Dating of Revelation

[Rangerus]

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]

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]

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.

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-----

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?

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]

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

3. The sealing = no more "prophetic revelation"

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

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[MOSES]

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]

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.

Truly puzzling???

 

[MOSES]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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???

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]

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.