One clue to the date of Revelation

[Grasshopper]

If this is indicative of preterist ideas...I will have nothing to do with them.

Then you better send back your Gentry book.

 

[saturneptune]

There is not a single person in history that fills all the predictions of both Daniel and Paul regarding the man of sin/son of perdition/antichrist.

Not only that, if you look by the Copyright, it clearly states First Printing 96 AD.

 

[Grasshopper]

Not only that, if you look by the Copyright, it clearly states First Printing 96 AD.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Continue your discussion as you like. I found very little of use here.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In reading some commentary on Revelation, I found it noted concerning the events during the time of the writing of the book of Revelation that is very revealing.

The two dates proposed, again, are 68AD or 95-98AD being the either the early or late date of the book. If early, then the persecution at the time would have been perpetrated by Nero such that John's exile would have been carried out under Nero.

As best as I can tell by the histories available on this persecution, it was limited to Rome and the nearby region. We know that the book of revelation was written to 7 churches. Looking at a map of the location of the seven churches, as well as the island of Patmos in relation to Rome is revealing.

It is rather odd that a persecution focused on the Christians of Rome that somewhere Nero would reach accross the sea to imprison and condemn John. However, the persecution under Domitian which was empire wide and far reaching corresponds to John's excile.

Of course, this agrees with Irenaeus also and makes far more sense.

These evidences certainly weigh in the favor of the later date of the book.

 

[Humblesmith]

The best work I've seen in attempting to date Revelation (and all the other NT books) is Introduction to the New Testament by D. Edmond Heibert. I found his work to be most helpful. He goes through all the internal and external evidence and presents a balanced view. This is the best treatment that I've found, and he goes through all the major lines of reasoning.

 

[Robert Snow]

In reading some commentary on Revelation, I found it noted concerning the events during the time of the writing of the book of Revelation that is very revealing.

The two dates proposed, again, are 68AD or 95-98AD being the either the early or late date of the book. If early, then the persecution at the time would have been perpetrated by Nero such that John's exile would have been carried out under Nero.

As best as I can tell by the histories available on this persecution, it was limited to Rome and the nearby region. We know that the book of revelation was written to 7 churches. Looking at a map of the location of the seven churches, as well as the island of Patmos in relation to Rome is revealing.

It is rather odd that a persecution focused on the Christians of Rome that somewhere Nero would reach accross the sea to imprison and condemn John. However, the persecution under Domitian which was empire wide and far reaching corresponds to John's excile.

Of course, this agrees with Irenaeus also and makes far more sense.

These evidences certainly weigh in the favor of the later date of the book.

You should be happy. It appears you have found what you wanted to find.

 

[Pilgrimer]

There is not a single person in history that fills all the predictions of both Daniel and Paul regarding the man of sin/son of perdition/antichrist.

That is true, but only because this was not a prophecy about a single person but rather about a type of person, in the same way that the term "man of God" refers not to a single person but rather a type of person.

Read all of 2 Thessalonians and notice that the "Wicked" the Scripture says the Lord will destroy with the brightness of his coming, that "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

The "man of sin" is contrasted to the "man of god" as Paul goes on to say "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you ..." Paul clearly makes a contrast between the "man of sin" who had rejected the Gospel and would be destroyed and damned, and the "brethren of the Lord" who had believed the Gospel and been saved.

And John teaches us exactly who the "anti-christ" is in four different places in his epistles and he expressly states that "anyone who denies the father and the son is anti-christ" and he further states that the spirit of anti-christ, which they had heard would come, was already present in the world.

Historically speaking, the "anti-christs" were those non-Christian Jews who denied that Jesus is the Christ, who refused to believe the truth of the Gospel and were given over by God to a strong delusion that led them to revolt against Rome and bring upon themselves a terrible destruction and damnation. Anyone who was thus deceived was a "son of perdition" whereas a remnant of Jews who believed the Gospel were saved and became a "son of God."

And all the little jots and tittles of what these godless men would do was in fact fulfilled during that very generation which saw the coming of Jesus, even down to one of the Zealot leaders donning the royal robes and marching through the streets of Jerusalem up to the Temple and taking a seat in the very inner court of the sanctuary itself and claiming he was the Messiah while his army set up camp within the holy courts. They even struck coins to commemorate the "deliverance of Jerusalem." But their godless overthrow of everything that was good and holy did not last long, they met their end in a bloody fire that consumed them down to the last man.

 

[Pilgrimer]

In reading some commentary on Revelation, I found it noted concerning the events during the time of the writing of the book of Revelation that is very revealing.

The two dates proposed, again, are 68AD or 95-98AD being the either the early or late date of the book. If early, then the persecution at the time would have been perpetrated by Nero such that John's exile would have been carried out under Nero.

As best as I can tell by the histories available on this persecution, it was limited to Rome and the nearby region. We know that the book of revelation was written to 7 churches. Looking at a map of the location of the seven churches, as well as the island of Patmos in relation to Rome is revealing.

It is rather odd that a persecution focused on the Christians of Rome that somewhere Nero would reach accross the sea to imprison and condemn John. However, the persecution under Domitian which was empire wide and far reaching corresponds to John's excile.

Of course, this agrees with Irenaeus also and makes far more sense.

These evidences certainly weigh in the favor of the later date of the book.

The Roman persecutions of the first century were never limited only to Rome but were enforced throughout the Roman Empire. Nero was actually a latter player, it was in fact Emperor Caligula who first elevated himself to the status of divine, which beforehand had only been attributed to emperors after their demise. But Caligula was totally insane and it was he who ordered that a statue of himself be made and placed in every temple and place of worship throughout the Roman Empire so that he would receive the worship he felt he was due. When the Jews refused, Caligula sent an army with instructions that they were to place his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem, by force if necessary, and if the Jews would not permit it, they were to be slaughtered.

The time had not yet come however, and God intervened, and Caligula died without that order being carried out, so Jerusalem was spared for the time being. But her end was sure, and it came at exactly the moment of God's choosing.

But as for dating the Revelation, the only internal evidence that is conclusive is that the Revelation was written before the destruction of the Temple which occured in 70 A.D., in the "midst" of the 7-year Roman/Jewish war. That destruction is chronicled in detail in the Revelation, even down to naming the siege engines that were used (Roman "scorpione") that were rear-mounted quick-firers (with stingers "in their tails"). They "tormented" those men who "had not the seal of God in their foreheads" (the unsaved Jews) and that torment lasted for 5 months, from the beginnig of the siege at Passover until the city and sanctuary were destroyed in August, just as the Revelation foretold (chapter 9) in the description of the battle which destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel and brought the Old Covenant to an end.

All of which serves to prove that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

While some brothers on this board have sought to accuse me of ill-intent, may God judge, I have had no care for either an early or late date of the book.

It is, as it seems to me, the comments on this board come from those who have settled their view already on the book. I have not. There are certain things concerning it that seem to make sense to me, and perhaps in that way make it lean in one direction or another.

But as to a settle eschatological view, I have none. Therefore, whether the book was written in 68AD or 95-96AD, matters nothing to me. I have looked at the different viewpoints, to those advocating an early date..even the preterists, which I consider false, but their dating of the book makes no difference, and the traditional and historical view of 95-96AD.

You may consider me a weak brother, but I am not one who will quickly depart from views so long held by bible-believers, and especially when ancient testimony agrees with them.

This does not mean that they could not be wrong, but if there is a bias in my heart, then its that I prefer to stand on the shoulder of giants.

The testimony of the people God from the 2nd century until the 19th century, concluded in the main of the later date. The evidences they presented..internal, external, and circumstantial, all lead one to the conclusion of a later date, or the 96ADish date.

So, I am ready, and have moved on to study this great prophecy..written by the Apostle John.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

One thing I missed in my study of the preterists, or partial-preterists, and I will seek to look it up, but who do they in the main asribe the authorship of Revelation to?