Dating of Revelation

[Hilasmos]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.

Good one.

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

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

 

[shackleton]

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]

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)

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.

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]

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

 

[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 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.

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)

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.

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]

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)

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Great minds think alike, brother.

 

[MOSES]

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.

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.

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).

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-----

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]

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]

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-----

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.

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]

(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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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