Why Revelation was written before 70AD

[Covenanter]

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.

As usual, Dave, you try to refute Biblical truth by your own misunderstandings.

Israel is now the church, comprising believing Jews & Gentiles as one redeemed people of God in Christ. Unbelieving Jews & Gentiles live under God's condemnation while they reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is still commanded, & is required for salvation.

The presence in the Middle East of a nation calling itself "Israel" is of no prophetic significance. We look in vain in the NT including Revelation for such a prophecy. Note who the redeemed comprise:

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred tribe (of Israel), and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

[DaveW]

Israel is now the church, comprising believing Jews & Gentiles as one redeemed people of God in Christ.

While this is off topic here - (had nothing to do with when Rev was written) this is not correct.

"Israel" consists of 3 parts: believing Jews, unbelieving Jews and (as part of the Commonwealth) gentile believers.

Unbelieving Jews & Gentiles live under God's condemnation while they reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is still commanded, & is required for salvation.

I have no argument with that.

[Red Baker]

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.

Do not ask why I wrote mute, instead of moot!  Thinking one thing, and wrote another!  I will answer your post after I return from the doctor.  I been very sick this past week, and still am. 

RB

[Covenanter]

Ragtime:
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.

My understanding of this is that Paul is saying that the Day of the Lord will come after the fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy, so certain prophesied events are imminent.

The destruction would not come until the Jerusalem Christians had fled the city, as warned by Jesus, & seen by John in Rev. 7.

Mat. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:.....

2T2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Rev. 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

"What" is the Jerusalem church, & "he" is James, the church leader. The 144,000 are all the Jerusalem Christians whose presence in the city protected it from destruction.

[raggthyme13]

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.!. 

Not all men who believe in fulfilled eschatology are vain. That's a pretty broad and judgmental statement. I used to be a strong believer in dispensations, and the "Left Behind" view of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. Then I began studying FE and it made much more sense to me.. things from the OT started really fitting in and my concern with passages that once seemed to conflict faded away as I began to see from the (at least partial) preterist view. It seems to me to be much more balanced and true to the text.. especially the context!

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. 

If I may, I believe you misunderstand her.. no, Babylon is definitely not the modern state of Israel. I actually have never heard that from a preterist :) From what I've read, Preterists usually consider Babylon the Great the same "Babylon" that Peter speaks of (1Peter 5:13), namely Jerusalem (which was the topic of discussion in Matthew 24, and ultimately was trodden down in the first century.)

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've met MANY who love the Lord Jesus and have been changed by him, who have very different views on eschatology/ theology etc. How is it that all these are receiving understanding from God in the meaning of his word, and coming to such different conclusions? Yet they all say that they are led of the Spirit to their interpretation.

I'm trying to stick with the context and read what God wrote, and not read into it any unnecessary drama. The Olivet Discourse, in context, dealt with those to whom Jesus came, who rejected him as their Messiah. All these things would come upon that generation. Herod's temple was the temple the Lord spoke of. I read the remainder of the chapters in that context.

Revelation ties in with Matthew 24, so it makes sense to me that this also dealt with first century believers and those who persecuted them. I don't think Preterists have to work hard to try to fit it into a pre-70 timeframe. It just fits snug like a puzzle, imo.

[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?

That is only part of replacement theology.  Another part is that God now is done with the Jews and even hates them. 

God is not "done" with anyone.. what I think non-preterists often miss is that God's promises were fulfilled to Israel in the saving of (Isaiah's) remnant in the first century! Paul attests to this in Romans 11. These were still "coming in" when the book was written. It seems the gentiles were boasting against the branches God broke off, but Paul said not to boast, if they continued not in unbelief God would graft them in again. And the full remnant did come, the chosen according to the election of grace, then came the end of the age (Matthew 24, Luke 21) when Jerusalem was compassed with armies and Herod's temple was razed to the ground. Judgment came upon those who persecuted the Israel of God, just as Jesus said would happen in the parable of the wicked husbandmen.

As I said earlier, that remnant of Jews who came to Christ was the church! Into this tree the gentiles were grafted. I'm not sure how we got from that biblical truth to this dispensational understanding (where the modern Jews are God's chosen.. and then there's the church.) Biblically, God fulfilled his promises to Israel (to the remnant) in Jesus Christ.

As to the modern state of Israel, they are no different than any other person, given the opportunity to "come... whosoever will, and take the water of life freely." If anyone hates them, it's the same as hating anyone.. but we are called to love people and pray for them.. all people!

That is what I see in Lehigh's posts. He implies that the phrase "synagogue of satan" refers to all Jews.

Not that I've read, and I've read a lot of what she has written. Lehigh can correct me, but I believe the phrase "synagogue of satan" is in reference to those who called themselves Jews but were not, who persecuted the saints prior to ad70... the "Jerusalem" to which Jesus said, "thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee.."

I've yet to hear of any preterist who views the modern Jewish nation as linked in any way to this Jerusalem.

[raggthyme13]

Ragtime:
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.

My understanding of this is that Paul is saying that the Day of the Lord will come after the fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy, so certain prophesied events are imminent.

The destruction would not come until the Jerusalem Christians had fled the city, as warned by Jesus, & seen by John in Rev. 7.

Mat. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:.....

2T2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Rev. 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

"What" is the Jerusalem church, & "he" is James, the church leader. The 144,000 are all the Jerusalem Christians whose presence in the city protected it from destruction.

I can see this.. I definitely don't subscribe to every detail of any article I may post. I'm still undecided on whether ALL was fulfilled, including the last day and the resurrection. Need to study a lot more.. need the time to do so!

[Stormcrow]

I'm still undecided on whether ALL was fulfilled, including the last day and the resurrection.

"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.  But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." Daniel 12:1-4 (ESV)

The time of the end is when all these other things were prophesied to happen:

• Trouble such as had never been seen before
  
• Salvation
• Resurrection
• Knowledge of the Lord spread abroad (the apostles spreading the gospel)

Daniel was told to seal up the book because the time of the end was not upon physical Israel.  But look at what John is told to write by - presumably - the same angel who told Daniel to seal up the words of his book:

And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Revelation 22:10 (ESV)

Daniel and John were looking at the same events through different ends of the same telescope.  What was far away to Daniel was "at hand" to John.  All of it.  And there can be only one set of circumstances that fulfills the prophecies of both Daniel and Revelation: the events leading up to - and including - the destruction of Jerusalem, beginning with the first coming of Christ.  John's generation was the last to see the Kingdom of God in the hands of Israel's apostate priesthood.  It was also the first to see Christ take it from them violently, as per Matthew 21-24.

[raggthyme13]

I'm still undecided on whether ALL was fulfilled, including the last day and the resurrection.

"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.  But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." Daniel 12:1-4 (ESV)

The time of the end is when all these other things were prophesied to happen:

• Trouble such as had never been seen before
  
• Salvation
• Resurrection
• Knowledge of the Lord spread abroad (the apostles spreading the gospel)

Daniel was told to seal up the book because the time of the end was not upon physical Israel.  But look at what John is told to write by - presumably - the same angel who told Daniel to seal up the words of his book:

And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Revelation 22:10 (ESV)

Daniel and John were looking at the same events through different ends of the same telescope.  What was far away to Daniel was "at hand" to John.  All of it.  And there can be only one set of circumstances that fulfills the prophecies of both Daniel and Revelation: the events leading up to - and including - the destruction of Jerusalem, beginning with the first coming of Christ.  John's generation was the last to see the Kingdom of God in the hands of Israel's apostate priesthood.  It was also the first to see Christ take it from them violently, as per Matthew 21-24.

Very good points to consider. Honestly, I do tend to lean this way, that is until someone brings up good points from the partial preterist position. Then I'm forced to get my nose deeper into the Bible to "figure it all out", which I never seem to do!

[Happy22]

Daniel was specifically told that "the end" would come when the "power of the holy people [the Jews]" was shattered. The power of the Jews was shattered in 70 A.D. at the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem . . . and it was this very destruction that Jesus was speaking of in the Olivett Discourse.

