Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Rev20 · Jan 17, 2015

stillwaters45 said:
I'll assume you were concluding the discussion with that post (which is probably a good thing, since I think your view that the historical 'John' was an impostor is just a bit too far fetched for a serious historical discussion).

How could you even recognize a serious historical discussion? You have demonstrated little more than amateur historical aptitude thus far?

For example, where is the evidence that John lived past AD70? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. Where is the evidence that Polycarp was a disciple of John? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. You want me to go on?

As long as you post on this forum, count on me to point out the fallacy (shrouded in pomposity) of your arguments.

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

Also, if the Revelation was given in 95-98, then it is about 20 years too late. By 95-98, the Temple had been razed to the ground for 20 years. In 95-98 there was no Temple, outercourt or Holy City left for the gentiles to trample for 42 months, because they had already trampled it for 42 month from 66-70. In Domitian's era Jerusalem was nothing more than a heaping rubble and ruin. There was no Temple left.

It really boils down to this: if one believes that Revelation was given in Domitian's era, they cannot possibly believe that it is an authentic divine apostolic prophecy of what was and is to come. It's really that simple. Either one believes that it was given while the Temple still stood, or they don't. There's nothing more to it.

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. -- Rev. 11:1-2

Either it was given during the days of the 6th king - Nero - or the words 'five are fallen; one is' don't have any meaning and can as easily mean the 18th king as well as the 49th king. Either 6th king means the 6th king in sequence of kings, or it is hotch-potch and means nothing.

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. - Rev. 17:10

Either those who pierced Christ saw him coming in the clouds of heaven in judgment against Jerusalem, or the promises of Christ to come in judgment upon his generation mean nothing.

And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.- Matt. 26:63-64

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. -- Rev. 1:7

Either Revelation was given before the siege of Jerusalem, or the entire Gospel, and Bible for that matter, is a myth. However, it is not a myth, because Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed just as Christ prophesied, and therefore Revelation is a true prophecy, and therefore it was written in foreknowledge of what was to come. And therefore, it was given before the siege of Jerusalem.

Either prophecy was sealed up and finished with the Revelation to John on Patmos, or there is no such thing as prophecy.

Seventy weeks are ordained upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Christ the Ruler shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Christ be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. - Dan. 9:24-27

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. - Matt. 24:1-2

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. -- Rev. 22:16-20

Biblewriter · Jan 18, 2015

1michael1 said:
The earliest patristic testimony that we have on John's exile and release from Patmos is from Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215). It is a very important piece to answering the question of the dating of Revelation.

There are two key passages in the writings of Clement that give us clues. In the first, Clement states that John returns from exile on Patmos 'on the tyrant's death'. He never mentions by proper name who he is referring to by 'tyrant', but it must be noted that Clement in this context is speaking mostly of the persecutions of Christians under Nero. He never mentions anything in this context about Domitian.
And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit. -- Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That shall be saved? XLII

The second key given in the writings of Clement is that he explicitly states that the 'teaching of the Apostles', including Paul, ended with Nero. What this means is that according to Clement of Alexandria, the entire Apostolic Doctrine had been given by the end of Nero's life. That simply does not allow for any new Revelation being given nearly 20 years later in Domitian's era.
For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. -- Clement of Alexandria, the Stromata, Book VII, Chap. XVII

There is therefore only one conclusion that one can draw from reading Clement and that is that by 'the tyrant', Clement was referring to Nero Caesar.

All of the other accounts of John being released from banishment on Patmos after the time of Domitian into the era of Hadrian seem to have come from a misreading and misinterpretation of whom Clement meant by 'the tyrant'. He cannot have meant Domitian, because by Clement's own testimony, the entire teaching of the apostles was completed by the time of Nero's death. What this means is that according to Clement of Alexandria, the oldest patristic source on the subject, John wrote Revelation on Patmos before the death of Nero in AD 68.

The conclusion you reach from these quotations is indeed reasonable, but it is not "the only conclusion that can be drawn from them.

While these statements indeed "seem" to be saying what you conclude, in neither case is that unquestionable.

Do you know that Domatian was such a tyrant that upon his death, all his banishments were rescinded? Although Nero was most certaily a far worse tyrant than Domatian, at least as far as Christians were affected, there is no such historical record of a general release of prisoners upon the death of Nero.

So while it is reasonable to conclude that a reference to "the tyrant" is a reference to Nero, that is by no means a necessary conclusion, particualarly in view of the fact that all the other most ancient witnesses say it was Domatian, not Nero.

And Clement's comment specifically referred to the ministry of Paul. In actual fact, the revelation was not a "teaching" by John at all. It was a report of a vision that the Lord had given him. So it is reasonable to conclude that he was saying that the Revelation was given before that time, that is not necessarily what he meant.

Biblewriter · Jan 18, 2015

1michael1 said:
Also, if the Revelation was given in 95-98, then it is about 20 years too late. By 95-98, the Temple had been razed to the ground for 20 years. In 95-98 there was no Temple, outercourt or Holy City left for the gentiles to trample for 42 months, because they had already trampled it for 42 month from 66-70. In Domitian's era Jerusalem was nothing more than a heaping rubble and ruin. There was no Temple left.

It really boils down to this: if one believes that Revelation was given in Domitian's era, they cannot possibly believe that it is an authentic divine apostolic prophecy of what was and is to come. It's really that simple. Either one believes that it was given while the Temple still stood, or they don't. There's nothing more to it.
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. -- Rev. 11:1-2

Either it was given during the days of the 6th king - Nero - or the words 'five are fallen; one is' don't have any meaning and can as easily mean the 18th king as well as the 49th king. Either 6th king means the 6th king in sequence of kings, or it is hotch-potch and means nothing.
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. - Rev. 17:10

Either those who pierced Christ saw him coming in the clouds of heaven in judgment against Jerusalem, or the promises of Christ to come in judgment upon his generation mean nothing.
And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.- Matt. 26:63-64

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. -- Rev. 1:7

Either Revelation was given before the siege of Jerusalem, or the entire Gospel, and Bible for that matter, is a myth. However, it is not a myth, because Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed just as Christ prophesied, and therefore Revelation is a true prophecy, and therefore it was written in foreknowledge of what was to come. And therefore, it was given before the siege of Jerusalem.

Either prophecy was sealed up and finished with the Revelation to John on Patmos, or there is no such thing as prophecy.
Seventy weeks are ordained upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Christ the Ruler shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Christ be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. - Dan. 9:24-27

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. - Matt. 24:1-2

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. -- Rev. 22:16-20

This is what is called circular logic, or is sometimes called elliptical logic. You are attempting to prove your point by first assuming it is correct.

The flaw in your logic here is that you wholly neglect the fact that a new temple could be built. This is exactly what was predicted by Irenaeus, only around 115 to 120 years after the temple of Herod was destroyed. He said:

The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: I have come in my Fathers name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive, calling Antichrist the other, because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one who feared not God, neither regarded man, to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,that is, the earthly Jerusalem,to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 4)

Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, section 2)

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

So the Temple of the Jerusalem (the hypothetical 3rd one at some unknown date in the future) is also going to be trampled by the gentiles for 42 months?

Because the one that John measured was first the spiritual temple of God, which is the church, and the outer court was the shell structure of stone and wood that was razed to the ground by the legions of Titus after a 42 month siege from late 66-70.

Let's just suppose that this hypothetical 3rd temple is to be destroyed in the same way the 2nd one was, in a trampling of 42 literal Hebrew months.

That still leaves one problem, which is that it was also prophesied to John on Patmos concerning the 2nd one, which did in fact get trampled for 42 months. And thus, if it is not revealed to John in the Revelation before it was actually trampled, then it is the purest retrospect anachronism and not a true prophecy at all. And if such is the case, there is no reason to expect anything of the sort in the future, or even anything else in the whole Book of Revelation because it is all the folk tale and madness of a senile, disillusioned old man.

There may be some Antichrist who tries to rebuild a Temple in Jerusalem. The lunacy of mankind seems to know no bounds. It wouldn't surprise me. But that still doesn't take away the issue of the first historical meaning. You have to have a first meaning before you can get a duel prophecy. What pure futurism does is promote the second to the exclusion of the original.

And that's why I'm a partial futurist, not a full futurist. Some things actually have been fulfilled. And this is one of them.

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

The real problem with the two camps of full Preterism and full Futurism is that both will not concede even one point lest they seem to be giving ammunition to the sworn enemy.

There are some things that Preterism gets exactly right. There also happens to be a whole lot it gets flat wrong.

There are some thing that Futurism gets exactly right. There also happens to be a whole lot it gets flat wrong.

The Preterists are exactly right on this passage concerning the treading of the temple. That's the one thing Preterism has nailed to the wall correctly. As for the rest of Preterism teaching that 'Jesus is not to return' is pure garbage and an utter twisting of scripture.

I still am in debate as to which position is more confused and errant--Full Preterism or Full Futurism. I don't know. They both end up in the ditch.

We need a new approach. Maybe something called Preter-futurism. Or maybe an eschatology called 'Nowism', or 'Presentism', since Scripture says 'these things are'.

Biblewriter · Jan 18, 2015

1michael1 said:
So the Temple of the Jerusalem (the hypothetical 3rd one at some unknown date in the future) is also going to be trampled by the gentiles for 42 months?

Because the one that John measured was first the spiritual temple of God, which is the church, and the outer court was the shell structure of stone and wood that was razed to the ground by the legions of Titus after a 42 month siege from late 66-70.

Let's just suppose that this hypothetical 3rd temple is to be destroyed in the same way the 2nd one was, in a trampling of 42 literal Hebrew months.

That still leaves one problem, which is that it was also prophesied to John on Patmos concerning the 2nd one, which did in fact get trampled for 42 months. And thus, if it is not revealed to John in the Revelation before it was actually trampled, then it is the purest retrospect anachronism and not a true prophecy at all. And if such is the case, there is no reason to expect anything of the sort in the future, or even anything else in the whole Book of Revelation because it is all the folk tale and madness of a senile, disillusioned old man.

There may be some Antichrist who tries to rebuild a Temple in Jerusalem. The lunacy of mankind seems to know no bounds. It wouldn't surprise me. But that still doesn't take away the issue of the first historical meaning. You have to have a first meaning before you can get a duel prophecy. What pure futurism does is promote the second to the exclusion of the original.

And that's why I'm a partial futurist, not a full futurist. Some things actually have been fulfilled. And this is one of them.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption (and that is all it is) that what was prophesied to John was "concerning the 2nd one."

This is a rank assumption.

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

Biblewriter said:
The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption (and that is all it is) that what was prophesied to John was "concerning the 2nd one."

This is a rank assumption.

Well, we can use 'rank' all day long and be quite rank. That's all well and good.

But that still doesn't explain one curious detail.

The 2nd Temple in Jerusalem actually was trampled for 42 months and it can be historical proven.

So you're saying that it is prophesied of a hypothetical 3rd Temple that is to be destroyed by the gentiles for 42 months? And that the 2nd Temple, the one that actually was besieged in Jerusalem and trampled for 42 months doesn't have anything to do with it?

So, you would have to conclude that this portion of Revelation has nothing to do with what Christ prophesied concerning the 2nd Temple in his generation -- that not one stone would be left not thrown down.

And what's worst of all, is that all of this is based on the purest speculation and interpolation of what 'might' happen as opposed to what actually can be demonstrated as having happened, because the fact is that there is no Temple in Jerusalem to trample. There's a big Islamic Mosque sitting right square in the middle of the grounds of what used to the be 2nd Temple. If that not an abomination of desolation, I don't know what is.

barryatlake · Jan 18, 2015

Rev.20, you wrote this in Post#621: "where is the evidence that John lived past AD70? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. Where is the evidence that Polycarp was a disciple of John? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. You want me to go on?"

Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Rev20 · Jan 18, 2015

Biblewriter said:
For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God.

Which apostle are you referring to, Biblewriter, and what was the context of his statement (please point us to the scripture.)

Rev20 · Jan 18, 2015

barryatlake said:
Rev.20, you wrote this in Post#621: "where is the evidence that John lived past AD70? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. Where is the evidence that Polycarp was a disciple of John? There is none: only conjecture and what appears to be embellishment by Irenaeus. You want me to go on?"

Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Barry, Jerome was merely "quoting" Irenaeus. Everyone who wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John believed that to be the case (or pretended to believe it) because of the claims of Irenaeus.

stillwaters45 · Jan 18, 2015

barryatlake said:
Saint Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna.

Jerome was following earlier writers-probably Tertullian (who refers to the episcopal records at Smyrna) and Irenaeus (who had attentively listened to Polyarp's lectures in his youth).

Rev20 · Jan 18, 2015

stillwaters45 said:
Jerome was following earlier writers-probably Tertullian (who refers to the episcopal records at Smyrna) and Irenaeus (who had attentively listened to Polyarp's lectures in his youth).

