Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

[asterisktom]

The dating of the Revelation is not questionable.

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.

Also favoring the end of the first century as the time of origin of Rev is the fact that according to 2:8-11, the church of Smyrna has been persevering for a long time, while according to Polycarp (Phil 11:3), at the time of Paul it did not even exist; and 3:17 describes the community of Laodicea as rich, while this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61.

taken from: The Book of Revelation​

Interesting site that you linked. I made a bookmark of it.

But, no, your late-dating of Revelation is questionable. But the proof for that is not found in the WCF, what they said or did not say. The real proof is in the Book of Revelation itself, that it was a vindication and encouragement for the saints of that age and a judgment against the enemies of God. And that enemy was not Imperial Rome, or some future Rome, but apostate Israel. Any unbiased reading of Revelation - providing the reader has a good backing in the OT and its connection with the New - should show that the historical judgment here was against covenant-breaking Israel.

There is also much here about future personal reward and punishment for saints and sinners, respectively, of all ages. But to miss the cardinal point that the bad guys here are apostate Israel of the first century leads to a whole domino line of error after error.

The Reformers, being hounded by the Romanists, naturally were quite to see Rome as the enemies here. Many Christians, whether or not they are convinced that Rome is the Beast, dont even think of seeing Revelation as referring to Israel.

But there is plenty of proof of this in Scripture. Maybe I should have started with this as the OP.

 

[asterisktom]

I used that which is well documented to show your timing is off, and therefore your premise becomes frail.

The Jews did not kill the apostle John. Though he suffered as a martyr, he was not killed but died of being old.

You are just passing off a tradition as fact. The Gospel verses I cited to the contrary are more important and take precedent over the flimsy tradition of a fallible Church Father.

 

[agedman]

Ok

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The First Jewish War, 66–73

Well, according to F.F. Bruce (The Spreading Flame, Paternoster Press, 1958), Because the Christians in Judea refused to support Bar-Kokhba in the second Jewish War of 132-135 because of his messianic claims, they suffered 'considerable persecution.'
So any claim that AD 70 was the end of Jewish persecution of Christians is incorrect.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And who is doing this? Like I said probably seventeen times on this board: My belief of the early date for Revelation came long before I was a Preterist.

What does this prove except that you were probably mistaken before you became a Hyper-Preterist as well as afterward?. My point still stands. It is unwise to take a theological position that is dependent upon extra-biblical writings.

My theological stance is based on the Bible. It is fine-tuned for me by those here whose Scriptural acumen is apparent in their writings, usually not by those whose theological system is largely strait-jacketed by credal traditions.

And this is very easy and cheap to say. My theological stance is based on the Bible. It is fine tuned by those here whose Scriptural acumen is apparent in their writings, usually not by those whose theological system is based on an insatiable desire for novelty.

And Hyper-Preterism is still entirely refuted by Acts of the Apostles 1:11.

 

[asterisktom]

The dating of the Revelation is not questionable.

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.

Also favoring the end of the first century as the time of origin of Rev is the fact that according to 2:8-11, the church of Smyrna has been persevering for a long time, while according to Polycarp (Phil 11:3), at the time of Paul it did not even exist; and 3:17 describes the community of Laodicea as rich, while this city had been almost completely destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60/61.

taken from: The Book of Revelation​

I just now the entirety of the essay that you selectively quoted above. These writers exhibit a low view of inspiration. Are you sure you want Kummel and Perrin as your go-to sources for dating Revelation?

 

[asterisktom]

Well, according to F.F. Bruce (The Spreading Flame, Paternoster Press, 1958), Because the Christians in Judea refused to support Bar-Kokhba in the second Jewish War of 132-135 because of his messianic claims, they suffered 'considerable persecution.'
So any claim that AD 70 was the end of Jewish persecution of Christians is incorrect.

That was an entirely different generation. My original comment was in reference to the killing of John the Apostle by the Jews. In the the two or three decades after the fall of Jerusalem the Jews were at a low ebb. Yes, there was a nationalist resurgence in the time of Hadrian - actually there was a more minor uprising around 115 (I forget the exact date right now). But none of this has to do with my original point.

 

[agedman]

I just now the entirety of the essay that you selectively quoted above. These writers exhibit a low view of inspiration. Are you sure you want Kummel and Perrin as your go-to sources for dating Revelation?

I’m not interested in their view of inspiration, but considered the view of dating the writing credible and the reliance upon accurate documentation of historical facts.

 

[asterisktom]

I’m not interested in their view of inspiration, but considered the view of dating the writing credible and the reliance upon accurate documentation of historical facts.

