# When was Revelation written?



## Denton Elliott

~69 AD

or

~95 AD

???


----------



## caoclan

pre-fall (of Jerusalem).


----------



## Grimmson

Denton, could you have picked an easier question? Just kidding, it is a really good question that has divided many folks for a long time. Before we go over the internal material in scripture let us go to the great Irenaeus, the guy who thought Jesus was crucified at the age of 50. Most of the quotations of the early church/ patristic fathers that claims the A.D. 95/96 date goes back to him. Therefore the real question in my option should be can we trust his testimony.

In Philip Comfort’s book New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, a really interesting book, on page 846 Philip writes about interesting textual variant. This particular variant changes the well known number of the beast to 616. Philip shows this variant, found in manuscript P115 and Codex C, can both apply to Nero. 666 is the “Hebrew transliteration of the Greek for ‘Neron Caesar’ ”, and 616 is the Latin equivalent or a different spelling of the same name. 

In Chapter 30 of Book V of Against Heresies, makes mention of the fact that 666 could fit any number of names and mentions the 616 variant,

“1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [4700] [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] [4701]”- Irenaeus, Irenæus - Against Heresies: Book V 

In the same book he mentions that the number could fit a variety of different names, but he never address Nero and it is evident that he places Domitian in his place.

Now if Irenaeus was born about AD 125-140 (depending on who you ask) and Polycarp, whom he was under as a disciple, died about AD 154-155 that amount of time is critical for establishing some of that information pasted to John the Apostle to Polycarp to Irenaeus himself. Which in turn may explain his mistake on the age of Christ crucifixion. 

So we can give the credence to the early date of revelations if we consider the acceptance of the textual variant and its age, and put into question based on at least another mistake he has made. 

Which then develops another question and this is when was John exiled to Patmos. We know what Eusebius says in his “The History of the Church” that it was at the end of Domitian’s reign. However he is quoting Irenaeus and is removed by more then 100 years of Irenaeus. In fact that the case from Hippolytis to Victorinus. Clement of Alexander no help for he does not name any names on who it was that exiled him ( see Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII). It is seems to be assumed and perhaps with good reason for he himself was not more then 60 years of his birth from the moment of John exile.

Another potential problem is the lack of evidence in history of Nero exiling people to Patmos. And of course if he didn’t that has some problems for the preterist position.

I think since Clement of Alexander gave no names with the assumption he is understood and there no record of someone directly challenging Irenaeus about his facts, which am sure someone like Papias could have done and would have the record of such a challenge survive through Eusebius or some other, am I sure the later date is the more accepted date. 

The early date cannot really depend outside of the know variants to history. They try to use internal evidence which hopefully others will go over in more detail then me. For I am not prepared to write something in detail tonight. 

1) The most common is argument for the early date is the standing of the temple in 11:1-2. If none does tackle it in the next few days I will. 
2) Seven churches are mentioned, after the earthquake of AD 61 that destroyed 3 of the 9 cities where churches were established by Paul. On a side note I have seen one guy challenge Paul Apostleship in the grounds of the conditions of these churches. You may notice some math issues, Loadicea which was one of the 3 destroyed would have been rebuilt prior the fall of Jerusalem. 

There are others that people use, but I don’t think its worth mentioning. However I have caught one group that Revelations 10:11 out of context and replace 
“You must again prophesy about many people and nations and languages and kings” (ESV) with “Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings”(KJV). Therefore you can see a translational variant exists which do not in the recent translations. 

Personally I side closer to the AD 96 because I think 2) is a silly argument and 1) can apply to something else as we observe in the history of interpretation on the passage. 

Sorry it was long, but hopefully it was helpful.

Now hopefully my Signature pops out now.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.


----------



## jogri17

after fall of Jerusalem.


----------



## BobVigneault

before fall of Jerusalem


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Before the Fall.


----------



## CNJ

David,
Wow! Welcome to PB! I am going to try to digest what you are saying. 

Denton,
I am tending to believe Revelation was written *before the fall of Jerusalem* as are most New Testament books. I am wading through the fresh-off-the–press (Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com) He Shall Have Dominion by Ken Gentry. As in other of his books Gentry emphasizes that the events in Revelation were soon to occur according to John. Gentry writes “Original relevance, then, is the lock and the time-texts the key for opening Revelation’s heavy door. What clearer terms for contemporary expectation could John use other than those he employs in Revelation 1:1, 3:22-26, 10 and other places?” (p. 163)


----------



## toddpedlar

caoclan said:


> pre-fall (of Jerusalem).





jogri17 said:


> after fall of Jerusalem.





Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Before the Fall.



Tastes great!

Less filling!

Tastes great! 

Less filling!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## caddy

Before the Fall of Jerusalem.


----------



## louis_jp

I don't know much about this topic, but the portrayal of the Church at Ephesus ("repent... or I will come and take your lampstand from you...") would seem a little odd if this book were written in 69 A.D. That is, the church with such strong ties to Paul and Timothy as recently as the early 60's would have to have fallen pretty fast.


----------



## JM

After.


----------



## JOwen

After


----------



## Tripel

69 ad


----------



## WaywardNowHome

I've never really thought about it. My reference Bible says most scholars believe that it was written in 95 AD so I just believed it.

What are the implications of it being written before or after the fall? Does it completely change the message of the book depending on the stance one takes?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Those who hold to the earlier writing date see the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling a number of things described in Revelation. If it was written after the fall of Jerusalem, then Revelation can't be referring to those 70 AD events.


----------



## Denton Elliott

I guess I should have made this a poll with most of the responses...

I could have guessed that most bapt. would say after and most presb. would say before. 

What I want to know is why do most study bibles state 95/96 if the internal evidence points to an early date? 

I don't know yet who to trust, but listening to Nicene Council podcasts has been pretty compelling to the early date.


----------



## Grimmson

I noticed despite the fact you hold to a pre of post fall perspective your just indicating what your position is without giving the evidence for that. Let us try to sharper each other up by giving a reason and a defense for the hope that is within us. Whatever position you hold has some clear consequences in how you interpret not just Revelations, but also the rest of the book. 

I had in my pervious post I gave mention to the fact that I ran across a group, honestly I don’t remember their names, who denied Paul status as an Apostle and he used the book of Revelations as his primary evidence. As Louis indicated in his post, thanks for the post by the way( I have not reached my 15 posts yet to get that thumbs up icon):

“I don't know much about this topic, but the portrayal of the Church at Ephesus ("repent... or I will come and take your lampstand from you...") would seem a little odd if this book were written in 69 A.D. That is, the church with such strong ties to Paul and Timothy as recently as the early 60's would have to have fallen pretty fast.”

There would be something odd about how quickly the church has fallen away, especially with the fact that 69 AD is only about a couple or few years after the death of Paul and Peter. I do not know when Timothy left the area, but if he was there about that time, the same letter would have a direct impact on his status as a pastor in Ephesus, In Revelations 2:2 the same church is praised for rooting out false Apostles. If people apply this to Paul, then that directly has an impact on what is in The NT canon, including 2 Peter. However we do not see such a challenge in the church, and Paul writings were considered precious scriptures along side as the other writing of the NT, with some exceptions considering on the period of church history of the acceptance or popularity of a book/text. In fact I see this absence of documented criticisms of Paul by those within the Patristic period, of who we consider orthodox, for what we see is an acceptedness 
of Paul as an Apostle of the church; therefore implying that the later date, after Jerusalem’s fall historically, would make much more sense.

What we believe does have consequences and I think we need to recognize that fact and becareful not to give blanket general answers for the position we take. Remember historically the pre-Jerusalem perspective in the history of the church is the minority view in the area of orthodox. I cannot say the same about Reformed people as a whole in history only because I have not looked into the writing of Calvin, or even Turretin, along side of many of the greats on this issue. However I have a feeling that they would hold to the latter date on the side of the majority Church History view. 

Carol, thank you for the warmed welcoming to PB.

I am sure I am going to be saying more on this subject soon.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.


----------



## E Nomine

Before Jerusalem fell.


----------



## Sven

I refer you to Mounce's commentary on Revelation in NICNT. He gives, I think, a compelling argument for the later date. Preterists of both stripes have an agenda to push when arguing for the earlier date. However, as one preterist friend of mine has said, "The preterist system does not stand or fall with the date of Revelation."

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 12:05:15 EST-----

Dr. Kim Riddelbarger discusses this in this lecture: http://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/20071019.mp3


----------



## Grimmson

I just hear the Riddlebarger’s lecture that Svan posted thanks Svan by the way. It is really good to listen and I highly recommend you all, especially you pre-fall guys to listen and respond to it. He covers why I thought that 2) that I made in my first post in this link is silly. 
“2) Seven churches are mentioned, after the earthquake of AD 61 that destroyed 3 of the 9 cities.”

Even though yes Laodicea was rebuilt quickly, there is an issue of their re-establishment of their level of wealth and prestige. Which would make sense for the later date and why I think the early date in response to the seven city argument present is silly. 

