# Was Revelation written before 70 AD or after?



## KMK

Was Revelation written before 70 AD or after?


----------



## wsw201

After!


----------



## Herald

At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.

Does this prove a preterist interpretation of Revelation is correct? Not necessarily.

However, you may find it useful to consult Ken Gentry's _Before Jerusalem Fell_.


----------



## RamistThomist

BaptistInCrisis said:


> At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.



The coals are still burning. If the preterist wanted to modify his view to the near future he could still do it regardless of the dating of revelation. There are time-referents in the book that still support the preterist view. I am not preterist, but I have to be honest on that one.


----------



## Herald

Ivanhoe said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The coals are still burning. If the preterist wanted to modify his view to the near future he could still do it regardless of the dating of revelation. There are time-referents in the book that still support the preterist view. I am not preterist, but I have to be honest on that one.
Click to expand...


Jacob, and this is _precisely_ why I have such a problem with preterism. It's such a moving target.


----------



## jawyman

I say after.


----------



## ANT

Internal and external evidences point to a pre AD 70 date.


----------



## Bygracealone

Just curious, has Adams' work "The Time is at Hand" ever been refuted by anybody notable?


----------



## SRoper

Other: it was written and published serially from summer 68 to spring 71.

Just kidding. It was written well after 70 AD.


----------



## Quickened

would other classify as "during 70" since the other two options are before and after?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Bygracealone said:


> Just curious, has Adams' work "The Time is at Hand" ever been refuted by anybody notable?



Who is Adam?


----------



## RamistThomist

Jay Adams


----------



## Amazing Grace

Ivanhoe said:


> Jay Adams



who is jay adams?


----------



## RamistThomist

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is jay adams?
Click to expand...


He is an amillennialist who spear-headed the "nouthetic counseling" movement. Overall, he is quite good. Has done some excellent work on the Christian family. Essentially argues that we should look to the Bible, and not to Dr Phil, for dealing with crises. 

He doesn't do a lot on biblical studies. He did one on charismatic gifts and another on baptism and another on prophecy.


----------



## k.seymore

BaptistInCrisis said:


> At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.



How so? Preterists can interpret it as being about Jerusalem, Rome or both. I think it was written late, and is written to churches in Rome who were persectued by Rome, and it speaks of Rome being destroyed. And I consider myself a preterist which means I think those things already happened. (And the book speaks of some things after Rome as well.)


----------



## KMK

Ivanhoe said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The coals are still burning. If the preterist wanted to modify his view to the near future he could still do it regardless of the dating of revelation. There are time-referents in the book that still support the preterist view. I am not preterist, but I have to be honest on that one.
Click to expand...


Are you saying an early date for Revelation is not necessary for the preterist view?


----------



## Bygracealone

Amazing Grace said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is jay adams?
Click to expand...


I mentioned him because he wrote what some deem a classic work on the early dating of the Book of the Revelation entitled "The Time is at Hand." 

It can be purchased here: Welcome to Timeless Christian Boooks


----------



## puritan lad

Before, while the temple was still standing (Rev. 11:1-8) and during the reign of Nero, the 6th Roman Emperor (Rev. 17:10)

See Dating the Book of Revelation


----------



## caddy

Agree with ^ Before 

Better scholarship and the text seems to support a _before_ date, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Davidius

I chose "other" because I have no idea.


----------



## Bygracealone

FYI, "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Ken Gentry is available as a PDF for free at the following link:

Before Jerusalem Fell


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least twenty years after, which throws cold water on the book being used to support the preterist view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The coals are still burning. If the preterist wanted to modify his view to the near future he could still do it regardless of the dating of revelation. There are time-referents in the book that still support the preterist view. I am not preterist, but I have to be honest on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying an early date for Revelation is not necessary for the preterist view?
Click to expand...


Hmm...technically, yes. Let's say all the prophecies were fulfilled (excepting Resurrection and other stuff) in 96 AD, or 150 AD. That is still preterism (of course, they would have to make some unusual defenses, but conceptually it is possible).


----------



## jaybird0827

ANT said:


> Internal and external evidences point to a pre AD 70 date.


 


... and I do not hold to any form of preterism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, has Adams' work "The Time is at Hand" ever been refuted by anybody notable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Adam?
Click to expand...


The first man.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

KMK said:


> Was Revelation written before 70 AD or after?



A.D. 96 C. I. Scofield said so!

Seriously though, I do favor the position that it was written after 70 A.D.


----------



## ANT

Bygracealone said:


> FYI, "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Ken Gentry is available as a PDF for free at the following link:
> 
> Before Jerusalem Fell




I read Gentry's book in Nov. 2001 ... It was and is by far the best exegetical and historical argument for a pre-AD70 composition of the book of Revelation that I have come across so far.

Anyone that has a question about the date of Revelation will find this book hard to refute. It is a work that (In my humble opinion) should be considered well worth reading by all before making a decision on where they stand concerning the date wether your presuppositions are pre or post 70.

I give this book ...


----------



## MW

Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivanhoe said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jay Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is jay adams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is an amillennialist who spear-headed the "nouthetic counseling" movement. Overall, he is quite good. Has done some excellent work on the Christian family. Essentially argues that we should look to the Bible, and not to Dr Phil, for dealing with crises.
> 
> He doesn't do a lot on biblical studies. He did one on charismatic gifts and another on baptism and another on prophecy.
Click to expand...


Jay Adams has done much more than many people realize, but people generally tend to just associate him with counseling. This is because he has primarily focused on that and also probably due to the controversy generated by his opposition to the integrated approach with humanism. He used to teach homiletics among other things at WTS and has written on preaching as well as pastoral theology, which naturally intersects with Biblical Counseling. Here is a list of works by Dr. Adams.

My understanding is that The Time is at Hand was a seminal text for orthodox preterism when the first edition of it was published in the 1960's.


----------



## shackleton

Yes, it had to be. Unless it was written between the years, 69 or 71.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.



By 'tentatively' do you mean until a new tradition arises?


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 'tentatively' do you mean until a new tradition arises?
Click to expand...


No; as in, we can accept it as human tradition, though not as divine teaching. Like other NT tidbits which support the conservative view of Scripture.


----------



## tellville

Just curious, are there any major commentaries that support an early date for the composition of Revelation?


----------



## puritan lad

armourbearer said:


> Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.



In actuality, there is more historical evidence for a later date. Almost all of the late date evidence is based on Irenaeus' statement.


----------



## biblicalthought

I hold to "before." Not a preterist, but it does seem strange as to why John would reference the temple as if it were still standing. It also seems strange that if it were written after 70AD that there would be no mention of the destruction. This is not conclusive, however, the strongest argument for the late dating of the book relies heavily on the testimony of Irenaeus who also said Jesus died in his fifties. So, go figure


----------



## JM

After.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

biblicalthought said:


> I hold to "before." Not a preterist, but it does seem strange as to why John would reference the temple as if it were still standing. It also seems strange that if it were written after 70AD that there would be no mention of the destruction. This is not conclusive, however, the strongest argument for the late dating of the book relies heavily on the testimony of Irenaeus who also said Jesus died in his fifties. So, go figure


Irenaeus was an avid listener of foxnews.


----------



## DMcFadden

Slippery said:


> Irenaeus was an avid listener of foxnews.



Really? No wonder I found him so courageous, fair, balanced, and . . . right.


----------



## DMcFadden

Going all the way back to the second century and stretching until the 19th century (and most of the 20th) the prevalent view was to date Revelation during the reign of Domitian (81-96). If you go to the 19th century, however, you will find several scholars arguing for an early date: Lightfoot, _Essays_, 132; id., _Biblical Essays_, 52; Hort, x.

Today a majority of scholars probably argue for the later date. However, a number of competent folks have taken the earlier date: (e.g., Eckhardt, Johannes, 71; Stolt, _DTT_ 40 [1977] 202–7; Bell, NTS 25 [1978] 93–102; Wilson, _NTS_ 39 [1993] 597–605; Rowland, 17). When I was still in seminary ('76), ultra liberal J.A.T. Robinson ("Honest to God") came out with a radical redating of the NT as ALL written prior to 70 a.d.

Since you asked for commentaries, try those by van der Waal and J. M. Ford; Robinson, _Redating the New Testament_, 221–53 (already mentioned above); Rowland, _Open Heaven_, 403–13; Bell, “Date of John’s Apocalypse.” Interestingly, even serious scholars such as Beale cite Gentry's _Before Jerusalem Fell_ as a good example of arguments for the earlier date.

Aune (WBC) takes the unusual view that the answer is "both." 



> The position taken in this commentary is that both views contain aspects of the correct solution, since it appears that while the final edition of Revelation was completed toward the end of the reign of Domitian (or, more likely, during the early part of the reign of Trajan), the first edition of the book was composed as much as a generation earlier based on written and oral apocalyptic traditions that reach back into the decade of the a.d. 60s, if not somewhat earlier.


----------



## RamistThomist

DMcFadden said:


> Aune (WBC) takes the unusual view that the answer is "both."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The position taken in this commentary is that both views contain aspects of the correct solution, since it appears that while the final edition of Revelation was completed toward the end of the reign of Domitian (or, more likely, during the early part of the reign of Trajan), the first edition of the book was composed as much as a generation earlier based on written and oral apocalyptic traditions that reach back into the decade of the a.d. 60s, if not somewhat earlier.
Click to expand...


I, too, will take the good, hard stand and say "both."


----------



## toddpedlar

puritan lad said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In actuality, there is more historical evidence for a later date. Almost all of the late date evidence is based on Irenaeus' statement.
Click to expand...


You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?


----------



## turmeric

Does anyone else see humor in a book called _The Time Is At Hand _being published by Timeless Books?


----------



## MW

turmeric said:


> Does anyone else see humor in a book called _The Time Is At Hand _being published by Timeless Books?


----------



## MW

toddpedlar said:


> You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?



I was confused initially, but that's what I eventually concluded was his intention. Not that I agree with it, of course. Both the assertion and the conclusion drawn from it are false. See Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. 1, pp. 35-52. Available here: Horæ Apocalypticæ: Or, a Commentary ... - Google Book Search


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was confused initially, but that's what I eventually concluded was his intention. Not that I agree with it, of course. Both the assertion and the conclusion drawn from it are false. See Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. 1, pp. 35-52. Available here: Horæ Apocalypticæ: Or, a Commentary ... - Google Book Search
Click to expand...


Audio exerpts of Elliott is available here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=124029164


----------



## bookslover

Daniel Ritchie said:


> For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.



The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were _any_ New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.


----------



## ANT

bookslover said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were _any_ New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.
Click to expand...



But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant _*worship*_ - _The practice and sacrifices_ were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was _*"finally and publicly abolished"*_ ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant _worship_ is now no longer available ...


----------



## ANT

tellville said:


> Just curious, are there any major commentaries that support an early date for the composition of Revelation?




I just finished an excellent commentary that holds to a pre-70AD dating ...


*The Days of Vengeance* - _An Exposition on the Book of Revelation_
By: David Chilton


another commentary is ...


*Back To The Future* - _A Study in the Book of Revelation_
By: Ralph E. Bass Jr.


I have not read this one yet, but it is in my library just waiting for me to read ... 
If anyone has read this commentary, I would love to hear what you thought about it.

There are also a couple of really good fiction books that were put together to give readers a chance to see a preterist view of Revelation and to counter the "Left Behind" series. They are based on the early date of Revelation as well. 


They are ...


*The Last Disciple*
and ...
*The Last Sacrifice*
By: Hank Hanegraaf & Sigmund Brouwer


I have read both of these ... I was captivated by them ... I'm not sure when/if the 3rd book is out ... but I will defenitely buy and read it!


----------



## shackleton

Liberal commentaries say that it was written over a long period of time that is why it seems to reflect the times of both Nero and Domitian. Of course they also say that it was not even written by John the Apostle.


----------



## Kevin

I had lunch with Craig Evans last year and he told me that he is working on a book that will argue for a much earlier date for much of the NT. I asked him about Revelation & he said that he was "becoming convinced" that much of the post 70 dates were too late by a couple of decades.

He said that very little to no real work has been done on the dating issue and current research allows us to be much more confident then previous generations. My impression of his view was that the traditional dates have little or no empirical foundation, in most cases.

Given that he is probably THE leading NT scholar in the world, who also is a conservative Evangelical, I think we should be prepared to hear what he has to say.

BTW I asked him some questions about preterism & amil vs postmil as they related to the subject & he brushed them of as "not my field". His interest was only in the evidence for the dating issue itself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ANT said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were _any_ New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant _*worship*_ - _The practice and sacrifices_ were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was _*"finally and publicly abolished"*_ ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant _worship_ is now no longer available ...
Click to expand...


Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ANT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were _any_ New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant _*worship*_ - _The practice and sacrifices_ were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was _*"finally and publicly abolished"*_ ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant _worship_ is now no longer available ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is *reasonable* to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
Click to expand...


'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"

For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.


----------



## Civbert

What are the implications of Revelation being written before or after AD 70?


----------



## puritan lad

toddpedlar said:


> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In actuality, there is more historical evidence for a later date. Almost all of the late date evidence is based on Irenaeus' statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
Click to expand...


Correct. It's been a long week


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANT said:
> 
> 
> 
> But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant _*worship*_ - _The practice and sacrifices_ were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was _*"finally and publicly abolished"*_ ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant _worship_ is now no longer available ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is *reasonable* to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"
> 
> For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
Click to expand...


If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?


----------



## AV1611

Davidius said:


> I chose "other" because I have no idea.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is *reasonable* to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"
> 
> For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
Click to expand...


I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"
> 
> For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
Click to expand...


I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.
Click to expand...


