Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Biblewriter said:

The question of when the Revelation was written cannot be solved by reading the text.

Click to expand...

I agree. I haven't read the entire thread so I will make the following point and ask that you forgive me if it's already been made.

The Preterist, as you must be aware, relies heavily on the time statements made by John in Revelation.

If, as you claim the evidence shows, Revelation was written post-AD 70, we would expect to see the events occurring imminently. There is nothing one can point to post-AD 95 that even remotely resembles fulfillment, like the Preterists do with AD 70.

A New World said in post 421:

The Preterist, as you must be aware, relies heavily on the time statements made by John in Revelation.

Click to expand...

Note that in Revelation 1:1,3, as in Revelation 22:6,10, "shortly" and "at hand" can be understood in the same manner as "Surely I come quickly" in Revelation 22:20, which refers to Jesus' still-unfulfilled 2nd coming. I.e., shortly/at hand/quickly in these verses can be understood from the viewpoint of God, not men (2 Peter 3:8-9).

Also, from the viewpoint of men, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the 7 literal, 1st century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in 7 cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a 1st century persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all the (to us) still-future events of the tribulation and subsequent 2nd coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only 2 days (2 Peter 3:8). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 (and Matthew 24) from the viewpoint of God, not men, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).

Bible2 said:

Note that in Revelation 1:1,3, as in Revelation 22:6,10, "shortly" and "at hand" can be understood in the same manner as "Surely I come quickly" in Revelation 22:20, which refers to Jesus' still-unfulfilled 2nd coming. I.e., shortly/at hand/quickly in these verses can be understood from the viewpoint of God, not men (2 Peter 3:8-9).

Click to expand...

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3 NKJV)

"kairos" is time "a fixed and definite time, the time when things are brought to crisis, the decisive epoch waited for."

Example:
And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29 NKJV)

"eggys" is near "can be of place and position or of time."

Example:
Place: Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles away. (John 11:18 NKJV)

Time: Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near. (John 6:4 NKJV)

The way I read Rev. 1:3 is it's a reference to the fixed, or appointed, time of the prophecy being near.

Also, from the viewpoint of men, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the 7 literal, 1st century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in 7 cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a 1st century persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all the (to us) still-future events of the tribulation and subsequent 2nd coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision.

Click to expand...

I agree the events began to unfold shortly. John wrote to the church in Philadelphia and told them, "Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall (literally: is about to) come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown." (Revelation 3:10, 11 NKJV)

This first century church was told the hour of trial was about to come and in light of that, to hold fast to what they had.

I am among those who accept an early date for the writing of the Revelation (circa AD 62-64). I know there is at least one thread here that discusses the date. I agree with the evidence presented in Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell."

For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only 2 days (2 Peter 3:8). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 (and Matthew 24) from the viewpoint of God, not men, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).

Click to expand...

This explanation is difficult to accept when one considers the audiences of both Peter and John. Peter, writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion, wrote: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (I Peter 1:20 NKJV) and "But the end of all things is at hand (near); therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers." (I Peter 4:7 NKJV)

Peter and his audience were aware they were living in the last times, and that the end was near.

He addressed the same audience when he wrote: "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (II Peter 3:3, 4 NKJV)

The scoffers failed to accept Peter's inspired words.

Since both John and Peter identified their audiences and told them the time was near it doesn't appear they were telling them to understand the epistles from God's viewpoint.

Biblewriter said:

There can be no doubt that the scriptures plainly said that the end would be "soon." Nor can there be any doubt that they say this in many places. The prophesied events “must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1) But words such as “shortly” and “quickly” should be interpreted on a divine time scale, not a human one. For “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8)

Click to expand...

I agree that events should be interpreted on a divine time scale. This is an example:

"Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord's house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you." (Jer 27:16 KJV)

In that verse the Lord was warning against those who were claiming a short return from Babylon, when it was, in fact, as much as 70 years in the future. Therefore, on a so-called "divine time scale," the events in the Revelation, which "must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1), had to have been fulfilled in 70 years, or less.

Biblewriter said:

There can be no doubt that the scriptures plainly said that the end would be "soon." Nor can there be any doubt that they say this in many places. The prophesied events “must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1) But words such as “shortly” and “quickly” should be interpreted on a divine time scale, not a human one. For “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8)

Click to expand...

I must give you credit. Not all futurists admit that the scriptures plainly say the end would be soon. Though most of them claim to take the Bible as literal as possible, they seem to abandon that approach when time statements are involved. They do say that "shortly" and "quickly" speak of the speed at which the events occur once they begin somewhere off in the distant future. But that can't account for the word "near" as in Rev. 1:3;22:10.

Preterists complain that this answer is “unsatisfying.” But this is not a human answer. When this statement is examined in its context, its meaning becomes absolutely clear. The Holy Spirit said this in answer to “scoffers” who “will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’” (2 Peter 3:3-4)

Click to expand...

The reason for the Preterist complaint is simple. Peter told this same audience, "But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers." (I Peter 4:7 NKJV) As I mentioned in my previous post, Peter and his audience knew they were living in the last days, the last times, the time of the scoffers. (1 Pet. 1:5,20) IOW the last days had come upon them!

Notice in 1 Peter 4:7, he wasn't speaking from God's perspective because he gave instructions as to their immediate behavior in light of the fact the end was near. He told them to be serious and watchful in their prayers.

Jude also confirms that the scoffers were present in their day:

"These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever....But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts." (Jude 1:12, 13, 17, 18 NKJV)

Thus we see that the statement “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” was a divine explanation for apparent delay in the fulfillment of prophecy. This is also stated in the Old Testament, where, in speaking of judgment, the Holy Spirit said, “a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90:4, see verses 3-9) God’s answer is that “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Click to expand...

But notice the delay spoken of was from the time of their fathers until their day. Remember, they were living in the last days. (Heb. 1:1,2)

The scoffers were told the end would arrive soon but they were questioning the words of the inspired apostles. They had all indicated their generation was living in the last days, the time of the end was near, and they even knew it was the last hour. (1 John 2:18)

When we consider the message given by inspired apostles to their last days audiences we realize God was not speaking of some distant time from His perspective.

Mt24B allowed for a delay for the worldwide day of judgement. The DofJ however, was to happen in that generation.

Gordon Fee is an evangelical/pentecostal scholar of international repute. His more recent book 'Revelation' is a worthwhile read, bringing together and responding to more recent scholarly materials on the book. His careful exegesis is an example of thoroughness and exegetical integrity.

John
NZ

A New World said:

I must give you credit. Not all futurists admit that the scriptures plainly say the end would be soon. Though most of them claim to take the Bible as literal as possible, they seem to abandon that approach when time statements are involved. They do say that "shortly" and "quickly" speak of the speed at which the events occur once they begin somewhere off in the distant future. But that can't account for the word "near" as in Rev. 1:3;22:10.



The reason for the Preterist complaint is simple. Peter told this same audience, "But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers." (I Peter 4:7 NKJV) As I mentioned in my previous post, Peter and his audience knew they were living in the last days, the last times, the time of the scoffers. (1 Pet. 1:5,20) IOW the last days had come upon them!

Notice in 1 Peter 4:7, he wasn't speaking from God's perspective because he gave instructions as to their immediate behavior in light of the fact the end was near. He told them to be serious and watchful in their prayers.

Jude also confirms that the scoffers were present in their day:

"These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever....But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts." (Jude 1:12, 13, 17, 18 NKJV)



But notice the delay spoken of was from the time of their fathers until their day. Remember, they were living in the last days. (Heb. 1:1,2)

The scoffers were told the end would arrive soon but they were questioning the words of the inspired apostles. They had all indicated their generation was living in the last days, the time of the end was near, and they even knew it was the last hour. (1 John 2:18)

When we consider the message given by inspired apostles to their last days audiences we realize God was not speaking of some distant time from His perspective.

Click to expand...

Amillennialist are not preterist but are close to partial preterism.

You're making the case that you said can't be made. This is why it makes no sense that John isn't writing to the 1st century saints. Scripture alone will refute the dispensational view.

What's happening is the church in America looking at this as a future event has them failing to properly see what today's events are leading to.

The Revelation is John's "more fuller" Olivet Discourse.

We don't need to locate a specific period of persecution to see Revelation as applying to a faitly immediate sutuation rather than 'the end time events' as such.

Out of the 54 emperors who ruled between 30 and 311 AD, only about a dozen went out of their way to persecute Christians.It has been calculated that between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace.

These would satisfy the 'about to happen' readily enough.

1. Persecution under Domitian (r. 81-96).
2. Persecution under Trajan (112-117). Christianity is outlawed but Christians are not sought out.
3. Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180). Martyrdom of Polycarp.

John
NZ

Johnnz said:

We don't need to locate a specific period of persecution to see Revelation as applying to a faitly immediate sutuation rather than 'the end time events' as such.

Out of the 54 emperors who ruled between 30 and 311 AD, only about a dozen went out of their way to persecute Christians.It has been calculated that between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace.

There would satisfy the 'about to happen' readily enough.

1. Persecution under Domitian (r. 81-96).
2. Persecution under Trajan (112-117). Christianity is outlawed but Christians are not sought out.
3. Persecution under Marcus Aurelius (r. 161-180). Martyrdom of Polycarp.

John
NZ

Click to expand...

Nero's persecution make them look like choir boys.

ebedmelech said:

Nero's persecution make them look like choir boys.

Click to expand...

True. That was earlier than some accept for the writing of Revelation, so I did not include it. But if an earlier date is the case Nero's persecution leads to an even stronger case for Revelation having a more immediate rather than an end-of-age application, apart from its finale in Ch 22.

John
NZ

Originally Posted by A New World

I must give you credit. Not all futurists admit that the scriptures plainly say the end would be soon. Though most of them claim to take the Bible as literal as possible, they seem to abandon that approach when time statements are involved. They do say that "shortly" and "quickly" speak of the speed at which the events occur once they begin somewhere off in the distant future. But that can't account for the word "near" as in Rev. 1:3;22:10..........​

Click to expand...

​

ebedmelech said:

Amillennialist are not preterist but are close to partial preterism.

You're making the case that you said can't be made. This is why it makes no sense that John isn't writing to the 1st century saints. Scripture alone will refute the dispensational view.

What's happening is the church in America looking at this as a future event has them failing to properly see what today's events are leading to.

The Revelation is John's "more fuller" Olivet Discourse.

Click to expand...

Amillennialist are what I call "fence sitters".
They are half way between the zionist Futurists and full/hyper Preterists views.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7522417-62/#post56412993
Amillennialism blown away by Revelation 20

Originally Posted by Jensghost

*snip*
Revelation 20 is very specific about what is going on. The amillennial viewpoint suggests that the 1000 years is just a really long time that the entire church has been in for the last 2000 years but John's Revelation makes it clear that the 1000 years is yet future and literal.

Rev. 20 says that those who died refusing to take the mark are resurrected and reign with Christ 1000 years. It says the rest of the dead do not rise until the 1000 years are over. Therefore, there is a millenial reign of Christ and the church over mortals on earth that is yet to come.

Here is the amillenial position:

. Amillennialists insist that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The "thousand years" are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ's victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established.

C. In most forms of amillennialism, immediately before the return of Christ, Satan is unbound, there is a great apostasy, and a time of unprecedented satanically inspired evil. This last Satanic gasp and subsequent rebellious activity is destroyed by our Lord at his return.
​

Eschatology Chart
​

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

[/INDENT]Amillennialist are what I call "fence sitters".
They are half way between the zionist Futurists and full/hyper Preterists views.

Click to expand...

Actually amillennialists don't "sit the fence"...they just don't "buy the farm" of "full preterism". Jesus has not returned to judge the world in righteousness. That's where they depart from full preterism...and rightfully so.

dfw69 said:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7522417-62/#post56412993
Amillennialism blown away by Revelation 20

Click to expand...

Sister, just as there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

ebedmelech said:

Actually amillennialists don't "sit the fence"...they just don't "buy the farm" of "full preterism". Jesus has not returned to judge the world in righteousness. That's where they depart from full preterism...and rightfully so.

Sister, just as there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

Click to expand...

Amen

ebedmelech said:

there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

Click to expand...

Amen

ebedmelech said:

Actually amillennialists don't "sit the fence"...they just don't "buy the farm" of "full preterism". Jesus has not returned to judge the world in righteousness. That's where they depart from full preterism...and rightfully so.

Sister, just as there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

Click to expand...

I am new to the forum. I found this old post, and wanted to let you know I am also SBC, but more a partial-preterist. Dispensationalism dominates now, but not so in the old days when it was more Reformed Baptist. There are still a few old-school Calvinists who seem to understand my interpretations.

Rev20 said:

I am new to the forum. I found this old post, and wanted to let you know I am also SBC, but more a partial-preterist. Dispensationalism dominates now, but not so in the old days when it was more Reformed Baptist. There are still a few old-school Calvinists who seem to understand my interpretations.

Click to expand...

Brother, there are many more than you think. I must admit I've looked into Reformed Baptist here in Memphis. I may visit them shortly.

ebedmelech said:

Actually amillennialists don't "sit the fence"...they just don't "buy the farm" of "full preterism". Jesus has not returned to judge the world in righteousness. That's where they depart from full preterism...and rightfully so.

Sister, just as there are variations of dispensational eschatology, there are variations of amillennialism.

This is where we acknowledge differences and yet maintain the unity of the faith.

Even in disagreement with dispensationalism, I attend a church that is SBC, because fellowship is centered around our Lord and what He accomplished for us. We don;t have to agree in all things, but we should LOVE in all things.

Salvation is one thing...eschatology is another.

Click to expand...

Yes - Amen to that..