When was Revelation writen?

__________________
~~[[[___@_])
Josh Walker
Redeemer, PCA (Jackson, MS)
Reformed Theological Seminary, Student (Jackson, MS)


The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Now there's a much contested question.

Those of the preterist ilk will say somewhere around 60-66AD (during Nero's reign), most other conservative scholars would say somewhere around 90AD (during Domitian's reign). Liberals and "higher" critical heretics oops! I mean scholars...well...who cares.

__________________
Christopher
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
Ecclesiastes (12:13)
Church Affiliation: Faith Presbyterian OPC

B.O.

Before Olaf

i.e. before I was born which would now the date be A.O.B. after olfs birth the year 22 abo

blade

__________________
Nathan Olaf Brandal
First Baptist Church of Kirkland

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
GEORGE WHITEFIELD TO JOHN WESLEY

My Blog

Yes, it is all going to depend on your presupposition, for the most part, on the nature and fulfillment of those events. Personally, I would date it around ad 67, but, to be honest, aside from pointing you to certain books and articles saying why they believe it is that way, I can't mount much of a case. I basically see Revelation as John's "Olivet Discourse", and I see the "Olivet Discourse" being fulfilled in with the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70, etc., so I conclude that it was written prior to ad 70.

Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" is one of the best on this issue, and an older version can be found at freebooks.com There is an article by Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb057.htm Carl Bogue, a PCA minister in Akron, OH (I attend his church when I visit family in Ohio) has an article as well: http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/othe...ationdate.html

I'm sure there are many more, but that's the basics.

openairboy

What date do Amills give it and Premills?

The reason preterists argue Revelation was written pre-70AD is because it doesn't mention the temple being destroyed right? But here's a thought. Why would John care to mention the temple if it had already lost any significance after Christ's death and resurrection? Even in the gospel of John, he shifts the focus off the temple to Jesus (i.e. "destroy this temple in three days...."). Point being, even the preterist interpretation of Revelation would not necessarily have to put the date before 70AD would it?

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

90-100 AD...

Usual Amil position...

But, really, no one knows...

__________________
Michael Gridley
Presbyterian in non-communicant attendance at St. Thomas Lutheran (LCMS),
Eastpointe, MI

I guess I don't think John was told to measure the actual temple, but one he saw in his vision. The same with Ezekiel.

Does anyone know when John was Exiled? Isn't that when the Revelation was written?

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

That's what were dscussing about actually. John was supposedly exiled around 90Ad under Dominitan. But teh preterist argument would have the writing of Revelation before that time of exile sometime around 70 AD.

Again, if John is not seeing the literal temple but what the temple in his vision represents, then John is arguing that something else will be trampled, not the literal temple. It would seem to me that the temple is more a picture of the church, the dwelling place of God now, and that this trampling may be a future or recurring theme in the life of the church. Either way, if the temple had lost it's significance to the Christians, then it wouldn't matter what the Romans did to the literal temple since it was a discarded relic of past shadows. Just some exploratory thoughts here...

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by puritansailor]

***He is told to go measure the temple, which implies, that it is still there to measure***

The temple is God's spiritual duelling,the church.1 Cor.3:16, 2 Cor.6:16.The death and resurrection brought an end to the temple.There was no longer the need to sacrifice anymore, for Jesus had done it once and for all.
The new Jerusalem has no temple, for the Lord and the Lamb are the temple. Rev.21:22.
Measuring 's purpose was to separate the true believers from the hypocrites(the outer court),the professors from the possesors.It has nothing to do with a literal building,but with the church.
andreas.

__________________
andreas; By the grace of God,a Christian .

[font=symbol]
ean gar kai poreuqw en mesw skias qanatou ou fobhqhsomai kaka oti su met¢ emou ei h rabdos sou kai h bakthria sou autai me parekalesan [/font]
Psalm 23:4

You can be a good Preterist and still take the late view of Revelation if you hold to the recapitulation view. Nothing is lost on that view because it doesn't contradict a Preterist understanding of Matthew 24 or any of the other prophecies in the NT.

I like the recapitulation view myself.

I agree with openairboy, Ken Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell is the best I have found for being a proponent of the pre AD 70 date for Revelation. It covers so much on both internal and external evidence. If you can buy or download this, it will help you to understand why full/partial preterists see an early date.

__________________
Anthony Beadles
Christ The King Presbyterian
Clearwater, Florida

This is interesting. Had't thought about it too much lately. I did at one time, but did not get into it too far, since most of it appeared to be speculative at best.

What about John's exile? Did that happen late or not late? Was it during Domitian's rule or not?

It seems that some would put the writing of John's epistles after Revelation as well, then, doesn't it? And some would put them before? Is there evidence in that respect, comparing them?

Is there such a thing as dating Revelation without the predisposed views being in control of the verdict? Can we date it before we take on an eschatological view, just from a historical viewpoint?

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

If the one side is a wash, how do you know the other side isn't a wash as well? The thing is, Revelation was written in the exact year that it was written, not later, not sooner. And neither your view nor anyone else's can change that. The question is, when is that year? Until then it is more than just tenuous to place one's certainty on things which are not certain.

Paul:

I'm sorry about appearing divisive. I didn't mean it that way, but that's no excuse. I was pointing out that it appears backwards to me to pin views on speculative dates of the writing of Revelation. Pre or Post A.D. 70 does indeed make a difference. But either way, our views should not be the determining factors for dating it. Is there any direct historical evidence which may help, if the exile cannot be dated to Domitian's rule?

The possibilites regarding either view, though, are interesting all the same.

Seriously why would John not even MENTION the destruction of Jerusalem?

:bigsmile:

Yeah for me that alone is a glaring fact in favor of my personal preterist convictions.

"Why would NO NEW TESTAMENT WRITER not even MENTION the destruction of Jerusalem?"

At least, not as a past event. I'm sure you would agree that they frequently mention it as a coming event.

__________________
M. Walker
Elder, Emmanuel Community Church
Arvada, Colorado

So when was John Exiled? Is there no conclusive evidence? Are the partial preterist limited to a date before 70 A.D.? Just learning, R. Martin Snyder

There are other factors to consider besides the reference to a temple in Revelation:

1) Have you ever noticed that the Synoptic Gospels all record the prophecy made by our Lord of the destruction of Jesusalem except John's Gospel? My point is that Revelation appears to be the prophecy in symbolic form.

2) There are many other factors (internal) that do seem to point to an early date. For example, the ruler referred to as "666". A variant Greek manuscript has "616" as the number of the ruler. One pairs with the Hebrew language calculation of Nero and other with the Greek calculation. This throws more light on the dating issue.

3) Partial Preterism (not full preterism which, to me seems, heterodox) attempts to deal with the significance of the time statements of Christ's Olivet discourse. These issues bear directly on Christ's authority (as a true prophet).

Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell is a treasure that really needs to be examined closely.

__________________
Jim Kray, Grace Community Church-PCA, Holiday, FL

My "Part 3" says "heterodox". I think that means "heretical", at least if "orthodox" = "non-heretical". At an absolute minimum, hyper (or complete, or total, or radical) preterism falls outside the confessions and creedal statements.

for Gentry's book.
See also, Jay Adams, The Time Is At Hand, (P&R, 1976).

Let me argue rom a slightly different direction for the essential closing of the entire canon prior to the end of the OT age (the "last days") as it overlapped the innauguration of the NT age until AD 70.

In Luke 11:49-50 we read this: "Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation."

They being dead, still speak. God's Word cannot be silenced. Their testimony remained until Jesus spoke these words, and indeed still remains, bearing witness of the indestructibility of God's Word. All the Word, including the Word Himself, was to bear witness "against this generation." And I would argue that the commission of Jesus' testimony to writing necessarily falls under this comprehensive judgment of condemnation. No excuse--zero--must remain unto this generation, which nailed Christ to the cross, for failing to heed the call to repentance unto life.

Remember with what words Peter pleaded with his hearers on Pentecost, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation!" So, within that 40 year window, that God graciously gave (!) for repentance, I believe all the apostolic witness was committed to writing, to serve on the one side as a saving gospel call, and on the other as damning indictment for the "crime of the ages."

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --