult originated from Simon the Magician (Acts 8:8-24), since Peter predicted that Simon was going to be for a “gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity”. This was a man whose poisonous teaching would spring up and defile the early church’s doctrines. Simon the Magician’s companion, Helen, is likely the “adulteress” filling the eyes of those in II Peter 2:14, as well as being “the sow that was washed” who returned to her wallowing in the mire in II Peter 2:22.

    Simon’s companion named Helen came from a brothel in Tyre according to Justin’s record given in Eusebius’ history (Tyre being Queen Jezebel’s home turf). This association of Helen with Tyre is probably what gives rise to the title of “that woman Jezebel” in Revelation 2:20 with its message to the church of Thyatira. Jezebel’s “children” were warned of “great tribulation” and even death if they did not repent (Revelation 2:22,23).

    However, it would seem that she and they did not repent, since II Peter 2:13 (Interlinear)states that these who walked after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness were “ABOUT TO RECEIVE the reward of unrighteousness”. This would indicate that Revelation must have been written BEFORE II Peter, if the predicted punishment in Revelation was about to be handed out soon to these followers of the doctrine of Balaam cult in II Peter.

    In addition, if Peter’s two epistles actually followed Revelation’s date of composition, then it would make sense that Peter’s reference to “the church at Babylon” (meaning Jerusalem) in I Peter 5:13 was merely borrowing from John’s EARLIER allusions to Mystery Babylon (meaning Jerusalem) in Revelation. All that remains is for us to get the date for I and II Peter, and we know that Revelation’s date must be earlier than this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: