Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[Josheb]

When I wrote before on a different website about the Rev. 20 millennium being fulfilled in the past, someone responded that a certain Catholic named Corsini had proposed the same thing. I was never able to locate that source, but it really doesn't bother me that neither you nor I have found any commentaries or scholars that state this. The book of Revelation's internal evidence proves the millennium had ended even before the time John was writing Revelation. All we have to do is compare two texts (Revelation 12:12 and Revelation 20:3 & 7) and the proof is there.




For point #3, that verse translates better as "the things which are about to take place hereafter..." And yes, that includes the "kings of the earth" as well as the kings of the "habitable world". These are not the same thing. The "kings of the earth" are the high priests of the land of Israel, as scripture describes them in both the OT and NT, while the "kings...of the whole world" concerned the known Roman world of the first century. In the Lamentations 4:12 verse you listed about "the kings of the earth" not believing that the enemy would enter Jerusalem, this was the high priests of Israel who did not believe that their own city Jerusalem would be taken by the enemy.

You have made the point that the verses such as Revelation 3:10 regarding an imminent judgment on the "world" (oikoumenes) should be part of the dating decision for Revelation. Yet the very intended purpose of an imminent judgment on the whole world stated in this verse was "to try them that dwell upon the earth (tes ges - the land of Israel)". In other words, a judgment on the whole known world in that first century was necessary in order to judge the people of Israel, who had synagogues and a presence "scattered abroad" all over the Roman empire at the time. A judgement of God's vengeance upon the Israelites of that generation would necessarily have had to encompass all the regions of the known world where Israelites had been scattered.

Plus, the "days of vengeance" for the Israelites betraying and murdering God's Son was a sin for which the Roman world also had shared a part of that guilt. When Christ stood before Pilate, He told him, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin..." This meant that judgment for Christ's death by Rome's authorization also fell in part upon the known world of that first century, even if the greater share of punishment fell upon Christ's own countrymen.

"His blood be on us and our children" was a self-imposed blood oath that confined God's "days of vengeance" only upon those who conspired to slay Him, and also upon their own children of that first-century generation. That "vengeance" did not extend to any other generation beyond that one. This confines the imminent disasters of Revelation to that particular first-century generation and no later than that.

Revelation written before AD 70 when the role of high priests still existed

The simple definition of what scripture calls the "kings of the earth" is extremely important in dating Revelation. Every prophecy in John's book which mentions these "kings of the earth" must refer to a time when that office was still in existence. This term "kings of the earth" does not refer to regular monarchs of empires or kingdoms. The "kings of the earth" was a title given all the way back in Psalms 2 to the high priests of the land of Israel. Those high priests were no longer being appointed in the years following the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. So the prophecies of Revelation which describe the activities of those "kings of the earth" must of necessity must have been speaking of times when high priests in Israel were still in existence to perform those activities.

Christ referred to those "kings of the earth" and their sons being exempt from paying the yearly Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-26. This referred to the high priests and their sons who were the beneficiaries of the Temple Tax, and who were "free" from paying that obligatory tax that the rest of the adult males in Israel were supposed to pay. This exemption dated all the way back to the days of Moses' tabernacle.

The prophet David predicted of Christ's death in Psalms 2:2-3 that the "kings of the earth" and the "rulers" of the Sanhedrin took counsel together against the Lord and His anointed, in order to cast away the cords of God's control over them. The high priests of the house of Annas and the Sanhedrin most definitely conspired together to put Christ to death, as the disciples knew very well had happened, and said so in Acts 4:24-29. Those "kings of the earth" high priests of the house of Annas were then threatening the disciples, in order to suppress the gospel message.

So.....

Am I to understand the post to say there is agreement: The Revelation mention of the oikoumenes in the seven letters and the "kings of the world," are scriptural references to scriptural conditions existing in the first century and thereby part of Revelation 1:19 that are not in the far, far distant 21st century? Am I correct in understanding there is agreement those first century conditions help date the book of Revelation because they are pre-70 AD conditions and not circa 90-95 AD conditions (the Old Testament conditions and entrance of the enemy into Jerusalem had occurred prior to 70 AD, discontinued after 70 AD and did not exist by the early 90s).

 

[Mr GLee]

How does that help date Revelation?

No need. God's word is eternal.

 

[Josheb]

No need. God's word is eternal.

There is a need @Mr GLee

This forum expects topical discourse and sanctions digression (see Rule 3). This particular thread is about internal evidence for dating the book of Revelation and not any other aspect of eschatology. Please post accordingly.

 

[Mr GLee]

So.....

Am I to understand the post to say there is agreement: The Revelation mention of the oikoumenes in the seven letters and the "kings of the world," are scriptural references to scriptural conditions existing in the first century and thereby part of Revelation 1:19 that are not in the far, far distant 21st century? Am I correct in understanding there is agreement those first century conditions help date the book of Revelation because they are pre-70 AD conditions and not circa 90-95 AD conditions (the Old Testament conditions and entrance of the enemy into Jerusalem had occurred prior to 70 AD, discontinued after 70 AD and did not exist by the early 90s).

Kings of the world represent the governments of men a hierarchy form of government "venerable men" lording it over the understanding (faith) of the "non-venerable" pew warmers.

When Jesus walked out of the temple made with human hands ni chapter 23 , he declared it (the abomination of desolation Kings in Israel desolate making that oral tradition of dying mankind to no effect immediately they are moved to a high mountain to represent all the kingdoms of the world destroying all kingdom of men when the veil was rent

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[Mr GLee]

There is a need @Mr GLee

This forum expects topical discourse and sanctions digression (see Rule 3). This particular thread is about internal evidence for dating the book of Revelation and not any other aspect of eschatology. Please post accordingly.

Sorry

 

[CrowCross]

????

What is plainly stated is not seen?

The angel appeared to Daniel.

Daniel 9:21 states, "while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering."​

Gabriel came to Daniel while Daniel was in prayer.

The angel appeared as an answer to Daniel's prayer in the first part of the chapter.

Daniel 9:4, 20-21 states, "I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, “Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments..................... Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering."​

Daniel's prayer starts at verse 4, in the early part of the chapter.

Daniel's prayer was the whole reason for the 70 weeks.

Daniel 9:22-24 states, "He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision. Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place."​

Gabriel tells Daniel the command was given at the beginning of Daniel's supplications because Daniel was highly esteemed.


In other words, @Marty's summary comes directly from what is explicitly stated in the text of scripture.

Sorry...still missed it. I'm not trying to be cute or contrary...but you haven't plainly presented it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And example of doing so would be my earlier look at Lamentations because it turns out the mention of "kings of the world" has a very specific meaning if Lamentations is the reference. It is specifically a mention of the kings not believing an enemy could enter Jerusalem - and nothing else!

So understanding the OT and earlier NT references in Revelation is absolutely necessary if a truly internal-evidence approach is to be taken.

And this op did NOT do that.

Josheb, I am certainly not through with looking into Revelation's own language compared with other scripture to prove an AD 60 date. The Lamentations 4:12 message about the "kings of the earth" not believing that the enemy could enter Jerusalem was NOT the "kings of the world". Those "kings of the earth" were the high priests of the land of Israel who couldn't believe that their own city Jerusalem's gates could be entered by the enemy.

These "kings of the earth" and the kings of the "whole habitable world" are listed totally separate in Revelation 16:14. Those three unclean spirits of devils which emerged from the mouth of the dragon Satan, and the Roman phase of the Sea Beast, and the false prophet Judean Land Beast would then "go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." This was widespread deception in both Israel and the Roman world - both of which had "kings" of different sorts. The land of Israel had high priest "kings", and the Roman world had emperor "kings". All of these were affected by those unclean spirits of Revelation 16:13-14 in those first-century days, persuading them to be gathered together for battle with each other.

That means that this battle where the opposing combatants of the deluded "kings of the earth" along with the "kings... of the whole world" being gathered together at Armageddon MUST have taken place while there were still high priest "kings of the earth" around to do battle. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a great theologian to realize that there have been no high priest "kings of the earth" appointed since the AD 70 era. Revelation's prophecies about those high priest "kings of the earth" activities were related to pre-AD 70 realities - not post-AD 70 realities.

Is it your plan to review the entire book here in the thread?

I'm reviewing the time-relevant things in Revelation itself compared to other scriptures that have a bearing on the early date (specifically AD 60 in several cases) in opposition to the late date. None of the internal evidence in Revelation itself indicates a post-AD 70 composition.

Tomorrow I will cover the 666 calculated number which John gave, which points directly to an AD 60 date of composition after comparing that 666 number with Daniel's visions. I have posted about the meaning of this number before here in the Eschatology section, but it is relevant to Revelation's composition date, and bears repeating here in this post also.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So.....

Am I to understand the post to say there is agreement: The Revelation mention of the oikoumenes in the seven letters and the "kings of the world," are scriptural references to scriptural conditions existing in the first century and thereby part of Revelation 1:19 that are not in the far, far distant 21st century? Am I correct in understanding there is agreement those first century conditions help date the book of Revelation because they are pre-70 AD conditions and not circa 90-95 AD conditions (the Old Testament conditions and entrance of the enemy into Jerusalem had occurred prior to 70 AD, discontinued after 70 AD and did not exist by the early 90s).

Absolutely. Everything prophetic about the future that John was able to reveal was "at hand" for his own generation to experience. Only Revelation 10:4 was sealed up for times post-AD 70. All the rest has become ancient history by now.

 

[Rella]

Determining The Date Revelation's Authorship - Why it couldn't have been 95AD!

Tradition has up until recently regarded the date Revelation’s authorship to be around 95AD. This has been based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of one vague statement by the second century Church Father, Irenaeus.

www.andrewcorbett.net

Only part is posted here due to size. Refer to the link for the rest inclusive of THE ARGUMENTS FOR AN A.D. 95 AUTHORSHIP
and THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE A.D. 65 AUTHORSHIP ~ and don't miss the comments at the end.

Why it could not have been written in 95AD

DATING THE AUTHORSHIP OF REVELATION​

It would be remiss of any serious student of Revelation not to at least do a cursory examination of the historical context to which Revelation is back-dropped. The first point of reference would have to be to determine when Revelation was written. Most scholars regard there being only two possible dates. Dr. Leon Morris explores this adequately in his Tyndale Commentary series volume on Revelation, and I recommend that this widely available commentary be read. In the case of most books of the Bible, determining the date of its authorship, while certainly important, is not necessarily crucial to its interpretation. But this is absolutely not the case with the Book of Revelation. Some tradition has up until recent times regarded the date Revelation’s authorship to be around A.D. 95. This has been based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of one vague statement by the second century Church Father, Irenaeus and the assumption that Caesar Domitian oversaw a campaign of persecution against and martyrdom of Christians around A.D. 95. But the latest research shows that Domitian did not orchestrate such a campaign. This seriously depletes the argument that John wrote this Apocalypse in A.D. 95.

The doctoral work by Kenneth L. Gentry on dating Revelation has concluded that it must have been written in the “mid to late 60s” rather than in A.D. 95-

There are suggestive evidences within the book to date it in the mid – to late 60s of the first century. In fact, the evidence is persuasive enough that it convinced such notable scholars Moses Stuart, F. J. A. Hort, B. F. Westcott, and F. W. Farrar in the 19th century, and J. A. T. Robinson, R. A. Torrey, Albert A. Bell, C. F. D. Moule, and R.C. Sproul, in the 20th century.

Two leading indicators of the early date are: (1) The “temple” in the “holy city” is still standing as John writes, though it is being threatened with devastation (Rev. 11: 1-2). We know as a matter of historical fact that the Jewish temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, and has never been rebuilt. (2) The sixth “king” is presently ruling from the “seven mountains” and will do so until a king comes who will reign a “short time” (Rev. 17:9-10). The Preterist takes this to be a clear enough allusion to Nero Caesar. According to the enumeration found in Josephus’ Antiquities (18:2:2,6, 10) and Suetonius’ Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero is Rome’s sixth King, following Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius. The next reigning emperor, Galba, reigned just six months, the shortest reigning emperor until that time.

