HistoricalChristian.Faith

Do the "seven kings" of Revelation 17:9–11 date the book to Nero's reign (the year 68–69)?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — counted one defensible way (Julius Caesar first, Nero the reigning sixth, Galba the short-lived seventh) the oracle points squarely at AD 68–69, and the "short space" of the seventh king fits Galba's seven months uncannily well; but the count is only as good as its starting convention, and the conventions genuinely diverge — begin with Augustus and the sixth is Galba, skip the year-of-four usurpers and it is Vespasian, or read "seven" as the schematic number of completeness and it dates nothing. The same passage's "eighth, and is of the seven" invokes the Nero-redivivus legend that most late-daters read from a post-Neronian vantage — and Richard Bauckham holds a thoroughly Nero-saturated Revelation on a Domitianic date, which shows Nero-centric internal data need not entail a Neronian date. A serious, non-frivolous argument with no knockdown either way. · advanced by Kenneth Gentry and J. A. T. Robinson; contested by Bauckham, Aune, and Koester

Related arguments: the internal case for the early date — see also Does the temple "still standing" in Revelation 11 require a pre-70 date? and Does 666 = "Nero Caesar" (Revelation 13:18) date Revelation to Nero's reign?

The claim

"And 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. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

— Revelation 17:9–11 (KJV).¹ The seven heads of the scarlet beast are read on two registers at once. As "seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth" they point to Rome, the city famed on its seven hills — a near-universal identification. As "seven kings" they are taken to be Roman emperors, and the temporal marker in verse 10 is the hinge of the dating argument: five are fallen, one is — so the king reigning as John writes is the sixth. Early-date advocates count the Roman rulers from the first Caesar and land on Nero as that sixth, reigning king: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius, and Nero (the sixth, "one is"). The seventh, who "when he cometh, he must continue a short space," is then Galba, whose reign of some seven months (June AD 68 – January 69) was the briefest to that point. On this reckoning John is writing under Nero, or in the turmoil just after his death — c. AD 64–69, with Jerusalem's temple still standing.

Who advances it

This is, with the standing temple of Revelation 11, one of the two internal pillars of the modern early date. Kenneth Gentry makes it central in Before Jerusalem Fell: since the vision concerns Rome, "all we have to do is find a series of seven kings, five of whom 'have fallen,' the sixth of whom 'is' still ruling, and the last of whom was of but a brief reign," and the Julio-Claudian line down to Nero supplies exactly that. J. A. T. Robinson, a mainstream non-preterist, reads the seven kings the same way and dates the book to c. AD 68, in the convulsion of the year of the four emperors. The reading has an ancient warrant for its starting point: the Roman biographer Suetonius opens his Lives of the Caesars with Julius, and Josephus too reckons the Caesars from him — so beginning the count with Julius Caesar, and making Nero the sixth, is not arbitrary but follows a recognized first-century convention.²

The counting problem: only as good as its starting point

The argument's force is entirely hostage to where the count begins — and the ancient world did not count uniformly. Tacitus opens the Annals of the empire with Augustus, on the ground that the principate proper began with him: Julius Caesar was dictator, murdered before he could found a dynasty, and never bore the title Augustus. Begin with Augustus and the sixth reigning king is no longer Nero but Galba (Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba). A further well-attested convention drops the three ephemeral usurpers of 68–69 (Galba, Otho, Vitellius) as illegitimate — on which the sixth becomes Vespasian (reigned AD 69–79), whose reign runs mostly after the temple fell in August 70. Ancient enumerations of the Caesars in fact diverge widely: Suetonius, Josephus, the eagle vision of 4 Ezra, and the fifth Sibylline Oracle each number the succession differently, and none was written to settle Revelation 17. The passage under-determines a single emperor: at least three defensible counts (Nero, Galba, Vespasian) can be extracted from it, of which the first two are pre-70 and the third is not.³

Or is "seven" a number, not a census?

A second, deeper objection is that the list may not be a regnal countdown at all. Seven is Revelation's number of completeness — seven churches, seals, trumpets, bowls, spirits — and the beast's seven heads are drawn from Daniel 7, where the beasts' heads and horns are schematic figures of successive world-powers, not a ledger of named individuals. On this reading the "seven kings" symbolize the totality of Roman imperial power (five fallen, one present, one still to come = the fullness of the succession running to its appointed end), and verse 10 fixes no calendar date. That the very next verse produces an eighth king "of the seven" — a figure that breaks any literal head-count of seven — is itself a signal that John is working with symbolic arithmetic rather than a Suetonian list. Most late-date commentators (Aune, Beale, Koester) read the passage broadly this way, and on it the seven kings date nothing precisely.⁴

The "eighth, and of the seven" — a marker that may point later

The hardest complication is that the passage's own climax cuts against the early date it is enlisted to prove. The beast "was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven" (17:11; cf. 17:8, "the beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit") is all but universally recognized as an allusion to the Nero-redivivus legend — the widespread expectation, after Nero's suicide in 68, that he had not truly died, or would return from the East at the head of Parthian armies. That the beast "was, and is not" reads most naturally from a vantage at which Nero is already dead; and the fullest form of the returning-Nero myth, on which the tyrant comes back as a demonic eighth, took a generation to mature — which is why many scholars take Revelation 17 to presuppose a post-Neronian, indeed Domitianic, standpoint. The point is sharpened, not softened, by Richard Bauckham, whose Climax of Prophecy argues that the beast is modelled on Nero throughout and that 666 ciphers "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew — yet Bauckham holds the book was written under Domitian, precisely because it looks back on Nero through the redivivus legend. His case is the standing demonstration that a Nero-saturated Revelation does not entail a Neronian date. Even Gentry concedes the eighth king is "a difficulty," and has taken it to be not Nero but Vespasian — imperial power risen from the dead — which strains the tidy Julius-to-Galba count the argument depends on.⁵

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The early-date camp is right that Revelation 17:10 looks like a datable statement — "five are fallen, one is" reads as a fixed point in a live succession, and no other passage in the book so invites a chronological read. Counted from Julius Caesar, the convention Suetonius and Josephus in fact used, it lands on Nero as the reigning sixth with no fudging; and the detail that the seventh "must continue a short space" fits Galba's seven-month reign so precisely that it is fair to call this a real, non-frivolous datum, not a preterist fabrication. Even scholars unsympathetic to the early date grant that if the seven kings are a literal emperor-count, a pre-70 (or barely post-70) reference is among the most natural outputs.

What is overstated. The trouble is that every load-bearing premise is contested. (1) The starting point is a genuine choice, not a datum: Augustus-first yields Galba, and dropping the 68–69 usurpers yields Vespasian — whose reign is largely post-70, so the count does not even uniformly deliver a pre-70 date. (2) The schematic reading — seven as completeness, the heads as Danielic world-power — is not a dodge but the way Revelation handles numbers everywhere else, and the surplus "eighth" king is a strong hint that a literal census was never intended. (3) Most damagingly, the passage's own "eighth, and of the seven" trades on the Nero-redivivus legend, which reads most easily after Nero's death and, in its developed form, from a Domitianic distance — so the very verses cited for a Neronian date contain the material most often used to argue the opposite. Bauckham's Domitianic-yet-Neronian reading shows the two questions (is the book about Nero? was it written under Nero?) do not collapse into one. The inference to a firm 68–69 date claims more than the text can secure on its own.

Assessment

Contested. As an inference from Revelation 17:9–11 to a Neronian or year-of-four-emperors date, this is strong on one set of premises and empty on another, with no decisive tie-breaker. Grant that the seven kings are a literal succession of emperors counted from Julius Caesar, and the early date follows cleanly — Nero the sixth who "is," Galba the seventh of a "short space," the temple not yet fallen. Grant instead the Augustus-first count (sixth = Galba), the usurper-skipping count (sixth = Vespasian, reigning past 70), or the schematic reading (seven = the fullness of Roman power, dating nothing), and the argument dissolves or even tips late. Because its whole weight rests on a counting convention the ancient sources themselves do not fix, and because the same passage's Nero-redivivus "eighth king" is read by the mainstream as a post-Neronian marker, this is best rated a real but non-decisive early-date consideration — genuinely disputed, strong by the preterist reckoning and weak by the majority's, with the honest scholarly picture being that even sympathetic readers disagree whether the sixth king is Nero, Galba, or Vespasian. It keeps the early date in play; it does not establish it. (This rates the inference from the seven kings to a Neronian/Galban date, not the preterist reading of Revelation as a whole.)

Sources