# Dating of Revelation



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 28, 2008)

What are some specific, exegetical consequences of holding to a pre-67 AD dating of Revelation? Or, what changes about how one sees the primary purpose or message of the book?

I have read some Ken Gentry (early date) and my wife and I are going through Vern Poythress' short commentary on Revelation (prefers the late date though he sees evidences of an early date). My pastor is also preaching through Revelation (the sermons are wonderful) and he also holds to a late date.

I hope this question is not overly vague. I simply have not studied this portion of Scripture very closely (yet).

Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Dec 28, 2008)

I can't answer with certainty, but two it is my understanding that an early dating of Revelation argues from an amil/post-mil eschatology and a later dating for a pre-mil view. I know it's not as simple as that, but I'm not sure how the dating effects exegesis beyond eschatology.


----------



## Hilasmos (Dec 30, 2008)

An exegetical consequence of holding to late date is that you can't also hold to a preterist view of Revelation, in part, applying to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry's eschatological view is contingent upon this, at least for Revelation.

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 10:15:55 EST-----

From my knowledge being amill/postmill is not necessarily affected by the dating. Rather, the nuance of those positions is, preterist or idealist etc...Feasibly, I think, one could be an amill idealist, like Dennis Johnson, regardless of the dating of Revelation.


----------



## shackleton (Dec 30, 2008)

An early date has a lot to do with it pertaining mostly to the Jews and punishing them with the destruction of the temple. Also taking into account hermeneutics, what would it have meant to the original audience? Late daters tend to try and make Revelation meaningful for all readers for all time and I don't think that is why it was written. Historical and cultural context must be taken into account. 

Gary DeMarr is good to he comes out and says a lot of things that Gentry only hints at.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 30, 2008)

Much of the evidence supporting a late date has to do with the state of the seven churches. Particularly Ephesus seems to have changed too dramatically to have taken place in only a few years, though all the churches seem advanced.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 30, 2008)

As mentioned above, the primary issue is related to the destruction of the Temple, etc. in AD 70. Was this event still future to John at his writing? Or, was this event already past history and known to John?

If a late date (of around AD 90) is assumed, then the destruction in AD 70 cannot be part of John's future vision.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 30, 2008)

This is very interesting, because it seems that one's understanding of the purpose of Revelation often drives their understanding of the timing rather than relying on internal evidence. Internal evidence CAN BE construed to point to the future destruction of Jerusalem. The challenge lies in discerning whether it does or not. Looking to original readers is difficult because their understanding would differ depending upon whether it was written pre or post 70. 
When was John on Patmos?
What was the condition of each of these churches before 70ad? After?
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea
Did the Nicolaitans even arise before 70ad? (there is much debate as to who they are)
If before 70, why isn't Jerusalem mentioned? New Jerusalem is though.
Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?
A later date seems to answer these questions best.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Dec 30, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?


argument from silence. 
What we do know is that the temple at jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.


----------



## Hilasmos (Dec 30, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?
> ...



This assumes, however, that the apocalyptic must be talking about the physical earthly temple and not the saints, the new temple in Christ.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 30, 2008)

The temple 'stands' in Ezekiel too, as well as being measured, described etc. (Ezekiel 41ff.) but was definitely not in existence at this point in Jerusalem.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 30, 2008)

Appreciate the answers so far. 

It seems to me that if Rev. was written before 70 and it is PRIMARILY about the destruction of Jerusalem, then the idealist perspective is relegated to the periphery and is only useful in the same way that many evangelicals use the OT for "moral lessons" but has no relevance as far as God is actually speaking to us. 

Thoughts?

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 04:01:07 EST-----



Hilasmos said:


> An exegetical consequence of holding to late date is that you can't also hold to a preterist view of Revelation, in part, applying to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry's eschatological view is contingent upon this, at least for Revelation.
> 
> -----Added 12/30/2008 at 10:15:55 EST-----
> 
> From my knowledge being amill/postmill is not necessarily affected by the dating. Rather, the nuance of those positions is, preterist or idealist etc...Feasibly, I think, one could be an amill idealist, like Dennis Johnson, regardless of the dating of Revelation.



Could John be merely referencing the destruction of the temple as he wrote in 90 AD? In other words, just because it is a late date, does that have to mean that the destruction of the temple has no significance for Rev. or our understanding of it?


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 30, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?
> ...


It's not really an argument, so much as an observation. It carries a measure of weight, though not as powerful as if he had mentioned them as alive or dead. The temple issue is addressed above, which does not necessitate Jerusalem pre 70AD. That is an exegetical leap. 
My comments obviously reveal my position. But the list was merely meant to offer challenges to how we approach it more than offer any sort of argument. All of the questions, and many more, need to be dealt with as clearly and honestly as possible in order to come to a firm decision. Anything less is merely speculation... or imposition.


----------



## Hilasmos (Dec 30, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Appreciate the answers so far.
> 
> It seems to me that if Rev. was written before 70 and it is PRIMARILY about the destruction of Jerusalem, then the idealist perspective is relegated to the periphery and is only useful in the same way that many evangelicals use the OT for "moral lessons" but has no relevance as far as God is actually speaking to us.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I completely follow your first paragraph and why the idealist would become periphery. 

If you take the idealist approach the destruction in A.D. 70 would have extreme relevance, especially to the 1st century readers. I do think John makes reference to Nero with the 666.

The key, i think, is that in the idealist approach of Revelation John is revealing the nature of the persecutions the church will face and yet it isn't limited to just one "destruction" but pictures what will take place throughout the millenial age. That is why part of the temple was measured out, signifying that the the church will never be morally corrupted, but the outer parts of the temple are unmeasured, the gentiles, the beast(s) and dragon, will have dominion to persecute us and trample us under foot. 

But, as the theme of the book & irony pervades, our physical destruction is really our victory.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 30, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Much of the evidence supporting a late date has to do with the state of the seven churches. Particularly Ephesus seems to have changed too dramatically to have taken place in only a few years, though all the churches seem advanced.



It does not take long to change a doctrinally sound and vibrantly alive church to a doctrinally sound but spiritually cold church. I have seen the process play out in less than 4 years.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 30, 2008)

One thing I know. If it is pre-70 AD, John was on Patmos for over 20 years. Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History shows that John was released between 96-98AD. I think most say it is highly unlikely that John would be on Patmos for longer than a few years. Sorry this is general, but I've lost my notes on this. Maybe someone else could help me.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## shackleton (Dec 30, 2008)

Early dating usually takes into account the writings of Josephus and how it parallels much of what happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Late dating mostly comes from a sentence by Ireneus that says something along the lines of, "John was seen, the writer of revelation, still alive at the time of Domitian" or "The revelation that was seen at the time of Domitian," which ever way it is read determines when it was written.

Before this century plenty of legitimate bible scholars believed in an early date I personally think that a late date has much to do with the influence of Dispensationalism.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 30, 2008)

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 30, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I'd never date anyone named Revelation.



Good one.


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 30, 2008)




----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 30, 2008)

Tuesday before last I was able to go hear Dr. Ken Gentry speak on Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. And in case any of you are interested, I'm putting a couple of links below to the recording that I made. The quality is not the best so I edited the file to make it louder and tried to filter out some of the noise.