Sourced from- http://www.kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/apocalypse.htm
by Dr. Kenneth Gentry Jr.​

Full-Preterist, Don Preston, makes a similar point-

What is it Iranaeus [supposedly] said about the date of Revelation? Actually, Iranaeus did not discuss the dating of the book at all. The relevant quote is about the identity of the beast of Revelation and is found in the work of Eusebius, 4th century church historian, Book 5, chapter 8. Eusebius says Iranaeus speaks about John :“We, therefore, do not venture to affirm anything with certainty respecting the name of antichrist. For were it necessary that his name should be clearly announced to the present age, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it has not been long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, about the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Don K. Preston

 

[3 Resurrections]

For were it necessary that his name should be clearly announced to the present age, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it has not been long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, about the end of Domitian’s reign.

The problem with this statement by Irenaeus is in the underlined portion. The statement was "For ____ was seen no very long time since..." There is no "IT" there in Irenaeus's original statement. What was seen could have referred back to either the revelation or to the man John himself. The translator who translated Irenaeus's work decided to insert his own word choice in here on his own volition. It could just as easily have been JOHN who was seen not long since, but almost in Irenaeus's generation.

In fact, this is the most likely translation of Irenaeus's sentence (that it was JOHN who was seen "not long since") because Irenaeus in the very same quoted material refers to the "ancient copies" of the Apocalypse. If even the copies made of Revelation were called "ancient" by Irenaeus, then that goes totally against the way the Irenaeus quote was incorrectly translated. The original vision of Revelation could not possibly have been seen "not long since" if copies of that Revelation were being called "ancient" by Irenaeus.

Unfortunately, everyone jumped on the mistaken translation and repeated that presumption that Revelation was written close to Domitian's time. Almost all of them are basing their late-date view in large part on a single word that isn't even there in Irenaeus's original work.

 

[Josheb]

Kings of the world represent the governments of men a hierarchy form of government "venerable men" lording it over the understanding (faith) of the "non-venerable" pew warmers.

No it does not.

I provided everyone here with evidence showing John was quoting Jeremiah and what the mention of "the kings of the world" indicates. Why is that evidence now being ignored and something extra-biblical and baseless asserted?

When Jesus walked out of the temple made with human hands ni chapter 23 , he declared it (the abomination of desolation Kings in Israel desolate making that oral tradition of dying mankind to no effect immediately they are moved to a high mountain to represent all the kingdoms of the world destroying all kingdom of men when the veil was rent

Partly correct. The temple built by human hands was desolate and it was an abomination. God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. The entire artifice was an abomination of desolation. Jesus did not mention "that oral tradition of dying mankind," and there's no ned to add to the text things nowhere stated like moves and high mountains and kingdoms of the world. The only kingdom mentioned in Matthew 23 is the kingdom of heaven (vs.13) and "kingdoms of the world" is nowhere found in Matthew 24, either. The only kingdom that could remotely be viewed as global is the kingdom of the gospel and Paul tells us the gospel had been proclaimed throughout all of creation by the time he'd written the Colossians.

Colossians 1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

So..... There is a failure to attend to what was posted showing John was quoting Jeremiah and in place of ignoring what is plainly stated in Lamentations a multitude of assertions not found in scripture are asserted and none of it is brought to bear on the subject of dating Revelation from its own internal evidence.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

And when did that happen?

Is it part of the things John had seen, part of "the things which are," or part of "the things which will take place after these things"?

Scripture answers that question for us in many places, beginning with the fact Jesus is the logos of God that is God so there has never actually been a moment in creation, past, present, or future, when Jesus was not King. Throughout Acts and the epistolary we are told Jesus and Jesus alone is King, King of all kings, Lord of all Lords, the name far above all other rule and Peter makes it explicitly clear the throne promised David was the resurrection.

Acts 2:30-31 ESV
Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

David foresaw and spoke of the oath sworn by God that He would seat one of David's descendants on his throne. David foresaw and spoke of the resurrection, Jesus not being abandoned in Hades, and his flesh not seeing corruption. Because of that oath being fulfilled,

Acts 2:32-36
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Peter is quoting Psalm 110. Jesus will remain enthroned in heaven until his Father defeats all his enemies and he is NOW both Lord and Christ. He is King of all kings, Lord of all Lords, High Priest above all priesthoods, and the Messiah. Therefore, there is now only one King and his rule is global and not just global; it encompasses all creation. It is one of the things John had seen and is now (he was there at the crucifixion, and he saw the resurrected body, and the ascension.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

He did as he was instructed, and he wrote those things down.

 

[Josheb]

Sorry...still missed it. I'm not trying to be cute or contrary...but you haven't plainly presented it.

I have. What is plainly stated in scripture was quoted for all to read.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I am certainly not through with looking into Revelation's own language compared with other scripture to prove an AD 60 date. The Lamentations 4:12 message about the "kings of the earth" not believing that the enemy could enter Jerusalem was NOT the "kings of the world". Those "kings of the earth" were the high priests of the land of Israel who couldn't believe that their own city Jerusalem's gates could be entered by the enemy.

Do not just disagree. Show some evidence. Make a case. In order for that paragraph to have any veracity and validity you would need to show there is a difference between "earth" (Hebrew = "eres") and "world," (Gk. = "oikoumenes") that "kings of the earth" were priests, and (most importantly) John is not quoting Lamentations but is writing about something that is found elsewhere in scripture based first and foremost on his words. Start by showing other mentions of "kings of the world" in scripture. "Kings of the world," not "kingdoms of the world."

Do that now, please.

 

[Josheb]

Also, even from antiquity, the nation of Israel had been referred to as "a kingdom of priests". God had originally designed Israel's royalty to be in her high priesthood that wore the golden crown with "holiness to the Lord" engraved upon it - not in a regular monarchy such as the nations round about her typically had in power over their people.

With this understanding that scripture's "kings of the earth" were the high priesthood in Israel, we come and apply that to the text of Revelation 17.

This is incorrect.

God told those assembled in Joshua's day that He would make them a kingdom of priests. God did NOT state bloodline Israel, or geo-political nation-state Israel was that kingdom.

Exodus 19:3-7
Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him.

This is the only place in the entire Bible where the phrase "kingdom of priests" is mentioned. God did not state they were already a knigdom of priests. He stated they would be, not are.

Peter, writing in his second epistle identifies who it is God made the kingdom of priests.

1 Peter 2:4-10
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Old Testament informs the New Testament. The New Testament interprets the Old. God's mention of a kingdom of priests was prophetic and centuries later God revealed the identity of that kingdom of priests, the royal priests. At the beginning of his epistle Peter identified his audience, those who were the "you" in 1 Pet. 2:9, as "the elect," those who are "who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you." That would NOT be Jesus-denying Jews. Not all Israel is Israel.


So, NO, the "kings of the earth" is NOT "the high priesthood in Israel." If the New Testament mention of kings of the world is a reference to Lamentation's, then that mention has to do with the enemy entering the city (as specified in Lamentations). The Old Testament informs the New. Any attempt to identify the kings of the world as high priesthood in Israel fails because the New Testament explains the kingdom of priests God declared in Exodus 19 is the Church. The New Testament explains the Old.

 

[Josheb]

Absolutely. Everything prophetic about the future that John was able to reveal was "at hand" for his own generation to experience. Only Revelation 10:4 was sealed up for times post-AD 70. All the rest has become ancient history by now.

I agree. Partly.

I would leave out the word "only" because some of what was later written elsewhere in Revelation pertains to that which was not written down in the sealed prophecy. It is a mistake imo to assume that one verse is the ONLY place where Jesus mentioned content that was sealed and not written down.

But....

If I understand the point being made correctly, the point is that most of Revelation has already transpired and only that which pertains to the prophecy sealed in the vision where everything else remains unsealed because the time was near remains in our future. If I have that correct, then.....

How does that help us date Revelation using internal evidence (and not post hoc external appeals to extra-biblical secular history)?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Do not just disagree. Show some evidence. Make a case. In order for that paragraph to have any veracity and validity you would need to show there is a difference between "earth" (Hebrew = "eres") and "world," (Gk. = "oikoumenes") that "kings of the earth" were priests, and (most importantly) John is not quoting Lamentations but is writing about something that is found elsewhere in scripture based first and foremost on his words. Start by showing other mentions of "kings of the world" in scripture. "Kings of the world," not "kingdoms of the world."

Do that now, please.

If you are having difficulty seeing my point about the difference between "kings of the earth" and "kings of the world", I can spend some time on that subject, since identifying the "kings of the earth" is one of the critical points to understanding the date of Revelation's composition.

Lamentations 4:12 which you have highlighted for concern is part of Jeremiah's "funeral dirge" for the first death of Jerusalem. Jeremiah says in Lamentations 4:18, "...our days are fulfilled; for our end has come." The conditions endured in the first death of Jerusalem under the Babylonians in 586 BC were repeated in duplicate once more for John's mention of Jerusalem's "second death" under her Lake of Fire conditions in the AD 70 era. Most of Jeremiah's language in mourning Jerusalem's death in 586 BC is repeated by John for the horrific period which brought the death of Jerusalem again for a second time in AD 70.

Lamentations 4:12 says that "The kings of the earth (ges) believed not, neither all the inhabitants of the world (oikoumenes) that the adversary and the enemy should enter into the gates of Jerusalem." (ESV). This included both the high priest "kings" of the land of Israel and also the people of the nations of the known world. Both categories were incredulous that God had allowed His own city to be invaded and His own sanctuary to be torn down by the Babylonian army in judgment of His people.

This same incredulity is expressed in Isaiah 28:14-22. God had already decreed "a consumption upon the whole earth" (tes ges - the land of Israel) in judgment of His own people's disobedience and idolatry. The "scornful men that rule this people which is in Jerusalem" had said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." These scornful religious rulers in Jerusalem were mistaken in their utter confidence that God would not destroy them and bring Death and Hades (the grave) in judgment of Jerusalem.

God prophesied through Isaiah that these religious rulers' covenant with Death and with Hell (Hades - the grave) would be annulled, and that the city would be overcome by these judgments. For Jerusalem's first death, Death and Hell (Hades - the grave) came and overcame the city under the Babylonians. For Jerusalem's "second death", Death and Hell (Hades - the grave) were thrown into it once more in Revelation 20:14 culminating in the final Roman siege.

In that AD 70 era, the high priest "kings of the earth" were again equally incredulous that God would ever tear down their temple and burn their city to the ground. God sent them "strong delusion" that they should again believe this lie. Those few high priest "kings of the earth" in Revelation 18:9 would be observing Jerusalem's burning destruction from a distance, shocked that her destruction had only taken a brief "hour" to accomplish. The reaction of the religious leaders to Christ's parable of the King sending His armies to "burn up their city" and destroy those murderers in Matthew 22:7 was met with disbelief once again. They knew very well that Christ had told that parable against themselves, and they rejected His message of impending judgment on their nation.

The very reason why the high priest Caiaphas wanted to get rid of Christ was because he thought that Christ would start a rebellion which would "take away our place and our nation". It became a self-fulfilling prediction. By killing Christ and calling down a blood oath on their own heads and their children, these high priests only provided God a reason for bringing those "days of vengeance" upon them. These rulers in first-century Jerusalem did not learn from their own history, and so they were doomed to repeat it.

The "days of vengeance" were specifically targeted mainly to those in Judea and Jerusalem, when there would be "great distress in the land (tes ges) and wrath upon THIS PEOPLE" according to the context of Luke 21: 23. The major distress of these days of "Great Tribulation" would fall upon the ethnic people of Israel in Judea, though the rest of the known world would not be immune to the side effects of this period.

The title "Earth" or "Land" (ges) in scripture typically referred to the promised land for Israel, or the land of Canaan. To an ethnic Israelite, all else outside the borders of the land of Israel (tes ges) was considered to be connected with the sea - the Mediterranean Sea, with its connection to pagan nations and world empires. "Sea" (Gentile nations) and "Earth" or "Land" (Land of Israel) were set in opposition to each other in the Israelite mindset. John's language in Revelation reflects this Sea (Gentile) / Land (Israel) segregation - up to a point in Revelation 21:1 when John announces there is "no more sea". The separation of Gentile nations from Israelite tribal distinctions would be erased.

God actually addressed the land of Judah itself in Jeremiah 22:29 saying, "O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord..."
Another example is in Joel 2:21 when the Lord was going to be jealous in pity for His people and for "His land", saying, "Fear not O land; be glad and rejoice: "

So when scripture brings up a title of "kings of the earth" (tes ges), the mindset at the time John was writing was still considering a clear segregation between the kings of the known world under the Roman empire and the high priest "kings" of the land of Israel.

One example I gave was Christ's mention in Matthew 17:25 of the "kings of the earth" and their sons being "free" from paying the yearly Temple Tax. The high priesthood and its sons were exempt from having to pay this Temple Tax because they were the beneficiaries of it, even as far back as the tabernacle in the wilderness.

Another example I gave of the "kings of the earth" being the high priests of the land of Israel was the mention in Psalms 2:2 when the "kings of the earth" and the rulers would rise up and take counsel against the Lord and against His anointed, in an effort to "cast away their cords from us". This was fulfilled in the conspiracy of the high priests and the Sanhedrin rulers rising up together against Christ as well as the disciples. These high priest "kings of the earth" and all their kindred were the ones threatening the disciples in Acts 4:6 & 29.

Another example of the high priests being the "kings" in Israel was Hannah's song of praise in 1 Samuel 2:10 in the LXX. Hannah said that God "gives strength to our kings". This was said when Israel's first selected monarch King Saul had not even been born yet. So Hannah was referring to God giving strength to the high priests of Israel, who wore the golden crown with "holines to the Lord" engraved on it.

Israel was called "a kingdom of priests" because her royalty was originally based upon her high priesthood and not a regular monarch like all the other nations surrounding her.

Those high priesthood crowns were made to set on the head of the high priest Joshua the son of Josedech in Zechariah 6:11. A prophecy was made that the Branch would be a priest that would would sit and rule upon his throne.

There are other scriptures linking high priests with being "kings of the earth", so if you still have objections I could list some more.

And if there are "kingdoms of the world" mentioned in scripture, of necessity there are kings as regular monarchs that rule over those kingdoms.

 

[Rella]

Unfortunately, everyone jumped on the mistaken translation and repeated that presumption that Revelation was written close to Domitian's time. Almost all of them are basing their late-date view in large part on a single word that isn't even there in Irenaeus's original work.

Except this posting which starts out by saying

"Why it could not have been written in 95AD goes on with

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE A.D. 65 AUTHORSHIP

The external evidence for Revelation actually being written before A.D. 70 includes-

• A quote from Clement of Alexandria (150-220 AD) who plainly states that it was Nero who banished John to Patmos, not Emperor Domitian

And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant (previously identified as Nero) he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit.
(“Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?”, Section 42)

• Cerinthus was a first century A.D. author who wrote The Pseudo-Apocalypse. He died well before John, that is well before A.D. 95, but his Pseudo-Apocalypse contains many references to John’s Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation).
• The internal evidence supports a pre-A.D. 64 authorship. This includes-
  1. Rev. 11- John is told to measure the Temple which was impossible in A.D. 95 because it had been destroyed in A.D. 70
  2. Rev. 17- There are “seven kings, five have fallen, one now is.” Nero was the 6th Roman King the “one [who] now is”. He reigned until A.D. 68.

(AT THIS POINT I WILL NOT REFER YOU TO THE IMAGE SHOWING NERO = 666. It was too large to copy here, and no one will look so I wont bother)
But it reads thusly :

666. An ancient Hebrew or Aramaic spelling of "Nero Caesar" (although not the most common one), was "Nrwn Qsr" which can be enumerated as follows:

__= 50 __=200 __=6 __ = 50 __ =100 __=60 __ =200 thus: _______________ = 666

According to Stuart, Professor Benary of Berlin noted long ago that in the Talmud and other Rabbinical writings Nero was spelled thus. In fact " the secret [i.e., the Neronic identity of the referent of 666] has been almost simultaneously rediscovered of late years by Fritzsche in Halle
by Benary in Berlin www.AndrewCorbett.net

The expressions of nearness of the Lord’s coming within Revelation indicate that something was about to immediately happen. The notion that “imminent” doesn’t mean soon but rather anytime- and then quickly is somewhat ridiculous and a discredit to the several lexicons which have succumbed to this faulty reasoning. If Revelation was written in A.D. 95, what event happened within months or few years of its publication that could be seen as fulfilling the great sense of imminence contained within its pages? None. But if Revelation was written around A.D. 64 the question is easily answered by pointing to the great persecution which commenced in A.D. 64 and the campaign against Jerusalem which began in A.D. 68.

It is therefore my contention that Revelation 1-19 concerns events which were all fulfilled by A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. There are good reasons to believe that these passages parallel Matthew 24. Revelation 20 then introduces a greater time period- “1,000” years, which simply means a long period of time. This parallels Matthew 25 where we find several long-time references (the Bridegroom was “delayed”, vs. 5; the Master went away “a long time”, vs 19). At the end of Revelation 20 a fire appears from heaven which delivers the godly. This is the physical return of Christ, which is also described in Second Thessalonians 1:7-8 as being “fire from heaven”.

 

[CrowCross]

I came across the following....
May 2009
The Date of the Book of Revelation
Thomas D. Ice
Liberty University, [email protected]

The following is an overview:

THE DATE OF REVELATION
Tom's Perspectives
by Thomas Ice
Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in A.D. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August A.D. 70, then it had to have been written by A.D. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility. Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early date advocate David Chilton, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor would go up in smoke.”1 Actually, all one would have to do is to show that Revelation was written any time after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The futurists interpretation is not dependant upon the date of Revelation since it does not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time. However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains why they are so focused upon defending an early date. There are two lines of evidence: external (evidence from outside the Revelation) and internal (evidence from inside the Revelation).

After detailed explanations as to why the book of Revelations was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple a conclusion is presented

CONCLUSION
Since a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final book in the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appear viable. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in our day and throughout most of church history. Nothing in Revelation itself contradicts such a conclusion. It appears the major reason that preterists believe in an early date for Revelation is that their system requires it. In this instance the saying is true that necessity is the mother of invention. Maranatha!

 

[Josheb]

If you are having difficulty seeing my point....

Thank you for your time.

I am not having any difficulty seeing anything and if the posts are not going to be kept about the posts then I will not reply further.

Since a preterist interpretation requires an early date....

Preterism does not require an early date. That's utter hogwash!

Preterists are preterists because scripture itself leads to an early dating when scripture is read exactly as written. Thinking preterism requires an early date is a cart-before-the-horse strawman argument. Ice is wrong. and he is misleading others deliberately because he knows the rules of exegesis and logic. The protest most definitely has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted scripture and did not "interpret" any of it. If uninterpreted scripture leads to the conclusion Revelation was written prior the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD then that should be heeded, and likewise, if it is necessary to "interpret" scripture with additions, subtractions, and eisegetic inferences not supported by what is plainly stated to arrive at a late date then that should be discarded on the face of its own methods.

 

[CrowCross]

Thank you for your time.

I am not having any difficulty seeing anything and if the posts are not going to be kept about the posts then I will not reply further.

Preterism does not require an early date. That's utter hogwash!

Preterists are preterists because scripture itself leads to an early dating when scripture is read exactly as written. Thinking preterism requires an early date is a cart-before-the-horse strawman argument. Ice is wrong. and he is misleading others deliberately because he knows the rules of exegesis and logic. The protest most definitely has nothing to do with what I posted. I posted scripture and did not "interpret" any of it. If uninterpreted scripture leads to the conclusion Revelation was written prior the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD then that should be heeded, and likewise, if it is necessary to "interpret" scripture with additions, subtractions, and eisegetic inferences not supported by what is plainly stated to arrive at a late date then that should be discarded on the face of its own methods.

Preterist need the early date...or their theology falls apart.

Then again their theolgy falls apart when they can't show that the events described in Revelation have already happened.