The dating of revelation polishdating eu

Rated 4.96/5 based on 692 customer reviews

But does John’s acquaintance with the Temple necessitate that its service was contemporaneous with the writing of the book of Revelation? We discuss these issues in greater depth in our discussion of Nero. Significantly, Zechariah also mentions measurement in association with the revelation he was given. In each case, the interpretation of the evidence is either flawed or overstated. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction)—the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus—were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.”— Thomas Ice, “ The Great Tribulation is Future,” in Kenneth L. Carson notes, ‘by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the temple in A. 70, it was too late for anyone in the city to flee.’ ”— Ibid., 138.

The obvious answer is, “no.” Any writer’s knowledge is cumulative: it is often the case that a writer expresses knowledge gained from an earlier point in his life. Further, there is no reason why direct revelation from God, as is the case with the book of Revelation, might not convey details not previously known to the prophet. ); Third , the “number of the name” of the Beast (Rev. -18 ) matches that of “ Caesar Nero.” While it is true that similarities can be found between the final Beast of world history and Nero (or many other anti-Christian leaders of history), similarity does not prove identity. What is probably considered to be the most significant internal evidence for a pre-A. 70 date by early date advocates is John’s mention of a Temple in Revelation Rev. In both of these Old Testament prophetic books a Temple is mentioned that is not in existence at the time the author is writing. The internal evidence which early-date advocates assert as proof of a pre-A. At most, the evidence makes a case for the possibility of a pre-A. 70 date, but cannot be taken as objective evidence of this as a necessity.“ The text that Jesus cited concerning the Temple’s desecration, Dan. , predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. Gentry and Thomas Ice, The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? By then it would be too late for the followers of the Lord Jesus to escape; the Romans had already taken the city by this time. “ The name which fits the circumstances most admirably is that of the nefarious Nero Caesar.”— Kenneth L.

Date The interpretive turn of Revelation depends strongly upon its date, so much so that the date of the book has implications as serious within Christianity as the date of the Gospels has outside of Christianity.

Having looked closely at the dates of the Gospels we have already laid some groundwork in terms of what is to be considered.

But we cannot doubt that other Christians perished too, perhaps many others, whether by the putting in force of a dormant edict of Nero’s, if the edict implied in Pliny’s letter was his, or by a new edict, or without an edict under comprehensive laws.

Yet there is nothing in the accounts which suggests anything like a general persecution of Christians, even at Eome : it would rather seem that Christians of wealth or station were mainly, if not wholly, struck at.

What is told of banishment by Domitian would suit the case of St John only if he was banished from Rome, a possibility certainly not to be discarded, considering some of the legends, when our knowledge is so small; but still only one alternative” (xxiv). Nero affected the imagination of the world as Domitian, as far as we know, never did” (xxvi).Chilton holds that since Scripture teaches that all prophecy would be complete by the end of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. -27) and since the book of Revelation contains prophetic material, therefore the book must have been written prior to the end of Daniel’s 70th week: We have a priori teaching from Scripture itself that all special revelation ended by A. But Chilton assumes the 70th week is completed with the destruction of Jerusalem in A. Chilton misinterprets the meaning of a passage in Daniel to “prove” his interpretation of John’s passage, but both interpretations are in error. it seems highly improbable that a book so full of liturgical allusions as the book of Revelation—and these, many of them, not too great or important points, but to minutia—could have been written by any other than a priest, and one who had at one time been in actual service in the Temple itself, and thus become so intimately conversant with its details, that they came to him naturally, as part of the imagery he employed. 48:1, Ezekiel, like John, receives a vision of a Temple that, if taken literally, has never existed up to this day. In other words, special revelation would stop—be “sealed up”—by the time Jerusalem was destroyed.And further, the two accounts of Tertullian and Hegesippus leave it difficult to doubt that Domitian himself stopped the persecution.Beyond [the mention by Hegesippus of the arrest of Jude’s grandsons and] the vague statement of the late Orosius, there is not a particle of evidence for persecution beyond Rome, and there is nothing in external events as far as they are known to lead either to that or to any great disturbance of society.

Leave a Reply