Good quote arguing for an early date for Revelation

[DHK]

Pointing out is not proving. Shall I go through a long list of quotes showing how the Jews permanently had their power structure destroyed? I direct your attention to Ussher, whose Annals is a compendium of several ancient sources. After the period of 70 - 73 the Jews no longer had wind in their sails. They were in no position to Judaize.

This was not uncommon for the Jews. The ten southern tribes had gone into captivity in 722 B.C., and Judah went in 586 B.C. The temple that they had been worshiping at was built by Herod, and it was not that old (comparatively). The Jews were used to being in captivity and used to being scattered.

Furthermore in the time of Christ they came from all over for the feast of Pentecost. It doesn't seem like many of them lived right in Jerusalem.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5)

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11)

It seemed as if these Jews came from every part of the known world. They had not all gathered to live in Jerusalem. Very few actually lived in Jerusalem. Antioch may have been a larger city than Jerusalem.

Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. (Acts 5:15-16)
--Peter demonstrated the gift of healing here. It wasn't so much the sick of Jerusalem that came to be healed here, but rather those from the cities round about unto Jerusalem that came to be healed. One needs to study this passage carefully. For when Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D., yes, Jerusalem was destroyed, but what about the cities round about Jerusalem that Peter is referring? Were they also destroyed. That seems to be where most of the believers were.

Judaizers exist today in their many forms. If you want some examples look at the Church of Christ, and even in the RCC. In its strictest form there are still those that require circumcision as a part of the gospel. To say that these false teachers ended their false teaching pre-70 A.D. is quite a stretch of the imagination. We will always have their false teaching just as we will always have one of the earliest of the heresies to enter Christendom--baptismal regeneration. It came early and is still common today. Heresy just doesn't fade away. It reappears. Sometimes in different forms but it never simply goes away. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[asterisktom]

Judaizers exist today in their many forms. If you want some examples look at the Church of Christ, and even in the RCC. In its strictest form there are still those that require circumcision as a part of the gospel. To say that these false teachers ended their false teaching pre-70 A.D.

You still don't understand my main point. That is that the Judaizers -after AD 70 - were never again in position to to afflict and persecute the Christians.

And, because of this, the description of Judaizers afflicting Christians in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 must be from the 60s, not the 90s.

And, because of this, the book was written in the 60s, not the 90s.

Thus the judgment that was "about to come", and that was "very soon" really was very soon - AD 70, just a couple, three years into the future.

The pivotal issue was never the teaching of the Judaizers, but their animosity toward the Christians.

 

[DHK]

You still don't understand my main point. That is that the Judaizers -after AD 70 - were never again in position to to afflict and persecute the Christians.

And you know this how?

And, because of this, the description of Judaizers afflicting Christians in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 must be from the 60s, not the 90s.

A false conclusion is based on a false premise. First you must convince me that your premise is true. What makes you think that the Judaizers either ceased to exist or could not influence the Jews any longer.

And, because of this, the book was written in the 60s, not the 90s.

This flies in the evidence of all that I have given you. From history, commentary, encyclopedia, etc., you ignore everything. On this point you are wrong. You ignore all the evidence here and stick to an opinion which you cannot prove. The book, as were all of John's writings, were written in the 90's. You have given no reason to believe otherwise.

Thus the judgment that was "about to come", and that was "very soon" really was very soon - AD 70, just a couple, three years into the future.

Again, this is your second false conclusion that you have built on that one tenuous false premise. Your false premise is really only an opinion that you cannot prove. And you have drawn all these conclusions from it.

The pivotal issue was never the teaching of the Judaizers, but their animosity toward the Christians.

Yes they did have animosity. But you cannot prove they didn't exist. And at that point everything you have said falls apart. You have hinged everything in this post on that one premise, and it cannot be verified.

 

[DHK]

During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired beyond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others — with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him — and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dialogue with Trypho 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apostolic times. The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Nazarenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; (c) an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. EBIONITES). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

The entire article is good. It explains what happened to the Judaizers. They still had an influence.