Personally am surprised their was no attack on my Irenaeus argument. For those of you who want the hole in it, yes I criticize my own work, I have not found any patristic response to Irenaeus’ 50 year mistake; even from the great Papias. But don’t worry this HT guy is still searching for one. However due to Clement use it seems to imply that there was an established understanding on when it was written, even though he doesn’t say who; which is the fact why I wouldn’t use him as testimony as Riddlebarger does for later authorship. I would also not use Eusebius either because of his citation to Irenaeus as his testimony instead of another of that time. I think Kim needs to be a bit more careful about it unless he has some info I have not ran across yet. That just slight historical methodology concern that I noticed that I had. His argument he uses against the pre-fall date of Rev. 11 is good and I will probably write something similar to what he said soon. Therefore for all you pre-fall guys this is a challenge for you to put out your best arguments for the position you hold, otherwise join me on my position. 

That way we can sharpen each other and help our brother out.

Any way my Irenaeus arguments still rings true in the fact that it would have been well known and I think to some degree they would be better aware of their holocaust, because of love one that experience persecution just as today where many of the facts are historically of the German Holocaust within the generation of the babyboomers are known. Just as a historical generational comparison, which would have had more of a significant impact then say the age of Christ. Primarily because of the emotional attachment to family and the passing of stories, which families in ancient times did a better job of then we do today. Well let the best argument win. 

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.


----------



## Calvin'scuz

Pick up and read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. Here he has written a thorough and compelling defense of the pre-70 AD position that has (to my knowledge) yet to be challenged by any late date advocates (even though he wrote it about 10 yrs ago).


----------



## Theogenes

After.


----------



## Nathan Riese

This one thing is a very important thing to remember: if the majority of modern Biblical scholarship agrees on a certain date, it does NOT mean that they are right.

The arguments for a 95-96 dating of Revelation are strong, but can be answered.

Dr. Kenneth Gentry answers those arguments and does a very good job at giving everyone a strong, valid reason to believe that the book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Anyone who decides to make their decision on this matter should give him a chance before coming to a closed decision on this.

As Carol mentioned, you can find his book from the Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com He Shall Have Dominion


----------



## louis_jp

Beale argues for the later date. 

I didn't realize that so many held to a pre-fall date. I thought that was a preterist thing. Shows what I know.


----------



## Calvin'scuz

Nathan Riese said:


> This one thing is a very important thing to remember: if the majority of modern Biblical scholarship agrees on a certain date, it does NOT mean that they are right.
> 
> The arguments for a 95-96 dating of Revelation are strong, but can be answered.
> 
> Dr. Kenneth Gentry answers those arguments and does a very good job at giving everyone a strong, valid reason to believe that the book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Anyone who decides to make their decision on this matter should give him a chance before coming to a closed decision on this.
> 
> As Carol mentioned, you can find his book from the Apologetics Group/NiceneCouncil.com He Shall Have Dominion



_He Shall Have Dominion_ does a good job and touches on the question of dating, but _Before Jerusalem Fell_ is 100% devoted to answering the question on the dating of Revelation.


----------



## Grimmson

I was originally planning on writing this argument on the temple tonight, but it seems to me that either people do not understand how to present an argument for their case or out of laziness and devotion to their own tradition do not see how to present a case for their position. Making an appeal to someone else work and then not giving examples of particular points is a perfect example of the “read my book or read this book” approach to do theology or apologetics. You must give examples if you want some level of feedback on communication. If the terminology is that complex or difficult translate it so people can understand it. This shows if you truly understand the position you claim to hold to. Do not take it as a personal attack because I am not giving out names on one side or another, even though I have made my case quite clear and have yet to see a response from those of a differencing option to what I wrote. Instead I criticize my own to better explain the argument I put forth so that we call could be edified. I am not saying we must support the complete option of Christian orthodox scholarship, but that does not mean however we through it in the closet and ignore what they say on the subject at hand. In fact to do so would be quite foolish, for God gave us a mind so that we could glorify him with reason and truth.

The biggest pushes without a shadow of doubt in my option for the early date are those of a preterist position, or so has been my experience louis_jb. This can be a perfect example of our overriding traditions superseding a text; which we as reformed people would be wise to recognize and be careful over regarding any position we take. 

I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later. However I do accept book donations with the promise I will read it someday. 

Now to the event we have all been waiting for. Drum roll please!
Revelations 11:1-2

“Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.’”

First let us ask a extremely important question on how we should interpret this text. Is this passage meant to text literally or symbolically? And the next question you must ask if your answer is literally is if the events clearly indicate that of the fall of the temple as is indicated by history? Let us go down the literal rabbit trail to begin with and then see what conclusions we receive. How long were the Romans at the temple? It wasn’t 2 and half years. In fact if I remember my dates right, it was a nine month siege. Josephus talks about the destruction of the temple and the slaying there in detail in Book IV, chapters 4 and briefly 5. But then you may stay that the temple did not mean temple, it meant Jerusalem. However the war with the started in about AD 66 and if one was to use the 67 date that still does not match up with the month requirement of 42. Another important fact to consider is by looking at the same chapter but further down of Revelations:

“Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.” 11:19

This passage must be looked at two because it part of the same vision. I find it interesting that the temple, when it was opened had the ark, which was missing for hundreds of years and was never of my option in the second temple. This seems to indicate a non-literal second Jerusalem temple, but I won’t end there. Even if it was present, then Titus would have made mention of it when he was taking the gold out of the temple. 

After verses 1 and 2 of chapter 11, we see two witness. Where was Elijah and Moses at the destruction of the temple, assuming of course that who the two witnesses were? We have no record of such two men in sackcloth prophesy for 1260 days (verse 4). Also we know the beast declares war against these two, where is the history of this declared war?

I think the best way to read chapter 11 is in light of the context that it not meant to be literal, but to be read in light of the Old Testament writings and the prophets. In fact I give verses 10-11 of chapter 10 wit the reading of the scroll as a good justification to read chapter 11 in that light. Especially when we see reflections of Ezekiel 40:3 and Daniel type language, which is apocalyptic language categorically. Even the “temple of God” in heaven as its seen in the text is not meant to imply the temple on earth that was destroyed. We must read scripture in the format that scripture reveals it is to be read in. That is the first thing you learn we you take hermeneutics. Context is everything, and not taking this passage or that out of context or attaching genres which which were not meant to be connected together, unless it is clearly indicated as some try to do with Matthew 24 and the destruction of the Jerusalem to chapter 11 of our text. You need more evidence of usage of passages in order to make such a connection and communicate it clearly. Let face it some preterist act just like dispensationalists in their practice of such. 

Hopefully I have made my brief argument clear concerning why Rev. 11 can not be used as evidence to a pre 70s date. I may go after chapter 17 soon. If you all have any questions please present it on the board and give a reasonable response if you disagree with me. Don’t just say you do and then say nothing or appeal to a guy that many of us probably have not heard of and maybe on some fridge out there. Hope to hear from you soon. 

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.


----------



## DMcFadden

Always held to the late date as the only viable one. All of my teachers held to the late date and treated the early date as kind of silly special pleading by sectarians.

In recent years I have been reconsidering a range of issues and have begun accumulating a small library of materials with arguments in favor of the early date for a sustained consideration.


----------



## historyb

> I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later.



Before Jerusalem Fell it's free.

When was Rev written, does it matter.


----------



## Grimmson

historyb said:


> I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before Jerusalem Fell it's free.
> 
> When was Rev written, does it matter.
Click to expand...


When it starts to affect your interpretation of a text, then yes it does matter. When must interprete a text based on the context and style of literature it was wrutten in. And if we do hold to a historical/grammatical approach, when it was written will affect not only our interpretation, but also how it is applied practically based on our interpretation.

Wow this may be the shortest post yet.  lol

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## VilnaGaon

Before 70 AD! The temple is still standing in the book of Revelation.


----------



## Grimmson

VilnaGaon said:


> Before 70 AD! The temple is still standing in the book of Revelation.



Vil why dont you give a reason why its the second temple versus the idea it is God's people or the Church. Please respond to the post I made a couple post earlier dealing with why it is propably not the lit. temple. I would love to see someone address what I said on the issue.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## Spinningplates2

Before Jerusalem fell.


----------



## OPC'n

Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!


----------



## historyb

I never said what my thought is, I go with the majority before the fall


----------



## Denton Elliott

Calvin'scuz said:


> Pick up and read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. Here he has written a thorough and compelling defense of the pre-70 AD position that has (to my knowledge) yet to be challenged by any late date advocates (even though he wrote it about 10 yrs ago).



Actually this is what Riddelbarger challenges in the above mentioned audio lecture...


----------



## Theognome

I'm on vacation in MS right now, and am using the hotel computer and don't have my library handy, so I'll try to stumble through this...

My vote- AD 69 specifically. Here are some of my reasons why...

I'm not a Preterist, and the whole Nero thing doesn't make sense to me. Even if Rev does refer to some of the events of A.D. 70, Nero was long dead by then and his dynasty died with him. However, the rebellion in Jerusalem had been going on for some time, while in Rome there was much political upheaval as various men of power attempted to secure the throne of the empire. Coupled with the Christian persecution which by this time was in full swing makes the moment ripe for apocalyptic teaching.