A faulty view of inspiration is a major issue. This would cloud all their views on any biblical matter. They certainly would not be worthwhile judges of internal evidences from the Bible. At any rate I will leave it at that.

 

[Reformed1689]

A faulty view of inspiration is a major issue. This would cloud all their views on any biblical matter. They certainly would not be worthwhile judges of internal evidences from the Bible. At any rate I will leave it at that.

there is no internal evidence of an early date of revelation.

 

[agedman]

A faulty view of inspiration is a major issue. This would cloud all their views on any biblical matter. They certainly would not be worthwhile judges of internal evidences from the Bible. At any rate I will leave it at that.

Dating of a writing is not a “inspiration” dependent matter.

The writer of the Revelation gives his name and the place of writing. Historical records of rulers and times can validate the accuracy of when that writer wrote. One does not even have to read and believe the account, but can investigate the veracity of the writer’s own date and place of writing to see if they are truthful.

Now, I in no means am stating the Revelation is without the inspiration of God, but that is a theology question, not one of archeology, and historical records.

 

[John of Japan]

A faulty view of inspiration is a major issue. This would cloud all their views on any biblical matter. They certainly would not be worthwhile judges of internal evidences from the Bible. At any rate I will leave it at that.

A faulty view of salvation is also a major issue. Have you yet asked your friend from the OP, the Church of Christ preacher, if he believes in baptismal regeneration?

Folks, I'm sure Tom has me on ignore now, but I simply had to post this. He thinks a faulty view of inspiration is bad, but seems to think a faulty view of how to get saved is okay. Plus, he never answered my substantive reply to his OP, but preferred to get all hot and bothered that I thought his source might be a heretic, calling it a "vicious smear" even though I did not accuse but only brought up the subject.

Okay. carry on.

 

[timtofly]

You missed the point. The Bible inerrantly quoted the disciples as saying that the candidates should be full of the Holy Spirit. What the Bible did not say is that all of the candidates were actually filled with the Spirit. The disciples could have been wrong about that as some were wrong about things elsewhere in Acts. The only one specifically said by the Bible to be actually filled with the Spirit was Philip (v. 5).

It is entirely possible to deceive people as to whether one is filled with the Spirit or not. Many Charismatics do this--claim the filling but then preach heresy.


Sure, he could have been wrong. But he said what he did, and that is external proof for a post AD 70 writing of Revelation, something you said you did not know existed. You have not proven that he was wrong, merely said he could be.

Don't forget Stephen.

 

[timtofly]

There are no Scriptural references for the length of the "thousand years", but there is the indication at the beginning of Revelation that this book conveys truths through symbols.

The symbolic form of 1000 years is the Lord's Day. Since John did not use the phrase Lord's Day in Revelation 20, 6 times, but the term 1000, it is safe to say 1000 was not intended as a symbolic term in this case.

Now one can argue was John caught up by the Spirit during this 1000 years, as he used the symbolic phrase Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10. If you think that was just symbolic of the first day of the week, then 1000 can only be symbolic of 1000, because there is no indication that what he witnessed was not literal events. He only used symbolic terms for what the literal events were. If you saw the history of 1000 years unfold, what symbolic term would you use that would explain a literal 1000 years, other than the word 1000 which is what John literally saw.

So you accept John was only writing his thoughts with symbols? He was not seeing symbols in his head? He witnessed literal events, but only wrote them down using symbolism? Because one does not have to use symbols for everything. When people were killed, they were literally killed. That does not need symbolism. When Jesus Christ was unsealing the literal Lamb's book of life, it was a literal book in heaven. The GWT is a literal Great White Throne. A literal God sits on that literal throne. Heaven and earth are literal places, not symbolic references to other places. The humans are literal humans. The dead are literally dead, not just symbolically dead. John does not symbolize every thing John witnessed. In fact John literally witnessed the actual events. In one place, he was literally writing things down, when the angel literally told him to stop literally writing. Would John use literal actions to symbolize a symbolic event? Highly unlikely, and it is highly unlikely 1000 is a symbolic term for some other time frame. There is already a symbolic way of saying 1000 years, and it is the Day of the Lord. A Day with the Lord is the symbolic way to state 1000 years.

 

[timtofly]

We do this by dying. Then we will see clearly.

You put 'Kingdom Theology' in quotes so I assume you are referring to one of several uses or misuses of the term. All I mean is that the Kingdom of Christ is now and it will never end.

Had the kingdom already started before John was on the isle of Patmos?

Why are there firstfruits written about for a future Millennial Kingdom? Why did John not just give us the firstfruits from when Jesus was back on earth in the late 20's? There are no new additions during this future 1000 year reign, other than by new human births. Right now physical death is the point we fully enter the Kingdom of Christ. On earth we are only aliens and Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Christ. One has to be born again, spiritually, not physically to enter the Kingdom of Christ. Why are we Ambassadors of heaven and not another current Nation? If we were actual citizens, it would be on earth, but we are citizens of Paradise, not earth. And being an Ambassador indicates the whole earth is not one nation controlled by Jesus Christ. Why would Christ have Ambassadors in His own kingdom, which also entails many separate Nations, not one single Kingdom?

 

[timtofly]

Surely you recognize that there are signs and symbols in this book? Or do we imagine, for instance, a giant angel with giant legs, one on land the other sea? Numbers can be symbols too. Otherwise we have the cattle of Hill #1001 owned by someone other than God. Please consider that the thousand of Revelation is also symbolic.

So does the book have symbols about literal events? Or did John put literal words in describing symbolic scenes? Either way, 1000 is still 1000. John either literally saw this 1000 years, and for lack of better symbolism put 1000 years, exactly as he saw that 1000 years, or John saw a symbol, and still declared 1000 years, instead of the symbolism.

If John saw 1000 years in some symbolic form, ie a picture, he did not give us that picture or symbol. He still went with 1000 years, instead of some obscure symbolism. We already have the symbolism of the Day of the Lord equating to 1000 years. Do we need another added form of symbolism? Why write an exact amount, as a form of symbolism for anything? That is as misleading as claiming Satan did not show up at Armageddon, thus Armageddon was not when Satan was bound and placed in the pit.

 

[timtofly]

Interesting site that you linked. I made a bookmark of it.

But, no, your late-dating of Revelation is questionable. But the proof for that is not found in the WCF, what they said or did not say. The real proof is in the Book of Revelation itself, that it was a vindication and encouragement for the saints of that age and a judgment against the enemies of God. And that enemy was not Imperial Rome, or some future Rome, but apostate Israel. Any unbiased reading of Revelation - providing the reader has a good backing in the OT and its connection with the New - should show that the historical judgment here was against covenant-breaking Israel.

There is also much here about future personal reward and punishment for saints and sinners, respectively, of all ages. But to miss the cardinal point that the bad guys here are apostate Israel of the first century leads to a whole domino line of error after error.

The Reformers, being hounded by the Romanists, naturally were quite to see Rome as the enemies here. Many Christians, whether or not they are convinced that Rome is the Beast, dont even think of seeing Revelation as referring to Israel.

But there is plenty of proof of this in Scripture. Maybe I should have started with this as the OP.

This may have been true 100 years ago. But after 1948 we now have another apostate sovereign nation of Israel. While they currently do not martyr Christians at a tribulation level, there is still going to be a similar tribulation period that resembles Revelation even closer than 1st century Judaea. Is Jerusalem still not the same Jerusalem that Jesus wept over? Not the same Jerusalem that killed the prophets? None of those facts have changed locality. Israel is even more "in bed" with pagan governments than even before. What is even more fantastic, is they have set up and ready to go, the exact same religious system as did the first century Jerusalem. That does not mean God is going to implement man's choice of worship, but it is the same "lack of God" form of religion Revelation talks about.

The biggest differences is Revelation does not obliterate Jerusalem in the process, but actually extends control for 1000 years. In the first century, Jerusalem was obliterated, and desolate for centuries. Revelation 20 does not resemble the aftermath of 70AD at all. That is why some must symbolize the chapter to make it fit the last 1900 years.

 

[timtofly]

A faulty view of inspiration is a major issue. This would cloud all their views on any biblical matter. They certainly would not be worthwhile judges of internal evidences from the Bible. At any rate I will leave it at that.

Neither would most sources of the first and second century on those grounds. All had some issues or another, except perhaps Justin Martyr.

 

[agedman]

One point the Revelation does destroy is any corporate election which is tied into prevenient grace thinking.

In my opinion, I find it fascinating to consider the 120,000 Jewish evangelicals are possibly already born and serving time learning at the feet of unbelieving rabbis sort of like Saul did as he grew and went to a famous school taught by Gamaliel.

However, the Lord may not return for another 1000 years.

 

[timtofly]

One point the Revelation does destroy is any corporate election which is tied into prevenient grace thinking.

In my opinion, I find it fascinating to consider the 120,000 Jewish evangelicals are possibly already born and serving time learning at the feet of unbelieving rabbis sort of like Saul did as he grew and went to a famous school taught by Gamaliel.

However, the Lord may not return for another 1000 years.

Amil and postmil have had 2 millennia. Now the pre-mill will have theirs.