This link should stream the mp3 file to you computer's media application:

http://www.thebiblealone.com/audio/Gentry.m3u

You can right-click this link and save the mp3 to your hard drive, if you wish:

http://www.thebiblealone.com/audio/BJF-Gentry.mp3


The lecture is just under an hour in length and worth your time, in my opinion. He argues primarily from internal evidences and secondarily from outside evidences.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Dec 31, 2008)

Hilasmos said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> > Wannabee said:
> ...



Trodden down by the gentiles could never refer to a spiritual temple. This specific passage about measuring the temple goes back to Ezekiel and the Olivet Discourse. In both cases it refers to a physical temple.


----------



## Hilasmos (Dec 31, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > Anton Bruckner said:
> ...



Both preterists and others recognize that "temple" _naos_ is in reference to Holy of Holies, which seems strange that "those who worship there" is in the plural, seeing how it would have only been the High Priest if it were in reference to a physical temple (not the spiritual temple of saints).




> Revelation 13:6: And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2008)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > I'd never date anyone named Revelation.
> ...



If she had a curfew, Revelation would have to have an early date.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 31, 2008)

See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 31, 2008)

You have to believe a pre 70 AD destruction of the temple if you are a preterist. You don't if you are historicist.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 31, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



Another good one.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 31, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.



Craig Evans is working on a book that will place the date of all(?) of the NT before 70 AD. 

At a seminar I attended this year he argued that we are too late by at least a decade on most of out "traditional" dating of the NT.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Dec 31, 2008)

Kevin said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.
> ...



What are some of his arguments?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 1, 2009)

In the seminar he was debunking some of the "Jesus Seminar" style of criticism of the gospel record by demonstrating that most of their arguments depend on a set of assumptions about the dating & composition of the NT documents.

In his presentation he set out a chronology of probable composition dates for the four gospels that was substantially earlier (10+) years, then is usually assumed. His point was that these dates have primarily tradition on their side, and do not have strongly reasoned textual, linguistic, or historical arguments.

Over lunch I asked him of his view of Gentry in particular, and the other dating issues of the rest of the NT. Specificly if he thought that the view that all of the NT was written before the fall of Jerusalem had merit.

He said that he was working on a book on this subject & he thought that it was extremely likely that all of the NT was written before 70 AD. Given the nature of the conversation & the fact that I (and others) had questions about so many other issues, I did not quiz him as to his reasons.

I am waiting for the book.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 1, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Both preterists and others recognize that "temple" _naos_ is in reference to Holy of Holies, which seems strange that "those who worship there" is in the plural, seeing how it would have only been the High Priest if it were in reference to a physical temple (not the spiritual temple of saints).


Trodden down by the gentiles refers to a physical temple as per Matthew 24 and Luke 21.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 1, 2009)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > Both preterists and others recognize that "temple" _naos_ is in reference to Holy of Holies, which seems strange that "those who worship there" is in the plural, seeing how it would have only been the High Priest if it were in reference to a physical temple (not the spiritual temple of saints).
> ...



Why does it say not to measure the "outer courts" since that is what will be trodden, while the temple is what is measured?

-----Added 1/1/2009 at 04:01:18 EST-----

That is, the measuring signifies divine protection from being trodden. Seems strange that this refers to the physical temple that was in fact trodden.

-----Added 1/1/2009 at 04:04:14 EST-----



> Revelation 11:1-2: Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. “Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.


.


----------



## shackleton (Jan 1, 2009)

I believe it was Gentry who made the argument that the Gospel of John does not mention the Olivet Discourse or the Last Supper because it was written after the Apocalypse and since he had already mentioned it he left it out of his gospel. 

I guess it might be possible to hold to a preterist view of the Olivet Discourse and that it pertains to the destruction of the Temple and then believe that the Apocalypse was "apocalyptic" literature that was written to exiled people to give them hope similar to certain books of the OT were written to give the exiled Jews hope after the destruction of the first Temple.


----------



## Elimelek (Jan 2, 2009)

Dear friends

I think a lot has already been said about dating Revelation pre-67 AD Just as much has been said about dating it +/- 95 AD

If the Apocalypse is dated after 67/68 AD the following may have had an influence on John:

 The persecution by Caesar Nero (54 AD to 68 AD).
 Rome burned in 64 AD 
 The Roman-Jewish war began in 66 AD and Jews and Christians started to migrate across the empire.
 The martyr deaths of Peter and Paul 67/68 AD
 Gospel of Mark is probably written in 68 AD
 The year of the three emperors (68-69) and Civil war in Rome. A feeling of pessimism.
 The Roman civil war ends and Caesar Vespasian (69-79 AD) reigns. After a time of pessimism, the belief arise that the world has been renewed.
 The temple in Jerusalem is destroyed by General Titus in 70 AD. 
 The Gospels of Matthew and Luke as well as the Acts of the Apostles are written in the 80's.
 Caesar Domitian's persecution for Christian started in 81 AD and continued up until 96 AD.
 The Gospel of John and the letters of John were probably written around 90 AD.
 Other Jewish Apocalyptic works like the 4 Ezdras, 2 Baruch and the Fifth Sibyline Oracle were written between 70-100 AD.

Interestingly enough the mentioned Jewish apocalyptic works, especially 4 Ezdras shares a lot of common themes with Revelation. According to Irenaeus Revelation was "seen" at the end of the rule of Caesar Domitian. 

Before 67 AD, the Christian Church hasn't gone through so much prosecution and was still finding its feet. (More info: W Howard-Brook & A Gwyther 1999. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. New York:Orbis)

Kind regards


Elimelek


----------



## MOSES (Jan 2, 2009)

If the book or Revelation was written after 70ad (i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem) then Daniel chapter 9 becomes a "false-prophecy." For the message of Daniel 9 states that all "Vision and Prophecy" will be sealed up (complete) by the end. And Daniel 9 describes that end as the destruction of the temple and the city.

If Revelation, being apocolyptic as well as containing "Vision and Prophecy," was written AFTER (eg. 90ad) the destruction of the temple and the city, then either the prophecy in Daniel 9 is blatantly wrong, or the book of Revelation is a fake.
(being neither the former or the latter is true, then an early dating of Revelation is the correct position).


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jan 2, 2009)

MOSES said:


> If the book or Revelation was written after 70ad (i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem) then Daniel chapter 9 becomes a "false-prophecy." For the message of Daniel 9 states that all "Vision and Prophecy" will be sealed up (complete) by the end. And Daniel 9 describes that end as the destruction of the temple and the city.
> 
> If Revelation, being apocolyptic as well as containing "Vision and Prophecy," was written AFTER (eg. 90ad) the destruction of the temple and the city, then either the prophecy in Daniel 9 is blatantly wrong, or the book of Revelation is a fake.
> (being neither the former or the latter is true, then an early dating of Revelation is the correct position).



I appreciate your strong stance on the issue. What specific verses in Daniel 9 make it impossible for Rev. to be written after Jerusalem fell? Thanks.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 2, 2009)

InevitablyReformed said:


> I appreciate your strong stance on the issue. What specific verses in Daniel 9 make it impossible for Rev. to be written after Jerusalem fell? Thanks.




Dan 9:24
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and *to seal up vision and prophecy*, and to anoint the most holy. . . 
the people of the prince that shall come shall *destroy the city and the sanctuary*; and THE END thereof shall be with a flood [of war]

The END is consummated with the destruction of the "sanctuary and the city"...Both "vision and prophecy" would also have to of been finished "sealed up" at that time as well.

The destruction of the city and sanctuary is directly connected to the sealing up of vision and prophecy (both come to an end together). The book of Revelation follows this exact connection; it includes the destruction of the city and the temple, the annointing of the most holy (i.e. Christ) and the sealing up of vision and prophecy.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 2, 2009)

This assumes, however, that the one who confirms the covenant in the middle of the 70th week is not the messiah. If it is, which context would suggest, doesn't that mess up the time line a bit? Do you take the 70 weeks as 490 years? 

That which is decreed for the people and the city is:
1. Finish transgression
2. Make an end of sins
3. Reconciliation
4. Bring in Righteousness
5. Seal up vision and prophecy
6. Anoint the most holy

All of this, including 5., is fulfilled in the person of Christ. The destruction of the city isn't part of the decree of which will come upon the people and city within the 70 weeks.



> Daniel 9:26: “Then *after* the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who *is to come* will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.



I don't see why this "future coming" of the prince and his people destroying the city has to be _within_ the 70 weeks. Moreover, what does the "weeks" mean to you if the messiah is cut of after the 69th week (AD 30/33), and yet Jerusalem isn't destroyed for another 40 years? 



> The book of Revelation follows this exact connection; it includes the destruction of the city and the temple, the anointing of the most holy (i.e. Christ) and the sealing up of vision and prophecy



Where is the destruction of the temple explicitly referenced as destroyed in Revelation? The only reference I am aware of that possibly alludes to this is Rev. 11:1-2



> Revelation 11:1-2: Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. “Leave out the court which is outside the temple and *do not measure it*, _for_ *it *_has been given to the nations_; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.



However, it seems clear here that the temple itself, or the holy of holies, is in fact measured for the very purpose of symbolizing its protection from destruction. The outer court is not measured for the very purpose of showing that it will be handed over to be trodden.


----------



## Elimelek (Jan 2, 2009)

Dear Moses

I am really not clear how you conclude:


> If the book or Revelation was written after 70ad (i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem) then Daniel chapter 9 becomes a "false-prophecy." For the message of Daniel 9 states that all "Vision and Prophecy" will be sealed up (complete) by the end. And Daniel 9 describes that end as the destruction of the temple and the city.



I can't help observing that you have capitalized the words 'vision' and 'prophecy,' which is clearly not capitalized in Daniel 9:24. It seems that even the KJV translators didn't understood prophecy as a general application on prophecy, but as the specific prophecy of Gabriel. I also observe that you quote partly, a part of Daniel 9:24 and a part of Daniel 9:27. 

It seems that the last part of the temple being destroyed has to to with Antioh(os) IV. The second temple was inaugurated in 164 BC, and is inaugurated since then by Jews in the Chanukah feast. In 167 BC Antioch(os) IV started with a religious policy where the temple was defiled. He put an altar to the god Zeus Olympios in the temple. This was a great abomination and it is probable that Daniel 9 is pointing to it.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important that Revelation should be dated early?

Kind regards


Elimelek


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jan 3, 2009)

Elimelek said:


> Dear Moses
> 
> I am really not clear how you conclude:
> 
> ...



I think (and I am not speaking for MOSES here) that Rev. must be dated early otherwise it has nothing to do with the desctruction of Jerusalem and the temple. As some have surmised, if Rev. was written late it could possibly make reference to the past destruction of Jerusalem but probably not with any significant thrust.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 3, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> > Zenas said:
> ...



 THAT was great. (I personally believe she had a curfew...)


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> You have to believe a pre 70 AD destruction of the temple if you are a preterist. You don't if you are historicist.



Riddlebarger's claim was that it did not matter to his view, amil, when Revelation was written because according to his view it is apocalyptic and written for the entire church age but a preterist view is strictly dependent on an early date.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> This assumes, however, that the one who confirms the covenant in the middle of the 70th week is *not* the messiah. If it is, which context would suggest, doesn't that mess up the time line a bit? Do you take the 70 weeks as 490 years?
> The destruction of the city isn't part of the decree of which will come upon the people and city *within* the 70 weeks.



No this does not assume that the one who confirms the covenant is not the Christ...quite the contrary. It is a reference to Christ.
No it does not mess up the 70 weeks...because the destruction of the temple is not *within* the 70 weeks. "Within" is your word, not mine.
The destruction of the temple and the city is a RESULT of the 70 weeks. (e.g., Christ put and end to sacrifice and offering...the temple was not needed and was destroyed as a _result_)





Hilasmos said:


> I don't see why this "future coming" of the prince and his people destroying the city has to be _within_ the 70 weeks. Moreover, what does the "weeks" mean to you if the messiah is cut of after the 69th week (AD 30/33), and yet Jerusalem isn't destroyed for another 40 years?



Again...the destruction of the city/temple is a RESULT of the 70 weeks, and is not within it. The 70 weeks was completed when the gospel went to the gentiles 3.5 years after the death of Christ.


Note: The angel still makes the destuction of the city/temple an important part of the prophecy. Though it does not fall within the 70 weeks, it cannot be far removed (eg. 2000+years) from them. That is why I use the word RESULT.





Hilasmos said:


> it seems clear here that the temple itself, or the holy of holies, is in fact measured for the very purpose of symbolizing its protection from destruction. The outer court is not measured for the very purpose of showing that it will be handed over to be trodden.



Very well...if you see this as a referent to the physical temple in Jerusalem as still standing (and being protected as you say) then you too must hold to an early date of Revelation.

Personally, I see this as a reference to the divine protection of those who have access to the holy of holies (i.e. the church). The church was divinely protected through the tribulation (though persecuted), but those outside, that is the dogs, were trampled on. The earthly temple (the outer court) was destroyed, while the heavenly (holy of holies) temple, the church, was preserved, and then manifested in all its beauty.

Making the physical "holy of holies" of the physical temple protected simply does not work...by the mere fact that it was not protected and was clearly destroyed with the rest of the temple.

Thus, you have in Revelation the earthly temple being trampled on (as history also bears witness) and ultimately destroyed...but you have the church being divinely protected, and then victorious. The harlot is burned with fire, but the bride of Christ is manifested as pure.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jan 3, 2009)

Can one hold to an early date, partial preterism, and some measure of the idealist perspective?


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

Elimelek said:


> I am really not clear how you conclude:
> 
> 
> > If the book or Revelation was written after 70ad (i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem) then Daniel chapter 9 becomes a "false-prophecy." For the message of Daniel 9 states that all "Vision and Prophecy" will be sealed up (complete) by the end. And Daniel 9 describes that end as the destruction of the temple and the city.



I conclude that because the book of revelation is clearly a book of "vision and prophecy"...the very vision and prophecy that was said to be completed and sealed up by 70ad (i.e., by the destruction of the temple and city) which was to come after the completion of the 70 weeks.
If Revelation was written after this time...then Daniel 9 is simply wrong (because vision and prophecy was not sealed up) or Revelation is a fraud.
A pre-70ad dating of Revelation solves this. For "vision and prophecy" was in fact sealed up/completed by the end, that is the destruction of the temple and city.




Elimelek said:


> I can't help observing that you have capitalized the words 'vision' and 'prophecy,' which is clearly not capitalized in Daniel 9:24. . I also observe that you quote partly, a part of Daniel 9:24 and a part of Daniel 9:27.



I capitalized them for emphasis only. 
Daniel 9 is one direct revelation given by the angel to Daniel. I did not quote the whole thing because of its length. I quoted the parts that direclty deal with the topic at hand. (i.e. the sealing up of vision and prophecy BEFRORE the destuction of the temple and city)




Elimelek said:


> It seems that the last part of the temple being destroyed has to to with Antioh(os) IV. The second temple was inaugurated in 164 BC, and is inaugurated since then by Jews in the Chanukah feast. In 167 BC Antioch(os) IV started with a religious policy where the temple was defiled. He put an altar to the god Zeus Olympios in the temple. This was a great abomination and it is probable that Daniel 9 is pointing to it.



That is an impossible interpretation in view of the 70 weeks and the clear pointing to the coming of Christ. This portion of scripture cleary points to the destuction of the *city* and the temple, AFTER the annointing of Christ.

The abomination that you speak of above does have its place in the book of Daniel...but it is not in Daniel 9. 
Antichous did not destroy the CITY and the temple...he only profaned it.
PLUS...Jesus speaks in Matt. 24 as the "abomination of desolation" spoken by Daniel, as being a future event, from his time, which he says will take place at the destruction of the herodian temple.






Elimelek said:


> Out of curiosity, why is it so important that Revelation should be dated early?



Because a late dating, by way of biblical consequence, would make the book a fraud, and its author a false prophet.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 3, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Moses*
> No this does not assume that the one who confirms the covenant is not the Christ...quite the contrary. It is a reference to Christ.
> No it does not mess up the 70 weeks...because the destruction of the temple is not within the 70 weeks. "Within" is your word, not mine.
> The destruction of the temple and the city is a RESULT of the 70 weeks. (e.g., Christ put and end to sacrifice and offering...the temple was not needed and was destroyed as a result)
> ...



Okay? But, you said Daniel would be a false prophecy which I don't follow. The only way, then, Daniel would be false is if the destruction didn't happen. I don't see how the dating of Revelation is relevant to your view here? 





> Very well...if you see this as a referent to the physical temple in Jerusalem as still standing (and being protected as you say) then you too must hold to an early date of Revelation.
> 
> Personally, I see this as a reference to the divine protection of those who have access to the holy of holies (i.e. the church). The church was divinely protected through the tribulation (though persecuted), but those outside, that is the dogs, were trampled on. The earthly temple (the outer court) was destroyed, while the heavenly (holy of holies) temple, the church, was preserved, and then manifested in all its beauty.
> 
> ...



Well, this is pretty much what I believe. The temple is not in reference to the physical temple, but the church...ergo...there is no specific mention of the temple being destroyed as forth coming...ergo, a pre AD 70 date is not necessary.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 12:20:39 EST-----



> A pre-70ad dating of Revelation solves this. For "vision and prophecy" was in fact sealed up/completed by the end, that is the destruction of the temple and city.



Vision and prophecy is sealed up in the person of Christ. He is the final Prophet (among being a Priest and King). As you will know, the Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ...not the "prophet" John succeeding Jesus' prophetic office.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2009)

I think "seal up vision and prophecy" refers essentially to OT revelation, pointing as it did to the coming of Christ, and his saving work of the cross.

I think the entire NT, written as it is in time entirely after Jesus' accomplishment, appears outside and beyond the reference in Daniel. Yet it is every bit as "prophetic" as the OT, and not just the book of Revelation. Scripture writers were all "prophets", agents of revelation, regardless of whether it was predictive or not.

I think worrying about the dating of Revelation is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, myself. If it gives a help in interpretation, good. But I'm not convinced that it is so vital to getting the meaning right.

BTW, I'm not at all adverse to an early date. I think (for example) that the Irenaeus quote can possibly refer to _*John*_, the author, rather than to his book, since the sentence in Greek allows for the ambiguity; and therefore might refer to when he was last still alive, Irenaeus being one of his spiritual grandchildren (via Polycarp).

But the whole question seems academic to me. So, throwing out accusations that whoever doesn't think the book was written early thereby attributes falsehood and error to the prophets--that's more than a bit extreme.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 3, 2009)

> A pre-70ad dating of Revelation solves this. For "vision and prophecy" was in fact sealed up/completed by the end, that is the destruction of the temple and city.



And, doesn't making this statement mean that you would have to hold to full preterism? Denying any element of future fulfillment, such as the bodily resurrection?


----------



## shackleton (Jan 3, 2009)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Can one hold to an early date, partial preterism, and some measure of the idealist perspective?



This is what I am wondering. The Olivet Discourse is referring to the destruction of the Temple but Revelation is written to scattered persecuted Christians along the lines of apocalyptic literature, like that of the OT when they were in exile after the destruction of the first Temple.


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jan 3, 2009)

shackleton said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> > Can one hold to an early date, partial preterism, and some measure of the idealist perspective?
> ...



Great minds think alike, brother.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Okay? But, you said Daniel would be a false prophecy which I don't follow. The only way, then, Daniel would be false is if the destruction didn't happen. I don't see how the dating of Revelation is relevant to your view here?



I apologize for not being clear on the connection I made.
It is not the destruction of the temple in Daniel 9 that I emphasize as being "the" prophecy, which could be false. I am emphasizing this part:
(A) - "To seal up both vision and prophecy"
And I point out that this is tied to (connection) the "end" which is the destruction of the temple and city. So it is (A) that would be a false prophecy if in fact vision and prophecy were NOT sealed up prior to the end (i.e., 70ad)

Again, if you say that revelation (containing vision and prophecy) was written AFTER the end, then you are saying that vision and prophecy was NOT sealed up...and that implies that prophecy (A) is false. 







Hilasmos said:


> The temple is not in reference to the physical temple, but the church...ergo...there is no specific mention of the temple being destroyed as forth coming...ergo, a pre AD 70 date is not necessary.



yea ok we agree about the holy of holies being of a spiritual nature..but..the outer court that is trampled on by the gentiles is a clear reference to 70ad (Luke 21:20)..Also, your dismissing the destruction of the city by fire as well. Revelation speaks clearly about the destruction of the city by fire; being destroyed by the Romans.
Thus there is specific reference to the destuction that is spoken of in Daniel 9 (destrcution of temple and city) and Matthew 24...ergo, a pre 70 ad dating is more then necessary.




Hilasmos said:


> Vision and prophecy is sealed up in the person of Christ..



That is most certainly true. But, you cannot seperate Christ from his work and ministry, and kingship. Per matt. 24, 70ad was certainly part of that, and is thus clearly tied to the "sealing up vision and prophecy"
As Luke also says:

Luke 21
20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.
For these are days of vengeance, *that all things which are written may be fulfilled.*

Simply saying that vision and prophecy is sealed up in Christ, and leaving it at that, would be a denial of the details which make that statement true. (e.g., like saying that Jesus is the savior, while ignoring his actual saving work).


Note: Also, concerning the sealing up of vision and prophecy, besides Daniel, other OT passages speak about the ending of vision and prophecy at the end of the OC age. New revelation and prophecy is condemned after the sealing up.

Zech 13:4
On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision.
And if anyone *still* prophesies [after this time] , his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, 'You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD's name.' When he prophesies , his own parents will stab him. 



A post 70 ad writing of "revelation" and "prophecy"** would not be likey being such things were not to happen after the "sealing up", and "fulfillment" which was to happen at 70ad (per luke and Daniel).


** the book of Revelation is a book of prophecy being that is what John calls it.
Rev 22:19
19 And if anyone takes words away from this *book of prophecy*

Did John tell lies...or did he prophesy BEFORE the time was to come when vision and prophecy were to come to an end?
Should John's parents of stabbed him like Zecheria says?

