On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:15:51 -0500, while bungee jumping,
"Cleo" <Cleo@mailinator.com> shouted thusly:

We can go over some of this material, if you wish.

Thank you for the offer, but I think covering the subject through the back
door can help better, but that in itself is a lot of ground to cover, and
that is going point by point through Revelation and study and see if it has
come to past, when, and if not why, that is not anything I want to discuss
in a newsgroup. Again thank you for your offer, but I think it is best for
now that I did not.

You wish to see whether it has come to pass. I can
understand that. But with all due respect, if you're
going to read it through a Futurist perspective,
you're going to see what you have been taught to see.

For example, how many times do you see the word,
"earth" in Revelation and think of the globe, even
though from the Greek, only a local area is being
discussed?

And how many times do people ignore the plain simple
time statements of Revelation and claim that "soon"
means, "thousands of years, because of 'God time'",
when God doesn't have "time"? All time statements
are based on man's perspective, since God does not
experience "time".

If you could please explain to me what you mean by,
"the back door", I would appreciate it.

Also, if you wouldn't mind, please review the following
material, which I realize you may not respond about
and does not address everything, but will give you
a basic starting point. It does not mention the other
information.

If by "back door", you mean just looking for the facts,
then that is what I was going to present to you and not
a doctrinal stance. If you ever change your mind,
I would be happy to share the information with you.

In the mean time, read this at your leisure. It will go over
internal and external aspects of the issue...

**********************************************


Most commentators assign the book of Revelation
the date of 96 A.D. for its composition. Lay people
often assume this date to be correct. After all, isn't
this what the marginal notes in their Bibles report?
They never suspect that the same teachers who
interpret the book wrong, date it wrong also.
However, the evidence for this date is so equivocal
and ambiguous, its probative value is practically
nothing and, in fact, is assigned more by tradition
than by solid evidence. As we shall see, the better
view is that the book was written sometime between
56-70 A.D. and is primarily concerned with the
church's victory over the persecutions of Nero and
the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome.

* Evidence For 96 A.D. *

As wide spread as agreement for the date of 96 A.D.
is, one would think that there must be considerable
evidence to support this position. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It is like the doubt the New
International Version throws upon Mark 16:9-20
by separating the text from the rest of the gospel
with the note: "The most reliable early manuscripts
omit Mark 16:9-20". We possess about 6,000
manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 are missing in only two,
and these two manuscripts are probably the worst
in our possession (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
Yet, by sheer weight of the editors' assertion, many
are duped into believing that the last 12 verses of
Mark are not authentic. Similarly, by the assertion
of marginal notes in their Bibles, the date of 96 A.D.
is assumed to be dependable despite the fact that
there is little or no reliable evidence to support it.

The evidence in favor of 96 A.D. can be summed up
as follows:

1) Oral tradition has it that John was banished
to the isle of Patmos by the Emperor Domitian
sometime around 96 A.D..

2) A statement by Irenaeus, a second century
"church father".

3) The supposition that apostasy in the Asian
churches prior to 96 A.D. is unlikely and requires
the later dating.

THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE TOTALITY OF THE
EVIDENCE FOR A LATE DATE (91 - 96 ad)!

So let's look at it and see where it leaves us. :)

* Banishment Of John To Patmos *

There is no reliable evidence that John was banished
to Patmos by Domitian. The whole tradition is similar
to the oral tradition among the Catholic church that
Peter was once bishop of the church at Rome: Not
one verse of scripture or reliable piece of historical
evidence can be cited to support it. Jerome states
that John was seen in 96 A.D. and was so aged and
weak and infirm that he was with difficulty carried
to the church, and could speak only a few words to
the people". The fact that John was so old and weak
as to have to be carried renders doubtful that he could
possibly have written the book in 96 A.D.. Indeed, the
Revelation itself says John must again "prophesy before
many peoples, nations, tongues and kings" (Rev. 10:11).
Something he could not do in the state of decrepitude
that we would expect of one of such advanced years.

* Age And Condition of The Church In Asia *

The notion that the churches of Asia would not be in
the state of apostasy the book of Revelation seems to
describe earlier that the reign of Domitian rests upon
pure supposition. That the churches of Galatia were
"so soon removed" from the gospel proves that there
is no substantial basis for the claim that the churches
of Asia could not have apostatized early on. Indeed,
Paul affirms that the apostasy associated with
the latter times was well under way when he wrote
Timothy (I Tim. 4:1-6; II Tim. 3:1-5). The letter to
the Hebrews speaks directly to the apostasy of Jewish
believers from the faith. John also wrote of this
apostasy as a present fact saying "They went out
from us, but there were not of us..." (I Jno. 2:19).
Like the spirit of Antichrist John said was already
present and evidence that they were in the last days
of the Mosaic age (I Jno. 4:3), the apostasy of the
church at Ephesus and those John wrote of disproves
the notion that the conditions described in Revelation
"must" be assigned to a later date.

* Statement Of Irenaeus *

This is the only evidence of any value, and it is
so slight as to be nearly worthless. Irenaeus was
a church father of the second century, many of
whose letters have come down to us. Concerning
the mystic number of the beast given Revelation
13:18, Irenaeus says thus: "If it were necessary to
have his name distinctly announced at the present
time it would doubtless have been announced by
him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great
while ago that (it or he) was seen, but almost in our
own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign".
It should be observed that the subject of the verb
"was seen" is ambiguous, and may be understood
to refer to either John or the apocalypse. To argue
as do some that the subject of the verb is the
apocalypse is purely arbitrary. In fairness, either
John or the apocalypse may be the subject. But
what is the point of saying the vision was seen in
recent times? The nearness of the vision cannot
open the symbols of the book. It was the author
John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning
of the mystic name. Thus if the reference is to
anything, it would seem to be to John. However,
even if Irenaeus' statement is granted to mean
what advocates of the 96 A.D. say, this is the only
independent, external evidence favoring that date.

But did Irenaeus refer to Domitian? Robert Young,
author of Young's Analytical Concordance, wrote a
commentary on Revelation published prior to 1885
wherein he makes the following statement: "It was
written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had
been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the
title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this
concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in 175 A.D.,
who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou,
i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc.,
stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos,
supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95
and most succeeding writers have fallen into the
same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly
in favor of the early date." Because of the ambiguity
of Irenaeus' statement and the identity of the emperor
he referred to, there is such a divergence of scholarly
opinion regarding the credibility of the Irenaeus
quotation as to render it almost worthless as external
evidence of the later date. Thus the whole of the
evidence favoring the date of 96 A.D. comes down
to something little more than nothing. Moreover,
there is no internal evidence in the book itself upon
which to corroborate this date, but much against.
Therefore, let us proceed to examine the evidence
for an earlier dating.

* EXTERNAL EVIDENCE *

* The Syrian Version *

The Syriac is among the earliest and most important
versions. The oldest of these is dated to within about
one hundred years of the pens of the inspired writers.
There are several versions of the Syriac in our
possession, including the Peshitto ("simple"),
the Curetonian, the Philoexenian, and Harclean.
The oldest of these lacks the books of II Peter,
II and III Jno., Jude and the Revelation. Where these
books are present, Revelation is captioned and entitled
thus:

"The Revelation which was made by God to John
the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which
he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

Thus, from the oldest and most important versions in
our possession comes unequivocal testimony placing
the Revelation in the time of Nero.

* Church Fathers *

As previously noted, several patristic writers give
testimony for an early dating of Revelation.
Tertullian places John's martyrdom at Rome at the
time of Peter and Paul: "Since, moreover, you are
close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there
comes even into our own hands the very authority
(of apostles themselves). How happy is its church,
on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine
along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion
like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death
like John's! Where the Apostle John was first plunged,
unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his
island exile.". The universal tradition of the early
church is that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom
under Nero at Rome. Tertullian clearly joins John's
death in both time and place to those of the other
apostles. Furthermore, the manner of death (boiling
in oil) is consistent with the cruel deaths and
tortures devised by Nero for Christians reported
by Tactitus. Ephiphanius places John's banishment
and the Revelation under "Claudius". However, many
scholars believe that this is a probable reference to
Nero Claudius Caesar, and not the emperor Claudius,
Nero having assumed the Claudian family name upon
his adoption by the emperor. Andreas of Cappadocia
who, although himself repeating Irenaeus' tradition of
a Domitian banishment, mentions in his commentary
that there were not wanting those who applied passages
to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Arethas makes
similar comments and states concerning Rev. 7:4;
"When the evangelist received these oracles, the
destruction in which the Jews were involved was
not yet inflicted by the Romans". Theophlact, in
his preface to his commentary on John, places the
apostle's banishment 32 years after the Ascension
of Christ, squarely in the reign of Nero. Bearing
in mind that patristic writers who attribute John's
banishment to Domitian do so based upon Irenaeus,
and offer no independent testimony of their own,
the independent testimony of external tradition
therefore is clearly weighted in favor of a pre 70 A.D.
date of composition.

* INTERNAL EVIDENCE *

* Imminence Of The Impending Events *

Despite the impressive array of external authorities
that may be cited for the earlier date, it is the
internal testimony of the book itself that is most
important for it bears clear and unequivocal evidence
that it was written before the siege of Jerusalem.
Because of limited space we cannot cover each of these,
so we must limit our discussion to those that are most
important.

The book makes numerous reference to the imminence
of the predicted events. The exhortation to "read,
hear and keep" the contents "for the time is at hand"
(Rev. 1:3), clearly shows that the events depicted
would come upon that generation ("must shortly come
to pass" Rev. 1:1). Over and over, Jesus gave personal
warning to the churches that he would come upon
them quickly in the events of the vision and catch
them unawares if they failed to repent (Rev 2:5,16,25;
3:3,11; 16:15; 22:6,10,12,20). Application of these
time elements and allusions to events thousands
of years later, and to centuries yet to come, does
violence to the text. Jesus had told the apostles
that before they had opportunity to preach in all
the towns of Israel he would return: "But when
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:
for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over
the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come"
(Matt. 10:23; cf. 16:27,28). Jesus warned Caiaphas
that he would "see the Son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven".
Obviously a reference to the destruction of the Jewish
nation by Rome. Why search for fulfillment in the
myriad pages of medieval history when abundant
testimony exists showing Christ's return in vengeance
upon the Jews of that generation (Matt. 23:36; 24:35;
Mk. 13:30; Lk. 21:32)?

* Activities Of The Judaizers *

There are several clear references in the letters to
the churches indicating the presence of Judaizers
in their midst as a source of trouble, strife and
division. Paul complained of these Judaizers
during his ministry, calling them a "thorn in
the flesh," messengers of Satan to buffet him
(II Cor 12:7). Paul called these "messengers
of Satan" "false apostles and deceitful workers"
in II Cor 11:13. Revelation refers to these saying
the church at Ephesus had tried them "which say
they are apostles, and are not and hast found them
liars" (Rev. 2:2). This is clear testimony to the
nearness of time of the Revelation to the second
letter to the Corinthians. To the church at
Philadelphia Jesus says he will make them
"of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews
and are not, but do lie" to come and worship before
their feet (Rev. 3:9). This is a clear reference to
the utter defeat of Judaism and the destruction
of the Jewish theocracy and the glory that would
arise upon the New Testament church.

* Tribes Still Extant *

Related to the activities of the Judaizers is the fact
John portrays the tribes of Israel as still intact in
their land, from which God "seals" a remnant hundred
forty and four thousand (Rev. 7:1-8). The clear
implication of this imagery is that, at the time
Revelation was composed, the longsuffering of God
was giving adequate opportunity for the Jews to obey
the gospel before the storm of war, pestilence and
famine swept across Palestine, destroying the nation
for all time.

* The Representation That The Temple And City Of
Jerusalem Were Still Standing *

Revelation chapter 11:1-19 depicts the temple in
Jerusalem as still standing. John is told to measure
the temple and altar and them that worship therein
(v1); "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" (v2). This passage
clearly indicates that the temple and city are both
in existence at the time of John's writing. The forty
two months refers to the 3 1/2 yr war of the Romans
against the Jews and the siege of Jerusalem. The
identity of the "holy city" is clearly given in verse
eight where it is referred to as the "great city which
spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also
our Lord was crucified". In Matthew 24:2, Jesus
predicted that the buildings of the temple would
be overthrown and not one stone left upon another.
The apostles asked when these things would be
fulfilled, what would be the sign of his coming
and of the end of the mosaic age (v3). Jesus answered
saying, "This generation shall not pass away until all
these things be fulfilled". This definitely limits the
events of Matthew 24 and Revelation 11 to the forty
odd year period following Jesus' ascension. Since
the temple and city were both destroyed in 70 A.D.
by Rome and they are depicted as still standing in
Revelation 11:2, we can be certain the book was
written prior to the war against the Jews.

* The Sixth Emperor Was Still Reigning *

Revelation 17:10-12 marks the period in which John
wrote the Revelation. Like the reference to the city
and temple, this internal evidence cannot reasonably
be disputed. Chapter 17:10 states unequivocally that
the sixth emperor is still on the throne: "And there
are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come".

The Caesars are as follows:

1) Julius.
2) Augustus.
3) Tiberius.
4) Caligula.
5) Claudius.
6) Nero.

"Five are fallen":

1) Julius.
2) Augustus.
3) Tiberius.
4) Caligula.
5) Claudius.

These were all deceased, "one is" (Nero was yet
on the throne). The reign of Nero extended from
54 A.D. to 68 A.D.. Therefore the book was almost
assuredly written sometime between these dates.
Alternatively, if Julius is omitted upon the premise
he was not among the emperors (the empire really
began under Augustus), then the sixth emperor
would be Vespasian, the Roman general Nero
commanded to prosecute the war against the Jews
and who came to the throne of the empire after
Nero's death. In favor of this it is argued that the
beast that "was and is not and yet is" (Rev. 17:8)
referred to Nero, i.e., he was the incarnation and
personification of the beast but was now dead
and Vespasian ruling in his stead. Advocates of this
interpretation also point to the language of Rev 17:11
which is thought to refer to Domitian, the eighth
emperor of Rome: "And the beast that was, and
is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven,
and goeth into perdition". But whether it be Nero
or Vespasian for present purposes, is of but little
consequence. Either way, a pre-destruction of
Jerusalem dating of the Revelation is easily sustained.

* The Mystic Number Of The Beast *

John was given a vision of two great beasts: One
arose from the sea the other arose from the earth
(Rev. 13:1,11). The "sea" beast is Imperial Rome,
the "earth" beast is Roman occupied Palestine-Judea.
In the book of Daniel, the sea beast is represented
as the fourth world empire (Dan. 2:39-45). The
land beast is probably referred to by the "little horn"
in the fourth beast of Daniel chapter seven. John
identifies the beast in Revelation chapter 13:18,
saying "Here is wisdom, Let him that hath
understanding count the number of the beast:
for it is the number of a man; and his number
is Six hundred threescore and six". The official
title of Nero Caesar, when given its numerical
equivalence in Hebrew letters, equals 666.

They are: 50 - 200- 6 - 50 - 100 - 60 - 200 = 666.

The variant spelling of "Neron" as "Nero" is believed
to account for the variant readings in some manuscripts
giving the number of the beast as 616 - the "n" being
equal to 50, the change being introduced to reflect
the Latin spelling of Nero, versus the Hebrew Neron.
This fact, when coupled with the identifying
information of chapter 17:10 saying the sixth emperor
was still enthroned makes the identification all but
certain. Why search more?

* Jesus' Imminent Return *

Jesus stated many times, in many ways that he
would return before that generation had passed
to exact vengeance upon the Jews and to close out
the mosaic age. (Matt. 10:23; 16:27,28; 21:33-45;
23:34-39; 24:3,30,34; 26:64 et cetera). The
imminence of this return was a repeated theme
of the apostles and writers of the New Testament
(Acts 6:14; I Cor 1:8; 7:29; Jm 5:7,8; I Pet 1:5;4:7).
The prophet Zechariah had prophesied of the
destruction of Jerusalem saying: "Behold the day
of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided
in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations
against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be
taken, and the houses rifled, and the women
ravished; and half of the city shall go into captivity,
and residue shall not be cut off from the city"
(Zech. 14:1,2). This is the "great and notable day
of the Lord". Peter cited from the prophet Joel in
warning the Jews to repent of their murder of Jesus
(Acts 2:20).

The gathering of the nations against Jerusalem is
depicted in Revelation 17:16 saying: "The ten horns
which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate
the *****, and shall make her desolate and naked,
and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire".
Those who say the ***** is the city of Rome bear
the burden of explaining when and why Imperial
Rome conspired with its provinces to burn its own
imperial city. Clearly, the only reasonable view is
that the harlot depicts the city Jerusalem. Of
Jerusalem Isaiah decried: "How is the faithful
city become an harlot!" (Isa. 1:21).

Jesus' promised return to destroy Jerusalem
corresponds with the warnings and promises
to the churches of Asia that his return was "at hand"
(Rev. 1:1,3; 2:5,16,25; 3:3,11; 16:15; 22:6,10,12,20).
When Jesus said that "the time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe
the gospel" (Mk. 1:15) we know that the kingdom
was inaugurated on first Pentecost after Jesus
arose from the grave, approximately 3 1/2 years
from the time he made this statement. In another
place he said: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed
of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful
generation; of him also shall the Son of man be when
he cometh in the glory of his father with the holy
angels... Verily I say unto you, That there be some
of them that stand here, which shall not taste of
death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come
with power" (Mk. 8:38; 9:1. cf. Lk. 9:26,27).
Clearly, both the kingdom and Christ came in that
generation as Jesus foretold his disciples and the
churches of Asia. If there were only 3 1/2 years to
the coming of the kingdom, why should we look for
longer than this in the fulfillment of the events
depicted in the Revelation? How can "at hand"
have such different meanings?

* World Condition *

A final consideration that should be mentioned in
passing is that the events of Revelation are more
consistent with the world condition under Nero,
the civil wars that followed his death, and the siege
of Jerusalem than any other time in history. No
other period witnessed such moral depravity, license
and wanton abandon as did the empire under Nero.
Tacitus' and Suetonius' descriptions of Nero's
depravity, bloodlust, and reign of terror stretch out
in an almost endless list of murder, cruelty and vice,
ended only by a violent death which launched the
world into a condition of near anarchy as the world
witnessed four emperors in the space of year battle
for the imperial throne. Domitian's reign by
comparison seems almost tame and perfectly
inconsequential. Certainly, there is nothing in
the reign of Domitian that was of eschatological
significance, such as the extinction of the Jewish
state and the destruction of the city and temple.
The world condition under Nero, the persecution
he waged against the church, and the eschatological
events culminating in the destruction of the Jewish
state, coupled with the imminence of the events
prophesied in Revelation, all point to date of
composition under Nero, not subsequent emperors.

* CONCLUSION *

These are not all the evidences that point to an
early date of composition, but they are among
the most critical and most concise. The book of
Revelation is about the consummation of the ages,
the bringing to fruition God's plan of redemption
by closing out the national kingdom of apostate
Judaism and bringing in the new, Heavenly Jerusalem,
the Bride and church of Christ. The events depicted
belonged to the generation of those to whom the book
was addressed, the seven churches of Asia. Those who
are looking for future fulfillment are certain to be
disappointed. No substantial or credible evidence
exists in support of the traditional date of 96 A.D..
Every reliable indication is that it was composed> prior to 70 A.D. and the destruction of the Jewish
state by Rome.

http://tinyurl.com/pu8to

--

Giant Waffle
<{{{><

My heart rejoices in the Lord; My horn is exalted in the Lord.
I smile at my enemies, because I rejoice in Your salvation.
- 1 Samuel 2:1

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:15:51 -0500, while bungee jumping,
"Cleo" <Cleo@mailinator.com> shouted thusly:

We can go over some of this material, if you wish.

Thank you for the offer, but I think covering the subject through the

door can help better, but that in itself is a lot of ground to cover, and
that is going point by point through Revelation and study and see if it

come to past, when, and if not why, that is not anything I want to

in a newsgroup. Again thank you for your offer, but I think it is best

now that I did not.

You wish to see whether it has come to pass. I can
understand that. But with all due respect, if you're
going to read it through a Futurist perspective,
you're going to see what you have been taught to see.

For example, how many times do you see the word,
"earth" in Revelation and think of the globe, even
though from the Greek, only a local area is being
discussed?

And how many times do people ignore the plain simple
time statements of Revelation and claim that "soon"
means, "thousands of years, because of 'God time'",
when God doesn't have "time"? All time statements
are based on man's perspective, since God does not
experience "time".

If you could please explain to me what you mean by,
"the back door", I would appreciate it.

Also, if you wouldn't mind, please review the following
material, which I realize you may not respond about
and does not address everything, but will give you
a basic starting point. It does not mention the other
information.

If by "back door", you mean just looking for the facts,
then that is what I was going to present to you and not
a doctrinal stance. If you ever change your mind,
I would be happy to share the information with you.

In the mean time, read this at your leisure. It will go over
internal and external aspects of the issue...


**********************************************


Most commentators assign the book of Revelation
the date of 96 A.D. for its composition. Lay people
often assume this date to be correct. After all, isn't
this what the marginal notes in their Bibles report?
They never suspect that the same teachers who
interpret the book wrong, date it wrong also.
However, the evidence for this date is so equivocal
and ambiguous, its probative value is practically
nothing and, in fact, is assigned more by tradition
than by solid evidence. As we shall see, the better
view is that the book was written sometime between
56-70 A.D. and is primarily concerned with the
church's victory over the persecutions of Nero and
the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome.

* Evidence For 96 A.D. *

As wide spread as agreement for the date of 96 A.D.
is, one would think that there must be considerable
evidence to support this position. Nothing could be
further from the truth. It is like the doubt the New
International Version throws upon Mark 16:9-20
by separating the text from the rest of the gospel
with the note: "The most reliable early manuscripts
omit Mark 16:9-20". We possess about 6,000
manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 are missing in only two,
and these two manuscripts are probably the worst
in our possession (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
Yet, by sheer weight of the editors' assertion, many
are duped into believing that the last 12 verses of
Mark are not authentic. Similarly, by the assertion
of marginal notes in their Bibles, the date of 96 A.D.
is assumed to be dependable despite the fact that
there is little or no reliable evidence to support it.

The evidence in favor of 96 A.D. can be summed up
as follows:

1) Oral tradition has it that John was banished
to the isle of Patmos by the Emperor Domitian
sometime around 96 A.D..

2) A statement by Irenaeus, a second century
"church father".

3) The supposition that apostasy in the Asian
churches prior to 96 A.D. is unlikely and requires
the later dating.

THAT'S IT! THAT'S THE TOTALITY OF THE
EVIDENCE FOR A LATE DATE (91 - 96 ad)!

So let's look at it and see where it leaves us. :)

* Banishment Of John To Patmos *

There is no reliable evidence that John was banished
to Patmos by Domitian. The whole tradition is similar
to the oral tradition among the Catholic church that
Peter was once bishop of the church at Rome: Not
one verse of scripture or reliable piece of historical
evidence can be cited to support it. Jerome states
that John was seen in 96 A.D. and was so aged and
weak and infirm that he was with difficulty carried
to the church, and could speak only a few words to
the people". The fact that John was so old and weak
as to have to be carried renders doubtful that he could
possibly have written the book in 96 A.D.. Indeed, the
Revelation itself says John must again "prophesy before
many peoples, nations, tongues and kings" (Rev. 10:11).
Something he could not do in the state of decrepitude
that we would expect of one of such advanced years.

* Age And Condition of The Church In Asia *

The notion that the churches of Asia would not be in
the state of apostasy the book of Revelation seems to
describe earlier that the reign of Domitian rests upon
pure supposition. That the churches of Galatia were
"so soon removed" from the gospel proves that there
is no substantial basis for the claim that the churches
of Asia could not have apostatized early on. Indeed,
Paul affirms that the apostasy associated with
the latter times was well under way when he wrote
Timothy (I Tim. 4:1-6; II Tim. 3:1-5). The letter to
the Hebrews speaks directly to the apostasy of Jewish
believers from the faith. John also wrote of this
apostasy as a present fact saying "They went out
from us, but there were not of us..." (I Jno. 2:19).
Like the spirit of Antichrist John said was already
present and evidence that they were in the last days
of the Mosaic age (I Jno. 4:3), the apostasy of the
church at Ephesus and those John wrote of disproves
the notion that the conditions described in Revelation
"must" be assigned to a later date.

* Statement Of Irenaeus *

This is the only evidence of any value, and it is
so slight as to be nearly worthless. Irenaeus was
a church father of the second century, many of
whose letters have come down to us. Concerning
the mystic number of the beast given Revelation
13:18, Irenaeus says thus: "If it were necessary to
have his name distinctly announced at the present
time it would doubtless have been announced by
him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great
while ago that (it or he) was seen, but almost in our
own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign".
It should be observed that the subject of the verb
"was seen" is ambiguous, and may be understood
to refer to either John or the apocalypse. To argue
as do some that the subject of the verb is the
apocalypse is purely arbitrary. In fairness, either
John or the apocalypse may be the subject. But
what is the point of saying the vision was seen in
recent times? The nearness of the vision cannot
open the symbols of the book. It was the author
John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning
of the mystic name. Thus if the reference is to
anything, it would seem to be to John. However,
even if Irenaeus' statement is granted to mean
what advocates of the 96 A.D. say, this is the only
independent, external evidence favoring that date.

But did Irenaeus refer to Domitian? Robert Young,
author of Young's Analytical Concordance, wrote a
commentary on Revelation published prior to 1885
wherein he makes the following statement: "It was
written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had
been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the
title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this
concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in 175 A.D.,
who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou,
i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc.,
stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos,
supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95
and most succeeding writers have fallen into the
same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly
in favor of the early date." Because of the ambiguity
of Irenaeus' statement and the identity of the emperor
he referred to, there is such a divergence of scholarly
opinion regarding the credibility of the Irenaeus
quotation as to render it almost worthless as external
evidence of the later date. Thus the whole of the
evidence favoring the date of 96 A.D. comes down
to something little more than nothing. Moreover,
there is no internal evidence in the book itself upon
which to corroborate this date, but much against.
Therefore, let us proceed to examine the evidence
for an earlier dating.

* EXTERNAL EVIDENCE *

* The Syrian Version *

The Syriac is among the earliest and most important
versions. The oldest of these is dated to within about
one hundred years of the pens of the inspired writers.
There are several versions of the Syriac in our
possession, including the Peshitto ("simple"),
the Curetonian, the Philoexenian, and Harclean.
The oldest of these lacks the books of II Peter,
II and III Jno., Jude and the Revelation. Where these
books are present, Revelation is captioned and entitled
thus:

"The Revelation which was made by God to John
the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which
he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

Thus, from the oldest and most important versions in
our possession comes unequivocal testimony placing
the Revelation in the time of Nero.

* Church Fathers *

As previously noted, several patristic writers give
testimony for an early dating of Revelation.
Tertullian places John's martyrdom at Rome at the
time of Peter and Paul: "Since, moreover, you are
close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there
comes even into our own hands the very authority
(of apostles themselves). How happy is its church,
on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine
along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion
like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death
like John's! Where the Apostle John was first plunged,
unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his
island exile.". The universal tradition of the early
church is that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom
under Nero at Rome. Tertullian clearly joins John's
death in both time and place to those of the other
apostles. Furthermore, the manner of death (boiling
in oil) is consistent with the cruel deaths and
tortures devised by Nero for Christians reported
by Tactitus. Ephiphanius places John's banishment
and the Revelation under "Claudius". However, many
scholars believe that this is a probable reference to
Nero Claudius Caesar, and not the emperor Claudius,
Nero having assumed the Claudian family name upon
his adoption by the emperor. Andreas of Cappadocia
who, although himself repeating Irenaeus' tradition of
a Domitian banishment, mentions in his commentary
that there were not wanting those who applied passages
to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Arethas makes
similar comments and states concerning Rev. 7:4;
"When the evangelist received these oracles, the
destruction in which the Jews were involved was
not yet inflicted by the Romans". Theophlact, in
his preface to his commentary on John, places the
apostle's banishment 32 years after the Ascension
of Christ, squarely in the reign of Nero. Bearing
in mind that patristic writers who attribute John's
banishment to Domitian do so based upon Irenaeus,
and offer no independent testimony of their own,
the independent testimony of external tradition
therefore is clearly weighted in favor of a pre 70 A.D.
date of composition.

* INTERNAL EVIDENCE *

* Imminence Of The Impending Events *

Despite the impressive array of external authorities
that may be cited for the earlier date, it is the
internal testimony of the book itself that is most
important for it bears clear and unequivocal evidence
that it was written before the siege of Jerusalem.
Because of limited space we cannot cover each of these,
so we must limit our discussion to those that are most
important.

The book makes numerous reference to the imminence
of the predicted events. The exhortation to "read,
hear and keep" the contents "for the time is at hand"
(Rev. 1:3), clearly shows that the events depicted
would come upon that generation ("must shortly come
to pass" Rev. 1:1). Over and over, Jesus gave personal
warning to the churches that he would come upon
them quickly in the events of the vision and catch
them unawares if they failed to repent (Rev 2:5,16,25;
3:3,11; 16:15; 22:6,10,12,20). Application of these
time elements and allusions to events thousands
of years later, and to centuries yet to come, does
violence to the text. Jesus had told the apostles
that before they had opportunity to preach in all
the towns of Israel he would return: "But when
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:
for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over
the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come"
(Matt. 10:23; cf. 16:27,28). Jesus warned Caiaphas
that he would "see the Son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven".
Obviously a reference to the destruction of the Jewish
nation by Rome. Why search for fulfillment in the
myriad pages of medieval history when abundant
testimony exists showing Christ's return in vengeance
upon the Jews of that generation (Matt. 23:36; 24:35;
Mk. 13:30; Lk. 21:32)?

* Activities Of The Judaizers *

There are several clear references in the letters to
the churches indicating the presence of Judaizers
in their midst as a source of trouble, strife and
division. Paul complained of these Judaizers
during his ministry, calling them a "thorn in
the flesh," messengers of Satan to buffet him
(II Cor 12:7). Paul called these "messengers
of Satan" "false apostles and deceitful workers"
in II Cor 11:13. Revelation refers to these saying
the church at Ephesus had tried them "which say
they are apostles, and are not and hast found them
liars" (Rev. 2:2). This is clear testimony to the
nearness of time of the Revelation to the second
letter to the Corinthians. To the church at
Philadelphia Jesus says he will make them
"of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews
and are not, but do lie" to come and worship before
their feet (Rev. 3:9). This is a clear reference to
the utter defeat of Judaism and the destruction
of the Jewish theocracy and the glory that would
arise upon the New Testament church.

* Tribes Still Extant *

Related to the activities of the Judaizers is the fact
John portrays the tribes of Israel as still intact in
their land, from which God "seals" a remnant hundred
forty and four thousand (Rev. 7:1-8). The clear
implication of this imagery is that, at the time
Revelation was composed, the longsuffering of God
was giving adequate opportunity for the Jews to obey
the gospel before the storm of war, pestilence and
famine swept across Palestine, destroying the nation
for all time.

* The Representation That The Temple And City Of
Jerusalem Were Still Standing *

Revelation chapter 11:1-19 depicts the temple in
Jerusalem as still standing. John is told to measure
the temple and altar and them that worship therein
(v1); "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" (v2). This passage
clearly indicates that the temple and city are both
in existence at the time of John's writing. The forty
two months refers to the 3 1/2 yr war of the Romans
against the Jews and the siege of Jerusalem. The
identity of the "holy city" is clearly given in verse
eight where it is referred to as the "great city which
spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also
our Lord was crucified". In Matthew 24:2, Jesus
predicted that the buildings of the temple would
be overthrown and not one stone left upon another.
The apostles asked when these things would be
fulfilled, what would be the sign of his coming
and of the end of the mosaic age (v3). Jesus answered
saying, "This generation shall not pass away until all
these things be fulfilled". This definitely limits the
events of Matthew 24 and Revelation 11 to the forty
odd year period following Jesus' ascension. Since
the temple and city were both destroyed in 70 A.D.
by Rome and they are depicted as still standing in
Revelation 11:2, we can be certain the book was
written prior t