The date of the Book of Revelation

The early Montanists held to a futurist view and that was as early as 150-200 A.D. long before any Jesuits came on the scene.

There are futurists view among the so-called Ante-Nicene Church Father's as well long before any Jesuit preist came along.

It appears to me from secular church history that the historic pre-mill was one of the earliest recorded views (epistle of Barnabas, etc.)

 

FWIW:


http://www.northforest.org/Eschatology/ecfChiliasm.html

http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=50&a=1797

 

Again FWIW:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html

 

I have these in my library and have read them for myself. What is your position? I am an historic pre-mill, post-trib coming.

 

Very true. According to church historians the futurist view (known as pre-mil now or Chilianism then) was the predominat and orthodox eschatological view for approximately the first 250 years of the church.

Justin Martyr is quoted often that this view (chilianism) was the orthodox view of the church Noted by George Peters.

It is noted that we don't have any writtings contrary to this view till around or just after 400 ad though it is inferred there were a few who did not hold this view. We also note that it was only after christianity became a state mandated religion (the early footing of the Roman Catholic Church) do we find the Chilianist view being forced out of the churches, in favor of a new view, early replacement theology (which later from it evolved Covenant theology).

 

I don't believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 completely fulfilled either Daniel 9:26 or Matthew 24:15-31.

Telescopic prophecy is a common phenomena in Biblical prophecy where a nearer event is described in escahatological language but the final application is at the end of the world. A.D. 70 was such a NEAR event to Jesus Christ and a significant event to the nation of Isael as it was the end of their nation until the end of the age when they would be regathered again (Isa. 11:11;etc.).

In every application of a telescopic prophecy to a near event, there are always elements of the prophecy that do not and cannot fully be applied to the near event that demand another future event is required for full application.

There is no rational way that the words "immediately after the tribulation of those days" can be fulfilled in regard to the 70 A.D. destruction. I have read all the bizzare attempts to make it apply but it simply will not.

Others try to stretch "those days" from A.D. 70 to the end of the age but that does not work either as A.D. 70 ended Jewish occupation in Jerusalem and yet it is Jewish occupation in Jerusalem that is contained and described within "those days."

Luke 21:24 seems to give the A.D. 70 destruction as a past event that does not finalize the state of Jerusalem or Israel but delays it until "the times of the gentiles be fulfilled" and then prophecy returns to Jerusalem and Israel for final end time fulfilments.

I have read the arguments both pro and con for the 70 A.D. versus 96 A.D. writing of revelation. The Syric heading, Revelation 11 argument for temple still standing, etc. I am not convinced that the temple described in Revelation 11 is a literal temple as only the "outer court" is trampled under foot of the Gentiles and the descriptions of the two olive trees seem to imply more than two human beings are in view. The imagery in Revelation 11 in connection with the temple imagery from Revelation chapter one to Revelation chapter 22 provide another explanation and understanding of the temple imagery in Revelation 11.

I am still a 96 A.D. advocate for the writing of Revelation.

 

I used to hold to this date for a long time, but I believe that the evidence is better for a pre - 70 A.D. date. I also felt that preterists held to the early date out of necessity, citing as conclusive what was only ambivalent evidence.

But now I do hold to an earlier date, both because of the evidence and doctrinal necessity. It is interesting - and I don't think this has been mentioned yet - that there is also good indications in Clement of Rome's epistle as also being written before AD 70, not in the late 90s or 00s. I had come across this view from a Preterist article, but then studied Clement out for myself and have to agree. He writes about...

1. a soon-coming judgment,
2. a still current Jewish priesthood, complete with sacrifices,
3. a most recent event "nearest to our time" (quoting from memory) - the martyrdom of Paul and Peter.

I had been slogging through his Greek and was surprised to see that some of the translations of this epistle tend to translate words and phrases in a leading sort of way, coloring the original thought, IMO, with at least some of the editors' eschatological presuppositions.

A thorough reading of Clement and - to a slightly lesser degree - Ignatius show very sparse, if any evidence of that claimed Pre-Millennial viewpoint that many assume that the early Church Fathers had.

So, these are the things I am now convinced of:
1. The Preterist view
2. An early date for Revelation
3. Early (mid 60s, late 60s) date for Clement's epistle.
4. Also, I no longer believe the earliest of the ECF were anything other than (what we now call) Preterists. For them it was just being convinced of the soonness of Christ's coming.

It just occurred to me that it makes no logical sense for an ECF - even in the 90s - to move easily over to Pre-Mill, or some form of far- futurism seeing that a generation could still stretch into the beginning of the 2nd century.

 

I understand what you are saying but I do not see any compelling evidence for what you are saying. When "doctrine" is part of someone's basis for taking a certain eschatological position that is always a red flag.

 

I knew it. Some one would catch at that phrase of mine.

But I don't see the force of what you are saying. "Doctrine" - actually, I said, "doctrinal necessity", a stronger incentive - is confessedly a part of not only my eschatology but all my other "ologies". I believe it should be thus for everyone.

That's not a red flag; It's a green light.

My primary doctrine was the words of Christ who said "There are some standing here..." etc. and several similar verses (I don't necessarily want to derail this thread with that topic. It has already been discussed here a couple months past.)

 

I will pick up this topic on the other thread