 

[asterisktom]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

The entire article is good. It explains what happened to the Judaizers. They still had an influence.

Who said "influence"? I said "persecution". "Affliction". Do you read for content - or ammunition?

OK. I'm done. I give up.

I gave history.
I gave Scripture.
And now I give up.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes they did have animosity. But you cannot prove they didn't exist.

I never said they ceased to exist. This shows you are reading my posts with the same -or less - care than you read your "proofs".

 

[DHK]

Who said "influence"? I said "persecution". "Affliction". Do you read for content - or ammunition?

OK. I'm done. I give up.

I gave history.
I gave Scripture.
And now I give up.

The persecution of Christians came from: (1) Rome, and (2) the Jews themselves like Saul, the Sanhedrin, etc., not from the Judaizers.

The Judaizers were false teachers who attempted to influence the believers by their false teaching that they really weren't saved. We see that in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. We don't see anywhere that they were so confrontational that they persecuted the believers. They were simply false teachers. Where do you get the idea that these false teachers (Judaizers) persecuted the believers? Not from Scripture. They were false teachers.

False teachers influence. That is why I answered in the manner I did.

 

[DHK]

The Judaizers worked among the Christians. They infiltrated Christians. They simply tried to change the message.

Here is what MacArthur says about Rev.2:9 (and 3:9) is the same.

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9)

“who say they are Jews” Although they were Jews physically, they were not true Jews but spiritual pagans (Rom.2:28), who allied with other pagans in putting Christians to death as they attempted to stamp out the Christian faith.
“synagogue of Satan” With the rejection of its Messiah, Judaism became as much a tool of Satan as emperor worship.

They were not Judaizers. They were a different group of people entirely.

 

[revmwc]

Paul says if He might attain "katanteso" come to the ressurection from the dead. I myself might "katantEsO" to the resurrection from the dead and I might not. Those who are currently believers and alive might come to (katantEsO) the point where we will be resurrected. Paul was saying he might die and come into the resurrection from the dead, he didn't know if he would or wouldn't but if he died physically he would be physically raised.

No. Paul does not say this. In the passage he makes no mention that he might die. This is not even the subject. Please read Phil. 3 again.

He would come to (katanEsO) the point of having died and then he would come to (attain) resurrection. It wasn't a spiritual resurrection of those who sleep he was looking for it was a physical. We who are in Christ have died to our old way, we have died to the domination of the Old Sin Nature because we now have a new Spiritual (life) nature.

The last sentence is mostly true, but the two before it are, once again, unwarranted from the context. There is no mention of a physical resurrection.

The resurrection that would come shortly, by whose time table man or God's?

Whose time determines what shortly is when we deal with spiritual matters?

God's timetable or ours. Peter said
2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Peter said one day to the Lord is a thousand years and a Thousand years as one day. By God's time has long has it been?

One and a Half to one and 3/4 days in God's time table?

So would that qualify as shortly?

It is quite remarkable that, of all the times that this passage is invoked by futurists, it is always only half-used (Misused, actually). The clause "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years" is the one always used. Nobody touches the "thousand years as a day".

Why is that? The passage is partially used because it is wholly misunderstood. The whole phrase - both of the time parts - go together to illustrate a different purpose altogether; that God is not slack, as men count slackness. Ironically, it is used to try to prove that God is slack, or at least seems to be.

At any rate, this one verse cannot be used to negate all 18 of the "soon", "shortly", "about to", verses in the New Testament.

You seem to be putting God in a box, and saying He must operate on man's time. Let see what He told Jonah 3:
2Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Jonah preached that 40 days later God would destroy Ninevah, but when did God actually bring destruction?

"Matthew Henry summed it up when he wrote: "About a hundred years before, at Jonah's preaching, the Ninevites repented, and were spared, yet, soon after, they became worse than ever."

Seems like that 40 days turned into a hundred years.

2 Kings 20:
1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
2Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying,
3I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
5Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
6And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.
7And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.
8And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?
9And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?
10And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.
11And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

Seems as if God said Hezekiah would die. Then God turned it around and Hezekiah lived yet anotherr 15 years and notice God also turned time back. So you evidently don't believe God controls time.

Josuha 10:
12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
1 4And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

God kept the Sun from setting for nearly a whole day and yet you say since "soon", "shortly", "about to" means to man just that with God it means His time and ability. So one day is 2 Peter 3:
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night

So again one day to The Lord, not to man but to the Lord is a thousand years, gr ETOS means a year. One Thousand years equals one day (hemera). God's time is cannot be put in a box, God gives man time to come to Him. When the Lord returns it will be as a theif in the night. But it will be known that He came it won't be in secret.

 

[DHK]

In direct answer to the OP, that there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. in those books written after that date, consider:

In the OT the Temple was rebuilt by Herod. What happened to the one before that; that Nehemiah, Ezra, Zerubbabel, and those that returned from the captivity worked on? Why doesn't the NT mention that? In fact, why doesn't the NT mention that Herod built the Temple that they were now worshiping in. Such references are absent from the NT. There was destruction and rebuilding and yet the absence of such a great event from the NT. Why should we find it odd then that they should be included (concerning the destruction of the Temple of 70 A.D.) if such events were not previously mentioned?

 

[asterisktom]

The persecution of Christians came from: (1) Rome, and (2) the Jews themselves like Saul, the Sanhedrin, etc., not from the Judaizers.

The Judaizers were false teachers who attempted to influence the believers by their false teaching that they really weren't saved. We see that in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. We don't see anywhere that they were so confrontational that they persecuted the believers. They were simply false teachers. Where do you get the idea that these false teachers (Judaizers) persecuted the believers? Not from Scripture. They were false teachers.

False teachers influence. That is why I answered in the manner I did.

I do concede on this point, and that is a fault of my typing too fast: Sometimes I wrote "Judaizers" and I just meant "Jews". To be sure, the Christians had opposition form both groups (groups which overlap). As far as Rev. 2 and 3 are concerned, that is most likely just Jews, not Judaizers. I hate it when I have to correct myself.

But the issue that I brought up is still unchanged. The Jews (not Judaizers) would not have the power that they clearly have in Rev. 2 and 3 to persecute the Christians. They were too busy, by this time, lying low. They did not have the finances or the religious authority or the manpower to afflict the believers. AD 70 changed all that.

That is why the book of Rev. predates AD 70.

 

[DHK]

I do concede on this point, and that is a fault of my typing too fast: Sometimes I wrote "Judaizers" and I just meant "Jews". To be sure, the Christians had opposition form both groups (groups which overlap). As far as Rev. 2 and 3 are concerned, that is most likely just Jews, not Judaizers. I hate it when I have to correct myself.

But the issue that I brought up is still unchanged. The Jews (not Judaizers) would not have the power that they clearly have in Rev. 2 and 3 to persecute the Christians. They were too busy, by this time, lying low. They did not have the finances or the religious authority or the manpower to afflict the believers. AD 70 changed all that.

That is why the book of Rev. predates AD 70.

Just to take one example:
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9)

The verse is written to the believers in Ephesus. There would have been a church in Ephesus, and a synagogue in Ephesus. The warning was given to the church, and the description was given of the synagogue. Those in the synagogue said they were Jews, and like those of John chapter 8 were (by blood), "we have Abraham as our Father." But spiritually they weren't. In the gospels they rejected Christ and crucified him. Their attitude toward Christ and His followers had not changed. They were blasphemous people, just as Saul was. Their synagogues were synagogues of Satan which taught directly against Christianity. Notice "synagogue" not Temple, giving more credence that the Temple had been destroyed. Their so-called worship was in the synagogues.

 

[asterisktom]

Just to take one example:
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9)

The verse is written to the believers in Ephesus. There would have been a church in Ephesus, and a synagogue in Ephesus. The warning was given to the church, and the description was given of the synagogue. Those in the synagogue said they were Jews, and like those of John chapter 8 were (by blood), "we have Abraham as our Father." But spiritually they weren't. In the gospels they rejected Christ and crucified him. Their attitude toward Christ and His followers had not changed. They were blasphemous people, just as Saul was. Their synagogues were synagogues of Satan which taught directly against Christianity. Notice "synagogue" not Temple, giving more credence that the Temple had been destroyed. Their so-called worship was in the synagogues.

First of all, this is written to the Church of Smyrna, not Ephesus. I know that was just an oversight.

More importantly, I think you should have included the following verses:

"10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”

The Jews here are actively persecuting the Christians. Impossible for them to do in the 90s.

Moreover there is a connection between "synagogue of Satan" in the verse you gave and "the devil is about to throw some of you into prison" inverse 10. It is the same people. The Jews were instrumental in Christians being imprisoned "ten days". Or do we suppose that Satan himself would do this?

Furthermore your comment on synagogue is beside the point. I'm not sure why you said it. There were already synagogues in several of these cities, Acts 9:2; 14:1, etc. Wherever these Jews gathered together they would be a "synagogue" "a gathering together". It makes more sense than if he would have said "Temple".

 

[DHK]

First of all, this is written to the Church of Smyrna, not Ephesus. I know that was just an oversight.

More importantly, I think you should have included the following verses:

"10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”

The Jews here are actively persecuting the Christians. Impossible for them to do in the 90s.

The Jews were actively suffering persecution up until the time of Constantine when he legalized Christianity with an Act of Tolerance. It was worse in some areas than others. This wasn't Jerusalem; it was Smyrna. Why would it be so difficult to comprehend that the Jews would persecute believers in Smyrna. The destruction of the Temple only angered them more. They were dispersed into other areas like Smyrna. The population of the synagogue would have grown as their hatred for Christianity would have grown.

Moreover there is a connection between "synagogue of Satan" in the verse you gave and "the devil is about to throw some of you into prison" inverse 10. It is the same people. The Jews were instrumental in Christians being imprisoned "ten days". Or do we suppose that Satan himself would do this?

As mentioned before these "sons of belial" as Christ referred to them, children of the devil, would persecute them. No doubt the 10 days here is figurative. It could be a literal 10 days. It could simply mean a short duration of time. I read one place that it could refer to 10 Anti-Christian edicts given from the Emperors from the time of Nero to just before Constantine. We are not told. We are told they would be persecuted. They would be persecuted by the Jews, and in Smyrna. This is one church that is given no condemnation by Christ.

Furthermore your comment on synagogue is beside the point. I'm not sure why you said it. There were already synagogues in several of these cities, Acts 9:2; 14:1, etc. Wherever these Jews gathered together they would be a "synagogue" "a gathering together". It makes more sense than if he would have said "Temple".

The synagogues were built during the inter-testamental period when there was no Temple. They took the place of the Temple before Herod built them a Temple. It became their temporary place of worship and especially of instruction. Even today their worship is in a synagogue, not in the Temple. When the Temple was destroyed their worship went back to the synagogues, not to the Temple where all worship should have been carried out. Remember there were no synagogues before the intertestamental period. That is a significant fact. It speaks to the carnality of the Jews. Their carnal nature grew worse; they did not grow spiritually. They were only hardened in their views toward Christs and Christianity, hence their persecution toward them would have intensified.

 

[asterisktom]

The synagogues were built during the inter-testamental period when there was no Temple. They took the place of the Temple before Herod built them a Temple.

There were synagogues all through the time of Acts, when the Temple was still standing. It was not a case of either Temple or synagogue, it was both/and. Until the Temple was no more.

But I only mentioned this because you seemed to find some proof in "synagogue of Satan" being used over "temple".

I am going to call it quits on this one unless you have a real zinger that I haven't seen yet. Color me unconvinced, but thank you anyhow for going into detail and spending time on answering.