Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[sovereigngrace]

Revelation 1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

I believe what Jesus said at the beginning of Revelation. He was talking about the generation of the Apostles, not thousands of years in the future.

Revelation covers the whole era from the early church to the eternal state. It is focused on the character, achievements and triumphs of Christ. It repeatedly brings our attention to His glorious climactic return. Sadly, Preterists are fixated with AD 67-70 and the coming of Titus.

 

[Freedm]

I don't see any evidence here just opinions. No 1 means nothing. That was written hundreds of years after the fact. Their opinion is no better than ours. It is like later generation taking our opinion of the creation of the USA as proof of facts years ago. That would be ludicrous.

A lot of the rest of this comes from a faulty opinion of a highly figurative book and a fixation with the coming of Titus in AD 70 rather than the coming of Christ in the future.

I'm not sure how you can consider "what must soon take place", or even "those who pierced him would see him coming on the clouds" as opinion. How are those who pierced him supposed to see him coming on the clouds if they've long since died? This can only be accurate if he came before they died. This is not opinion, but simple mathematics.

And if you don't see the Syriac as reliable, though it is the earliest known compilation of our modern Bible, I'm not sure how you can find the KJV or NIV any more so. Regardless, I do concede that late writings can be attributed to hearsay and can therefore only be used to support a position, not prove it. For this reason I believe the book of Revelation itself is the strongest evidence for an early writing.

 

[Freedm]

As a perfect example to explain why we should avoid writings of hearsay, we can look at the single most credible evidence of a late dating of Revelation, which is not very credible at all, that is the writing of Irenaeus in A.D. 175. In it he says John was exiled during the reign of "Domitianus", translated as Domitian who reigned after Nero up to 96 AD, but unknown to most Nero's original name was an extremely similar "Domitius". This is something that can easily get confused when the story is passed from one (John) to Polycarp 40 years after the fact, which was then passed on to Irenaeus 50 years after that. That's not exactly iron clad proof right there.

However, even if we are to take Irenaeus words as accurate, his words are still ambiguous for this is what he wrote: “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.”

Now, in order for this statement to support a late dating, the ambiguity of the subject for that which was seen "not a great while ago" would have to be understood as "it", that is the vision, but more likely it was "he", that is John, as that makes more sense grammatically, and if it was John who was seen "not a great while ago, toward the end of Domitian's reign" then this says nothing of the dating of the writing of the book or the receiving of the vision, and therefore does not support a late date at all.

So again, unless someone can provide a reliable reference to either the exile or release of John from Patmos that was written within a few years of that time, which we don't have, our best evidence for dating the book is the words of the book itself.

 

[Lost4words]

Revelation covers the whole era from the early church to the eternal state. It is focused on the character, achievements and triumphs of Christ. It repeatedly brings our attention to His glorious climactic return. Sadly, Preterists are fixated with AD 67-70 and the coming of Titus.

Facts and truths that futurists turn a blind eye to my friend.

 

[Freedm]

I did. They are very weak, forced and inaccurate. No evidence. Just opinions. Where is your evidence?

Preterists have a habit of cutting and pasting. This portrays a very weak position.

Again, I urge you to consider the words of the book. In it John describes the temple as though it is still standing, and is told that it will be trampled underfoot by the gentiles for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). This is exactly the same thing that Jesus predicted would happen in Luke 21:24 saying "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". Now if the temple had already been destroyed by the time John received his vision, not only would he not have echoed the words of Jesus, but he also would've mentioned the most important fact that the temple was recently destroyed.

 

[Christian Gedge]

What is your understanding or ‘the times of the Gentiles?’ And why do you apply it mainly to the temple and not to the city of Jerusalem equally?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm not sure how you can consider "what must soon take place", or even "those who pierced him would see him coming on the clouds" as opinion. How are those who pierced him supposed to see him coming on the clouds if they've long since died? This can only be accurate if he came before they died. This is not opinion, but simple mathematics.

And if you don't see the Syriac as reliable, though it is the earliest known compilation of our modern Bible, I'm not sure how you can find the KJV or NIV any more so. Regardless, I do concede that late writings can be attributed to hearsay and can therefore only be used to support a position, not prove it. For this reason I believe the book of Revelation itself is the strongest evidence for an early writing.

Preterists make much of phrases like “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They try and use them to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth.

But such terms are totally relative. Our knowledge of biblical truth, our awareness of the context in question, a study of the meaning and usage of the original Greek words, and our ascertaining whether something is being explained from man’s finite perspective or God’s eternal perspective, aid us in understanding the time and event in view.

On this matter, a basic understanding of "time" and "eternity" will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It carries the same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal perspective, not man’s natural perspective. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

The phrase “at hand” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Facts and truths that futurists turn a blind eye to my friend.

I am not a Futurist. I am Amil. You totally avoided what I said.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm not sure how you can consider "what must soon take place", or even "those who pierced him would see him coming on the clouds" as opinion. How are those who pierced him supposed to see him coming on the clouds if they've long since died? This can only be accurate if he came before they died. This is not opinion, but simple mathematics.

And if you don't see the Syriac as reliable, though it is the earliest known compilation of our modern Bible, I'm not sure how you can find the KJV or NIV any more so. Regardless, I do concede that late writings can be attributed to hearsay and can therefore only be used to support a position, not prove it. For this reason I believe the book of Revelation itself is the strongest evidence for an early writing.

There is a big difference between them having a copy of the inspired Word and them adding their own opinion hundreds of years after the fact as to the time Revelation was written. You don't seem to get that. There is a big difference. It is like us doing the same re the formation of the US hundreds of years after the event. It is utter folly. But this is classic Preterist evidence. It doesn't add up.

 

[Freedm]

On this matter, a basic understanding of "time" and "eternity" will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It carries the same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal perspective, not man’s natural perspective. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

No offense, but I find the reasoning of "we can't possibly understand because the Bible is written from God's perspective" to be both foolish and cheap. If the bible were written in such a way that we couldn't understand it would be entirely pointless, and for that same reason this amounts to nothing more than a cop out and the futurists standard response when they're presented with something they can't explain.

Obviously the words were given to John, who is not God, but a man, and it was written for him to present to his people who were also men and not God, so how could it possibly make any sense at all to say that the references to time in his vision were meant to be understood from "God's perspective" which we can not possibly do? You'd be essentially saying that the vision was not meant for mankind and that is foolishness.

 

[Freedm]

There is a big difference between them having a copy of the inspired Word and them adding their own opinion hundreds of years after the fact as to the time Revelation was written. You don't seem to get that.

Oh, I don't seem to "get that"? Perhaps you missed my post here where I clearly point out the danger in relying on hearsay, which is exactly what is required to contend a late writing of Revelation.

So perhaps instead of relying on hearsay, or insulting preterists to "defend" your position, you could present some actual sound arguments in favour of a late writing. Then we can determine if your position is defensible at all.

 

[Freedm]

What is your understanding or ‘the times of the Gentiles?’ And why do you apply it mainly to the temple and not to the city of Jerusalem equally?

My understanding is that it refers to the time when people "who claim to be Jews but are not" have control of the city and the temple, which is exactly what happened from 66 AD to 70 AD when the zealots took control. Paul talks about those people here:

Romans 2:28-29
A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

And Isaiah here:

Isaiah 29:13
The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught

It could also potentially refer to the Romans who attacked and plundered Jerusalem during this time, although they were not in control of the city for 42 months so I think the zealots are a better match.

Though I'm not sure why you say I apply it mainly to the temple.

1. Luke 21:24
   They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
   
2. Revelation 11:2
   But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Oh, I don't seem to "get that"? Perhaps you missed my post here where I clearly point out the danger in relying on hearsay, which is exactly what is required to contend a late writing of Revelation.

So perhaps instead of relying on hearsay, or insulting preterists to "defend" your position, you could present some actual sound arguments in favour of a late writing. Then we can determine if your position is defensible at all.

My position is not governed by an early or a late writing. I just don't buy the Preterist evidence. I find it forced.

 

[Christian Gedge]

It could also potentially refer to the Romans who attacked and plundered Jerusalem during this time, although they were not in control of the city for 42 months so I think the zealots are a better match.

Though I'm not sure why you say I apply it mainly to the temple.

1. Luke 21:24
   They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
2. Revelation 11:2
   But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

So I take it that you mean the temple together with the city will be trampled by the Gentiles for 42 literal months. Can you answer one more question for me at this point please? Who do you say are the witnesses who prophesy for 1260 days (66 ad to 70 ad) during this same forty-two month period? Thanks.

 

[sovereigngrace]

My understanding is that it refers to the time when people "who claim to be Jews but are not" have control of the city and the temple, which is exactly what happened from 66 AD to 70 AD when the zealots took control. Paul talks about those people here:

Romans 2:28-29
A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

And Isaiah here:

Isaiah 29:13
The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught

It could also potentially refer to the Romans who attacked and plundered Jerusalem during this time, although they were not in control of the city for 42 months so I think the zealots are a better match.

Though I'm not sure why you say I apply it mainly to the temple.

1. Luke 21:24
   They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
2. Revelation 11:2
   But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

This is typical Preterism eisegesis. It manipulates Scripture to support a questionable doctrine.

 

[Lost4words]

I am not a Futurist. I am Amil. You totally avoided what I said.

 

[Timtofly]

Revelation 1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

I believe what Jesus said at the beginning of Revelation. He was talking about the generation of the Apostles, not thousands of years in the future.

Paul was already dead. His generation over.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not sure how you can consider "what must soon take place", or even "those who pierced him would see him coming on the clouds" as opinion. How are those who pierced him supposed to see him coming on the clouds if they've long since died? This can only be accurate if he came before they died. This is not opinion, but simple mathematics.

And if you don't see the Syriac as reliable, though it is the earliest known compilation of our modern Bible, I'm not sure how you can find the KJV or NIV any more so. Regardless, I do concede that late writings can be attributed to hearsay and can therefore only be used to support a position, not prove it. For this reason I believe the book of Revelation itself is the strongest evidence for an early writing.

Pilate and the rest of those Romans all died before 70AD. That generation born before or after Jesus was not expected to live longer than 60 or 65 years.

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

I believe what Jesus said at the beginning of Revelation. He was talking about the generation of the Apostles, not thousands of years in the future.

You would have us believe, the fact Revelation 20 is also in the book of Revelation, that verses 10-15 was talking about the generation of the Apostles, that those events were to soon take place during their generation? In the event you don't include Revelation 20:10-15 as something that must soon take place during the generation of the Apostles, why are you then arguing that what Jesus said in the beginning of Revelation, that you believe that, thus none of it is meaning thousands of years into the future instead?

Revelation 20:10-15 is in your Bible, right? Was that something that already took place during the generation of the Apostles, or is that something that takes place thousands of years after that time?

 

[Timtofly]

Again, I urge you to consider the words of the book. In it John describes the temple as though it is still standing, and is told that it will be trampled underfoot by the gentiles for 42 months (Revelation 11:2). This is exactly the same thing that Jesus predicted would happen in Luke 21:24 saying "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". Now if the temple had already been destroyed by the time John received his vision, not only would he not have echoed the words of Jesus, but he also would've mentioned the most important fact that the temple was recently destroyed.

The fact the temple in Revelation is never destroyed, should indicate it was not the temple destroyed in 70AD. John then describes 2 witnesses who have the same length of time to witness as the 42 months given to Satan and the FP. The Gentiles trampling the temple coincides with the defeat of the saints that drives them from Jerusalem, to the sea of glass and Mt. Zion. Chapter 11 is still giving us facts of what transpires during the days of the sound of the 7th Trumpet. Up to the point later in chapter 11, the 7th Trumpet actually starts to sound. The 7th Trumpet's sound covers the next chapters till the end of 19 and the battle of Armageddon.