D., there would be no need to imply the rebuilding of the city and temple so that they could be destroyed again - an implication taken by some to manifest exegetical "double vision." To postulate a "revived" Roman empire and a "restored" Jewish temple and community, when the contemporary facts fit every requirement perfectly, seems to be a work of supererogation. D., Domitian) dating of Revelation who subsequently publicized how strong internal evidence from Revelation had persuaded him to amend his outlook and advocate the early date, summarized the view in this way: The early date is best suited for the nature and object of the Apocalypse, and facilitates its historical understanding. It seemed, indeed, that the world, shaken to its very centre, was coming to a close, and every Christian must have felt that the prophecies of Christ were being fulfilled before his eyes.
Claudius41-54 Nero54-68 Galba68-69 (7 months) Otho69 (3 months) Vitellius69 (8 months) Vespasian69-79 Titus79-81 Domitian81-96 Nerva96-98 Trajan98-117 51.12) - Edinburgh, 19872), which dated Revelation between 50 and 54 A. These two "advantages" work against each other, however, when we remember that one of those seven Asian churches (at Ephesus) was clearly founded by Paul!
Such a view might explain why Paul was forbidden to go into Asia (Acts 16:6) - since John was already laboring there - and why Revelation 1-3 mentions only seven churches in Asia (as yet).
Research into the historical context of the book of Revelation is necessary in order to understand the message of this book properly. the Romans leveled Jerusalem and the temple, as we know from history. D., on the assumption that John's exile to Patmos was occasioned by the banishment of Jews from Rome by Claudius in 51  A. Moreover, Epiphanius seems to have spoken carelessly, many scholars believe; he probably was referring to Nero (whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus) as "Claudius." At the other extreme for dating Revelation, Trajan's reign was advanced by the 6th century ascetic, Dorotheus (), and in the commentary at Matthew by Theophylact, an 11th century exegete.
The reader ought to appreciate the concrete setting of the book and the historical perspective which its author would have had. We can see this if we but consider the reference in Revelation to the city of Jerusalem, its temple, and the Roman Empire - all of which, in their own order, are prophesied to be destroyed. What one thinks of the prophecies in Revelation will naturally be affected, then, by the choice of a date for the writing of the book either prior to, or subsequent to, this event in 70 A. Milton Terry observed: The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. Such opinions are far too late and unargued to warrant serious attention.
If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. The correct date for the writing of Revelation lies somewhere between the extremes of Claudius and Trajan.
If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions. An interpreter who is committed to the unerring authority of God's word and to the reality of predictive prophecy must ask whether John was speaking in Revelation of the ancient city of Jerusalem, the Herodian temple, and the Roman Empire of the Caesars, 70 A. Throughout the history of the church only two general views regarding the date of Revelation have been credible and consistently forwarded.
D., then he would obviously have been speaking of the Jerusalem, temple, and Empire of his day - the first two of which, as prophesied, were destroyed just a few years following the temple in 70 A. These, the dominant positions, call for study and careful scrutiny. an earlier dating fixes the end of Nero's reign or shortly thereafter. In what follows "the late date" for Revelation will denote the end of Domitian's reign as emperor (viz., the mid to late 60's of the first century).
D., then the interpreter would be inclined to the rebuilding of the temple, for instance, but some interpreters infer such a rebuilding from their understanding of the text in conjunction with their understanding of the book's date.) The alternative would be to deny that Revelation had any historical reference to an empirical city or temple whatsoever (i.e., to thoroughly "spiritualize" the references to Jerusalem and the temple there), or to follow many liberal critics in contending that John wrote after the fact but to prophesy what happened. Harrison says: Two periods for the origin of the Revelation have won considerable scholarly support, and only these two need be considered. The early date is elastic enough to encompass the first year of Vespasian's reign, which has been suggested by some of the scholars who disagree with the Domitian dating of the book (e.g., Hort/Dusterdieck, F. Bruce). The thought here would be that, counting from Augustus and omitting the three brief rulers during the anarchy of 68-69, Vespasian is the sixth king ("the one is," Rev. Torrey) who cannot persuade themselves to ignore the three, brief claimants to the throne, but who do commence counting the kings of Revelation with Augustus, have suggested that Galba was the emperor when John wrote Revelation (i.e., the king who "is").
So then, if one reads "the holy city shall they tread under foot" (Rev. One is the reign of Domitian, preferable the latter part, around the year 96. ) who brought recovery to the empire from the threat of civil war ("the death-stroke" of the beast "was healed," Rev. But this hardly differentiates the sixth and seventh kings in terms of the shortness of the latter's reign (Rev.
11:2) in a natural sense and as genuine prophecy he will need to decide whether John was speaking of the Jerusalem that is now past to us rather contemporaneous (perhaps future) to us. 13:2) and was followed by the two year reign of Titus ("the other," seventh king who will "continue a short while," Rev. The counting on this view commences with Augustus since he was the first official emperor, and the three rules of the anarchy are skipped because Seutonius wrote of their period as a mere interval and the provinces never recognized them as emperors. , "a little while") since Galba and his successor, Otho, reigned for only 2 matter of months.
There is no question about the superabundance of eager prophecy popularizers in our day who jump at the "obvious" opportunity to make Revelation relevant today by choosing the second option. The difficulty with this view, even if one is not struck with the artificiality of the counting technique, is that martyrdoms can be definitely placed with the reign of Vespasian,  and the relative calm of his reign (which is out of line with the tumultuous picture in Revelation) was not marked by his pressing of claims to deity or by his persecuting of the church - both of which characterize the beast in Revelation 13. At any rate, even though I do not favor the preceding two specific interpretations of the internal evidence in Revelation, the suggestions of Galba's or Vespasian's reigns for the date of Revelation would fall within that general period which we will call "the early date" for the Book's composition.