If a post 70ad "prophecy" was possible (as late daters of Rev. presume), then who's to say that prophecy ever stopped...or that "new revelation" is not possible.
in my opinion, it is not possible because all prophecy (induding the book of revelation) was sealed up and came to a complete end by 70ad (as the scriptures say that it would).




contra_mundum said:


> I think "seal up vision and prophecy" refers essentially to OT revelation, pointing as it did to the coming of Christ, and his saving work of the cross.
> I think the entire NT, written as it is in time entirely after Jesus' accomplishment, appears outside and beyond the reference in Daniel.



But Daniel ties the "End" directly to the destruction of the temple and the city. And so does Luke in Luke 21. The destruction of the city and temple is surely not outside of the reference in Daniel, but is specifically tied into the prophecy concerning Christ.

Not only does Jesus' ministry contain the work on the cross, but also his resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of God, and his destroying his enemies as well as putting and end to sacrfice and offering (not just spirtually but visibly) by destroying the temple.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 02:55:52 EST-----



Hilasmos said:


> > A pre-70ad dating of Revelation solves this. For "vision and prophecy" was in fact sealed up/completed by the end, that is the destruction of the temple and city.
> 
> 
> 
> And, doesn't making this statement mean that you would have to hold to full preterism? Denying any element of future fulfillment, such as the bodily resurrection?



NO...
Sealing up vision and prophecy also refers to the finishing of revelation, or prophecy. That is no NEW revelation or prophecy is to be given.
Just because something has not happened yet (for example The Resurrection of all believers bodies) does not mean that the revelation that pointed to it has not been "sealed up".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2009)

Shawn,
I don't mind if you hold your view. What I think is "over the top" is saying that if other interpreters don't accept key points of your interpretation, they necessarily deny the infallibility of Scripture.

"Did John tell lies..." Can you figure out how to assess other people's views with integrity?

You're being ridiculous. People don't want to have back-and-forth with interlocutors who can't treat the other side reasonably.

Why don't you just say that Calvin and EJ Young deny inerrancy? They (we) are interpreting the text fairly, honestly, and affirm that Scripture cannot be broken.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

InevitablyReformed said:


> Can one hold to an early date, partial preterism, and some measure of the idealist perspective?



I believe some may refer to that as "progressive parallelism"...

e.g., The beast of Revelation is Ceaser Nero (perhaps the partial pret side)...but there are in history other "types" of the Beast...where the beast seems to raise his ugly head again, sort of speak, in other rulers, like Hitler, Stalin, maybe even a pope or two (perhaps the idealist side).
This does *not* constitute a double fulfillment of prophecy...only that of type and anti-type (where in this case the anti-type comes first, and other "types" come later in history).

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 03:32:14 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> Shawn,
> I don't mind if you hold your view. What I think is "over the top" is saying that if other interpreters don't accept key points of your interpretation, they necessarily deny the infallibility of Scripture.



All I've done, in my opinion, is brought up a point that the "other side" has probably never thought of. 
All beliefs have consequences...so I was pointing out, from my view, that the other side (i.e., late daters of Rev.) has _possible_ consequences.
I am not engaging on this topic to accuse people of denying the infallibility of the scriptures, that is not my motive...and, I don't think I ever did personally acuse anyone of denying the infallibility of scriptures.



Semper Fidelis said:


> 1. If you can *criticize a position *without calling out the man by name then endeavor to do so.



I've not even started to criticize the late date position yet...all I've done thus far was attempt to justify my own.
But I do have permission, I hope, to endevour to critcize a position.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 3, 2009)

> (A) - "To seal up both vision and prophecy"
> And I point out that this is tied to (connection) the "end" which is the destruction of the temple and city. So it is (A) that would be a false prophecy if in fact vision and prophecy were NOT sealed up prior to the end (i.e., 70ad)



Thanks for the response...let me draw a couple of conclusions (p. 1 & 2) from your view. I hope it is accurate of what you have asserted, I believe it is:

1. You have concurred that the "end," or the events of AD 70, is not within the 70 weeks.

2. You have asserted that "sealing up prophecy" is related to the completion of John's writing of Revelation. You don't take seal to = fulfilled (as many do in this context), but seal = "close up, make secure" (Cf._Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains_) That is, when John completed Revelation prophecy was closed up and made secure. There would no longer be any more "new revelation." This, however, doesn't mean elements of Revelation could still remain unfulfilled (resurrection bodies etc...), just that no more would be added.

And I respond with...

3. Daniel 9:24 states that the sealing of prophecy is _within_ the 70 weeks (item 5 of 6). *"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city...to seal up vision and prophecy..."* Dan 9:24

4. John, in an early date, wrote in the mid 60's?

5. You have concurred that 3.5 years after Jesus' Death was the end of the 70 weeks.

6. Therefore, 

' Jesus was cut off and crucified in the early AD 60s (untenable by most).

' Or, sealing up the prophecy is not related to the writing of Revelation, but rather to the fulfillment of what was prophesied and/or the fulfillment of prophecy in the prophet Christ. 

' Or, the sealing is in relation to the writing of Revelation and the prophecy of Daniel is in error (if your view is held concerning the meaning of seal up the prophecy).

*Lets make it simpler.*

1. Dan 9:24 says the sealing is within the 70 weeks.

2. The 70 weeks ended before John wrote the Revelation

3. The sealing = no more "prophetic revelation"

4. Therefore, John's Revelation is a false prophecy

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 04:36:17 EST-----



> Originally Posted by *Moses*
> yea ok we agree about the holy of holies being of a spiritual nature..but..the outer court that is trampled on by the gentiles is a clear reference to 70ad (Luke 21:20)..



What necessitates the shift from the spiritual to the physical, there is plenty of precedent for the temple being destroyed in the gosples, not just the "city." 

When it says "the outer court," I ask the outer court of what? Well, its the outer court of the temple. What temple? The temple just spoken of in the same sentence. If that temple is spiritual, what sense does it make to say the "outer court of the spiritual temple?" It is much more plausible that they are both spiritual or both physical, the context demands spiritual for the temple, therefore it must be spiritual for the outer courts.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

Will, thank you for your well done and laid out post above. It was very informatve and clear in displaying your understanding of my view.

The main thing that pops out at me, as a mistake in my opinion, is this main thing:
"WITHIN"

You seem to want to keep confining things "within" the 70 weeks wheras the prophecy itself does not. This section of scripture makes a clear distinction as to what is going to be confined to the 70 weeks, and what is the RESULT of those things.

Here is a clear example of what is confined WITHIN the 70 weeks according to the prophecy.

Dan 9:25
5 "Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall, 
Even in troublesome times. 

Rebuilding Jerusalem, rebuilding the wall, troublesome times, the coming of Christ. These are all WITHIN the 70 weeks.

Now, what is going to be the RESULT of the 70 weeks?
Dan 9:24
4 "Seventy weeks are determined
*For* your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,

All those For TO(s) are 'ends' not 'means'...the to's are for the RESULT.
Bringing in everlasting righteousness was the result of the 70 weeks events...Sealing vision and prophecy was the result of the 70 weeks events.

As we both agreed..."vision and prophecy are sealed up in Christ" BUT NOT apart from Christ's work and ministry...and that includes:
Dan 9:26
And the people of the prince [messiah?] who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Part of the work of Christ was to send fourth his armies and destroy the city and sanctuary, in his wrath.

Matt 22:7
But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
The KING is Christ.


And that is the END of it

Dan 9:24
24 "Seventy weeks are determined
For your peopleand *for your holy city*

The end of all these things was complete at the destruction of the city and sanctuary. For that was what the decree was given unto.

Again...what also was the result of these things?
*To seal up both vision and prophecy.*

Also, as luke says concerning the END:
Luke 21:22
For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.


A late dating of Revelation makes both "vision and prophecy" go past the appointed end. The "sealing up" is not within the 70 weeks, it is the result of it, which is ultimately concluded at the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

Does not Luke's statement make this even more clear? That the destruction of the temple/city is the "fulfilling" and completion of all prophecy, which makes "vision and prophecy" sealed up.


----------



## Zeno333 (Jan 3, 2009)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > Both preterists and others recognize that "temple" _naos_ is in reference to Holy of Holies, which seems strange that "those who worship there" is in the plural, seeing how it would have only been the High Priest if it were in reference to a physical temple (not the spiritual temple of saints).
> ...



Only the Priest could enter the square shaped Holy of Holies, but many thousands worshipped at the temple. the temple was more than the actual Holy of Holies itself. (That is precisely why it is called the Holy of Holies, it was a small area within the temple that was holier than the rest of the temple, where the others worshiped.)


----------



## MOSES (Jan 3, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> > Originally Posted by *Moses*
> > yea ok we agree about the holy of holies being of a spiritual nature..but..the outer court that is trampled on by the gentiles is a clear reference to 70ad (Luke 21:20)..
> 
> 
> ...



I never said that the temple in Rev. 11 was spiritual...I said that the referece to the "HOly of HOlies" was. There is a big difference.



> What necessitates the shift from the spiritual to the physical



The shift from spiritual to physical, in regards to the "holy of holies" (spiritual) to the outer court (physical)...is EASILY made. Why? 
Because the scriptures teach this "shift"...the holy of holies was always seen as the spiritual/heavenly (it was not part of the temple as physcial/earthly) and the outer court was the physical earthly part.
SO...when we get to Revelation. We should make the same distinction. The Holy of Holies reference is going to be pointing to something spiritual/heavenly. The outer court reference is going to be pointing to something physical/earthly.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 3, 2009)

Moses, 



> Again...what also was the result of these things?
> To seal up both vision and prophecy.



For starters, I don't follow how you gather this as a climax of all these things, when it is given as just an item in a list, and it is placed 5th out of 6 things. 

Take the 3rd item, for instance, "to make atonement for iniquity." Did this happen within the 70 weeks, or not? You are saying it was the result of the events of the 70 weeks, which is no doubt true...but the reason its the result is because it was also done, made, completed within the 70 weeks. In other words, as I hear you state, the "atonement for iniquity" was the result of what happened in the 70 weeks, but apparently no sin was actually atoned for _within_ "the 70 weeks." I don't follow this at all. If the means of atonement happened within the 70 weeks (Christ's death), the results did as well. Unless you hold that Christ's death didn't effect any atonement for 40 years? 

Further, I don't see the distinction you are making between v.24 and v.25. Or, when it says 490 years are decreed for your people and city to xyz, I find it normal to understand that xyz will happen before the 490 years climax. 

If I said: "10 years has been decreed for you to finish paying your debt to society in jail." What does that mean? It means that after 10 years the act of societal reconciliation will be done.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 05:53:37 EST-----



> I never said that the temple in Rev. 11 was spiritual...I said that the referece to the "HOly of HOlies" was. There is a big difference.



Well, ok, but I made that statement because you concurred, I thought, that naos is in reference to the Holy of Holies.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 05:54:31 EST-----



> The shift from spiritual to physical, in regards to the "holy of holies" (spiritual) to the outer court (physical)...is EASILY made. Why?
> Because the scriptures teach this "shift"...the holy of holies was always seen as the spiritual/heavenly (it was not part of the temple as physcial/earthly) and the outer court was the physical earthly part.
> SO...when we get to Revelation. We should make the same distinction. The Holy of Holies reference is going to be pointing to something spiritual/heavenly. The outer court reference is going to be pointing to something physical/earthly.



We must be talking about different passages. I have been talking of Rev. 11:1-2


----------



## Herald (Jan 3, 2009)

Let me jump in here quickly to make a point.

E.J. Young argues that "to seal up vision and prophecy" was accomplished at Christ's resurrection. The OT prophecies that pointed to the coming of Messiah were now fulfilled. Young contends that the destruction of the temple was more in keeping with, "put and end to sacrifice and grain offering" (Dan. 9:27). After Christ's resurrection and ascension the nation of Israel persisted in what was now a futile religion given wholly to idolatry. God's patience in calling Israel to repentance having waned, the holy city was destroyed, and the Jewish religious system became a true desolation (v. 27).


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 3, 2009)

Herald said:


> Let me jump in here quickly to make a point.
> 
> E.J. Young argues that "to seal up vision and prophecy" was accomplished at Christ's resurrection. The OT prophecies that pointed to the coming of Messiah were now fulfilled. Young contends that the destruction of the temple was more in keeping with, "put and end to sacrifice and grain offering" (Dan. 9:27). After Christ's resurrection and ascension the nation of Israel persisted in what was now a futile religion given wholly to idolatry. God's patience in calling Israel to repentance having waned, the holy city was destroyed, and the Jewish religious system became a true desolation (v. 27).



Its also interesting that "prophecy" is literally "prophet," seems like this would bring a different flavor to the text.


----------



## Herald (Jan 3, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Let me jump in here quickly to make a point.
> ...



Correct! I was quoting the NASB. The RSV actually gets this word right.


----------



## Rangerus (Jan 3, 2009)

In Hank Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters Today" the majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff’s view of dispensationalism in general and against Tim LaHaye in particular. But there is a little actual exegesis to support his preterist/idealist eschatology.


----------



## Herald (Jan 3, 2009)

Rangerus said:


> In Hank Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters Today" the majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff’s view of dispensationalism in general and against Tim LaHaye in particular. But there is a little actual exegesis to support his preterist/idealist eschatology.



Huh? Hanegraaff was ranting against himself?


----------



## MOSES (Jan 4, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Moses,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't make "seal up vision and prophecy" the CLIMAX of all things. I too, said it was one of many things that would result from the 70 weeks completed work.
I made the "END" the climax...and the end is:
"*And the city and sanctuary will be destroyed*"

That is the climax. Once that happens there is nothing left in regards to the Daniel 9 prophecy, or the results of the work done in the 70 weeks.
Why is this the end?
Because the prophecy begins by saying what is decreed for "your people, and the holy city" 
The prophecy in Daniel 9 developes and ENDs with the destruction of the city.

Again, Luke bears witness to this too when he say's concering the holy city being destroyed that it was to fulfill ALL things written (i.e, prophecy).


Back to HOW this relates to the dating of Revelation:
Revelation details this SAME destruction of the holy city. Thus, also, in regards to the Daniel 9 prophecy, the "finishing" (sealing up) of vision and prophet, HAS to be done before the actual fulfillment of the "all things written" (i.e., the desctruction of the city and sancturay).
Therefore revelation must be written BEFORE 70ad.

For, the:....

Luke 21:22
For these are days of vengeance, *that all things which are written may be fulfilled.*

....All things written parallels to the "sealing up vision and prophecy",,,And Daniell 9, as well as Luke here, references to the destruction of the city.

So again, how is it that John, speaking of the same things, does so AFTER the fulfillment? How is it that John then can call his book (i.e, revelation) a book of Prophecy (Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this _book of prophecy_) if it is after the "fulfillment of all things written" and it is after the "sealing up of vision and prophecy" (in regards to the holy city)???

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 04:05:53 EST-----



Rangerus said:


> In Hank Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters Today" the majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff’s view of dispensationalism in general and against Tim LaHaye in particular. But there is a little actual exegesis to support his preterist/idealist eschatology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hanegraff was not ranting against himself. He was ranting against dispensationalism, namely, against 'his view' of dispensationalism.
But, books ranting against dispensationlism have been to few these days anyway; thus Hank has done a good service to the church. 
Dispensationalists have been ranting against Orthodox Christianity for years.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 4, 2009)

> So again, how is it that John, speaking of the same things, does so AFTER the fulfillment? How is it that John then can call his book (i.e, revelation) a book of Prophecy (Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy) if it is after the "fulfillment of all things written" and it is after the "sealing up of vision and prophecy" (in regards to the holy city)???



The obvious answer is because his prophecy wasn't fulfilled in AD 70. The idealist view is that these prophecies declare what the church will face during the millennium, not just what will happen one time. You obviously don't agree with that view, but it doesn't mean its illogical to have Revelation be both prophecy and written with a late date when one starts from that framework. This is only a dilemma if you assume the preterist position first before considering the date.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 04:50:49 EST-----

In my opinion, for me to be convinced (at least in part), we should focus on just premise 1) of my four part argument. Otherwise everything you argue is unfounded in my mind because its based on the foundation that sealing up the prophecy is outside of the 70 weeks:



> 1. Dan 9:24 says the sealing is within the 70 weeks.
> 
> 2. The 70 weeks ended before John wrote the Revelation
> 
> ...



*I argued for why I don't understand your reading of v.24 here:*



> Take the 3rd item, for instance, "to make atonement for iniquity." Did this happen within the 70 weeks, or not? You are saying it was the result of the events of the 70 weeks, which is no doubt true...but the reason its the result is because it was also done, made, completed within the 70 weeks. In other words, as I hear you state, the "atonement for iniquity" was the result of what happened in the 70 weeks, but apparently no sin was actually atoned for within "the 70 weeks." I don't follow this at all. If the means of atonement happened within the 70 weeks (Christ's death), the results did as well. Unless you hold that Christ's death didn't effect any atonement for 40 years?
> 
> Further, I don't see the distinction you are making between v.24 and v.25. Or, when it says 490 years are decreed for your people and city to xyz, I find it normal to understand that xyz will happen before the 490 years climax.
> 
> If I said: "10 years has been decreed for you to finish paying your debt to society in jail." What does that mean? It means that after 10 years the act of societal reconciliation will be done.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 6, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> The obvious answer is because his prophecy wasn't fulfilled in AD 70. . . . This is only a dilemma if you assume the preterist position first before considering the date.



Ok...so rather then revelation consisting of primarily OT scritpture references and types, it consists of something entirely new?
Or...if not then it falls under the position of Luke, concerning 70ad
_that all things which are written may be fulfilled_, Luke 21

You can say that the "obvious reason is because revelation wasn't fulfilled in 70ad" but you can only do so by seperating Revelation from "All things written" (i.e., God's prophetic word).




Hilasmos said:


> In my opinion, for me to be convinced (at least in part), we should focus on just premise 1) of my four part argument. Otherwise everything you argue is unfounded in my mind because its based on the foundation that sealing up the prophecy is outside of the 70 weeks:
> 
> Premise
> 1. Dan 9:24 says the sealing is *within* the 70 weeks.



I already dealt with this premise (post 54).

We have both agreed that this ONE prophecy in Daniel 9 includes the prophecy of the destuction of the city and the sanctuary. YET...that also did not occur WITHIN the 70 weeks.
Your confining a _result_ of the 70 weeks events into an 'event' _within_ the 70 weeks. 

The prophecy's climatic end is the destruction of the city and sanctuary which took place in 70ad. That is lukes "fulifilling of all things written" and that is within the same ONE prophecy of Daniels "sealing up vision and prophecy".

Thus a late dating of a "book of prophecy" (i.e, Revelation) which is intimately related to both Daniel's prophecy and Lukes (actually Jesus') prophecy, concerning 70ad, is not possible.**

** I suppose that the way out of this dilemma, as mentioned above, is to make Revelation something entirely "new" and unrelated to the previous "vision and prophet" of the OT.
But even hermeneutically challenged dispensational futurists, can see a connection between both Daniel and Matthew 24 with Revelation...


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 6, 2009)

> I already dealt with this premise (post 54).
> 
> We have both agreed that this ONE prophecy in Daniel 9 includes the prophecy of the destuction of the city and the sanctuary. YET...that also did not occur WITHIN the 70 weeks.



You made assertions, you provided no rationale, that I could follow at least, as to why these are not events within but simply future results. You didn't deal with my other question re-posted in #64.

The reason this "doesn't happen" in the 70 weeks is because its not part of what was decreed for the 70 weeks, as seal up the prophecy was. 



> The prophecy's climatic end is the destruction of the city and sanctuary which took place in 70ad. That is lukes "fulifilling of all things written" and that is within the same ONE prophecy of Daniels "sealing up vision and prophecy".



Again, you have not established that the ONE prophecy is contained in sealing up prophecy. I am accepting that there is ordered events within the prophecy, one of which is the sealing up, since it is related to the 70 weeks directly the view that it has to do with Christ is more tenable than extending it to ad 70



> ** I suppose that the way out of this dilemma, as you have mentioned above, is to make Revelation something entirely "new" and unrelated to the previous "vision and prophet" of the OT.
> But even hermeneutically challenged dispensational futurists, can see a connection between both Daniel and Matthew 24...



Not sure what you mean by make it "new," idealism just says it isn't restricted to one event in history, but yet any one event in history will be evidence of what the prophecy details about the persecutions the church will face under the beasts and the dragon.

I never denied that Dan 9 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem, I am just not bound to say that's connected with sealing of prophecy. You have the 70 weeks and you have the people of the prince "who will come." 

So again, I ask, does "to make atonement for sin" happen within the 70 weeks or not?


----------



## MOSES (Jan 6, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Not sure what you mean by make it "new," idealism just says it isn't restricted to one event in history...
> 
> So again, I ask, does "to make atonement for sin" happen *within* the 70 weeks or not?



Well, if I were an "idealist" I suppose I would answer no. Because idealism would not restrict the prophetic to just one event in history.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 6, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what you mean by make it "new," idealism just says it isn't restricted to one event in history...
> ...



But, your not an idealist, therefore you must answer yes...which means your entire reading of Daniel 9 is wrong


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> > So again, I ask, does "to make atonement for sin" happen within the 70 weeks or not?
> 
> 
> But, your not an idealist, therefore you must answer *yes*...which means your entire reading of Daniel 9 is wrong



Actually, the funny thing is that I already answered NO to your question (in post 56) and stated the reason why.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> > > So again, I ask, does "to make atonement for sin" happen within the 70 weeks or not?
> ...



Truly puzzling???


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

> Puzzling???


Will

The following is a clip from a private message that I recently sent (it may shed some light):

Concerning your question: The Dispensationalists have NO exegetical warrant to enter a 2000 year gap before the last week, and, so likewise neither does the Preterists (even a 40 year one). One of my big emphasis’ on this topic is distinguishing between the EVENTS of the 70 weeks and the RESULTS of the 70 weeks. Also, there is what I would call an “Already/Not yet” paradigm, which is basically a spiritual truth which has not had a visible consummation. Example, Christ’s sacrifice did in essence (spiritually) put an end to sacrifice and offering, but, the visible reality of that was not realized (consummated) until 70ad. This would not constitute a “gap.” The event that happened WITHIN the 70 weeks was the “cutting off” of Christ (which spiritually put an end to sacrifice) BUT the RESULT, the physical visible consummation of that, was the destruction of the temple when the sacrifice was forever physically taken away. (Hince, *if Christ had not done his sacrificial work, then the temple would had to of remained*).
The EVENTs of the ministry of Christ were put into place within the 70 weeks. That is the end of the 70 weeks emphasis. But, the RESULTS were the spiritual truths becoming realities at the consummation of the kingdom.

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God [come] Luke 9

Christ inaugurated the kingdom in his death and resurrection, and consummated the kingdom (visible realities) at his coming. Again, there is no “gap,” simply a fulfillment of the events of the 70weeks coming to an end with Christ, and the results of those things coming to fruition at 70ad.

This is why LUKE say's that it is the destruction of the temple and the city that is a FULFILLMENT OF ALL THINGS WRITTEN.


NOTE: This is now going outside of the Revelation dating debate, and the OPer's original intent. So, I give this for clarification on what was said earlier, but, we should probably start a new thread on Daniel 9 or something, if we are going to continue with that.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 7, 2009)

Moses,

Thanks for the post. I guess I will conclude my remarks as follows. I understand your point clearer now concerning what you mean about the spiritual/physical...and how you apply that to ending sacrifice etc...

However, I cannot find that distinction in the text, especially in light of the statement: "to make atonement for sins." As I understand you, you would concur that Christ was cut off during the 70 weeks and yet the results of that became physically evident in the destruction of the temple. That is, having no temple evidences that there is no longer a need for atonement making. The physical putting an end to sacrifice evidenced the spiritual putting to end of sacrifices (through Christ). 

However, apart from bringing that to the text first, I could never draw out such a reading. Further, this would not allow the meaning of "make atonement for sin" to have any meaning. The physical consumation of "make atonement for sin" is not in any way a "making of atonement for sin," and therefore it doesn't follow like the example you pointed to. 

There is a difference in saying Christ was cut off in the 70 weeks, and that was physcially consumated, or evidenced, when the physical temple sacrifices were stopped. The problem with the "make atonement", since it is an actual "making of atonement," it has no physical consumary act that could be applied (like the phrase, put an end to sacrifice, which, of course, is not even referenced in the 6 items of 9:24). 



> But, the RESULTS were the spiritual truths becoming realities at the consummation of the kingdom.



The act of making atonement has no other reality than the actual making of atonement by Christ during the 70 weeks. The ending of "making physical atonements" in AD 70 does NOT = in some way a "making of atonement" as 9:24 speaks of. 

Either atonement was made by Christ or it wasn't, if it was by Christ then it was during the 70 weeks.

So, here it is as I see you saying it:

*Put an end to sacrifice*

Spiritually: Christ's sacrifice of himself
Physically: The destruction of the temple

*Make an atonement for sin*

Spiritually: Christ's sacrifice of himself
Physically: ummm???


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Either atonement was made by Christ or it wasn't, if it was by Christ then it was during the 70 weeks.



It most certainly was. The RESULT of this truth was the destruction of the "old way" of making atonment, that is the temple system. Being Christ did make atonement, the result is:

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is now ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8

in my opinion, the connection between the work of Christ, and the destruction of the OC temple, is very common. 



It is the prophecy in Daniel that makes the destruction of the city and the temple the climax (NOT ME).
*The prophecy begins with what would be decreed for "Your HOLY CITY"*

_Seventy weeks are decreed.. for thy holy city
Daniel 9:24_
the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary
Daniel 9:27


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 8, 2009)

> It most certainly was. The RESULT of this truth was the destruction of the "old way" of making atonment, that is the temple system. Being Christ did make atonement, the result is:



Of course I agree...but this is cicumventing the issue. The issue wasn't whether make atonement had a result, but whether make atonement somehow happened in AD 70...and it didn't.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> > It most certainly was. The RESULT of this truth was the destruction of the "old way" of making atonment, that is the temple system. Being Christ did make atonement, the result is:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I agree...but this is cicumventing the issue. The issue wasn't whether make atonement had a result, but whether make atonement somehow happened in AD 70...and it didn't.



But see...now your completey dismissing everything I said earlier about the "already/not yet" and "spiritual realized/earthly realized" paradigms. The 40 year time was unique in this aspect.

Again, sacrfice and offering was really stopped when Christ offered his one sacrifice...but, the earthly enforcement, or realization of that came in 70ad when the sacrifices stopped visibly for all to see.

Same with atonement...Christ really did make atonement...but, as we know, the world, while the temple still stood, saw "atonment" for sin as still appearing to be made (in the temple), the atonement of Christ was not fully realized. Even for some Jewish Christians; who partook of communion as well as the ceremonial system.
BUT...once the temple atonements were put away, in the flesh, in reallity, by being destroyed...there was ONLY ONE Atonement left to be realized by the people of God, both jew and gentile...The atonement of Christ. There was no longer an appearance of the two..but just the ONE. And in this way it can be said that the atonement was made by Christ, at the cross, but was realized and put in full effect and force, once the temple was destroyed. 

Make sense?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 8, 2009)

Hilasmos said:


> Moses,
> 
> Thanks for the post. I guess I will conclude my remarks as follows. I understand your point clearer now concerning what you mean about the spiritual/physical...and how you apply that to ending sacrifice etc...
> 
> ...





From what I'm able to understand in your post, the problem seems to be an argument over the language used, i.e., "spiritual" and "physical." I think you need to be reading Shawn more in respect to typology and place his language and utilization of certain words to explain his interpretation within existing paradigms of thought that we all agree on already. 

We all agree that Christ made a "physical" sacrifice of his own flesh that is "spiritual" and don't have this dichotomy over the language that results in disagreement.

The way I am understanding Shawn is that since the Temple and sacrifices is the typology of the Old Covenant that points to Christ, that this system and its infrastructure is done away with. The system was done away with in the 70 weeks, but the destruction of the infrastructure for that system wasn't completed until 70 A.D. Hence, judgment or desolations were determined to be poured out on Israel for a generation and the infrastructure of their system was finally destroyed in 70 A.D.

Hence, if I understand Shawn's points correctly and haven't gotten confused in the banter over the language, what he is saying is that Daniel's prophecy covers and includes the end of revelation in the sealing up the vision and prophecy. Thus, he is starting with Daniel and doctrinally moving from O.T. system to N.T. system and arguing that the continuity in these systems requires the dating of Revelation's writing to be prior to 70 A.D.

His thinking seems to be consistent with Reformed theology in general, applying the principle of covenantal continuity forward into a doctrinal argument defining text-critical issues concerning the date of Revelation's writing. It's a good argument.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jan 8, 2009)

Thomas, apart from all the confusing discussion, my point is simply that in 9:24 when it says:

"...70 weeks have been decreed to make atonement for sins..." It meas that atonement for sins will be made before the 70 weeks end, and thats exactly what happened.

I don't disagree with Moses concerning the implications of the temple, I just can't help but read 9:24 as it is written, I cannot disjoint the 70 weeks from the 6 times it is joined to.


----------

