Why Revelation was written before 70AD

[Happy22]

Here is why I believe...
Revelation was written before 70 AD

By Greg Kiser

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass

1 - The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.

2 - The second century Syrian version of the book has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.

3 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666.  This is very strong evidence that Caesar Nero really was the one being referred to as the beast and that the change from 666 to 616 in some manuscripts was intentional for that very reason. It is nearly impossible to find another person's name in that time frame that would do this!

4 - According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD.

5 - The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!

6 - There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2.   Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

7 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints.  Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while . . Galba, 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.

8 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

9 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This would be completely ridiculous.  This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.

10 - The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.

11 - In Revelation there seems to be only 7 churches in Asia.  Historically, there seems to be many more than that after 70 AD as Christianity began to grow very rapidly.

12 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.

[DaveW]

Revelation 1:9   I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

According to Roman records, John was exiled there by Emperor Domitian (on throne A.D. 81-96) along with thousands of others. After the emperor's assassination in 96 ad, the Senate reversed all the exiles and let them (including John) go free.

[Happy22]

John could have been in his teens or twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD96. This was during the time when 45 was considered old.  If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the "tyrant" referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties, fifties, or early sixties.

[DaveW]

John was probably just over Bar Mitzvah age - 13 - when the Lord called him. And Jews lived a lot longer than their Greek and Roman counterparts (where the 45 age applies).  Living into the 80s and 90s was not uncommon and many (including Rabbi Hillel) lived to be over 100.   That means that Hillel COULD have been among the sages the 12 year old Jesus met with at the Temple.

So it is very possible that John also lived to over 100 years old. 

Shimon ben (son of) Clopas was born before the Lord and in the 110s helped Rabbi Akiva and the other Jewish leaders in Yavneh to put together the order of service for Rabbinic Judaism.  He would have been about 120 years old at the time and was the leader of the Church of Jerusalem.

[Clopas was Joseph's brother so Shimon was Jesus' cousin]

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

These all boil down to two arguments:

1) It's Nero being obscurely referenced in the text
2) Jerusalem still existed at the time of writing

Argument #1 is compelling, but ultimately not conclusive, since Nero is never actually named, and there are many figures whose name can be made to add up to the number.

Argument #2 implies that Jerusalem did not exist after 70AD, which is false.  The temple was destroyed, the wall broken, and widespread fires did devastate the city.  However, the city was NOT razed at that time, and continued to be inhabited until 136AD, when it WAS razed by Hadrian and a new city built on the site (Aelia Capitolina).

Jarrod

[Covenanter]

Revelation was written for its first readers:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

The translation of v. 7 is unclear: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. "all kindreds of the earth" uses Gk words that are normally used specifically for Israel -  "the tribes of the land." John is quoting Jesus words in the Olivet prophecy: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth land mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

John defines those who will mourn as every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him & that refers specifically to the Jews who rejected him, as John shows in John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The disps claim to read Scripture literally, yet they lift Rev. & move it to a yet future "end times." They refuse to read 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

Yes, but which John?  John the apostle, or John the presbyter?  That will make a great deal of difference as regards the date of the book.

[Happy22]

Something to think about


Where did the Church ever get the idea that John was exiled to Patmos by a Roman ruler? Certainly not from the following passage:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in persecution, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)

There is absolutely nothing in this passage that says that he was an exile or that he had been sent there by anyone. John simply states that he "was on the isle called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

If we went to a specific place to preach and evangelize it would be perfectly proper for us to say that we were in that place "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."

How, when, and where did the notion that John was exiled to Patmos by a Roman King get started?
According to the Bible was John really exiled to Patmos or did he go their voluntarily to teach and preach about Jesus Christ?
Where did Eusebius get the notion that John was banished by Domitian? And to which Domitian was he referring? Eusebius states that Nerva released John from his exile on Patmos. Historically who was Nerva? Did he have the authority to undo what Domitian did?
The works of Eusebius posits a late date for the writing of Revelation, i.e. 95 AD. Today, we know from many passages in Revelation and the balance of the NT that Eusebius' notion of a late date was false. Why would we accept his tradition about the banishment of John to Patmos by Domitian? Would it not be suspect as well?
We think that it can be proven from the context of the NT alone that John received the Revelation, at least part of it, much earlier than 68 AD.
What was John doing between 36 and 46 AD?

Could it be that he was going out preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" in fulfillment of the great commission when he received the Revelation?

Based on the information we have right now it would appear that John
received the Revelation, at least the first two portions of it, about 45 AD.

According to internal information, John received the first portion (chs 1-3)
of the vision when Jesus Christ "sent and signified" it by his messenger
(1:1). The second portion (4-16) was received when he was invited to "come
up here (to the third heaven) and I will show you things which must soon come to pass." The third portion (17-21:8) was received when the messenger invited him to "come here; I will show unto you the judgment of the great whore that sits upon many waters. And the fourth and final portion (21:9-22:21) of the vision was
received when the messenger came to John and took him to "a great and high mountain". Nothing is said about how long there was between each of these, but it clear that John could not go three different places at once (i.e. "up here," into the 3rd heaven; "come here to the wilderness" to see the judgment of the whore; "come here, to a great and high mountain, to see the bride, the lamb's wife."

The Bible does not record that Peter, James, or Paul "received Revelation" yet each one of them apparently knew about it and seemly make reference to its contents in their pre 65 AD writings.


Example: Who was Paul writing about in 2Cor 12:1-5?

"...I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (or write). Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. (2 Corinthians 12:1-5 NKJV, emphasis and comment added)
We submit to you that in this passage, Paul is writing about John. This is a clear accounting of John's situation as described in Revelation.
Compare:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must soon take place. And He sent and signified by His messenger to His servant John, (Revelation 1:1)
After these things I looked, and behold, a door open in heaven (the third heaven). And the first voice which I heard, like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here (to the third heaven), and I will show you things which must take place after this." (Revelation 4:1)
And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not [unlawful to be uttered]. (Revelation 10:4, emphasis and comments added above)
When shown in this manner the similarities are astonishing. Who else could Paul possibly be referring to? The context makes it clear that he was not referring to himself. Therefore, it seems clear to us from this comparison that John had this experience (the third heaven vision)14 years before Paul wrote 2Corinthians. Of course the liberals and the late dating futurists will deny this, but this is extremely supportive of the preterist early date position.

Some will say that the exile is implied. Implication is not enough, nor is it clear that "exile" is actually implicated.

While the passage clearly states that John was a "companion" with others "in persecution" nothing is said about "exile." If some group decided that they were going to beat up on my family, we would be "companions in tribulation," but that would certainly not mean that we were in exile.
The Greek word translated "tribulation" is:
2347 yliqiv thlipsis thlip'-sis from 2346; TDNT-3:139,334; n f
AV-tribulation 21, affliction 17, trouble 3, anguish 1, persecution 1, burdened 1, to be afflicted + 1519 1; 45
1) a pressing, pressing together, pressure
2) metaphor. oppression, persecution, affliction, tribulation, distress, straits
By definition "thlipsis" could be and often is translated "affliction" or "persecution." The apostate Jews began to persecute and afflict the Christians long before the Romans got involved in this activity. John's statement here is most likely a reference to the disciples of Jesus, including John, who were being afflicted and persecuted by the Jews following the Jewish killing (stoning) of Stephen in c. 36 AD. It is probably not a statement about Roman persecution as, unfortunately, is commonly assumed because of late dater and liberal bias.

The statement:

"was in Patmos.for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ"
Could very easily be a reference to the "preaching of the good news" which Jesus commanded. Again there is nothing in the text about "exile." That appears to be an assumption that may be totally unwarranted.

Some would make reference to Rev 1:9 as follows:
John indicates that it was 'because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus' that he was formerly on Patmos. He was not there to preach that Word but because of religious-political opposition to his faithfulness to it.
First of all, this acknowledges that the notion of John's exile is based on "religious tradition," not the Bible, and the history passage which is quoted above continues that religious tradition.
Look again at Revelation 1:9:
I, John, your brother and companion in the persecution and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos because of the word of God and because of the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9)
John simply writes that he "was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and because of the testimony of Jesus Christ." He does not say anything about "because of exile."
Some attempt to make a case for the use of Patmos for penal purposes. That is a given, everyone familiar with Roman history is aware of that. However, exile is not the only reason that John may have gone to Patmos. We personally know many that go to penal institutions; not because they have been sent there, but because they are compelled to go there by the Spirit because of the word of God to give testimony of Jesus Christ. We submit that John could have been on Patmos for that very reason not because he had been exiled there by some Roman ruler named Domitian in 95 AD.
Above we quoted Paul's statement from 2nd Corinthians about his knowing this man "fourteen years ago." Many Bible scholars date the writing of 2Corinthians at about 59-60 AD. If we count fourteen years backwards from 60 AD, what do we have? We have 46 AD.
Many scholars date the events of Acts 15 to about 45-46 AD. If we count forward fourteen years from 46 AD we have 60 AD.
Acts 15 records the Jerusalem counsel and it demonstrates that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and were "received by the apostles." Peter and James are mentioned by name and, given the language, it is a certainty that John and the other apostles were there also.
We submit for your consideration that by the time of the Jerusalem council, John had already been to Patmos; possibly several times on preaching missions, during the time (beginning in ca. 36 AD) of the apostate Jewish afflictions (persecution) upon Christians, and had received the Revelation while there on one of these trips, and that it was there, at this conference, that he conveyed, at least a portion of, the information of the Revelation to Paul and the other apostles. Then the document we call Revelation could have been written later.
Revelation 1:1 specifically states that John was given the Revelation by Jesus Christ "to show unto His servants, things which must soon come to pass," and John identifies himself as one of those "servants". Taken as a whole this identifies the apostles as His servants. Paul, Peter, James, and John all made reference to events (last days) recorded in Revelation in documents which they wrote.
Can this all be just one colossal coincidence? Can we really believe that Paul inserted these words for no useful purpose at all? Where else does the New Testament make reference to anyone being caught up into the third heaven, to the throne of God and words that should not be uttered (written)?
There is more that we have uncovered, but we will let you chew on this for a while.

Lloyd Dale

[Covenanter]

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

Yes, but which John?  John the apostle, or John the presbyter?  That will make a great deal of difference as regards the date of the book.

The John who wrote before the fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy in ad 70.

The internal  evidence of the book points to a fulfilment before ad 70, e.g. the seals refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, in accord with Ezekiel's prophecy:

Eze. 14:21 For thus saith the Lord God; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?
22 Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all that I have brought upon it.

Rev. 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

That's become a circular argument.  You're now saying that it's John the apostle because the date has to be prior to 70AD.  But the original argument was that it's 70AD because it was John the apostle.

You can make either argument, but you can't use them to support each other!

Jarrod

[Lehigh]

These all boil down to two arguments:

1) It's Nero being obscurely referenced in the text
2) Jerusalem still existed at the time of writing

Argument #1 is compelling, but ultimately not conclusive, since Nero is never actually named, and there are many figures whose name can be made to add up to the number.

Argument #2 implies that Jerusalem did not exist after 70AD, which is false.  The temple was destroyed, the wall broken, and widespread fires did devastate the city.  However, the city was NOT razed at that time, and continued to be inhabited until 136AD, when it WAS razed by Hadrian and a new city built on the site (Aelia Capitolina).

Jarrod

One irrefutable reason for Revelation being written before AD70 and not AD95 is- the destruction of Jerusalem, the mother of harlots, is never described as an accomplished fact by John.
Being a devout Hebrew, John would not have still prophesied the destruction of the city in AD95. But that is what we see.

And  the temple WAS destroyed in AD70
9TH OF AV, A.D. 70 - CHURBAN HABAYIT
DATE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF BOTH TEMPLES OF SOLOMON AND HEROD

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_military.html

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Lehigh,

Jerusalem wasn't completely destroyed in 70AD.  The temple was destroyed completely, and the walls of the city were damaged, but Jerusalem continued to be an inhabited city til 136AD.

Jarrod

[DaveW]

Something to think about


Where did the Church ever get the idea that John was exiled to Patmos by a Roman ruler?

From Roman records. Domitian kept records of who he sent into exile; why and where. That was how the Senate knew who to release and who not to release after his death.

[DaveW]

Revelation was written for its first readers:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

The translation of v. 7 is unclear: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. "all kindreds of the earth" uses Gk words that are normally used specifically for Israel -  "the tribes of the land." John is quoting Jesus words in the Olivet prophecy: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth land mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

John defines those who will mourn as every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him & that refers specifically to the Jews who rejected him, as John shows in John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The disps claim to read Scripture literally, yet they lift Rev. & move it to a yet future "end times." They refuse to read 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

If that was so, that it was specifically for Jews, (and the text John takes that from talks about them repenting) why did Rabbinic Judaism continue onward? What would have been the point of Yavneh?


Zechariah 12:10   "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

[Lehigh]

Revelation was written for its first readers:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

The translation of v. 7 is unclear: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. "all kindreds of the earth" uses Gk words that are normally used specifically for Israel -  "the tribes of the land." John is quoting Jesus words in the Olivet prophecy: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth land mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

John defines those who will mourn as every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him & that refers specifically to the Jews who rejected him, as John shows in John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

The disps claim to read Scripture literally, yet they lift Rev. & move it to a yet future "end times." They refuse to read 9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

If that was so, that it was specifically for Jews, (and the text John takes that from talks about them repenting) why did Rabbinic Judaism continue onward? What would have been the point of Yavneh?


Zechariah 12:10   "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

DavieW,

Zech 12:10 is seen fulfilled by Peter's sermon to Israel in Acts 2.  These would be those God's remnant that repented and were saved, unlike the 2/3 of Israel in Zech13 that rejected Him and were condemned.  Christ told the Jews He had come into the world (their world precisely) "for judgment."

Acts 2,
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[e] 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'[f]

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Are you beginning to understand this?

[Covenanter]

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation,... The tribulation was therefore in John's lifetime.

Yes, but which John?  John the apostle, or John the presbyter?  That will make a great deal of difference as regards the date of the book.

Were there 2 John's writing Scripture - how does it make a difference to the date of Revelation?

That's become a circular argument.  You're now saying that it's John the apostle because the date has to be prior to 70AD.  But the original argument was that it's 70AD because it was John the apostle.

You can make either argument, but you can't use them to support each other!

No. I'm using the context of Revelation, not the authorship, to prove the early date.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Yes, but which John?  John the apostle, or John the presbyter?  That will make a great deal of difference as regards the date of the book.

Were there 2 John's writing Scripture - how does it make a difference to the date of Revelation?

Very possibly yes.  A figure among the early church fathers is John the Presbyter.  He may not be (probably isn't) the same person as John the Apostle, who was one of the twelve.  Textual criticism shows that 2nd and 3rd John are probably the work of a different author than the Gospel of John and epistle of 1st John.  While it is not widely agreed upon, these later epistles are thought to be the work of John the Presbyter by a significant number of Bible scholars.

This matters to the date of Revelation because John the presbyter lived many years after the Apostle John.  If he wrote Revelation (which is a matter up for debate), then it must be dated something like 90-120AD.  I lean towards believing the apostle wrote the apocalypse, based on the amount of Jewish content included.

Jarrod

[DaveW]

DavieW,

Zech 12:10 is seen fulfilled by Peter's sermon to Israel in Acts 2.  These would be those God's remnant that repented and were saved, unlike the 2/3 of Israel in Zech13 that rejected Him and were condemned.  Christ told the Jews He had come into the world (their world precisely) "for judgment."

Acts 2,
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[e] 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'[f]

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Are you beginning to understand this?

Nice try but it does not hold.  Some 25 years after Shavuot/pentecost Paul wrote that "All Israel shall be saved." Rom 11.26a.  While we know that by Acts 21 that tens of thousands of Jews had come to faith, that was a far cry from "all Israel."

Indeed, Peter, James the Just and Shimon bar Clopas (Jesus' cousin on Joseph's side) were intimately involved in traditional Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism into the 2nd century. If the apostles took the events of Shavuot as fulfillment, then there would have been no reason for them to continue with traditional judaisms.

[Covenanter]

Nice try but it does not hold.  Some 25 years after Shavuot/pentecost Paul wrote that "All Israel shall be saved." Rom 11.26a.  While we know that by Acts 21 that tens of thousands of Jews had come to faith, that was a far cry from "all Israel."

Paul carefully explains that "Israel" is not a matter of ethnicity - descent from Abraham - but of faith in Abraham's God. In Romans 2 he explains that circumcision does not define a Jew.

You might like to look up John baptist's words on the subject, & add in Jesus' words to the Pharisees who trusted in their descent from Abraham.

"All Israel" is every believer, regardless of ethnicity.

Indeed, Peter, James the Just and Shimon bar Clopas (Jesus' cousin on Joseph's side) were intimately involved in traditional Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism into the 2nd century. If the apostles took the events of Shavuot as fulfillment, then there would have been no reason for them to continue with traditional judaisms.

Into the second century?? Paul explains why he continued as a Jew - all things to all men, to save some.

It does not help your case to present such foolish objections to Preterism. Try looking for the clear Scriptural answers BEFORE you post.

[Lehigh]

DaveW said:

Nice try but it does not hold.  Some 25 years after Shavuot/pentecost Paul wrote that "All Israel shall be saved." Rom 11.26a.  While we know that by Acts 21 that tens of thousands of Jews had come to faith, that was a far cry from "all Israel."

What's to try?  God had a remnant "at the present time" Paul's time in Romans 11 (represented as the 144,000 in Rev7) that were sealed with God's "mark" for protection in the great tribulation.

Indeed, Peter, James the Just and Shimon bar Clopas (Jesus' cousin on Joseph's side) were intimately involved in traditional Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism into the 2nd century. If the apostles took the events of Shavuot as fulfillment, then there would have been no reason for them to continue with traditional judaisms.

I have no idea what that means. The apostles didn't live "to the 2nd century" save John. And all of them became "Hebrew Christians" 
Rabbinic Judaism only continued after the destruction of that wicked generation out of defiance against God.  They didn't believe God chose Christianity "call My servants by a new name" (Isa.65) and usurped Judaism. So those Jews defied God, even after prophecy proved that God had left the building and left their house "temple" desolate- and shattered their power in AD70!

[DaveW]

Paul carefully explains that "Israel" is not a matter of ethnicity - descent from Abraham - but of faith in Abraham's God. In Romans 2 he explains that circumcision does not define a Jew.

Context my brother, CONTEXT. 
Romans 11 is talking about the relationship between Gentile believers and ethnic Jews INCLUDING those Jews who are not yet believers.  So the "All Israel" statement in Romans 11 is referring to ethnic Jews.

Indeed, Peter, James the Just and Shimon bar Clopas (Jesus' cousin on Joseph's side) were intimately involved in traditional Pharasaic/Rabbinic Judaism into the 2nd century. If the apostles took the events of Shavuot as fulfillment, then there would have been no reason for them to continue with traditional judaisms.

Into the second century?? Paul explains why he continued as a Jew - all things to all men, to save some.

Yes. Into the 2nd century.

While James the Just was killed circa 65 ad by his Pharasaic students in one of the Jerusalem yeshivas, and Peter circa 64 ad, Shimon bar Clopas, son of Joseph's brother Clopas took over as senior pastor of the Jerusalem congregation on James' death and continued there until about 110 ad.

James and Peter both wrote liturgical pieces for traditional Judaism and Shimon bar Clopas got them inserted into the standard cycle of prayers when the Pharasaic leaders met in Yavneh during the last decade of his life. He may have written a prayer or 2 himself.

It does not help your case to present such foolish objections to Preterism. Try looking for the clear Scriptural answers BEFORE you post.

On the contrary. Church and Jewish History from the late first and early 2nd centuries that show a continuity despite the destruction of the temple proves that no great cataclysm occurred then beyond the military conquest by Rome.

No return of the Lord and no rapture of the saints.

[k-pappy]

There is no internal evidence that points to a pre-70 AD date.  The only way to see it is to look at it through a preterists lense, and that make your entire logic circular in nature.

Some of them are factually inaccurate.  Nero was the fifth emperor of rome, Dominitan was the sixth.

Rev 2:2 does not reference any of Jesus' apostles, only people who claimed to be apostles but were not.

Finally, the idea of a pre-70 AD date is a modern idea, formulated after the preterist theory.

[Lehigh]

There is no internal evidence that points to a pre-70 AD date.  The only way to see it is to look at it through a preterists lense, and that make your entire logic circular in nature.

Some of them are factually inaccurate.  Nero was the fifth emperor of rome, Dominitan was the sixth.

Rev 2:2 does not reference any of Jesus' apostles, only people who claimed to be apostles but were not.

Finally, the idea of a pre-70 AD date is a modern idea, formulated after the preterist theory.

There is a plethora of  internal evidence in the symbolic book.  Too many to list now.   I would have to go through all of Revelation.

One main point is that Mystery Babylon, the harlot is the focus of God's entire wrath in Rev. Babylon is 1st century Jerusalem.

The synagogue of Satan Jews are destroyed.  Jerusalem rode the Beast (Rome) They had a favorable relationship with freedom of temple worship, etc- (ie: under Herod the great ) They could buy and sell and trade in the temple.- Until the Jews revolted against Rome.
The Jews could no longer persecute Christians after AD70.  Their power had been shattered. (Dan.12) fulfillment.

In Rev. 18,  heaven rejoices over Babylon's fall. 
20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles[f] and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!"

verse 9,For in one hour your judgment has come.'

Jesus told the Jewish leadership that they were guilty "all the blood shed from Abel to Zach........' And this is the fulfillment of God's "hour of wrath" on those Jews!

The early date evidence has always been there.

The rest or "popular" date is just tradition speaking!

[k-pappy]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist veiwpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

What do you think about the other three facts in my post?

[Covenanter]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist veiwpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

What do you think about the other three facts in my post?

You simply ignore or reject the relevant Scriptures; you claim your own assertions are "facts."

You have to learn to read & cross reference Scripture BEFORE you try to interpret it.

[DaveW]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist viewpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

He also interprets it from an extreme replacement theology viewpoint.

[Lehigh]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist viewpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

He also interprets it from an extreme replacement theology viewpoint.

Those who believe there is  "extreme" replacement theology are usually those who can't accept that God fulfilled the Law in Jesus' time and then called the Jews by another name-  HINT: "Christians"

Read Isaiah 65 and 66.  The remnant like the Apostles became Hebrew "Christians."

Biblical Judaism ended with Christ.

[raggthyme13]

I found this article interesting..

The Mark of the Beast - 666 or 616?
By Gary DeMar

A fragment from the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament shows that the number of the Beast of Revelation 13 is 616. Ellen Aitken, a professor of early Christian history at McGill University, states that "the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to [the Roman emperor] Nero."1 The early fragment supports the view that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and whether the number is 666 or 616, the number is a reference to Nero and not some end-time antichrist figure. Only time will tell how this discovery will affect dispensationalism.

The first readers of Revelation were told to "calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six"(13:18). Since Revelation was written to a first-century audience, we should expect the first-century readers to be able to calculate the number with relative ease and understand the result. They would have had few candidates from which to choose. Notice that the number is "six hundred and sixty-six, not three sixes." Tim LaHaye misidentifies the number when he writes, "The plain sense of Scripture tells us that it comprises the numbers: six, six, six."2 The three Greek letters that make up the number represent 600, 60, and 6.

Ancient numbering systems used an alpha-numeric method. This is true of the Latin (Roman) system that is still common today: I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500, M=1000. Greek and Hebrew follow a similar method where each letter of their alphabets represents a number. The first nine letters represent 1 -9.3 The tenth letter represents 10, with the nineteenth letter representing 100 and so on. Since the Book of Revelation is written in a Hebrew context by a Jew with numerous allusions to the Old Testament, we should expect the solution to deciphering the meaning of six hundred and sixty-six to be Hebraic. "The reason clearly is that, while [John] writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression."4

When Nero Caesar's name is transliterated into Hebrew, which a first-century Jew would probably have done, he would have gotten Neron Kesar or simply nrwn qsr, since Hebrew has no letters to represent vowels. "It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666. Jastrow's lexicon of the Talmud contains this very spelling."5 When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values: n=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, q=100, s=60, r=200 = 666. "Every Jewish reader, of course, saw that the Beast was a symbol of Nero. And both Jews and Christians regarded Nero as also having close affinities with the serpent or dragon. . . . The Apostle writing as a Hebrew, was evidently thinking as a Hebrew. . . . Accordingly, the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name - that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment that he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as "Neron Kesar."6

The fragment supports the reading of some Greek New Testament manuscripts that read 616 instead of 666. Why would someone making a copy of the Revelation scroll make such a number change? "Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616." A Latin copyist might have thought that 666 was an error because Nero Caesar did not add up to 666 when transliterated into Latin. He then changed 666 to 616 to conform to the Latin rendering since it was generally accepted that Nero was the Beast. In either case, a Hebrew transliteration nets 666, while a Latin spelling nets 616. Nero was the "man" and either 666 or 616 was his number.

[raggthyme13]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist viewpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

He also interprets it from an extreme replacement theology viewpoint.

Doesn't replacement theology teach that the church replaced Israel as God's chosen people?

I don't see it as "replacement theology" to understand that the remnant of Israel was saved in the first century, according to the promises of God. (Is 10:22) This remnant was the church... the Israel of God.

Into this tree the gentiles were grafted, but making one new man. There was no longer a separation.. (Jew, Greek etc) but all were made one in Christ Jesus.



How did we get from this NT understanding to the belief that the modern state of Israel is God's chosen... and then there's the Christian Church??? This is the strange theology, in my mind.

[k-pappy]

raggthyme13,

I would be careful about jumping on the bandwagon just yet.  Granted, would seem to lend more weight to the preterist view (which is why preterists websites all over the world are heralding this "discovery"), but only if that 616 refers to Nero.  Given that Nero was the fifth, not sixth emperor, that is impossible.

Also, Irenaeus (from the 2nd century AD) affirmed the number to be 666 and reported several scribal errors of the number, he knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it

Bond

[raggthyme13]

raggthyme13,

I would be careful about jumping on the bandwagon just yet.  Granted, would seem to lend more weight to the preterist view (which is why preterists websites all over the world are heralding this "discovery"), but only if that 616 refers to Nero.  Given that Nero was the fifth, not sixth emperor, that is impossible.

Also, Irenaeus (from the 2nd century AD) affirmed the number to be 666 and reported several scribal errors of the number, he knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it

Bond

I understand, but I think the main point was that whether the proper reading is 666 or 616, both calculate to Neron Kesar.

As to Nero being the 5th, please consider the following:


Rev. 17:9-11 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Commentators from all schools have no significant disagreement about what John means when he refers to "seven mountains." The seven hills of the city of Rome are undoubtedly in view. Some say we have a view here of the Roman Catholic church. More commonly it is said that Rome will be the HQ for a coming anti-guy.

But who is the harlot? Some say that is Roman Catholicism, but in light of what we have seen so far, the woman who rides the beast is a parody of the pure bride of Christ, and represents the rejected and apostate Jerusalem which did not recognize its Messiah, riding upon Rome in order to take advantage of its protection and authority and persecuting the church (17:6). The many images of apostate Israel as a harlot in the OT (Is. 1:21, Jer. 2:20-3:13, Hosea 9:1, Ezekiel 16) support this view.

And the seven to eight kings? Well, that's a crux to behold. Dispensationalists see the number as symbolic. Some see it as representing successive kingdoms. Obviously a preterist view sees these as the Caesars, the list of which we saw in our study of Daniel:
   
1.   Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
   2.   Triumverate: Marc Anthony/Octavian (Augustus)/Lepidus 44-31 BC
   3.   Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
   4.   Tiberius, 14-37
   5.   Caligula, 37-41
   6.   Claudius, 41-54
   7.   Nero, 54-68
   8.   Galba, 68-69
   9.   Otho, 69
   10.   Vitellius, 69
   11.   Vespasian, 69-79
   12.   Titus, 79-81
   13.   Domitian, 81-96

A count works out from Daniel, as we saw, but what about here? Some count first with Augustus (as the first "official" emperor); some knock out the three quick-draw emperors of 69. Gentry [154] starts it with Julius, on the grounds that it is with he whom, overwhelmingly, the contemporary lists begin, and that despite his refusal of the title of king, Julius did take the title of Imperator or Caesar.

But there is something of a difference from the time of Daniel and that of John. By this time, the triumvarate was viewed as something of a hiccup, and Augustus was viewed as #2 on the list. In other similar lists (Epistle of Barnabas 4:4, the Sibylline Oracles) the three "quick draw" emperors are also counted.
   
1.   Julius Caesar, 49-44 BC
   2.   Augustus, 31 BC-14 AD
   3.   Tiberius, 14-37
   4.   Caligula, 37-41
   5.   Claudius, 41-54
   6.   Nero, 54-68
   7.   Galba, 68-69
   8.   Otho, 69
   9.   Vitellius, 69
   10.   Vespasian, 69-79
   11.   Titus, 79-81
   12.   Domitian, 81-96

Five are fallen -- from Julius to Claudius. One is -- Nero. One is yet to come, and must continue a short space -- Galba, the first of the quick draws. But what then of number eight? There are a couple of views. According to Gentry, that's Otho, but how can he be "the beast that was, and is not," that goes into perdition?

We should note first of all that the "was, and is not" phrase is yet another parody -- that of the divine "was, and is, and is to come" (Rev. 4:8). Literalists who propose some sort of ruler who seesaws in and out of power are missing the point entirely.
How does Gentry work the Otho equation? He reports a most peculiar event from the work of Suetonius that hauntingly fits this description. Otho upon returning to the palace at Rome, in the midst of adulations of the crowd, "was hailed by the common herd as Nero" and "made no sign of dissent" and "even made use of that surname in his commissions and his first letters to some of the governors of the provinces." Tacitus also reports that Otho celebrated Nero's memory hoping to gain further favor, and was acclaimed as "Nero Otho." He even recalled Nero's procurators.

Ford [290], however, provides a more convincing view. Noting the the three "hiccup" emperors never had power over Judaea, she skips over them and makes Vespasian number 7, and Titus number 8. This has the eerie advantage of a more clear explanation of the eighth "belonging to" the seventh -- Titus, of course, was Vespasian's son. The "was, and is not" parody is especially appropriate when we consider that Josephus tried to apply Jewish Messianic prophecies to Vespasian! www.tektonics.org






And part of another article that might help some to at least understand a little better why many preterists believe Nero fulfills the prophecy:

The Man of Sin

Kurt Simmons
 
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (II Thess. 2:1-12).

Four issues rise from this passage:  1) What is the "falling away;" 2) who is the "man of sin;" 3) who and/or what restrained him; and 4) who would be destroyed?  Examination of these will show that St. Paul's man of sin was Nero Caesar and the events he described culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  We will take these in reverse order in which they appear.

The Objects of Christ's Wrath

The first thing we should note is that the coming of Christ and day of the Lord would result in the destruction of those who "received not a love of the truth." Thus, the coming of Christ in wrath was in wrath upon a specific people.  This is an unmistakable reference to the Jews.   
In his first epistle, Paul mentions that the Thessalonians had "received the word in much affliction" (I Thess. 1:6).  He says that they had "become followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (I Thess. 2:14-16).  Here is specific reference to the wrath that was to come upon the Jews for crucifying the Lord and persecuting the church.  This is the same wrath described in Paul's second epistle.  Although Paul indicates the Thessalonians had suffered from their own countrymen, it is clear the Jews were ultimately responsible.

In Acts, we learn that the Jews of Thessalonica set the whole city in an uproar, assaulted the house of Jason, and brought him and others forcibly before the city rulers (Acts 17:1-9). The brethren then sent Paul and Silas by night unto Berea, but the Jews of Thessalonica were so strident in their opposition to the gospel that they followed Paul there and stirred up the people of Berea also (Acts 17:10-13).  Paul was thus forced to depart to Athens, and it is from there that he wrote his epistles to the Thessalonians by the hand of Timothy.  It is in this context that Paul thus writes "it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Thess. 1:6-8).  The gospels also make abundantly clear that the day of the Lord would come upon the Jews (Matt. 3:11, 12; 8:12; 10:23; 16:27, 28; 21:33-46; 22:7; 23:34-39; 24; Mk. 13; 14:62; Lk. 19:41-44; 20:16; 21; etc.).  Luke sums it up well when he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people" (Lk. 21:23).   This does not mean Christ's coming was confined to Judea and the Jews, for the whole Roman world came under wrath (recall the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream).  However, it does identify the time of Christ's coming, linking it to "that generation."

He Who Lets

The time for fulfillment of these things was definitely fixed by the Lord, saying, "This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" (Lk. 21:32; cf. Matt. 24:34).  However, as St. Paul indicates, the "falling away" and "man of sin" had first to come upon the scene.  This could not occur until "what withholdeth" and "he who now letteth" was taken "out of the way" (II Thess. 2:6, 7).  This has long been recognized as referring to Claudius Caesar and the restraining power of the religio licita.  Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) was among the earliest to comment that the restraining power of the Roman state is alluded to by Paul in these verses, saying "What obstacle is there but the Roman state."[1]  This is echoed by several patristic writers.  Victorinus, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, states:   
"And after many plagues completed in the world, in the end he says that a beast ascended from the abyss...that is, of the Romans.  Moreover that he was in the kingdom of the Romans, and that he was among the Caesars.  The Apostle Paul also bears witness, for he says to the Thessalonians: Let him who now restraineth restrain, until he be taken out of the way; and then shall appear the Wicked One, even he whose coming is after the working of Satan, with signs an lying wonders.'  And that they might know that he should come who then was the prince, he adds: 'He already endeavours after the secret of mischief' – that is, the mischief which he is about to do he strives to do secretly; but he is not raised up by his own power, nor by that of his father, but by command of God."[2]
Victorinus here connects the "beast" from the abyss with the Roman empire and the "Wicked One" with the one who was prince when Paul wrote (Nero), and would follow his father (Claudius) to the throne. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) is even more explicit:

"Some think that these words refer to the Roman empire, and that the apostle Paul did not wish to write more explicitly, lest he should incur a charge of calumny against the Roman empire, in wishing ill to it when men hoped that it was to be everlasting.  So in the words: 'For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work' he referred to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as those of Antichrist."[3]

The late Canon of Westminster, F.W. Farrar, wrote: 

"St. Paul, when he wrote from Corinth to the Thessalonians, had indeed seen in the fabric of Roman polity, and in Claudius, its reigning representative, the "check" and the "checker" which must be removed before the coming of the Lord."[4]   

J. Stuart Russell, in his classic work on the Parousia of Christ, states 

"At that time Nero was not yet 'manifested;' his true character was not discovered; he had not yet succeeded to the Empire.  Claudius, his step-father, lived, and stood in the way of the son of Agrippina.  But that hindrance was soon removed.  In less than a year, probably, after this epistle was received by the Thessalonians, Claudius was 'taken out of the way,' a victim to the deadly practice of the infamous Agrippina; her son also, according to Suetonius, being accessory to the deed."[5]   

Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. is among modern writers reaching the same conclusion: 

Apparently something is presently (ca. A.D. 52) 'restraining' the Man of Lawlessness: 'you know what is restrining [katechon; present participle], that he may be revealed in his own time' (2:6).  This strongly suggests the preterist understanding of the whole passage.  The Thessalonians themselves know what is presently restraining the Man of Lawlessness; in fact the Man of Lawlessness is alive and waiting to be 'revealed.'  This implies that for the time-being Christians can expect some protection from the Roman government.  The Roman laws regarding religio licita are currently in Christianity's favor, whole considered a sect of Judaism and before the malevolent Nero ascends the throne.[6]

A final consideration worth noting is that the Greek "ha katechon" ("he who lets") may be rendered in Latin "qui claudit."  The similarity of claudit and Claudius has led many to conclude that Paul cryptically referred to Claudius Caesar by this allusion in a manner similar to St. John's reference to Nero by the number six hundred threescore and six.[7]

Beginning with Tiberius, the Jews were under intense imperial disfavor, which continued through the reigns of Caligula and Claudius.  Claudius restrained the Jews from persecuting the church, extending it the protection of law under the religio licita, even banishing the Jews from Rome for rioting because of "Chrestus."[8]   As long as Claudius was at the head of Rome, the Jews were prevented to openly persecute the church.  However, Claudius was taken out of the way when he was poisoned by his wife, Agrippina, Nero's mother.  This brought Nero to the throne, opening the way for the Jews back into imperial favor; Nero's wife, Poppaea, was a Jewish proselyte.  The antichristian movement ("mystery of iniquity") that had thus been hidden and repressed under Claudius was loosed and revealed under Nero.[9]

Man of Sin

Tradition among primitive Christians identified St. Paul's "man of sin" with St. John's "antichrist" and Revelation's "beast," many holding that these were references to Nero.  Victorinus and Augustine we already heard from, above.  In his fourth homily on II Thessalonians, St. Chrysostom (A.D. 347 to 407) states, 

"For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work." He speaks here of Nero... But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it."[10]

Lactantius (A.D. 260-330) writes:

"And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the rue religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord.  When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and , condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith.  He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul; nor did he escape with impunity; for God looked on the affliction of His people; and therefore the tyrant, bereaved of authority, and precipitated from the height of empire, suddenly disappeared, and even the a burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen."[11]
Reference to Nero as a "noxious, wild beast" is generally understood to be an allusion to the beast of Revelation; reference to Nero's attempt to raze the temple of God (the church), to Thessalonians' "man of sin" taking his seat in the temple of God.  Sulpicius Severus (A.D. 360-420) makes similar comments:

"In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among men, leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself: certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,-"And his mortal wound was healed," -to be sent forth again near the end of the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity."[12]

Although Sulpicius Severus erroneously concludes that Nero's life was somehow wondrously preserved and would appear again at the world's end, he correctly identified Nero with the "beast" and "man of sin" (cf. Rev. 13:3; II Thess. 2:7).  Other evidence that Nero was the "man of sin" will be discussed below.

The Falling Away

During the Reformation, many believed that the "man of sin" was the pope and the "falling away" spoke to Catholicism's corrupt forms of worship and doctrine.  However, few scholars can be found who take this seriously today.  The present tense of the verbs indicates that the "mystery of iniquity" was already at work, and he who "now letteth" would let until taken out of the way (II Thess. 2:6, 7).  This can hardly describe the papacy, which did not grow up until centuries later.  Instead, the better view is that Paul is describing the full and final rejection of Christ by the Jews through their participation in the persecution under Nero and apostasy from the church and a return to Judaism.   This is the crux of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy prophetic weeks (viz., 490 yrs) which would end in the destruction of the city and temple (Dan. 9:24-27).[13]  It was also spelled out at length by the prophet Isaiah.  First, Isaiah describes God's anger and contempt for the Jews' idolatrous devotion to the temple:

"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?  For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word (Isa. 66: 1, 2).

Then, he shows his abhorrence for the continuing temple cultus, which stood in denial of Christ's substitutionary death and atoning sacrifice:

"He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.  Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.  I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not (Isa. 66:3, 4).

Next, Isaiah speaks to the persecution of Christians by unbelieving Jews and the promise of Christ's coming:

"Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed (Isa. 66: 5).

And finally, Christ's coming in wrath to destroy the city and nation:

"A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, as voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to his enemies...For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire" (Isa. 66: 5, 15).

Here is explicit reference to the coming of the Lord to destroy his enemies in the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, predictions repeated by Christ in his Olivet discourse (Matt. 24, 25; Mk. 13; Lk. 21).[14]  This would come, as suggested by the Hebrew writer, after forty-years, like their fathers' in the wilderness (Heb. 3:7-4:11; cf. Num. 14:34).  The church's persecution and apostasy from the faith by a return to the temple cultus is the dominate theme of the epistle to the Hebrews and attests to the fact the apostasy Paul spoke of was then underway.  The writer is at pains to demonstrate the provisional nature of the temple service and Christ's imminent return to put his enemies beneath is feet by destruction of the city and nation, warning his readers from apostasy by returning to Judaism:   

"For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries...For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come and will not tarry.  Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.  But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:26, 27, 37-39).

Conclusion

St. Paul's "mystery of iniquity" and "man of sin" spoke to the apostasy of the Jewish nation by its full and final rejection of Christ and persecution of Christians under Nero.  The restraining power of Claudius was taken out of the way when he was poisoned by Nero's mother, Agrippina.  Nero then came to the throne and was revealed as the "man of sin," setting the stage for the final drama in God's eschatological purpose, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

[raggthyme13]

And lastly, I would reiterate that the first readers of the Revelation would have (with wisdom) been able to count the number of the beast. Rev 13:18 "...his number is 666." If "he" wasn't a reality in their time, how would they be able to calculate his name to figure out who it was that John spoke of?

[Red Baker]

There is no internal evidence that points to a pre-70 AD date.  The only way to see it is to look at it through a preterists lense, and that make your entire logic circular in nature.

Some of them are factually inaccurate.  Nero was the fifth emperor of rome, Dominitan was the sixth.

Rev 2:2 does not reference any of Jesus' apostles, only people who claimed to be apostles but were not.

Finally, the idea of a pre-70 AD date is a modern idea, formulated after the preterist theory.

There is a plethora of  internal evidence in the symbolic book.  Too many to list now.   I would have to go through all of Revelation.

One main point is that Mystery Babylon, the harlot is the focus of God's entire wrath in Rev. Babylon is 1st century Jerusalem.

The synagogue of Satan Jews are destroyed.  Jerusalem rode the Beast (Rome) They had a favorable relationship with freedom of temple worship, etc- (ie: under Herod the great ) They could buy and sell and trade in the temple.- Until the Jews revolted against Rome.
The Jews could no longer persecute Christians after AD70.  Their power had been shattered. (Dan.12) fulfillment.

In Rev. 18,  heaven rejoices over Babylon's fall. 
20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles[f] and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!"

verse 9,For in one hour your judgment has come.'

Jesus told the Jewish leadership that they were guilty "all the blood shed from Abel to Zach........' And this is the fulfillment of God's "hour of wrath" on those Jews!

The early date evidence has always been there.

The rest or "popular" date is just tradition speaking!

The date in which the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written is to me, a very moot point.  The question that should be asked is: "Can Revelation be interpreted by the rest of the scriptures?"   And the answer to that question is~yes.

Vain men, whose heart is set to defend their position, instead of the word of God, labor to try to get men believing that Revelation was before 70 A.D., so they can stamped Revelation FULFILLED 70 A.D.!. 

The book of Revelation of Jesus Christ, can be understood by comparing scripture with scripture.  Man could be totally ignorant concerning all history, (and we all to a certain degree anyway, since we must depend on man to give us truth concerning history that took place two thousand years ago) and still can have a perfect knowledge of the truth, concerning the word of God.  All extra-biblical source of information should be rejected when contending for the truths of the word of God.  The scriptures themselves will delivered to any sincere believer God's truth, concerning his word.  Once anyone steps outside of the word of God seeking for truth, then that man has put himself in a place to be deceived, and deservedly so.

Lehigh, You are dead wrong concerning Mystery, Babylon the great, which according to you, and we agree, is the focus of God's wrath in Revelation.  Babylon is not the Jewish people, and Jerusalem which now is in the middle east.  Men like you, get their suppose light and understanding from history, were as, believers trust the Author of the scriptures to give them understanding, from his word.  Truth is hidden in the word of God, from men, who seek elsewhere to find the meaning of them.

I just finished many post dealing with Mystery, Babylon the great.  I would be please if you want to debate me from what I have said by using only the scriptures. 

Again, when Revelation was written is a very moot point,  and we could care less when, what should concern us is~Can I find the truth of Revelation, from within the scriptures of truth?   And the answer to that is, of course believers can.

RB

[DaveW]

Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist viewpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

He also interprets it from an extreme replacement theology viewpoint.

Doesn't replacement theology teach that the church replaced Israel as God's chosen people?

That is only part of replacement theology.  Another part is that God now is done with the Jews and even hates them.  That is what I see in Lehigh's posts. He implies that the phrase "synagogue of satan" refers to all Jews.

[Covenanter]

RB
The question that should be asked is: "Can Revelation be interpreted by the rest of the scriptures?"   And the answer to that question is~yes.

There we agree. YES. The early date of writing is evident from Revelation & comparison with other prophetic Scripture. Read it, look up cross references, in Mat. 21 - 24, Mark 13, Luke 17 & 21, 1 & 2 Thessalonians & you will see that the destruction of Jerusalem, with all the elements of the old covenant, while protecting the believers, is plainly predicted. We don't rely on Josephus & other uninspired writers for the understanding of Revelation. It is remarkable that the historical accounts relating to ad 70 accord with Scripture prophecy.

The date in which the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written is to me, a very mute point.[/i] 

What do you mean by "mute point" ?
Definition of MUTE - unable to speak : lacking the power of speech

Whether the date in which the Revelation of Jesus Christ was written is a moot point - without significance - is with great significance for YOU, & all who reject the plain meaning of the book. It means you can reject the plain meaning - not by Scriptural means, but by the dubious & ambiguous testimony of Irenaeus. You further reject the plain meaning by imposing a historical or futurist interpretation.

moot
1 [moot] - adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. 

People reject the plain meaning, & evident early date, because they REJECT the plain meaning, & evident early date because of their imposed interpretation scheme.