That is all conjecture. It is doubtful that Tertullian (born about the time Irenaeus was completing his major work) had any better access to the truth about Polycarp than any of the later writers.

barryatlake · Jan 18, 2015

Ireneus is a bit unreliable. For example, he argues that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. Thus, though Irenaeus gives us a lot of good biblical insight, he is less reliable for testimony referencing dates and time frames. Likewise, the grammar of the Greek sentence wherein Ireneus states the date of 96 AD is unclear. It can be translated two ways:

1- “John had this vision, near the end of his life, during the reign of Domitian” or 2- “John had this vision and lived on to the reign of Domitian“

Thus the minority opinion does not disregard the testimony of the Fathers, but it is understood by these scholars as more vague.

An additional and more central reason for leaning to the earlier date of prior to 70 AD, is that it gives a clearer account of the context for the persecutions being endured by the Christians that flows more from the actual biblical data, wherein the persecution derives more from fellow Jews, than from Romans alone.

Thus, these “minority” scholars seek to integrate the Book of Revelation within the same conflict of other New Testament books such as Acts and the Epistles, namely a dispute between Christians and their Jewish opponents, who then engage the Roman officials for redress, rather than to set Revelation as a conflict merely between Christians and pagan Rome.

To state again, the common modern and majority view is that the context of this book is the persecution against Christians by Domitian (Emperor from 81-96 AD) and the Roman Empire which he headed. John has been arrested and exiled to the Island of Patmos. Thus, the chief context for the majority view is the antagonism of the Roman Empire seeking to force Christians to emperor worship and apostasy from the Christian faith in the one true God. Further, the harlot city is defined in this point of view as Rome.

But the minority view holds that the primary antagonist is not Rome alone, but is a more complex reality of Jews and Romans in concert together against the early Christians.

Recall how Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate and the Romans. But, this was also due to the provocation of fellow Jews against Jesus. Peter and John, likewise Paul all suffered from the same collusion of fellow Jews who incited the concern and hostility of Roman officials. The general context of the early New Testament period is that fellow Jews, who did not accept Christ, stirred up trouble for the early Church and provoked the Roman authorities to arrest, punish and even put to death early Christians.

The minority position sees this as the primary historical context of the persecutions described in the Book of Revelation.

Recall too that the Book of Revelation presents the primary antagonist as a horrible Red Dragon. He is clearly the devil. But this Red Dragon gives birth to two beasts which antagonize the Church. This is the double threat experienced by the early Christians.

Historically, at the early stages, Roman authorities were generally indifferent to Christian teachings. However, when Jews, who rejected Christ, entered into open conflict with Christians, they did so in such a way as to involve, often unwillingly, Roman officials. Once provoked, these officials would often be fair, but could also be ruthless.

Later in the Book of Revelation, the double enemy against the Christians is described as a twofold threat, as a “beast” and a “harlot.” The minority view holds that the “harlot city” is really Jerusalem, not Rome.

“Jerusalem” here symbolizes Jews, but not all Jews. Remember that many Jews did in fact become Christians. “Jerusalem” here is understood as those Jews who emphatically rejected the Messiah. It especially represents the leadership centered in the Temple.

Thus the city that is destroyed in the Book of Revelation is, in fact, Jerusalem.

Now, this corresponds to what happened historically in 70 AD to Jerusalem. And thus, the minority view holds that the Book of Revelation dates from the period before 70 AD.

The year 70 was a crucial year for the city of Jerusalem, for it was that year that the war with the Romans was concluded. In this year, Jerusalem was sacked and burned and the Temple destroyed. Not one stone was left on another and the whole area (except for a few dwellings on Mt. Zion) was abandoned. Survivors were carried into slavery or killed. The destruction and abandonment was total and 1.2 million Jews lost their lives, according to Josephus, the Jewish historian.

So, the minority view holds that the book of Revelation was a prophecy of these events and actually served to warn the Christians of the signs that would precede the destruction that they flee before Jerusalem’s doom was sealed. Thus, the historical context of the Book of Revelation is the persecution of Christians by unbelieving Jews in partnership with Roman officials, and the subsequent destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Lord in Judgment of Israel’s unbelief and persecution of those who did believe.

Although it is a minority view, it is growing in acceptance and, I would argue is compelling for the following reasons:

I. It links the Book of Revelation to the “mini-Apocalypse” which has a clear context: the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. It also links it to similar prophecies of Christ in the Gospels, most notably the Mount Olivet Discourse: For example, (Mat 24:1-44):

copied from " Crossing the Tiber" by Stephen K. Ray

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

When people state that Domitian is the 'one' who 'is' in Revelation 17:10, it must be understood that they are inventing a new usage for numbers. And it is a pure invention.

