The answer to this question makes or breaks an interpretation of Revelation for preterist purposes.
If written in Nero's reign, we are able to at least have some basis to begin an understanding that Revelation was mostly or to some extent fulfilled in the 70 destruction of Jerusalem (as the Olivet Discourse was).
The former interpretation of the evidence is nearly always admissible, but the latter conclusion does not necessarily follow. D. ` While we would concur with the last portion of Gentrys statement. What is perhaps more significant than Johns mention of a Temple is the lack of explicit mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in A. The destruction of Jerusalem would have been widely known to readers of his day obviating any need to discuss it.
This leap from would seem to must is commonly found in arguments based on internal evidence. 13:1-18 ; etc.) is to be understood as a veiled political reference to Nero. If the Temple were standing when Revelation was written, then it is indeed unmistakable that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple. this interpretation fails to take into account the Old Testament prophetic parallels. Moreover, the major focus of the book involves events of global magnitude preceding the Second Coming of Christevents which are at least 1900 years beyond the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. ] was written, the Second Temple was still standing so the reference can only be to the rebuilding of the Temple the Romans destroyed in 70 AD. Israel Today Magazine, April 2001, 22.
If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions. An interpreter who is committed to the unerring authority of God's word and to the reality of predictive prophecy must ask whether John was speaking in Revelation of the ancient city of Jerusalem, the Herodian temple, and the Roman Empire of the Caesars, 70 A. Throughout the history of the church only two general views regarding the date of Revelation have been credible and consistently forwarded.
D., then he would obviously have been speaking of the Jerusalem, temple, and Empire of his day - the first two of which, as prophesied, were destroyed just a few years following the temple in 70 A. These, the dominant positions, call for study and careful scrutiny. an earlier dating fixes the end of Nero's reign or shortly thereafter. In what follows "the late date" for Revelation will denote the end of Domitian's reign as emperor (viz., the mid to late 60's of the first century).
Some modern scholars characterise Revelation's author as a putative figure whom they call "John of Patmos".
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 Daniels 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 Johns passage, but both interpretations are in error. it seems highly improbable that a book so full of liturgical allusions as the book of Revelationand these, many of them, not too great or important points, but to minutiacould 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.
D., then the interpreter would be inclined to the rebuilding of the temple, for instance, but some interpreters infer such a rebuilding from their understanding of the text in conjunction with their understanding of the book's date.) The alternative would be to deny that Revelation had any historical reference to an empirical city or temple whatsoever (i.e., to thoroughly "spiritualize" the references to Jerusalem and the temple there), or to follow many liberal critics in contending that John wrote after the fact but to prophesy what happened. Harrison says: Two periods for the origin of the Revelation have won considerable scholarly support, and only these two need be considered. The early date is elastic enough to encompass the first year of Vespasian's reign, which has been suggested by some of the scholars who disagree with the Domitian dating of the book (e.g., Hort/Dusterdieck, F. Bruce). The thought here would be that, counting from Augustus and omitting the three brief rulers during the anarchy of 68-69, Vespasian is the sixth king ("the one is," Rev. Torrey) who cannot persuade themselves to ignore the three, brief claimants to the throne, but who do commence counting the kings of Revelation with Augustus, have suggested that Galba was the emperor when John wrote Revelation (i.e., the king who "is").
So then, if one reads "the holy city shall they tread under foot" (Rev. One is the reign of Domitian, preferable the latter part, around the year 96. ) who brought recovery to the empire from the threat of civil war ("the death-stroke" of the beast "was healed," Rev. But this hardly differentiates the sixth and seventh kings in terms of the shortness of the latter's reign (Rev.
If written in Domitian's reign, then Revelation offers nothing for the preterist at all.
External Testimony After due consideration of the leading work proposing a pre-70 date for Revelation (Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell, 45-107) I have been surprised to find so far that the external evidence points slightly to a pre-70 date; but there is nevertheless a great deal of conflicting evidence.