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.
In other words, special revelation would stopbe sealed upby the time Jerusalem was destroyed.
Over a million Jews were slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of others were enslaved, the city left in ruins, and the great temple was utterly destroyed within a generation (40 years) of Christ's prophesy (Matt. The late date advocates who believe that Revelation was written around A. The author of Revelation, John, repeatedly alludes to a "great city" which is very likely a reference to Jerusalem and describes the temple as if it were still standing (Rev. How can late date advocates make such claims of a city that history records was left in ruins in A. Bahnsen and Gentry cite external evidence for an early date: "Clement of Alexandria .
Aspects of the text of the book of Revelation have been understood by some as being indicative of an earlier date. The angel Gabriel told Daniel that the seventy weeks were to end with the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. -27); and that period would also serve to seal up the vision and prophecy (Dan. [emphasis added] We concur with Chiltons basic premise: prophecy and vision will be sealed up at the conclusion of the 70 weeks of Daniel. This is the interpretive equivalent of two wrongs dont make a right. Here is revealed another Achilles heel of reliance upon internal evidence: it is too easily subject to cross-correlation which seems supportive, but is not necessarily related.
Gentry lists 145 scholars who advocate an early dating of Revelation, including the great church historian, Philip Schaff, and others such as Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, F. -45, , ), similarly John in Revelation warns that these events will occur "shortly" (1:1), "the time is near" (1:3), "the hour . These judgments culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem under multiple armies under Roman command. They suggest that persecution under the emperor Domitian was what is described in Revelation, but there is scant evidence that persecution of Christians by Domitian ever took place--a fact that many late date adherents readily admit. Much has been made by late daters of a statement by Irenaeus in Against Heresies that seems to associate John or the book of Revelation with Domitian, but there are a number of translational, interpretational, and historical problems that caution against an overreliance on this ambiguous passage. asserts that all revelation ceased under Nero's reign. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches (Paul died in A. Let the reader pause to make note of this frequent pattern involving internal evidence: what could possibly be true is asserted as being requisite. The major problem with interpreting Nero as the Beast is that Nero doesnt even come close to fulfilling numerous details of the textnot the least of which is being killed, resurrected, and then cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the Second Coming of Christ (Rev. 11:1 : We wholeheartedly concur with Adamss [sic] assessment that the fact that the Temple was standing when Revelation was written is unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 126. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1998), 198. Although this may seem unusual, neither is it conclusive evidence of an early date.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.Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A. In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (.23). Rochford If the book of Revelation is a book of prophecy as it claims to be (Rev.