The Throne of Rome was secured in A.D. 69 by Vespasian after Galba, Otho and Vitellius failed to do so. The traces of the Julio-Claudian dynasty were wiped out as the Flavian dynasty took control. A.D. 69 was a violent year for Rome, and violent times demand desperate measures and strong faith. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful- the fall of Jerusalem, the return of the exiles, the conquering of Samaria, etc. Such prophecies, when given, point to a further and final fulfillment in Christ. It seems odd to me that the Lord would put such a prophecy into the hands of the Church and in doing so break the pattern already established- an immediate fulfillment that forshadows the greater fulfillment in His coming. Thus I find a later date very unlikely.

Theognome


----------



## Michael Doyle

I have started to come to the pre fall of Jerusalem position having studied Matthew 25 and in my limited understanding, being able to reconcile the words of Christ.


----------



## Peairtach

The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.


----------



## Sven

TranZ4MR said:


> Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!



Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong. 

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----



Richard Tallach said:


> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.



Such as........?


----------



## Grimmson

Warning this is going to be one of those long responses. And please do not just say you disagree, give reasons why you disagree with my argument or if I am miss representing you. 

Our friend and brother in the faith was right about two responses he made: 



Sven said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong.
> 
> -----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as........?
Click to expand...


First point to mention, I think it is important to remember are dates. Irenaeus is by far closer to John then say Sproul, which gives him creditability. And I have given my reasons why in this thread. Another point for the date challenged is John would have dies sometime early second century and Irenaeus was more about the early to mid second century, depending if you lean closer to AD 125 or 140.

Second point to mention in Seven post is he points out a frustration that I been having and that is the lack of providing a defense why you hold to your position. I agree with him when he says, “such as”, for in part I’ve been asking the same. 

I have noticed that no one has yet to challenge what I have written in regards to any of my major or minor arguments that I have sent forth. I do not think to highly of my own skill but that does tell me something. The only response I have received is the fact I don’t want to read “Before Jerusalem Fell”. Let face it after studying an issue like baptism, do Presbyterians want to read the new Baptist book if it contains the same arguments applied in earlier books or for a modern twist blogs or like wise Baptist with infant baptism arguments. No, it’s a waste of time if it is the same basic argument. And if its not then give an example, I said it one of the posts here that giving an example of an argument truly shows if you understand itself. 



WaywardNowHome said:


> I've never really thought about it. My reference Bible says most scholars believe that it was written in 95 AD so I just believed it.
> 
> What are the implications of it being written before or after the fall? Does it completely change the message of the book depending on the stance one takes?



That is actually a yes and no answer. It depends on a large part if you are a preterist. And full blown perterism as even Sproul has pointed out is clearly heretical. For it teaches that Christ has already returned . Sproul is not a full , also known as hyper, and recognizes some of the dangers of its position. Most of the yes depends on the interpretive process that you use in the book itself. You can hold to an early date however and have it not change the overall arching theme of Christ return and his judgment and the comfort of his control for the love of his church and the need to remain strong in the faith. 

Now I have no doubt that my brother, Theognome, is not a perterist as he claims and I think he trying to use an interpretive in line with the text. I am happy that he tries to actually give a defense for his position which we shall soon look at. 



Theognome said:


> I'm on vacation in MS right now, and am using the hotel computer and don't have my library handy, so I'll try to stumble through this...
> 
> My vote- AD 69 specifically. Here are some of my reasons why...
> 
> I'm not a Preterist, and the whole Nero thing doesn't make sense to me. Even if Rev does refer to some of the events of A.D. 70, Nero was long dead by then and his dynasty died with him. However, the rebellion in Jerusalem had been going on for some time, while in Rome there was much political upheaval as various men of power attempted to secure the throne of the empire. Coupled with the Christian persecution which by this time was in full swing makes the moment ripe for apocalyptic teaching.
> 
> The Throne of Rome was secured in A.D. 69 by Vespasian after Galba, Otho and Vitellius failed to do so. The traces of the Julio-Claudian dynasty were wiped out as the Flavian dynasty took control. A.D. 69 was a violent year for Rome, and violent times demand desperate measures and strong faith. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful- the fall of Jerusalem, the return of the exiles, the conquering of Samaria, etc. Such prophecies, when given, point to a further and final fulfillment in Christ. It seems odd to me that the Lord would put such a prophecy into the hands of the Church and in doing so break the pattern already established- an immediate fulfillment that forshadows the greater fulfillment in His coming. Thus I find a later date very unlikely.
> 
> Theognome



To bad your on vacation, I would love to dialogue with you when you have access to your books. 

First comment, he right AD 69 was a bloody and violent year in Roman history: 

After Nero committed suicide at about AD 68, then Galba became emperor of Rome. Now this year can get a bit tricky so please follow along for there was about 4 emperors the next following year. Especially in light of the fact that many textbooks place Vespasianus as the successor of Nero. Not long after Galba was declared emperor, Vitellius declared himself emperor by his army. Now there was a forth guy who had intentions for Rome’s highest title as well and he was Marcus Salvius Otho. Otho killed Galba, and his successor, forced the Senate to recognize him as the new emperor. Otho did not hold it long, four months, before he committed suicide after his defeat by Vitellius. Vitellius was then emperor until near the end of that year until the commander of Judea marched in. Yep you guessed his name, Vespasianus. Vitellius was killed and was replaced by Vespasianus. Thus, ending the year of the four emperors. Therefore Theognome, I must disagree with you on their attempts to secure the throne as you put it, they did. The problem was that they couldn’t keep it. 

Christian persecution may not have been as heavy as during the time of Nero compared Domitian, for Nero’s persecution was focused primarily around Rome itself; of course that under debate now by historians based on at least one patristic source. 

Now to another point, “In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful.” That is true that the events typically affected the faithful. But let us remember the letter was written to Asia Minor, and they did not suffer to am large scale until the reign of Domitian. I think that is an important fact to consider and separate out from Matthew 24, which was written to Jews. I think who it was written to must be considered during the interpretive process. Therefore fulfilling the same criteria on the Old Testament for these churches in Asia Minor. Personally I don’t find it that odd, because Christ has yet to return as is indicated by the book. We need to be watchful of how we look at the text and also the history as well because they will shape our views of how we look at the text. 

Theognome, thanks for the good post. 
To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## JM

Irenaeus comment preserved by Eusebius, 
Dates of the Apocalypse -Iren...
Clement of Alexandria,
Date of the Apocalypse - Clem...


----------



## CNJ

*Date Makes a Difference*



WaywardNowHome said:


> I've never really thought about it. My reference Bible says most scholars believe that it was written in 95 AD so I just believed it.
> 
> What are the implications of it being written before or after the fall? Does it completely change the message of the book depending on the stance one takes?



*Good question, Joel.* It changes what your eschatological viewpoint is, but not the devotional aspect of enthusiasm for Christ's return. *95 AD* is what the dispensationalists and some other viewpoints say. *Before the 70 AD fall* is definitely needed for the postmillenial viewpoint. Reformed Christians tend to *not* go for the disensational/left behind view.


----------



## Theognome

Grimmson said:


> To bad your on vacation, I would love to dialogue with you when you have access to your books.
> 
> First comment, he right AD 69 was a bloody and violent year in Roman history:
> 
> After Nero committed suicide at about AD 68, then Galba became emperor of Rome. Now this year can get a bit tricky so please follow along for there was about 4 emperors the next following year. Especially in light of the fact that many textbooks place Vespasianus as the successor of Nero. Not long after Galba was declared emperor, Vitellius declared himself emperor by his army. Now there was a forth guy who had intentions for Rome’s highest title as well and he was Marcus Salvius Otho. Otho killed Galba, and his successor, forced the Senate to recognize him as the new emperor. Otho did not hold it long, four months, before he committed suicide after his defeat by Vitellius. Vitellius was then emperor until near the end of that year until the commander of Judea marched in. Yep you guessed his name, Vespasianus. Vitellius was killed and was replaced by Vespasianus. Thus, ending the year of the four emperors. Therefore Theognome, I must disagree with you on their attempts to secure the throne as you put it, they did. The problem was that they couldn’t keep it.



A mere disagreement of semantics. The inability to keep a throne long enough to establish one's dynasty means it was not established in my book. Taken, yes- but not held and thus the use of the term. The particulars of the Roman history presented I of course agree with- also remembering how nice Otho's supporters were in clinging to Vespasian as well as the mystical encouragements he gained from Suetonius.



Grimmson said:


> Christian persecution may not have been as heavy as during the time of Nero compared Domitian, for Nero’s persecution was focused primarily around Rome itself; of course that under debate now by historians based on at least one patristic source.



Remember that the persecution of the early church in the mid first century came not just from Rome, but from the Jews- the latter was escalating as is documented in Acts and several epistles. Just as Nero sought a scapegoat in the Christians for his political blundering in the aftermath of the great fire, so the Jews, no longer enjoying the favored status in Rome (including exemption from certain taxes, impressment and other social gains) were also seeking a whipping boy. Thus we need to consider the whole of the persecution issue in this regard.



Grimmson said:


> Now to another point, “In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful.” That is true that the events typically affected the faithful. But let us remember the letter was written to Asia Minor, and they did not suffer to am large scale until the reign of Domitian. I think that is an important fact to consider and separate out from Matthew 24, which was written to Jews. I think who it was written to must be considered during the interpretive process. Therefore fulfilling the same criteria on the Old Testament for these churches in Asia Minor. Personally I don’t find it that odd, because Christ has yet to return as is indicated by the book. We need to be watchful of how we look at the text and also the history as well because they will shape our views of how we look at the text.



I am not in agreement with your analysis. First, lets remember that there is a very distinct separation in the book between the first few chapters, which are instructional, and the rest, which is apocalyptic. To the first portion- The concept that some of these churches could have in very short a time (Ephesus, for example) fallen into error is quite believable. They had, after all, received quite a supporting letter from Paul, and it is not outside of sinful nature- even redeemed natures, to puff a bit and rest on laurels. So the assumption that there was not enough time by AD 69 for such a church to fall into theological problems is an opinion without biblical, reasonable or historical support.

Secondly, the churches of Asia Minor, like most (if not all) churches of the time, were tied very closely to the church at Jerusalem and were keenly aware and prayerfully concerned with issues there. Don't forget that such interaction is well documented in Scripture- the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was dealing with issues in Asia Minor (the Province of Galatia) as well as support offerings from all over the region were being collected and brought to Zion. Thus the fall of Jerusalem would (and did) have a profound impact on these churches. Furthermore, delivering the letter to Asia Minor as opposed to Jerusalem in AD 69 would have been a matter of necessity anyway- Jerusalem was under siege and as such didn't exactly have smooth mail service. 

The level of persecution of Christians by Rome waxed and waned with some regularity for two centuries, and although it is an issue, it was not a cataclysmic (or eucatastrophic) occurrence that immediately shaped all of Christendom. Jerusalem's fall, on the other hand, does fit the prophetic pattern far more succinctly. 

And I am Historicist in my eschatalogical thinking, btw.



Grimmson said:


> Theognome, thanks for the good post.



You're welcome.


Theognome


----------



## HokieAirman

Before 70AD. If 95 AD, how does John run so fast? He would be quite elderly...that's just the example I thought of just now...certainly not watertight.


----------



## Grimmson

Yeah, finally a response and thank you Theognome for responding, for you are doing what most here are not doing and that giving an argument with counter points.


Theognome said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bad your on vacation, I would love to dialogue with you when you have access to your books.
> 
> First comment, he right AD 69 was a bloody and violent year in Roman history:
> 
> After Nero committed suicide at about AD 68, then Galba became emperor of Rome. Now this year can get a bit tricky so please follow along for there was about 4 emperors the next following year. Especially in light of the fact that many textbooks place Vespasianus as the successor of Nero. Not long after Galba was declared emperor, Vitellius declared himself emperor by his army. Now there was a forth guy who had intentions for Rome’s highest title as well and he was Marcus Salvius Otho. Otho killed Galba, and his successor, forced the Senate to recognize him as the new emperor. Otho did not hold it long, four months, before he committed suicide after his defeat by Vitellius. Vitellius was then emperor until near the end of that year until the commander of Judea marched in. Yep you guessed his name, Vespasianus. Vitellius was killed and was replaced by Vespasianus. Thus, ending the year of the four emperors. Therefore Theognome, I must disagree with you on their attempts to secure the throne as you put it, they did. The problem was that they couldn’t keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mere disagreement of semantics. The inability to keep a throne long enough to establish one's dynasty means it was not established in my book. Taken, yes- but not held and thus the use of the term. The particulars of the Roman history presented I of course agree with- also remembering how nice Otho's supporters were in clinging to Vespasian as well as the mystical encouragements he gained from Suetonius.
> 
> [Theognome
Click to expand...

I’m doing most my history on the fly and all my history books are in a box somewhere, which I know their crying to get out, so correct me if my facts are wrong on an issue. First it is not an issue of semantics, are you saying that from AD 68 at the death of Nero to the end of 69 that there was no emperor. No, history says otherwise. The only one out of the four that year you may even possible challenge historically for not being an emperor based on time is Marcus Salvius Otho because of his sort reign. However despite the fact their was arm twisting going in the senate from Otho, he was recognized as a legitimate emperor of Rome. Vitellius held it afterwards for about six months and was also recognized by the senate. These are historical facts which are being ignored carelessly. What matters is not your book but the facts of history. Just because they didn’t live long enough to establish a dynasty does not exclude them from the office that they held. In fact when I was younger I think I ran across something about Vitellisu recognizing Galba, but since this is off the top of my head and I don’t have a book to quote from I will leave that up in the air. 



Theognome said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian persecution may not have been as heavy as during the time of Nero compared Domitian, for Nero’s persecution was focused primarily around Rome itself; of course that under debate now by historians based on at least one patristic source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that the persecution of the early church in the mid first century came not just from Rome, but from the Jews- the latter was escalating as is documented in Acts and several epistles. Just as Nero sought a scapegoat in the Christians for his political blundering in the aftermath of the great fire, so the Jews, no longer enjoying the favored status in Rome (including exemption from certain taxes, impressment and other social gains) were also seeking a whipping boy. Thus we need to consider the whole of the persecution issue in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now to another point, “In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful.” That is true that the events typically affected the faithful. But let us remember the letter was written to Asia Minor, and they did not suffer to am large scale until the reign of Domitian. I think that is an important fact to consider and separate out from Matthew 24, which was written to Jews. I think who it was written to must be considered during the interpretive process. Therefore fulfilling the same criteria on the Old Testament for these churches in Asia Minor. Personally I don’t find it that odd, because Christ has yet to return as is indicated by the book. We need to be watchful of how we look at the text and also the history as well because they will shape our views of how we look at the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not in agreement with your analysis. First, lets remember that there is a very distinct separation in the book between the first few chapters, which are instructional, and the rest, which is apocalyptic. To the first portion- The concept that some of these churches could have in very short a time (Ephesus, for example) fallen into error is quite believable. They had, after all, received quite a supporting letter from Paul, and it is not outside of sinful nature- even redeemed natures, to puff a bit and rest on laurels. So the assumption that there was not enough time by AD 69 for such a church to fall into theological problems is an opinion without biblical, reasonable or historical support.
> 
> Secondly, the churches of Asia Minor, like most (if not all) churches of the time, were tied very closely to the church at Jerusalem and were keenly aware and prayerfully concerned with issues there. Don't forget that such interaction is well documented in Scripture- the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was dealing with issues in Asia Minor (the Province of Galatia) as well as support offerings from all over the region were being collected and brought to Zion. Thus the fall of Jerusalem would (and did) have a profound impact on these churches. Furthermore, delivering the letter to Asia Minor as opposed to Jerusalem in AD 69 would have been a matter of necessity anyway- Jerusalem was under siege and as such didn't exactly have smooth mail service.
> 
> The level of persecution of Christians by Rome waxed and waned with some regularity for two centuries, and although it is an issue, it was not a cataclysmic (or eucatastrophic) occurrence that immediately shaped all of Christendom. Jerusalem's fall, on the other hand, does fit the prophetic pattern far more succinctly.
> 
> And I am Historicist in my eschatalogical thinking, btw.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...

This may surprise you but am a historicist ( am defining it as one who holds that sections or periods of history has its own unique historical context as defined by the practices, beliefs, or values of the particular culture) as well. Because of that fact I think one of our issues may be our presuppositions on this issue at hand. I agree that the Jerusalem destruction would have had strong affects towards Antioch or perhaps towards the Hellenistic Jews in Asia Minor, what they called Asia. However the same affects may not have been felt leading towards a Gentile majority because of their lack of an old covenant heritage, which was many times a stumbling block for the Jews, such with the issue of circumcision. 

Now in regards to your first point it is possible that Ephesus may have fallen in disarray by AD 69, but I find it unlikely for a variety of reason. Peter and Paul both died at about the same time according to the most quotes individual in this string, Eusebius. That would be about 65 to 66 AD. . This means that Timothy would be in Ephesus overseeing all of these churches found in Rev. 1:11 during that time. In fact John would later go to Ephesus later on his life, a place were one tradition says Mary the mother of Jesus died and another one that says that were he died. We have strong testimony of the Church fathers towards the tradition of John remaining years being in Ephesus. Now back to Timothy, he according to tradition was in Ephesus as a bishop until about 80 AD when he was stoned to death. Remember he is the successor of Paul and lived in the Apostolic age, therefore his appearance on the scene has weight to the act and practices of these churches. Plus there may have been some contact with John that was unwritten, since he would later take over in about 16 to 17 years there after. The second reason I do not think churches like Ephesus was in such disarray was because of the lack of acceptance towards cults and idolatry. In fact that one thing that Timothy according to tradition was known to fight against and the reason he was stoned to death by pagans later on in his life. My third reason focuses on the wealth of Laodicea, or I should say the lack there of in 69 AD. They were still in the process of being built up and regaining what they lost through the earthquake in 61 AD. 

In regards to your second point there may be several reasons why Jerusalem may not have received the letters. One being the fact that the temple was already destroyed and many within the Jerusalem church was scattered throughout the gentile world. In fact, moving to my second point, Asia Minor because of the trade roots was an extremely important strategic spot in accordance to God’s providence, which this overseeing the region may explain why John moved there after his release from Patmos. That and the fact he received the vision that prompted what we call the book of Revelations today. 

Now onto your third point, yes it waxed and waned, however in the period of the first century church suffer as great under Vespasianus or Titus, compared to Domitian? The reality is they did not. Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, but was that persecution over the entire empire? No, its focus was not. In fact it didn’t have as strong of an impact towards Asia. Such wide spread assault on the church did not come until near the close that century. So it would make sense that the churches in Asia minor would be rebukes and comforted by God by the giving of his word because of the coming age without the Apostles to guide and teach them. Before the wide spread non Roman sponsored persecution there were pockets of persecution and that what we saw in Acts, including from the Jews. 

Hopefully I covered everything. And let me know if these posts are to long folks, for if they are I will try to shorten them.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## OPC'n

Sven said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong.
> 
> -----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as........?
Click to expand...


Hey! Sproul is much more knowledgeable than Irenaus or your big toe!


----------



## CNJ

*Answer to question "such as"*



Sven said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong.
> 
> -----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as........?
Click to expand...


Michael Doyle in a March 10,2009 PB post "Evidences for an early or late date" gives the following helpful link Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation


----------



## Peairtach

Sven said:


> -----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as........?
Click to expand...


This would be an awfully long post if I gave you all the reasons. I may get back with some material, but your probably better reading orthodox preterist material on the subject.


----------



## Theognome

This is unfortunately not what I was expecting.




Grimmson said:


> I’m doing most my history on the fly and all my history books are in a box somewhere, which I know their crying to get out, so correct me if my facts are wrong on an issue. First it is not an issue of semantics, are you saying that from AD 68 at the death of Nero to the end of 69 that there was no emperor. No, history says otherwise. The only one out of the four that year you may even possible challenge historically for not being an emperor based on time is Marcus Salvius Otho because of his sort reign. However despite the fact their was arm twisting going in the senate from Otho, he was recognized as a legitimate emperor of Rome. Vitellius held it afterwards for about six months and was also recognized by the senate. These are historical facts which are being ignored carelessly. What matters is not your book but the facts of history. Just because they didn’t live long enough to establish a dynasty does not exclude them from the office that they held. In fact when I was younger I think I ran across something about Vitellisu recognizing Galba, but since this is off the top of my head and I don’t have a book to quote from I will leave that up in the air.



No emperor? I neither said nor implied such nonsense. I clearly stated that it was Vespasian who was able to take the throne *and* create a dynasty. Neither Otho, Galba nor Vitellius were able to able to do so, which is why the history shows that the three of them were either murdered or committed suicide without being able to declare their own successor. It is on that point, which I see arguing this as ludicrous, that I state Vespasian was able to establish his throne. I assumed that your knowledge of history was sufficient enough that I wouldn't need to go through the nitty details of something you purported to well know. Did I judge incorrectly? Are you not secure in your knowledge on this point and thus must invent a schism to prove something, or are you simply arguing for arguing's sake? If the latter is the case, then this discussion won't endure much longer, for I have much better uses of my time.




Grimmson said:


> Now to another point, “In the Old Testament, apocalyptic prophecy generally occured prior to major events with far reaching efects of the faithful.” That is true that the events typically affected the faithful. But let us remember the letter was written to Asia Minor, and they did not suffer to am large scale until the reign of Domitian. I think that is an important fact to consider and separate out from Matthew 24, which was written to Jews. I think who it was written to must be considered during the interpretive process. Therefore fulfilling the same criteria on the Old Testament for these churches in Asia Minor. Personally I don’t find it that odd, because Christ has yet to return as is indicated by the book. We need to be watchful of how we look at the text and also the history as well because they will shape our views of how we look at the text.



You are neglecting the example of the book of Ezekiel, which gave apocalyptic prophecy concerning the imminent fall of Jerusalem to a people over 700 miles away in Babylon. The fall, though not affecting their persons, none-the-less had an impact on their faith. Another important issue is that outside of the mention of the struggles for the church in Smyrna Revelation does not address specific persecutions. Separating out Matthew 24 from said issue is natural, for again, Revelation isn't about persecution- it is, from chapter 4 onwards, about the visions from God concerning things to come; things that are of vital immediate and lasting importance to the Churches in Asia Minor and beyond. Thus the book does still well fit into the OT model I mentioned concerning the pattern of prophetic books and whom they are addressed to. 



Grimmson said:


> This may surprise you but am a historicist ( am defining it as one who holds that sections or periods of history has its own unique historical context as defined by the practices, beliefs, or values of the particular culture) as well. Because of that fact I think one of our issues may be our presuppositions on this issue at hand. I agree that the Jerusalem destruction would have had strong affects towards Antioch or perhaps towards the Hellenistic Jews in Asia Minor, what they called Asia. However the same affects may not have been felt leading towards a Gentile majority because of their lack of an old covenant heritage, which was many times a stumbling block for the Jews, such with the issue of circumcision.



The demonstrations of Acts and other epistles do not support this claim, nor does history support it. First we must remember that after the great Jewish dispersion during the time of Maccabees, Jewish folk were abundant and widespread throughout the Empire. indeed, fully 25% of Roman subjects were Jews at the time of Christ. You would be very hard pressed to find _any_ first century church that did not have at least some Jewish converts- and many of them, even in Asia Minor, had parity or even majority Jewish believers.

Secondly, this strong Jewish influence caused problems with covenant thinking in the churches of Asia Minor. Don't forget that the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was combating the Judaizers; something that would not be an issue if the Gentiles didn't concern themselves with being grafted into the OC heritage. Both Galatians and Colossians also had to address this emphasis (albeit a wrong one) on obedience to OC ceremony to churches with large gentile populations, as you stated. Coupled with the offerings and prayers to/for the Jerusalem church as well as the fact that Timothy was well schooled in the OT covenant and taught from the OT as instructed by Paul, it is reasonable to conclude (or at least not out of hand dismiss) the idea that even the Gentiles in Asia Minor would have had some of their identity found in OC teachings. Note that the Reformed doctrine we cling to as Gentiles is no different in its application. 



Grimmson said:


> Now in regards to your first point it is possible that Ephesus may have fallen in disarray by AD 69, but I find it unlikely for a variety of reason. Peter and Paul both died at about the same time according to the most quotes individual in this string, Eusebius. That would be about 65 to 66 AD. . This means that Timothy would be in Ephesus overseeing all of these churches found in Rev. 1:11 during that time. In fact John would later go to Ephesus later on his life, a place were one tradition says Mary the mother of Jesus died and another one that says that were he died. We have strong testimony of the Church fathers towards the tradition of John remaining years being in Ephesus. Now back to Timothy, he according to tradition was in Ephesus as a bishop until about 80 AD when he was stoned to death. Remember he is the successor of Paul and lived in the Apostolic age, therefore his appearance on the scene has weight to the act and practices of these churches. Plus there may have been some contact with John that was unwritten, since he would later take over in about 16 to 17 years there after. The second reason I do not think churches like Ephesus was in such disarray was because of the lack of acceptance towards cults and idolatry. In fact that one thing that Timothy according to tradition was known to fight against and the reason he was stoned to death by pagans later on in his life. My third reason focuses on the wealth of Laodicea, or I should say the lack there of in 69 AD. They were still in the process of being built up and regaining what they lost through the earthquake in 61 AD.



It took only 40 days for Aaron, God's anointed priest, to fall into error at Sinai, so the short time span between the death of Paul and AD69 does not prove or disprove anything in regards to church problems in Ephesus. To the second point, look at the problem given. It wasn't idols or cults, but a lack of intimacy- forgotten their first love. I wrote a small paper on this particular topic that can be found in the writer's forum entitled, 'Reforming Ephesus'. The problem in Ephesus can be found in individual and corporate prayer life, which is a problem that can rear it's ugly head in any church. To your third point, remember the widow's mite- some give from their poverty as well as from their abundance. Thus the economic condition of Laodicea is not truly a factor- unless there was a severe spiritual deficit in the church that we do not know about.



Grimmson said:


> In regards to your second point there may be several reasons why Jerusalem may not have received the letters. One being the fact that the temple was already destroyed and many within the Jerusalem church was scattered throughout the gentile world. In fact, moving to my second point, Asia Minor because of the trade roots was an extremely important strategic spot in accordance to God’s providence, which this overseeing the region may explain why John moved there after his release from Patmos. That and the fact he received the vision that prompted what we call the book of Revelations today.



Asia Minor's importance is not diminished either before or after the fall of Jerusalem. Thus it is a supportive notation for either position. However, your statement concerning John receiving revelation while in Patmos only demonstrates that John received the vision while in Patmos- just like he said in verse 1:9. It does not show when he received it, only where.



Grimmson said:


> Now onto your third point, yes it waxed and waned, however in the period of the first century church suffer as great under Vespasianus or Titus, compared to Domitian? The reality is they did not. Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, but was that persecution over the entire empire? No, its focus was not. In fact it didn’t have as strong of an impact towards Asia. Such wide spread assault on the church did not come until near the close that century. So it would make sense that the churches in Asia minor would be rebukes and comforted by God by the giving of his word because of the coming age without the Apostles to guide and teach them. Before the wide spread non Roman sponsored persecution there were pockets of persecution and that what we saw in Acts, including from the Jews.



If Revelation was heavily weighted towards the persecution issue, this might be a serious if not compelling argument. However, Revelation simply gives little ink to persecution itself; it is an ancillary at best. However, Jerusalem was being persecuted- indeed, starved out of existence according to Josephus and thus the Jerusalem Church was under a heavy yolk. As argued earlier, this situation would have been of tremendous concern for believers, be they Jew or Gentile, in Asia Minor and beyond- just as it was to the Jews in Babylon of Ezekiel's day.

Theognome


----------



## Grimmson

*Response:http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2006/12/dating-book-of-revelation.html*



Richard Tallach said:


> This would be an awfully long post if I gave you all the reasons. I may get back with some material, but your probably better reading orthodox preterist material on the subject.


In case you all have not noticed I do not mind writing long posts; in fact that the general trend here. At this rate I might as well turn this all into a short book. What do you think we should call its Discussion on the Puritan Board on The date of Revelations, or how about the Grimmson and Theognome Dialogue; half of all the profits go directly to the PB and the rest split among us. I personally find it to be a funny thought. 



CNJ said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sproul says 54-68 so that has to be right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya? Well Irenaus said that John wrote it during the reign of Domitian, so it has to be a late date, and Irenaus has to be more right than Sproul. Plus my magic toenail told me it was written at a late date, and it's never wrong.
> 
> -----Added 6/20/2009 at 11:58:59 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early date seems to explain a lot of things that the late date doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as........?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Doyle in a March 10,2009 PB post "Evidences for an early or late date" gives the following helpful link Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation
Click to expand...


Now with the reason I came for writing this post. I saw TranZ4MR post and CNJ and thought to myself I I have quite a bit to say about the post. First I agree that Sproul is an extremely smart man. Second, we cannot rely on a magic toenail regardless of how cute or funny it is to read about it. However, thirdly, on this issue at hand Irenaeus may be more knowledgeable then Sproul and I think it up to the one making the claims to prove such. And I am sure Sproul would agree on me on such because of Irenaeus reputation and extremely small degree of separation from the Apostles themselves. So TranZ4MR I say good luck with creating such as case in this very context and let me offer a warning of care in regards to how we follow are leaders so that we do not do it culticly as if he was a major rock star. We must closely examine the evidence and make a decision from there.

I am glad for CNJ post that she provided a link for us to look at, however I would have been much happier if she provided a few of those arguments here in this string or at least take down some of the arguments I have put in place. But since provided a link were the information isn’t long I will make a comment on all of them, including regarding some comments of my own on the exegesis being applied. So let us begin:

“One of the most important items in terms of interpreting the Bible is to understand the historical context in which it was written. Much of the debate concerning Bible Prophecy hinges on when Revelation was written. While dispensational scholars insist that John wrote his apocalypse in the mid 90’s, a more compelling argument can be made for a much earlier date, around 65-66 AD.”- Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation

I do agree with him regarding the importance of understanding the historical context of the text in order to interpret the text. However, it seems clear to me when the author was writing this it was not in regards to the majority scholarly view, but against Dispensationalism. Now I look at things covenantly, but in regards to the historical date we cannot deny what the majority view in history is. The writer to some degree is adding a blindness through emotionally charged disagreement or hatred against dispensational theology through the use of rhetoric, which in turn puts on create rose tinted glasses the author’s audience is putting on. Now let us move on to the author’s external evidence.

“The Syriac History of John, the Son of Zebedee makes reference to John’s banishment under Nero, who reigned from 54 to 68 AD. It states:

’After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent and took all that the procurator had and imprisoned him; and laid hold of St. John and drove him into exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste.’ ”

It also seems that this could be a legitimate source, however one has to close look at the text at hand. And if I was to give a full detailed account of this text, let me just say that I doubt it would fit this posting. If you want to read the story on your own time look at the following link:

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (1871) Volume 2. pp.3-60.* The History of John, the son of Zebedee, the Apostle and Evangelist

First of all according to the manuscript it was written by Eusebius of Caesarea. Where was Eusebius who wrote the famous The History of the Church from? According to my copy on page ix of the Penguin Classics, you guessed it, Caesarea. And we all know what his position is regarding John and Patmos. The manuscript was published under a collection called the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in 1871. Now there were many writing that started to pop up in the late second through fourth centuries. This is one of them. They were used to help support heresy, if it was from a Gnostic or other standpoint. Therefore to use this manuscript as a historical claim is not just using bad history, but you are supporting the creditability of writings that were against our orthodox brothers and sisters in days past. This gives evidence that one would use anything to support your position, including the writing of heretics. Now I have to admit I have not read this manuscript in detail nor do I know its complete history. I was just introduced to it today, but I have read many apocryphal works and will probably add this soon as long as I find some background to the history of the text, like were it was found and such.



Now I want us to pay close attention to the history the citation points out. Nero laid city of Ephesus to “waste.” The city of not destroyed to my knowledge by Nero. It was destroyed until about 262 by the Goths. And as a side not lost its predominant status about 130 years earlier. Therefore I think we can safely on trust this source, because of the questionable history it has set forth and the circles in which the manuscript was around and published with as a collection. However more study needs to be done on the text regardless. 

Under the name first point to the individual that I am criting he claims that there a longer version and variant of title of the book of Revelations, “The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar”. Alright, that interesting and even more so that its not part of the majority tradition. In fact only the Apocalypse of John is the only part of the tradition that even recognizable. All the other variants I know of have something like “Apocalypse of John the theologian” or “Apocalypse of John the theologian and evangelist”. I question the source of the title the writer sets for and would love to see sources for the work done for the arguments being set forth instead of this grabbing, which gives evidence to me for the weakness of the position at hand. And the fact that in line with those of an unorthodox perspective. 

Now on to his second point:

“The Muratorian Canon states "…for the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, he wrote to only seven churches by name, in the following order…”. Paul was killed in 68 AD by Nero. Since Paul copied John's example of writing to 7 churches, then John wrote Revelation prior to 68 AD.”- Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation

I do not know much about this text, but I do know there been a debate for some time on when it was written. It us an interesting source to look at, however this source does not say what the author was saying. Look at it for yourself.
The Muratorian Canon
It just says that that Paul followed John example in writing to seven churches and gave a different list then what in the Revelations. Not, and I repeat not, that he copied John’s seven letters. So despite the question of when it was written it can not be used to defend the pre-70 position, but likewise no post 70 person could use it either. It is another example of reaching for anything out there that exists and then twisting it to make it sound like what you want. In fact I would love to sit back with the author of the article and those who gave it praising words and explain its problems in more detail discussion. 

“III.) In his work Against Jovinianum (1:26), Jerome states, ‘But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What an happy Church is that, on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.’

It is almost universally accepted that Peter and Paul were murdered by Nero. Jerome places John’s banishment in the same time period (as do many other church fathers).”- Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation

In regards to his third point, Jerome is not saying that when John went to Patmos under Nero, but it indicates the miracle of the fact that he did not suffer martyrdom by the hands of the roman authority like Paul and Peter. That after the boiling he went to Patmos for exile. Jerome view here is not against Eusebius, who lived at the same time. To verify this let us look at the following text out of Book 1 of “Against Jovinianus” found near marker 366 online:

“John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in.”- NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Now let us move on to the next item:
“IV.) In Quis Salvus Dives (Section 42), Clement of Alexander writes, "… a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of’ Patmos to Ephesus,”- Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation

The fact that Clement does not identify “the tyrant” suggests that it was probably Nero, not Domitian. Nero was universally feared and despised, and his name became the household word for anything evil.” 

I have already discussed at point this passage and it does not indicate a pre-70 authorship. If anything it supports the other end in light of the establish tradition set forth from Irenaeus. I have discussed this in at least one other post and I suggest you look at that.

Now in regards to his internal evidence we look at Rev. 17:10. I have no problem see the passage at indicating Rome based on verse 9 with the seven mountains. However the seven and eight kings in verse 10 and 11 and hard to determine for sure without a shadow of a dobt including the order if the kings. Based upon the author, does that mean Otho is the eight and the beast? 

The author’s second piece of evidence (Rev 2:10) really isn’t evidence regarding persecution because it can apply to a post 70 date.

I have already talked about chapter 11 and how that cannot the unlikelihood of it referring to the second temple. Please read the other post for that. 

The last one am going to be commenting on in Rev. 2:2. The message there does not imply that apostles were alive, but that some were proven not to be. For am sure there were many claiming only to be wolves in reality. Also I think some study should be done on its context to see if it could imply as a messenger verses the more narrow meaning .

Of course I am not going over Before Jerusalem Fell, because I have not read it. 

The only passage the author shows as evidence for the later authorship is you know who, Irenaeus. He thought he was vague regarding John vision and Domitian’s reign. There he used the 50 year argument, which besides me I have never seen anyone use it. So it really does not try to use it as proof towards the post date. 

He then goes into Eusebius and recognizes his vie w but then says he contrasts it with “ ‘Evangelical Demonstrations’, … placing John’s banishment under Nero” (Covenant Theology: Dating the Book of Revelation). I can not say anything about the text because I haven’t read it. I may sometime though. I think the author’s clearly stands out and the scholarship questionable as I have indicated.

Lastly, I do invite people to look at all the sources I have cited to verify my own comments. And read some of the pervious points I did not cover here because I covered it else where in this string.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## historyb

Maybe you could cover it in a shorter condensed way, no one wants to always read an essay every time.


----------



## Theognome

Grimmson said:


> In case you all have not noticed I do not mind writing long posts; in fact that the general trend here. At this rate I might as well turn this all into a short book. What do you think we should call its Discussion on the Puritan Board on The date of Revelations, or how about the Grimmson and Theognome Dialogue; half of all the profits go directly to the PB and the rest split among us. I personally find it to be a funny thought.



Neither of us are knowledgeable or articulate enough to warrant a single penny of ticket prices. This board is chock full of men that are so studied in their arguments (as well as humble about them) that they make this thread look like arrogant child's play.

Theognome


----------



## SolaScriptura

All I know is that Revelation was written before anyone started commenting on it.


----------



## Grimmson

Theognome said:


> Neither Otho, Galba nor Vitellius were able to able to do so, which is why the history shows that the three of them were either murdered or committed suicide without being able to declare their own successor.
> Theognome



Galba successor was murdered by Otho. 



Theognome said:


> assumed that your knowledge of history was sufficient enough that I wouldn't need to go through the nitty details of something you purported to well know. Did I judge incorrectly? Are you not secure in your knowledge on this point and thus must invent a schism to prove something, or are you simply arguing for arguing's sake?
> Theognome



If there a complaint about my detail am sorry. I am big on details in case you haven’t noticed from my writing. And in here it is better to assume people are lacking in knowledge about in area then to assume that they do. I have not made this a personal issue between you and me and ask that you do not make it personal as well. In fact I praised you on the amount of detail in your response. I see my position on stronger ground and have indicated the evidence there of. I am concerned with some of the sources I see your side using and think your side needs to confront some of these problems. You may see it has simple arguing, but if your using apocryphal texts to apply your claim and poor exegesis, then how can I expect me not to respond? That is not a direct comment against you but is related to the last post I sent concerning another post recommending a website supporting the pre-70 authorship that was posted in this string. 



Theognome said:


> You are neglecting the example of the book of Ezekiel, which gave apocalyptic prophecy concerning the imminent fall of Jerusalem to a people over 700 miles away in Babylon. The fall, though not affecting their persons, none-the-less had an impact on their faith. Another important issue is that outside of the mention of the struggles for the church in Smyrna Revelation does not address specific persecutions. Separating out Matthew 24 from said issue is natural, for again, Revelation isn't about persecution- it is, from chapter 4 onwards, about the visions from God concerning things to come; things that are of vital immediate and lasting importance to the Churches in Asia Minor and beyond. Thus the book does still well fit into the OT model I mentioned concerning the pattern of prophetic books and whom they are addressed to.
> Theognome



Who was Ezekiel written to? It was written to the Judean exiled; those who national heritage was seated in Jerusalem, to Judah. There a big difference when looking at Judah and the exiles and looking at the Churches of Asia Minor and the Church of Jerusalem. What your doing is establishing the Jerusalem Church to level of Rome by making such a comparison. There is a difference in sending money to help those in the church of Jerusalem, particularly in light of an associational perspective, and setting it up as a religious power. And one of the good things about the Jerusalem council is that they clearly separate themselves away from the old Mosaic Covenant; which is one of the points of the epistles of the Hebrews. I hate to use dispensational language, but there clearly is a dispensational difference between association of the exiled Jews to Jerusalem and those of the church, which is marked by the day of Pentecost and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the inclusion of the gentiles. See I do not see Revelations as being written to mostly Jews, but to all Christians for instruction and comfort corning the Day of the Lord and intitial context is clearly written to those seven church in Asia Minor. 

Here the question I ask, do you see Chapter 11, with the temple, as being the second temple? And please provide an exegesis to the previous statements I made concerning chapter 11, which I talked about earlier in the string. 



Theognome said:


> However, your statement concerning John receiving revelation while in Patmos only demonstrates that John received the vision while in Patmos- just like he said in verse 1:9. It does not show when he received it, only where.
> Theognome




If we know where, then we known just about when. We may not say which Lord’s Day, but we have a rough estimate what the year is based upon on studies of history. Based upon your same logic we could not place dates for any of the New Testament texts. We look at the texts and compare it to history, for Christianity is a religion of history and fact. That is why we have so many historical facts in the Gospels, in Acts, and references in epistles. That is why we can look and post apostolic writing and make historical comparisons. 



Theognome said:


> Revelation simply gives little ink to persecution itself; it is an ancillary at best. However, Jerusalem was being persecuted- indeed, starved out of existence according to Josephus and thus the Jerusalem Church was under a heavy yolk. As argued earlier, this situation would have been of tremendous concern for believers, be they Jew or Gentile, in Asia Minor and beyond- just as it was to the Jews in Babylon of Ezekiel's day.
> Theognome




The reason why I think “little ink” is given is because the focus is on Christ. That he is in control and the battle has been won. Jerusalem was not being persecuted, in fact I would give claim 1) that they were under God’s judgment and 2) to clearly show to the Jewish Christians the fulfillment of Christ. I could see why Rome went to war against the Jews. They were a rebellious nation and the Christians who were there would suffer the consequences for their association. I am not saying some of the Jews were not upset about Jerusalem, however many of them left their Second Temple practices a long time ago so there is a possibility that such an attraction may not have been there if they lived for generations in Asia Minor. But of course this is speculative and we have no evidence with either side of our camps to really make such definitive comments. 



Theognome said:


> Neither of us are knowledgeable or articulate enough to warrant a single penny of ticket prices.
> 
> Theognome


I do agree and apologize for my sense of humor. Just trying to soften the tensions that seem to exist between myself and others in here. And if there are issues about the lengths of some of my responses then I would suggest bring up individual points for me to respond to and not point our or say to read a book or look at a website. 

To God be the Glory and Honor forever


----------



## CNJ

*Reply to David in Escondido*



Grimmson said:


> Now with the reason I came for writing this post. I saw TranZ4MR post and CNJ and thought to myself I I have quite a bit to say about the post. First I agree that Sproul is an extremely smart man. Second, we cannot rely on a magic toenail regardless of how cute or funny it is to read about it.  . . . .
> 
> I am glad for CNJ post that she provided a link for us to look at, however I would have been much happier if she provided a few of those arguments here in this string or at least take down some of the arguments I have put in place. But since provided a link were the information isn’t long I will make a comment on all of them, including regarding some comments of my own on the exegesis being applied.



David, I am sorry that I didn't put out those arguments. My opinion is that this is why people write books such as Before Jerusalem Fell (Dating the Book of Revelation) by Ken Gentry.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage and why I blog about the topic. Millennial Dreams is administered by an elder in my church "Bill" and my cousin "Earl" and myself and is a little slow now. Because I have other issues in my life now (my husband's dementia, a book I'm writing, and a quilt to finish), and because I am not the arguing type, I beg off of any debate. I will leave it to you guys. By the way, can you California guys who have posted here get together (Jim in Westminser, Doug in Hemet, and yourself in Escondido)? 

Someone on PB said that, when questioned, Sproul said there are good points in Historical Premil, Amil, and Postmil, the three positions that Reformed people tend to take. 

Cordially,


----------



## Parsifal23

Pre Fall Of Jerusalem


----------



## Grimmson

CNJ don't worry about it at least you sent a link for people to look at, which is why I wrote that long post; to respond with the information at the link. I figured we need to give evidence for the position, otherwise we shouldnt claim to hold to that position. This should be an Iron sharpens Iron activity where we look at points and counter points. I did not want some to say that I "responded to one and not to another because he does not have an argument" and therefore critize my position. Denton Elliott was not asking for a survey or poll, but on information regarding the agruments for the two sides. Since I covered to my knowledge some of the major points of both sides these posts should then be shorter. I still recommend however that people look at the arguments at hand and the sources being used and then ask the question who is being true to the text or not, whether it be scripture or an historical document. 
To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## timmopussycat

louis_jp said:


> I don't know much about this topic, but the portrayal of the Church at Ephesus ("repent... or I will come and take your lampstand from you...") would seem a little odd if this book were written in 69 A.D. That is, the church with such strong ties to Paul and Timothy as recently as the early 60's would have to have fallen pretty fast.



Churches can go from warm to lukewarm though orthodox in less than 4 years - I have seen it happen.


----------



## Theognome

Grimmson said:


> (various things)



I am obviously not clear and articulate enough to properly present a position, for if I were, absurdities like my claiming there were no emperors between Nero and Vespasian or that I used the Apocrypha, along with other absurd strawmen build from my posts, wouldn't come up. Therefore, since I don't plan on arguing for arguing's sake, let what I've written thus far be suffice to explain why I hold to an early date, since this is not a critical theological issue anyway.

Theognome


----------



## JM

More to consider :
The Date of Revelation | Midnight Call Ministries
INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Many preterists contend two major reasons from the book of Revelation itself provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a temple in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:1–2), it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70. Next, they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1–16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that “one is” (Revelation 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and “the other is not yet come” (Revelation 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. According to the preterist position, that would mean the book of Revelation was written while Nero was still alive.

In rebuttal to the first preterist argument, it must be remembered that in the book of Revelation, John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word “saw” is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to “measure the temple” (Revelation 11:1). Measure what temple? He is to measure the temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a temple (Ezekiel 40–43) was told to measure it. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a temple, there was not one standing in Jerusalem (preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time.

The other preterist argument is polluted by the same assumption underlying their previous contention about the temple. Preterists assume that the line of kings refers to a first-century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to which Revelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs thequestion. John is seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame he is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previously, in some other way, established the period of time he views in the vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to take place. This line of reasoning by preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preterist interpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false starting point that they attempt to argue from.

Regardless of the interpretation of this passage, it cannot be used as a proof of when Revelation was written. This passage is providing a landscape of biblical history of those kingdoms, not of individual kings, which have persecuted Israel. The five fallen refer to the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medes/Persia, and Greece. Rome was the sixth empire reigning when John wrote his letter. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the Antichrist, known in Revelation as the Beast. This view is consistent with the way in which kings (i.e., kingdoms) are used throughout both Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 17:10 states that the future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words, “when he comes, he must remain a little while.” The adjective “little” has the idea of brevity (Revelation 12:12). God is saying He has decreed the time of this final empire will be shorter than the six previous. This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors.​
date of revelation - Google Search


----------



## BoldBeliever

Grimmson said:


> I was originally planning on writing this argument on the temple tonight, but it seems to me that either people do not understand how to present an argument for their case or out of laziness and devotion to their own tradition do not see how to present a case for their position. Making an appeal to someone else work and then not giving examples of particular points is a perfect example of the “read my book or read this book” approach to do theology or apologetics. You must give examples if you want some level of feedback on communication. If the terminology is that complex or difficult translate it so people can understand it. This shows if you truly understand the position you claim to hold to. Do not take it as a personal attack because I am not giving out names on one side or another, even though I have made my case quite clear and have yet to see a response from those of a differencing option to what I wrote. Instead I criticize my own to better explain the argument I put forth so that we call could be edified. I am not saying we must support the complete option of Christian orthodox scholarship, but that does not mean however we through it in the closet and ignore what they say on the subject at hand. In fact to do so would be quite foolish, for God gave us a mind so that we could glorify him with reason and truth.
> 
> The biggest pushes without a shadow of doubt in my option for the early date are those of a preterist position, or so has been my experience louis_jb. This can be a perfect example of our overriding traditions superseding a text; which we as reformed people would be wise to recognize and be careful over regarding any position we take.
> 
> I currently do not have time to read books like “Before Jerusalem Fell”, nor do I have the funds to buy and read it later. However I do accept book donations with the promise I will read it someday.
> 
> Now to the event we have all been waiting for. Drum roll please!
> Revelations 11:1-2
> 
> “Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.’”
> 
> First let us ask a extremely important question on how we should interpret this text. Is this passage meant to text literally or symbolically? And the next question you must ask if your answer is literally is if the events clearly indicate that of the fall of the temple as is indicated by history? Let us go down the literal rabbit trail to begin with and then see what conclusions we receive. *How long were the Romans at the temple? It wasn’t 2 and half years. In fact if I remember my dates right, it was a nine month siege. *Josephus talks about the destruction of the temple and the slaying there in detail in Book IV, chapters 4 and briefly 5. But then you may stay that the temple did not mean temple, it meant Jerusalem. *However the war with the started in about AD 66 and if one was to use the 67 date that still does not match up with the month requirement of 42.* Another important fact to consider is by looking at the same chapter but further down of Revelations:
> 
> “Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.” 11:19
> 
> This passage must be looked at two because it part of the same vision. I find it interesting that the temple, when it was opened had the ark, which was missing for hundreds of years and was never of my option in the second temple. This seems to indicate a non-literal second Jerusalem temple, but I won’t end there. Even if it was present, then Titus would have made mention of it when he was taking the gold out of the temple.
> 
> *After verses 1 and 2 of chapter 11, we see two witness. Where was Elijah and Moses at the destruction of the temple, assuming of course that who the two witnesses were? We have no record of such two men in sackcloth prophesy for 1260 days (verse 4). Also we know the beast declares war against these two, where is the history of this declared war?*
> 
> I think the best way to read chapter 11 is in light of the context that it not meant to be literal, but to be read in light of the Old Testament writings and the prophets. In fact I give verses 10-11 of chapter 10 wit the reading of the scroll as a good justification to read chapter 11 in that light. Especially when we see reflections of Ezekiel 40:3 and Daniel type language, which is apocalyptic language categorically. Even the “temple of God” in heaven as its seen in the text is not meant to imply the temple on earth that was destroyed. We must read scripture in the format that scripture reveals it is to be read in. That is the first thing you learn we you take hermeneutics. Context is everything, and not taking this passage or that out of context or attaching genres which which were not meant to be connected together, unless it is clearly indicated as some try to do with Matthew 24 and the destruction of the Jerusalem to chapter 11 of our text. You need more evidence of usage of passages in order to make such a connection and communicate it clearly. Let face it some preterist act just like dispensationalists in their practice of such.
> 
> Hopefully I have made my brief argument clear concerning why Rev. 11 can not be used as evidence to a pre 70s date. I may go after chapter 17 soon. If you all have any questions please present it on the board and give a reasonable response if you disagree with me. Don’t just say you do and then say nothing or appeal to a guy that many of us probably have not heard of and maybe on some fridge out there. Hope to hear from you soon.
> 
> To God be the Glory and Honor Forever.



1. The actual siege was 5 months. Revelation 9 is actually a description of it. Demons from the bottomless pit fill the city and torment the inhabitants while the Romans block them in. Anyone who sneaks out is crucified horribly and left to hang there and rot. Inside the city, factions slaughter one another without mercy and people eat whatever they can find, including each other at some point.

2. The war began in June 66AD I believe, according to Josephus. 

3. The two witnesses are the Law and the Prophets, exemplified in Christ Himself. Moses is most symbolic of the Law; Elijah most symbolic of the prophets. The ministry of Christ was...42 months. 1260 days. Christ proclaimed the Law and the Prophets in truth. So then how could their bodies lie in the street if they were exemplified in Christ? Again, not literally. The apostasy of Israel killed the Law and the Prophets metaphorically, no one cared about the Word of God. 
Rome made war with the Law and Prophets by persecuting the Church for 42 months. (Just before and slightly overlapping the Great Tribulation, James was killed at the beginning, then Paul.) The Church became the repository of the Law and Prophets when Israel apostasized. 

Revelation (no 's') is a book of symbols and metaphors which explain a reality. It's NOT allegorical. 

I recommend David Chilton's pamphlet The Great Tribulation. It's small but powerful.

Revelation may have been received by John while Nero was still alive and put to paper just after. He is the wounded head, revived in Galba. It was Nero who made war with the saints for 42 months. There is more than one 42 month period in Revelation. The Neronic persecution and the Great Tribulation are both 42 month periods. Historically, the two overlap sightly if I recall. James and Paul were both victims of the Neronic persecution, James near the beginning of it, Paul near the end.


----------



## Grillsy

Before Jerusalem Fell.


----------



## Grimmson

I just read chapter 9 of revelation, and I really do not see Ed's justification. 

I have already dealt with in detail the problems with chapter 11 in detail. there are some issues i want to deal with, 42 months equals 3 and a half years. Everyone fine with that so far. If the war began in June 66, then 3 and a half years later that will be Nov. 69. the temple was destoyed in about August of 70 AD. So the dates still do not match up. So as one can see based upon the arguments I have already made the post 70s date of revelation is unlikely and the proof texts given are poor and in some clases leads to a denial of a great tribulation to come that will even affects us. The pertist line of thinking also leads as wee can see theologically to a denial of the future coming of Christ, with the view that Christ has already come. So I think we need to be careful of how we interpert the text and ask the question if we are trying to force an idea on scripture that not there and how it relates to the rest of scripture.


----------