If it is not the 6th cardinal and ordinal number king of the 7 given by the angel, then it can really be anything anyone wants it to be.

I can as easily be Nero as it can be Domitian. For that matter, it can as easily be Constantine as it can be Domitian. It can be an arbitrary set of kings of Rome you want to make it. Since the angel has begun by some arbitrary point in Roman history, that no one is quite sure of according to this reading, then it literally could be any king of Rome who ever lived. It doesn't even have to be during John life if we are to hold to the purely futurist reading, because what the angel puts in present tense might actually be future tense for all we know, if it is so that the angel invents new word meaning on the spot.

The point in all of this is that in order to come to such a reading, one is required to invent language usage and then insert that invented language usage into Revelation.

Because a normal, natural, literal reading of 'there are seven kings: five are fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come' points one directly to Claudius Nero Caesar.

And if it is not right, the prevailing futurist reading of it being Domitian is no more verifiably correct than any one else's invention of ordinal and cardinal numbers as to whom it might be. Once we go into this fantasia, language can mean anything one wants it to mean. I can invent language usage too. What if the angel is referring to Lucius Verus as the one who 'is'? If ordinal and cardinal numbers can mean anything I want them to mean, then who is to say I'm wrong and they are right? I could invent an entire eschatology scheme starting from Lucius Verus in 130 AD.

However, we still cannot get around the problem of Clement of Alexandria stating that the teaching of the Apostles ended with Nero.

barryatlake · Jan 18, 2015

1Michael1, the Book of Revelation is not telling Twenty-first century readers what to look for as signs of the end of the world, what is it telling us? What can a person of our time gain from reading the Book of Revelation?
The theme of the Book of Revelation holds just as true for every generation as it did for its original audience. We, too need to hear and believe that we have no reason to fear because Jesus, the Lord of history, has already conquered evil. The process of Christ's coming and the fact of His victory over evil are already established. We need not fear, we need only be faithful and be ready. for victory is ours in the risen Christ.

Rev20 · Jan 18, 2015

barryatlake said:
1Michael1, the Book of Revelation is not telling Twenty-first century readers what to look for as signs of the end of the world, what is it telling us? What can a person of our time gain from reading the Book of Revelation?
The theme of the Book of Revelation holds just as true for every generation as it did for its original audience. We, too need to hear and believe that we have no reason to fear because Jesus, the Lord of history, has already conquered evil. The process of Christ's coming and the fact of His victory over evil are already established. We need not fear, we need only be faithful and be ready. for victory is ours in the risen Christ.

From a "literal-time" perspective, the events of the Revelation that occur in the distant future to John, and short-term future (maybe) to us, begin around Rev 20:7, at the end of the so-called "thousand years." That is when Satan is released out of prison to deceive the nations (that is, to go after the Church,) world-wide.

I, personally believe that is happening now, since only Satan could have corrupted the formerly-Christian western nations so thoroughly, in such a short period of time.

1michael1 · Jan 18, 2015

Dating the Repose of Blessed John

If we want to date the death year of our Apostle John, the beloved disciple, we have a few clues in the Gospel that can help us get very close.

When Jesus was having the last conversation with Simon Peter on the shores of Galilee, he told Peter how he would die. He stretched out his arms and signified a crucifixion to Peter. This, we know, came to pass at the first persecution of Nero after the fire of Rome at Circus Maximus in the summer of 64. Both Paul and Peter were executed in Rome by Nero. Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified. Andrew was most likely also crucified this year.

However, Jesus says this concerning John,

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. - John 21:20-24

This is a very definite sign of the year of John's death. Jesus also says this,

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. - Matt. 16:24

Jesus signifies that John would remain until his coming in his Kingdom. Jesus states that his coming in judgment would happen before that generation passed away. If Jesus is ministering in 27-29, then this is exactly what we find to be true. A Biblical generation is 40 years, and the Judgment on Jerusalem began in late 66, slightly less than 40 years after these words were spoken. Jesus speaks here of his coming on the clouds of heaven in judgment of Jerusalem and to begin his ingathering of all nations until his Appearance at the Last Trumpet.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, evenat the doors.Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.- Matt. 24:29-34