So you are saying it is 'necessary' to infer an early date. Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it is 'necessary' to infer an early date. Am I understanding you correctly?
Click to expand...


Yes. By what the WCF calls "good and necessary consequence".


----------



## JOwen

after


----------



## DMcFadden

shackleton said:


> Liberal commentaries say that it was written over a long period of time that is why it seems to reflect the times of both Nero and Domitian. Of course they also say that it was not even written by John the Apostle.



Erick,

One need not be liberal to accept the Domitian date as normative. Afterall, it has been the position of the church for most of our history. Conservatives (at least the non-amill/postmill ones) seem to settle for 90-95. During the last half of the 19th century and more recently, we have seen scholars (both liberal and conservative) rise up with arguments for an earlier date. Since conservatives generally ascribe the book to John the Apostle in a.d. 90-95 (wigth a strong minority upholding the pre-70 date, I don't see any reason why he could not have been responsible for writing it (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) before a.d. 70 and completing it in a.d. 90-95.

Ivanhoe (aka Jacob), for example, is hardly a liberal and he said "both" dates yesterday in this thread.

I have always held to the traditional dating but am quite open to any arguments Evans might make. I also took advantage of downloading Gentry and can't wait to dig into it.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were _any_ New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.



My personal opinion is that a thorough examination of the passages recording the Olivet discourse should lead to the conclusion that these are fulfilled in the rejection and death of Christ. There is really no reason for considering any part of the NT to speak anything concerning the events which took place around AD 70.


----------



## shackleton

My point was just that they believe it was written over a period of time, it was added to. That is their view of a lot of scripture.


----------



## biblicalthought

Pretty wierd. I just logged on and saw that this post had 666 views...


----------



## Ivan

biblicalthought said:


> Pretty wierd. I just logged on and saw that this post had 666 views...



And it doesn't anymore...


----------



## toddpedlar

JOwen said:


> after



GREAT avatar, Jerrold!


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> My personal opinion is that a thorough examination of the passages recording the Olivet discourse should lead to the conclusion that these are fulfilled in the rejection and death of Christ. There is really no reason for considering any part of the NT to speak anything concerning the events which took place around AD 70.



Mr. Winzer,

Could we get a sample explanation to clarify how this might work out? For instance, from Luke 19:41-44 (following closely upon the heels of the Olivet discourse) there is this statement:



> And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
> Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
> For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
> And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.



Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?

And that would tie in well with what I read this morning in Luke 23:27-31:



> And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
> But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
> For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
> Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
> For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?



Thank you.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?



Ruben, good question. It seems to be a matter of approach. Some approach our Lord's words with an event-driven hermeneutic. They take it as a bare prediction of the future; as such they look for a fulfilment of the prediction in terms of historical events, and of course AD 70 is the closest they can find so they pitch on it. But our Lord is not speaking of future events, but of covenant curses. The significance of Jerusalem lying in ruins is not the destruction of a great city but the forsaking of a "holy" city. Our Lord was effectively telling them in the language of the prophets that their rejection of Him was a rejection of God which would lead to a rejection of them.

Jesus Christ is the true temple. They abandoned Him. They destroyed Him. But He built it again in three days. The carnal Jews applied the temple-language to the physical building instead of understanding it correctly to speak of their Messiah. Our Lord rejected their carnal interpretation. How could the building of Herod be regarded as the house of God? The Lord Himself is the far more glorious second temple. Regrettably many Christian expositors interpret the temple language in the same manner as the carnal Jews.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben, good question. It seems to be a matter of approach. Some approach our Lord's words with an event-driven hermeneutic. They take it as a bare prediction of the future; as such they look for a fulfilment of the prediction in terms of historical events, and of course AD 70 is the closest they can find so they pitch on it. But our Lord is not speaking of future events, but of covenant curses. The significance of Jerusalem lying in ruins is not the destruction of a great city but the forsaking of a "holy" city. Our Lord was effectively telling them in the language of the prophets that their rejection of Him was a rejection of God which would lead to a rejection of them.
> 
> Jesus Christ is the true temple. They abandoned Him. They destroyed Him. But He built it again in three days. The carnal Jews applied the temple-language to the physical building instead of understanding it correctly to speak of their Messiah. Our Lord rejected their carnal interpretation. How could the building of Herod be regarded as the house of God? The Lord Himself is the far more glorious second temple. Regrettably many Christian expositors interpret the temple language in the same manner as the carnal Jews.
Click to expand...


If I could thank you twice for these words I would, Rev Winzer!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I noticed some mentioned Irenaeus as a source for reference in determining the date after. Is he really reliable in this? Didn't he also believe Jesus was crucified in his 50's?


----------

