Dating of Revelation

[InevitablyReformed]

What are some specific, exegetical consequences of holding to a pre-67 AD dating of Revelation? Or, what changes about how one sees the primary purpose or message of the book?

I have read some Ken Gentry (early date) and my wife and I are going through Vern Poythress' short commentary on Revelation (prefers the late date though he sees evidences of an early date). My pastor is also preaching through Revelation (the sermons are wonderful) and he also holds to a late date.

I hope this question is not overly vague. I simply have not studied this portion of Scripture very closely (yet).

Thanks.

 

[Herald]

I can't answer with certainty, but two it is my understanding that an early dating of Revelation argues from an amil/post-mil eschatology and a later dating for a pre-mil view. I know it's not as simple as that, but I'm not sure how the dating effects exegesis beyond eschatology.

 

[Hilasmos]

An exegetical consequence of holding to late date is that you can't also hold to a preterist view of Revelation, in part, applying to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry's eschatological view is contingent upon this, at least for Revelation.

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 10:15:55 EST-----

From my knowledge being amill/postmill is not necessarily affected by the dating. Rather, the nuance of those positions is, preterist or idealist etc...Feasibly, I think, one could be an amill idealist, like Dennis Johnson, regardless of the dating of Revelation.

 

[shackleton]

An early date has a lot to do with it pertaining mostly to the Jews and punishing them with the destruction of the temple. Also taking into account hermeneutics, what would it have meant to the original audience? Late daters tend to try and make Revelation meaningful for all readers for all time and I don't think that is why it was written. Historical and cultural context must be taken into account.

Gary DeMarr is good to he comes out and says a lot of things that Gentry only hints at.

 

[Wannabee]

Much of the evidence supporting a late date has to do with the state of the seven churches. Particularly Ephesus seems to have changed too dramatically to have taken place in only a few years, though all the churches seem advanced.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

As mentioned above, the primary issue is related to the destruction of the Temple, etc. in AD 70. Was this event still future to John at his writing? Or, was this event already past history and known to John?

If a late date (of around AD 90) is assumed, then the destruction in AD 70 cannot be part of John's future vision.

 

[Wannabee]

This is very interesting, because it seems that one's understanding of the purpose of Revelation often drives their understanding of the timing rather than relying on internal evidence. Internal evidence CAN BE construed to point to the future destruction of Jerusalem. The challenge lies in discerning whether it does or not. Looking to original readers is difficult because their understanding would differ depending upon whether it was written pre or post 70.
When was John on Patmos?
What was the condition of each of these churches before 70ad? After?
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea
Did the Nicolaitans even arise before 70ad? (there is much debate as to who they are)
If before 70, why isn't Jerusalem mentioned? New Jerusalem is though.
Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?
A later date seems to answer these questions best.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?

argument from silence.
What we do know is that the temple at jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.

 

[Hilasmos]

Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?

argument from silence.
What we do know is that the temple at Jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.

This assumes, however, that the apocalyptic must be talking about the physical earthly temple and not the saints, the new temple in Christ.

 

[Poimen]

The temple 'stands' in Ezekiel too, as well as being measured, described etc. (Ezekiel 41ff.) but was definitely not in existence at this point in Jerusalem.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Appreciate the answers so far.

It seems to me that if Rev. was written before 70 and it is PRIMARILY about the destruction of Jerusalem, then the idealist perspective is relegated to the periphery and is only useful in the same way that many evangelicals use the OT for "moral lessons" but has no relevance as far as God is actually speaking to us.

Thoughts?

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 04:01:07 EST-----

An exegetical consequence of holding to late date is that you can't also hold to a preterist view of Revelation, in part, applying to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry's eschatological view is contingent upon this, at least for Revelation.

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 10:15:55 EST-----

From my knowledge being amill/postmill is not necessarily affected by the dating. Rather, the nuance of those positions is, preterist or idealist etc...Feasibly, I think, one could be an amill idealist, like Dennis Johnson, regardless of the dating of Revelation.

Could John be merely referencing the destruction of the temple as he wrote in 90 AD? In other words, just because it is a late date, does that have to mean that the destruction of the temple has no significance for Rev. or our understanding of it?

 

[Wannabee]

Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?

argument from silence.
What we do know is that the temple at jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.

It's not really an argument, so much as an observation. It carries a measure of weight, though not as powerful as if he had mentioned them as alive or dead. The temple issue is addressed above, which does not necessitate Jerusalem pre 70AD. That is an exegetical leap.
My comments obviously reveal my position. But the list was merely meant to offer challenges to how we approach it more than offer any sort of argument. All of the questions, and many more, need to be dealt with as clearly and honestly as possible in order to come to a firm decision. Anything less is merely speculation... or imposition.

 

[Hilasmos]

Appreciate the answers so far.

It seems to me that if Rev. was written before 70 and it is PRIMARILY about the destruction of Jerusalem, then the idealist perspective is relegated to the periphery and is only useful in the same way that many evangelicals use the OT for "moral lessons" but has no relevance as far as God is actually speaking to us.

Thoughts?

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 04:01:07 EST-----

An exegetical consequence of holding to late date is that you can't also hold to a preterist view of Revelation, in part, applying to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry's eschatological view is contingent upon this, at least for Revelation.

-----Added 12/30/2008 at 10:15:55 EST-----

From my knowledge being amill/postmill is not necessarily affected by the dating. Rather, the nuance of those positions is, preterist or idealist etc...Feasibly, I think, one could be an amill idealist, like Dennis Johnson, regardless of the dating of Revelation.

Could John be merely referencing the destruction of the temple as he wrote in 90 AD? In other words, just because it is a late date, does that have to mean that the destruction of the temple has no significance for Rev. or our understanding of it?

I'm not sure I completely follow your first paragraph and why the idealist would become periphery.

If you take the idealist approach the destruction in A.D. 70 would have extreme relevance, especially to the 1st century readers. I do think John makes reference to Nero with the 666.

The key, i think, is that in the idealist approach of Revelation John is revealing the nature of the persecutions the church will face and yet it isn't limited to just one "destruction" but pictures what will take place throughout the millenial age. That is why part of the temple was measured out, signifying that the the church will never be morally corrupted, but the outer parts of the temple are unmeasured, the gentiles, the beast(s) and dragon, will have dominion to persecute us and trample us under foot.

But, as the theme of the book & irony pervades, our physical destruction is really our victory.

 

[timmopussycat]

Much of the evidence supporting a late date has to do with the state of the seven churches. Particularly Ephesus seems to have changed too dramatically to have taken place in only a few years, though all the churches seem advanced.

It does not take long to change a doctrinally sound and vibrantly alive church to a doctrinally sound but spiritually cold church. I have seen the process play out in less than 4 years.

 

[Romans922]

One thing I know. If it is pre-70 AD, John was on Patmos for over 20 years. Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History shows that John was released between 96-98AD. I think most say it is highly unlikely that John would be on Patmos for longer than a few years. Sorry this is general, but I've lost my notes on this. Maybe someone else could help me.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[shackleton]

Early dating usually takes into account the writings of Josephus and how it parallels much of what happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Late dating mostly comes from a sentence by Ireneus that says something along the lines of, "John was seen, the writer of revelation, still alive at the time of Domitian" or "The revelation that was seen at the time of Domitian," which ever way it is read determines when it was written.

Before this century plenty of legitimate bible scholars believed in an early date I personally think that a late date has much to do with the influence of Dispensationalism.

 

[Zenas]

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.

Good one.

 

[PresbyDane]

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Tuesday before last I was able to go hear Dr. Ken Gentry speak on Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. And in case any of you are interested, I'm putting a couple of links below to the recording that I made. The quality is not the best so I edited the file to make it louder and tried to filter out some of the noise.

This link should stream the mp3 file to you computer's media application:

http://www.thebiblealone.com/audio/Gentry.m3u

You can right-click this link and save the mp3 to your hard drive, if you wish:

http://www.thebiblealone.com/audio/BJF-Gentry.mp3


The lecture is just under an hour in length and worth your time, in my opinion. He argues primarily from internal evidences and secondarily from outside evidences.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Why aren't any existing apostles mentioned?

argument from silence.
What we do know is that the temple at Jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.

This assumes, however, that the apocalyptic must be talking about the physical earthly temple and not the saints, the new temple in Christ.

Trodden down by the gentiles could never refer to a spiritual temple. This specific passage about measuring the temple goes back to Ezekiel and the Olivet Discourse. In both cases it refers to a physical temple.

 

[Hilasmos]

argument from silence.
What we do know is that the temple at Jerusalem still stands in the Book of Revelation. John was told to measure the Temple. And John does mention Jerusalem as, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

The dating of the Book of Revelation cannot be Post A.D 70 in light of these evidences.

This assumes, however, that the apocalyptic must be talking about the physical earthly temple and not the saints, the new temple in Christ.

Trodden down by the gentiles could never refer to a spiritual temple. This specific passage about measuring the temple goes back to Ezekiel and the Olivet Discourse. In both cases it refers to a physical temple.

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).

Revelation 13:6: And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

 

[Pergamum]

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.

Good one.

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

You have to believe a pre 70 AD destruction of the temple if you are a preterist. You don't if you are historicist.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I'd never date anyone named Revelation.

Good one.

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

Another good one.

 

[Kevin]

See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.

Craig Evans is working on a book that will place the date of all(?) of the NT before 70 AD.

At a seminar I attended this year he argued that we are too late by at least a decade on most of out "traditional" dating of the NT.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

See Colin Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches, Greg Beale's commentary on the Revelation, see Chuck Hill's essays responding the preterists. The best work dates the apocalypse c. 93-94 AD.

Craig Evans is working on a book that will place the date of all(?) of the NT before 70 AD.

At a seminar I attended this year he argued that we are too late by at least a decade on most of out "traditional" dating of the NT.

What are some of his arguments?

 

[Kevin]

In the seminar he was debunking some of the "Jesus Seminar" style of criticism of the gospel record by demonstrating that most of their arguments depend on a set of assumptions about the dating & composition of the NT documents.

In his presentation he set out a chronology of probable composition dates for the four gospels that was substantially earlier (10+) years, then is usually assumed. His point was that these dates have primarily tradition on their side, and do not have strongly reasoned textual, linguistic, or historical arguments.

Over lunch I asked him of his view of Gentry in particular, and the other dating issues of the rest of the NT. Specificly if he thought that the view that all of the NT was written before the fall of Jerusalem had merit.

He said that he was working on a book on this subject & he thought that it was extremely likely that all of the NT was written before 70 AD. Given the nature of the conversation & the fact that I (and others) had questions about so many other issues, I did not quiz him as to his reasons.

I am waiting for the book.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

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.