We are given the time that John begins to receive the Revelation in the first chapter by John witnessing that Christ was in fact in procession in coming in the clouds of heaven at that time.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. - Rev. 1:

There does appear to be a grain of truth in the tale that John returned to Ephesus. In the timeline based from the Gospels and the clues in Revelation, we put John as receiving the Revelation sometime after the summer of 64 to the autumn of 66. After Nero's death, and John's subsequent release when the empire was in disarray (and nearly fell but only for Vespasian's iron fisted order), John would have then returned to Ephesus in late AD 68. That autumn and through the next year, John very probably is making his last circuit through the seven churches of Asia minor and confirming elders and confirming the Revelation and the Seven Letters deposited to these churches and then circulated.

All things having been fulfilled, I will take an educated guess here and place blessed John's repose to late AD 69, before the final assault on Jerusalem beginning at passover AD 70. This would fit the language of Christ and what was signified concerning the future of Apostle John and Christ's purpose for him to the seven churches and in remaining until his coming.

Biblewriter · Jan 19, 2015

1michael1 said:
Dating the Repose of Blessed John

If we want to date the death year of our Apostle John, the beloved disciple, we have a few clues in the Gospel that can help us get very close.

When Jesus was having the last conversation with Simon Peter on the shores of Galilee, he told Peter how he would die. He stretched out his arms and signified a crucifixion to Peter. This, we know, came to pass at the first persecution of Nero after the fire of Rome at Circus Maximus in the summer of 64. Both Paul and Peter were executed in Rome by Nero. Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified. Andrew was most likely also crucified this year.

However, Jesus says this concerning John,
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. - John 21:20-24

This is a very definite sign of the year of John's death. Jesus also says this,
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. - Matt. 16:24

Jesus signifies that John would remain until his coming in his Kingdom. Jesus states that his coming in judgment would happen before that generation passed away. If Jesus is ministering in 27-29, then this is exactly what we find to be true. A Biblical generation is 40 years, and the Judgment on Jerusalem began in late 66, slightly less than 40 years after these words were spoken. Jesus speaks here of his coming on the clouds of heaven in judgment of Jerusalem and to begin his ingathering of all nations until his Appearance at the Last Trumpet.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, evenat the doors.Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.- Matt. 24:29-34

We are given the time that John begins to receive the Revelation in the first chapter by John witnessing that Christ was in fact in procession in coming in the clouds of heaven at that time.
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. - Rev. 1:

There does appear to be a grain of truth in the tale that John returned to Ephesus. In the timeline based from the Gospels and the clues in Revelation, we put John as receiving the Revelation sometime after the summer of 64 to the autumn of 66. After Nero's death, and John's subsequent release when the empire was in disarray (and nearly fell but only for Vespasian's iron fisted order), John would have then returned to Ephesus in late AD 68. That autumn and through the next year, John very probably is making his last circuit through the seven churches of Asia minor and confirming elders and confirming the Revelation and the Seven Letters deposited to these churches and then circulated.

All things having been fulfilled, I will take an educated guess here and place blessed John's repose to late AD 69, before the final assault on Jerusalem beginning at passover AD 70. This would fit the language of Christ and what was signified concerning the future of Apostle John and Christ's purpose for him to the seven churches and in remaining until his coming.

The complete error of this entire argument was clearly anticipated and answered in the inspired text of the gospel of John itself.

"Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?' " (John 21:23)

stillwaters45 · Jan 19, 2015

Biblewriter said:
The complete error of this entire argument was clearly anticipated and answered in the inspired text of the gospel of John itself.

"Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?' " (John 21:23)

I don't think you've understood his argument: he assumes that the 'coming' referred to is the fall of Jerusalem, which he views as having taken place over the period 66-70. Therefore John 'did' live to see the coming, according to michael. Of course the deaths of Peter and Paul are usually placed in 66 (not 64), so they also lived to see it, following this reasoning. For some reason he doesn't want John to have lived to see the actual overthrow of Jerusalem (which would be the logical interpretation if the 'coming' referred to here is in fact AD 70). Michael, I'm not sure your reasons for not wanting John to have lived to AD 70 or beyond--perhaps you could explain.

Actually John lived into the reign of Trajan, but whatever.

Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Partial Preterist

Active Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

barryatlake

Guest

Partial Preterist

Partial Preterist

Junior Member

Partial Preterist

barryatlake

Guest

Active Member

barryatlake

Guest

Partial Preterist

Active Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency