A Seven Starred Coin- Joel Richardson and The Dating of Revelation– My Response
Popular YouTuber Joel Richardson calls those who take the early date of Revelation and its application to AD 70 as heretics, false teachers and he says they we are not Christians. I have produced videos refuting those claims but until just recently Richardson has ignored my videos. However, on 9-28-2026 Richardson produced a video entitled, The Case for Revelation’s Late Date: Why the Objections Fail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSbCO95vXM) . He calls attention to how he had produced another video in which he offered some historical and archaeological evidence to prove the late date. (Notice that in that video he offered not one syllable of exegetical argumentation. And he even admitted that the evidence was not conclusive).
His main “argument” was that linguistically, the persecution- the subject that dominates 1 Peter– was not physical assault on the Asian Christians. Rather, it consisted of slander, ostracism, false accusations, etc.. But again, it did not rise to the level of the persecution against the saints in Revelation. Mr. Richardson has revealed either a lack of knowledge and understanding of the linguistics and the context of 1 Peter, or a willingness to literally ignore that information.
There are numerous examples of such oversight / ignorance in his video. More on that momentarily. But the readers and viewers of his video need to understand how presuppositional his entire approach to this topic really is. He begins – but never proves it from scripture or history – with the fundamental presupposition that Domitian actually engaged in an empire wide persecution of the church! In logical terms this is known as petitio principii, or begging the question. The great question is, Did Domitian instigate an empire wide– i.e. extending to Asia- persecution of the church. (Remember, to fit Richardson’s claims, the persecution that was “about to come” had to be an “empire wide” persecution).
The fact is, as noted by a host of scholars, Eusebius- in the fourth century!- was among the first of the early writers to claim that Domitian persecuted the church. It is acknowledged however, that Eusebius did quote from some earlier writers, but he is the historian credited with making that overt accusation. It is significant, however, that not one Roman historian, including Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio mentioned any kind of persecution of the church by Domitian. Tacitus chronicled Nero’s pogrom against the church, but not a word of any Domitianic persecution!
There have been a host of notable, highly respected scholars who have vigorously rejected that idea.
F. W. Farrar, in his highly influential The Early Days of Christianity (1882) rejected the claims that Domitian persecuted the church. And he said, “The Apocalypse had its immediate origin in two events that happened at this period of the time of John. One was the Neronian persecution. The other was the outbreak of the Jewish War.” (Early Days, 1882, 470).
The reader needs to know that in more modern times there has been a growing number of historians and Bible scholars who have come to reject the idea of a Domitianic persecution of the church.
Leonard Thompson in a highly influential book, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, (1990), strongly challenged the narrative about Domitian as a persecutor of the church.
Mark Wilson, in an probative article in Biblical Archaeological Review, 2025, likewise challenged the idea of a Domitianic persecution of the church (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/post-biblical-period/domitian-persecution-of-christians/)
Even many of late date advocates now admit that the claimed Domitianic persecution of the church is not strongly supported.
Donald Guthrie, late date advocate, says the evidence for a widespread Domitianic persecution is, “Not as conclusive as many suppose.” (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Hebrews to Revelation, (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1962), 272).
John, A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament, 1976) documents that the evidence for any kind of widespread Domitianic persecution is hard to find.
Helmut Koester says Domitian, “Never ordered a worldwide persecution of the Christians.” (Helmut Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, Vol. II, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 251).
Historian Richard Niswonger says, “It cannot be proven without doubt that Domitian initiated a persecution against Christians. Roman records provide no clear evidence of even a small scale movement, let alone a concerted or large-scale persecution.” (Richard Niswonger, New Testament History, (Zondervan: Academic Books, 1988), 271-272).
F. F. Bruce noted Domitian’s reputation as a persecutor of Christians but said, “Evidence to justify this reputation is scanty.” (Cited in Kenneth Gentry’s, Before Jerusalem fell, p. 289).
J. N. D. Kelly said- “The theory that there was a general edict outlawing it (i.e. Christianity, DKP) enacted by Nero or Domitian, has been widely abandoned…” (Black’s New Testament Commentary, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, (London: Hendrickson, 1999), 28).
Scholar Ken Laffer says: “Early attempts to use archeology to prove that certain Christian individuals were involved in the alleged persecution have, in recent times, found to be faulty and in need of correction. Improved assessments of dating techniques have effectively placed the key individuals outside the persecution time frame that could have involved Domitian.
…. It is extremely likely that Domitian was not as bad as he has been portrayed and that he did not persecute Roman Christians at any time during his troubled rule.” (“The Alleged Persecution of Roman Christians by Domitian,” Ken Laffer, Doctoral Thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2005; Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/639).
These kind of quotes could be multiplied many times over. One can go to Google Scholar and do a search under the question “Did Domitian persecute the early church?” and you will find an abundance of articles that challenge the idea of a Domitianic persecution. But the quotes given here are sufficient to demonstrate that the underlying presupposition held by Joel Richardson is flawed and fallacious. And when his presupposition is wrong, then his entire so-called devastating argument against full preterism crumbles to the ground.
Richardson’s key approach to the dating of Revelation is based on a coin, minted early in Domitian’s reign. That coin depicts the naked, deceased son of Domitian seated on the globe of the earth. The coin depicts seven stars around its edge. The coin was designed to posit the apotheosis (the divination) of Domitian’s son.
Richardson claims that the Bible writers commonly “trolled” the idolatrous world by using its imagery and vernacular, common to that world. By “trolling” Richardson means that the Bible writers are essentially saying, “Well, the pagan images claim that their gods or goddesses were divine.” The Christian writers, usurped those images to proclaim that Jesus is the true Lord and God. Thus, in Revelation 1:16f when Jesus is depicted as holding the seven stars, Richardson claims this was John “trolling” Domitian. But something is grossly missing here.
The coin depicts Domitian’ son as being divinized, becoming a god (apotheosis). Thus, the coin depicts him as ruler over the seven stars and sitting on the globe of the earth (fascinating, is it not?) which conveyed his supreme authority over the known world. But, take note that Revelation 1:16f only depicts Jesus holding the seven stars which represented the leaders of the seven churches! The seven stars of Revelation did not represent the known world! Jesus holding the seven stars was not a claim to universal authority! While Jesus is depicted as the resurrection Lord to be sure, there is a huge disparity between what Richardson is claiming, what the coin represented, and what the seven stars of the seven churches represented.
For argument sake (only) let’s grant that this the Biblical writers did “troll” the pagan imagery. Does this prove that Domitian persecuted the church? No. What the coin symbolized bears no resemblance to the seven stars that represented the seven churches! The coin in no way whatsoever depicted Domitian as a persecutor of the church! And this is critical. Richardson is guilty of jumping to a host of false conclusions.
He assumes, without offering proof, that Domitian persecuted the church. This is a glaring issue. Why didn’t Joel offer us some actual historical proof that Domitian persecuted the church? Because that evidence is scarce to say the least. More importantly, why didn’t Richardson offer some Biblical evidence to support the idea of a Domitianic persecution?
What is fascinating and revealing of Richardson’s poor reasoning is this: That coin was minted early in Domitian’s reign which began in AD 81. When did Domitian supposedly persecute the church? During the last year or year and a half of his reign, circa AD 96. In other words, even if one grants that Domitian may have persecuted the church, he only did so almost 15 years after the coin appeared! That means that the coin was in circulation for almost 15 years before any claimed persecution. Thus, the origin of the coin in AD 82-83 had nothing to do with persecution of the church. Joel Richardson is patently grasping at straws. But the most egregious error committed by Richardson is in his claims contrasting 1 Peter and Revelation.
Richardson calls attention to how Gary DeMar has addressed his claims. He began his response by noting that he had interviewed DeMar somewhat recently. But he had several things to say about DeMar:
RE: Gary DeMar– “It is a horrific reality: he has left the faith. He is incredibly elusive. He offered nothing but a nothing burger.
“DeMar noted that there were earlier coins with the seven stars. (This is a nothing burger! It is not just that there are seven stars. That is not the point. You don’t have the imagery in the earlier coins! It is irrelevant that you have other coins with 7 stars. It is the combination of all of the elements, sitting on the globe, that is what is significant.”
Richardson is correct that Domitian was taking the seven star imagery to a level that the seven starred coins of Caligula and Vespasian did not depict. (Other symbols seemed to convey that). But again, Richardson misses the point! Revelation 1 is patently not about Jesus possessing the seven stars and thus was ruler of the world. No, the text is clear that the seven stars did not represent social, military authority or world dominion. The seven stars in Revelation depicted Jesus as ruler over the seven churches! In other words, Revelation 1 is not depicting a cosmic “power play”between Domitian and Jesus. Richardson’s claim therefore is an overreach.
Richardson says that, “Any first century Christian would have been familiar with the coin– the stars represented the dominant stars.”
No doubt the first century Christians would recognize immediately that the coin was positing the deification of Domitian’s deceased son. But that is not the relevant question! The real question is: Does this mean that any first century Christian would see the coin as representative of Domitian as a persecutor of the church? The answer quite simply is, No. The coin does not mention any kind of persecution of anyone, much less Christians! It is focused on the apotheosis of Domitian’s son! That is its message. To impose a symbolism of Christian persecution– or any link to that – is to engage in over-reach on a large scale.
But since Richardson appeals to the seven starred coin as some kind of probative proof of the late date and by extension for the Domitianic persecution, we ask: Precisely what evidence does that coin offer to prove that Domitian was, or was about to, persecute the church? All that the coin tells us is that it was minted by Domitian, (and no one denies this!!) and that it posited the apotheosis (divination) of his son and the “universal” authority of both him and his son. To establish the “late date”of the coin in no way establishes the late date of Revelation!
Joel recognizes the tenuous nature of his claim by asking of the coin and its symbology: “Does this conclusively prove the late date? No, but to anyone that is honest it does– If people are reasonable, if they are honest…”
So, for Richardson, his evidence is not conclusive unless a person is honest. If you are not honest the evidence it not conclusive! In other words, if you disagree with Joel Richardson, you are not honest! He makes this kind of claim several times in his short video: Only honest people will agree with him; dishonest people will not.
Richardson then turned his attention to me. He had this to say: “Preston is one of the leaders of the heretical full preterist movement. (“A most pugnacious fellow”).
I must confess that I have been called a LOT of names, but “pugnacious” is a new one! Pugnacious means to be inclined to verbal exchanges, quick to engage in controversy, and other similar adjectival descriptions. I must admit that when it comes to presenting and defending the truth of God’s word, I am most assuredly more than quick, and more than willing – and, I might add, more than “able” to engage in such discussions! I take 1 Peter 3:15 very seriously: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your heart and be ready always to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.” The word translated as “answer” is apologia and it was a legal term from trial situations. A person on trial had to give an orderly, logical, evidentiary “defense” for why they had been charged. They had to be able to offer the evidence to buttress their position. So, in this sense and definition, I plead guilty. But of course, Richardson did not intend to compliment me in any way!
Richardson addressed my claim that Revelation was written before 1 Peter. He says, “This is fascinating… it is worth addressing.” He admits that I am right to note that both Revelation and 1 Peter were addressed to the same general audiences and both spoke of persecution.
Richardson then read 1 Peter 1:5f and notes, “Preston says that Peter’s audience was being persecuted. This seems like a valid argument but it is weak. The trials they were going through was not persecution; it was not imprisonment. They were just being slandered, speaking evil of them (1 Peter 2:12). Slander was serious but not actual persecution. It was like losing your job, or a friend. This is just insults, just being misunderstood.” He cites 1 Peter 2:12, 1 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Peter 4:4 in support where Peter says that the Gentiles were slandering and insulting the Christians. He gives the impression that this slandering is the totality of the definition of the persecution of the Asian saints. He is guilty of illegitimate totality transfer, however. He assumes that since some verses in 1 Peter speak of verbal “persecution” that this must mean that all verses in 1 Peter speak of that, and nothing else. He gives half the information and claims that his emphasis constitutes the totality of the persecution narrative in Peter’s epistle.
This strikes me as an example of argumentum ad desperatum which is a non-Latin “Latin” term that I coined years ago to describe what happens when a person cannot defend their own beliefs through solid logic, proper hermeneutic and exegesis. They just make stuff up as they go along!
Joel asks if there was “Any evidence of this under Nero or Domitian? The evidence is not totally conclusive. What conclusion do honest people come to?” He adds: When you scratch beyond the surface (for those who are honest) the evidence is persuasive. This is a death sentence for full preterism.”
So, once again, only honest people come to the conclusion that Joel Richardson has come to! But let’s look closer to see if there is actually a contrast in the severity of the persecution in Revelation versus1 Peter as claimed by Richardson. I will keep each point as brief as possible.
Richardson’s Claim #1 – The persecution in Revelation was physical. The saints were being threatened with death and imprisonment (Rev. 2:10). The saints in 1 Peter were simply being slandered and ostracized (1 Peter 2:12) They were not in fear of their lives.
So, for Joel Richardson, the so-called non persecution of 1 Peter was ostracism and slander, but not actual persecution. This is where Joel’s false presuppositions come into play forcing him to ignore what Peter and John told their audience. I do want the reader to note that Richardson correctly notes that in both Revelation 2 and 3 John spoke of the persecution that was “about to come.” So, John did not envisioned fulfillment as something in the distant future. The persecution was imminent.
Response:
Fact #1– The persecution being experienced by Peter’s office was the fiery trial (purosei pros peirasmon– 1 Peter 4:12). This is precisely the same fiery trial that John spoke of in Revelation 3:9! One would have to do linguistic gymnastics to find a difference as radical as Richardson is suggesting.
Fact #2 – There is no question that the saints in Peter’s audience were being slandered (1 Peter 2:12). But it is an over statement that runs counter to the facts to limit that persecution to mere slander. Because John mentioned verbal abuse does not mean that he excluded physical persecution!
Fact #3 – Peter said: “Take heed to yourself, for the devil walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). The word “devour” carries with it the idea of being slain and consumed (see the language of Hosea 5:14f; 13:8). To my knowledge the imagery and / or threat of action against someone being like a lion never entailed mere slander, verbal abuse, or ostracism. It was violent attack and death!
Fact #4 – Peter said his Asian audience was enduring and participating in “the sufferings of Christ” 1 Peter 4:13). This term consistently refers to the persecutions (thlipsis) endured for being a Christian. It is never a reference to simply social ostracism (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1).
Richardson’s claim #2 – : The persecution described in 1 Peter “matches Nero.” and the persecution was limited “primarily to the city of Rome”; “This falls in line with the persecution that was under Nero in the 60s.” However, “Maybe some of the lies spread to Asia…”
Response
Fact #1– Tacitus, Roman historian, says that Nero killed a “Vast multitude” of Christians (Tacitus, Annals 15.44). That is not just “slander.” Thus, if the Neronian persecution in Rome spread to the provinces and far flung regions, i.e. to Asia, it stretches credulity to suggest that the Roman governors, prefects, would not follow Nero’s example. To refuse to do what he was doing would endanger their very lives! And consider the next fact.
Fact #2– Revelation foretold the coming fiery trial about to come “on the whole world (oikoumene holees– Revelation 3:10 ). But, the suffering described in 1 Peter was also being experienced by the church “throughout the world” (Cosmos- 1 Peter 5:9)! Both Revelation and 1 Peter use language of expansive persecution that is consistent with the other. Contra Richardson the persecution of the saints in 1 Peter was not confined to Rome; it was in the whole world.
Here is the contrast between Joel Richardson and Scripture:
The persecution of Peter’s audience was not actual persecution but slander and ostracism- Says Richardson.
The persecution of Peter’s audience was confined primarily to the city of Rome- Says Richardson.
But Peter said his audience was experiencing the “fiery trial” the identical kind of persecution foretold by John.
Peter said that his audience– in Asia and the world–(cosmos) not just the city of Rome- was experiencing that fiery persecution (1 Peter 5:9).
It appears that Joel Richardson has only scratched the surface of the extent, and the severity of the persecution in 1 Peter!
Revelation 2:10; 3:9f.
Same region and churches 1 Peter 4:12
Persecution– About to come among you
Persecution to death Devil seeks to devour you
Persecution about to come on the whole world Your brethren throughout the world (cosmos) are experiencing the same suffering as you.
Fiery Trial (about to come on the whole world) The fiery trial that is among you
Trying of your faith Trying of your faith
The Day of the Lord / Resurrection at the destruction of Babylon End of all things has come; The time for the judgment and resurrection had come (1 Peter 4:5, 7, 17).
Only a little while– 6:9-11 Asian saints only had to suffer a little while (1 Peter 1:5f; 5:9-10).
Filling up the measure 1 Peter 5:9-10
Judgment – Day of the Lord; judgment of the living and the dead; imminent- Rev. 11 Judgment of the living and the dead; imminent
Avenging of their suffering was imminent Avenging of their suffering was imminent
Joel’s highly selective use of the Greek words translated as suffering– he focuses on verses using oneidezo and perhaps epereazo – slander and accusation– when Peter used other words which commonly convey the idea of actual persecution! This approach suggests that Richardson is either ignorant of the other texts, the other Greek words, or has chosen to ignore them.
Peter actually used at least five words to describe the persecution being experienced by the Asian saints.
The primary Greek words used to describe the persecution and suffering in 1 Peter include:
1. Πάσχω (Pascho) — To Suffer or Experience Pain
This is Peter’s favorite word for suffering. He used it 12 times over 11 verses, if my count is correct.
• Usage: Peter uses this word 11-12 times in this brief letter (e.g., 1 Peter 2:21, 4:1, 5:10). He uses it to connect the believer’s contemporary social hardships directly to the physical path that Christ modeled. In Richardson’s view, however, the suffering of the Asian saints never rose to the level of the suffering of Christ in spite of Peter’s direct comparison
2. Πειρασμός (Peirasmos) — Trial or Testing
• Meaning: This noun means a trial, a proof through adversity, or a testing of one’s character. In the New Testament, it has a dual dynamic: it is an agonizing hardship allowed by God to refine faith, while simultaneously presenting a temptation from the enemy to fall away.
Peter uses this word in chapter 1:6 (“various trials”) and 1 Peter 4:12 (“comes upon you for your testing”). While Richardson says what the brethren were experiencing, the apostle called it a “fiery trial.”
3. Πύρωσις (Pyrōsis) — A Fiery Ordeal or Burning
This word is derived from pyroo (“to burn”), this literal term refers to a smelting furnace, the process of baking clay, or refining precious metals through high heat.
This is found in 1 Peter 4:12 where Peter warns them not to be surprised by the “fiery ordeal” (pyrōsei) taking place among them. It strongly visualizes the agonizing intensity of their persecution, comparing it to a refinery where the dross is melted away to leave pure gold.
4. Πάθημα (Pathēma) — Affliction or Hardship
This word is closely tied to pascho, and refers to actual external hardships, misfortunes, or objective sufferings endured.
The word appears in 1 Peter 4:13 (“partakers of Christ’s sufferings”) and 1 Peter 5:9 (“the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood”). Peter uses it to reassure them that their distress is a global, collective reality shared by the entire early Christian movement.
5. Oνειδίζω (Oneidizō) — To Revile, Insult, or Reproach
This verb means to mock, cast insults, find fault in a demeaning way, or brand someone with infamy. It appears also in Hebrews 11:26 where Moses chose the “reproaches of Christ” over the pleasure of Egypt.
6. πηρεάζω (Epereazō) — To Threaten, Slander, or Mistreat
Richardson basically hangs his hat on the texts that use this word (e.g. 1 Peter 3:16). It means to insult, falsely accuse, or maliciously mistreat someone out of spite.
As the reader can see, it is rather myopic to claim, as Richardson does, that Peter confines his definition of persecution to verbal abuse. That ignores the range of linguistics that the apostle uses.
Consider something here: In both Revelation (6:11 12:10f; 14) we find that the suffering to be endured by the brethren in the whole world (oikoumenee /cosmos) was only to be for a short time, 1 Peter 1:5f; 5:10–> Revelation 6:11; 12:10f). That suffering was to fill up the measure of the martyrs.
First of all, the NT knows nothing– unless 1 Peter and Revelation are the exception– of any city, any entity, that was filling up the measure of their sin by killing the followers of Jesus– different from OT Jerusalem! This is critical! Yet it is totally ignored by Joel Richardson, and to be honest, by the great majority of commentators! Yet the NT texts are clear: It was Old Covenant, first century Jerusalem that would fill up the measure of her blood guilt by killing Jesus’ apostles and prophets (Matthew 23:33-37; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This means that when 1 Peter 5:9-10 and Revelation 6:11; chapter 12, chapter 14, etc. speak of Babylon filling the measure of her sin by killing Jesus’ saints, lying behind the scenes as the dominant guilty party is not Nero. It is not Domitian. It was not Decius. It was Old Covenant Jerusalem.
Second, following on this, consider that if one takes the early date, this fits Jesus’ discussion of the filling up of the measure of martyrs– including the apostles and prophets of Jesus!!– which he laid at the feet of Jerusalem. He said not one word of accusation against Rome, whether Nero or Domitian… or whoever! Paul said the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. It was invariably Jerusalem that would fill the measure of her sin and the measure of the martyrs and that would be in the first century generation.
Third, note that Richardson admits that the “fiery trial” of the persecution was “about to come.” It was not something 600 years away. (I will refrain from noting further on how Richardson’s use of mello in these texts to indicate the imminence of the fiery trial exposes his entire eschatology. The word rendered as “about to be” is likewise used by Paul in Acts 17:30-31 to speak of the “about to be” judgment the world. It is used in 24:14 to speak of the “about to be” resurrection! Thus, Richardson’s acknowledgment of the “about to be” persecution is more than telling).
But that fiery trial was to fill up the measure of the martyrs. And part of filling up the measure of the martyrs was the slaying of the apostles of Christ (18:20-24). Significantly, a Domitianic dating of Revelation precludes any application to the death of the apostles of Christ! Domitian– if he persecuted the church– did so after the death of the apostles! It is an understatement to say that this is a daunting challenge to Richardson’s view of Revelation . Here is why.
According to most calculations, if– and that is a huge IF–Domitian ever persecuted the church, he only did so within the last year, perhaps year and a half of his reign! Needless to say, this excludes any reference or application to any Islamic Caliphate that never did and never will do that! Yet, the city Babylon was guilty of that very sin!
If one wished to argue that the accusation was leveled against “Babylon” as Rome, the city, and not specifically Domitian, that does not help! It still demands proof that Domitian – as the representative of Rome – actually persecuted the church and that evidence is lacking. And again, since Richardson’s proposal that Revelation speaks of a yet future Islamic Caliphate that will persecute the church, this violates his own claim that the prophesied persecution was “about to come.”
All of this means that when Joel Richardson identifies Babylon in Revelation as either Rome, or Domitian, or a yet future Islamic Caliphate, he is simply ignoring the Biblical data and creating an artificial and false narrative out of whole cloth.And he is violating his own appeal to the imminent persecution.
I must add this additional thought. Richardson acknowledges that the fiery trial was “about to come.” Contextually, this mean that the measure of martyrdom would be filled up in “a little while” (Revelation 6:11; 12:10ff), and that means in turn that judgment on the persecuting city would then fall! But did judgment fall on Rome shortly after Domitian’s supposed 1- 1 ½ year persecution. No. And not for hundreds of years afterward! Nothing like the judgment described in Revelation 18-19 followed Domitian’s reign! And this is why the persecuting city, the city “where the Lord was crucified” should be identified as Jerusalem and not Rome, even Rome under Nero. Rome did not fill the measure of martyr under Nero. But as already noted, Jesus identified Jerusalem – and Jerusalem alone- as the city that would fill the measure of its sin, and the suffering of the martyrs, and be destroyed in the first century. Thus, the very language of imminence that Richardson uses poses a severe internal problem for Richardson’s claims.
Finally, consider this.
In 1 Peter 4:12 Peter told his audience, “Do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial that is among you.” Why did he tell them to not think of that persecution as something strange or unexpected? Compare 1 Thessalonians 3: 1-4:
Therefore, when we could no longer endure it, we thought it good to be left in Athens alone, and sent Timothy, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith, that no one should be shaken by these afflictions; for you yourselves know that we are appointed to this. For, in fact, we told you before when we were with you that we would suffer tribulation, just as it happened, and you know.
Paul urged the Thessalonians not to be discouraged by the persecution they were enduring as if some strange thing had befallen them. Why? “Because you yourselves know that we are appointed to this. For, in fact, we told you before when we were with you that we would suffer tribulation, just as it happened, and you know.” So, Paul had warned the churches “We must, through much tribulation, enter the kingdom” (Acts 14:23).
And Peter is echoing these sentiments! Now, it is possible that Peter was simply reminding his audience of the eschatological necessity of suffering, as suggested in Acts 14:23. (But make no mistake, the suffering of Acts 14:23 (thlipsis) was not mere slander! See 2 Thessalonians 1). But it is also true that Revelation 3:9 said a fiery trial was “about to come” on the Asian churches, and there is no strong reason – other than tradition– to claim that the Apocalypse could not be what had had already warned the Asian Christians that persecution was about to come!
In summary, while there is a great deal more we could offer, this is more than sufficient to demonstrate the following about Joel Richardson’s claim that the seven starred coin of Domitian’s son somehow proves the late date of Revelation is specious, presuppositonal, and untenable.
There is scant evidence that Domitian ever persecuted the church.
There is no connection between the seven starred coin and persecution at all.
Richardson has jumped to conclusions that are simply not supported by the evidence. His claim that a coin that communicated the apotheosis somehow proved the Domitianic persecution and thus the late date of Revelation has no serious merit.
Richardson’s claim that the persecution of Peter’s audience was not actual persecution but just a relatively minor bit of criticism and thus, did not rise to the level of actual persecution, is not supported by the linguistics of Peter’s epistle.
It seems more than evident to me that it is Joel Richardson who has merely touched the surface of the issue of the dating of Revelation. He has either ignored the evidence or refused to dig beyond the surface of the evidence.
He has condemned as heretics, false teachers and liars those who disagree with his view. This is far less than charitable
Joel Richardson’s claims concerning the late date of Revelation are built on quicksand and fail the test of close scrutiny.