Matthew records that Jesus said the end would come after the Gospel had been preached in the whole world. It would seem that this could not have happened by 70 A.D. But as Paul shows in Colossians 1:5-6, 23 and  Romans 10:18 it had in fact gone into the whole world ("the world" was synonymous with the Roman Empire - see Acts 11:28; 17:6).

"The End" was the end of the Old Covenant. The "end times" (or "last days") were the transition period that lasted about 40 years starting from the time of Christ and extending one generation (Mt. 24:34) to 70 A.D. Just as the Old Covenant was established after a 40 year transition time (from Egypt to the Promised Land), so was the New established in a 40 year transition out of spiritual Egypt.

[raggthyme13]

Would someone who believes the prophecy of Revelation is still future be so kind as to answer this?

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?

[notreligus]

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

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews. 

[Lehigh]

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

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews. 

T

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

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews. 

It was "it" for the Jews" according to God.
The Bar Kokhba rebellion was doomed to failure from the beginning, because Christ's reign had already been established for the aeons, 65 years earlier, at the Consummation of the Eschaton (in 70). Bar Kokhba and his men were trapped under the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ from the very day they were conceived.

Their fruitless rebellion belongs in the same category as the incident that took place after Emperor Julian (361 - 363) actually attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem for the express purpose of discrediting Jesus' prophecy that not one stone of the Temple would be left standing on another. When Julian's plan was announced, Jews from all over came to Judea with funds to contribute to the project. To their consternation, the work was abruptly terminated.

The Pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus related what happened:

"[Julian] planned at vast cost to restore the once splendid Temple at Jerusalem. ....He had entrusted the speedy performance of this work to Alypius of Antioch... But though this Alypius pushed the work on with vigor, aided by the governor of the province, terrible balls of fire kept bursting forth near the foundations of the Temple and made the place inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the enterprise halted" (Ammianus Marcellinus: XXIII; 1; 1-3)

The rebels under Bar Kokhba, like Julian, were wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked, and simply did not know it (Rev. 3:17). In their endevours to restore the old things that God Himself had brought to an eternal end, they were sealing their fate as those who were in abject, spiritual destitution, confirming that they had never been clothed with God's true, eternal Temple that had come down from Heaven.

The prophecy of Zech. 14:16-19 specifically applies to such men and their followers:

"Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths" (Zech. 14:16-19).

[Happy22]

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

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews.

The major thing that happened in 70AD, was the only connection that the Jews had to God (The Temple) was destroyed. That is why they cry daily at the Western Wall.

Jesus has built the new and improved Temple and we are the building blocks.

[raggthyme13]

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews.

Not that it didn't happen, it's history of course.. but it had nothing to do with Bible prophecy. That was "it" as far as their power being shattered, as some have spoken about here. The judgment of God upon Jerusalem happened when the temple was razed to the ground, not 65 years later. Full Preterists believe ad70 marks the end of the age.. the age the disciples asked about in Matthew 24:3, and that all prophecy was fulfilled by that time. As for wars and revolts etc, well, these will always happen.

[Stormcrow]

Also, Preterists typically do not acknowledge the Second Jewish Revolt about 65 years later during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  They describe A.D. 70 like that was "it" for the Jews.

Not that it didn't happen, it's history of course.. but it had nothing to do with Bible prophecy. That was "it" as far as their power being shattered, as some have spoken about here. The judgment of God upon Jerusalem happened when the temple was razed to the ground, not 65 years later. Preterists believe ad70 marks the end of the age.. the age the disciples asked about in Matthew 24:3, and that all prophecy was fulfilled by that time.

And it's important to remember that the whole of Jewish religion, politics, and society revolved around the Temple.  It's also important to note that the Temple - which is the place where heaven met earth - is also symbolic of Christ's body (the God of heaven born into the body (dust) of earth; again where heaven met earth).  The Temple was the paradigm for God's presence on earth for about 1,000 years, but it was never intended to be the permanent place of God's residence on Earth.  Jesus and Paul (among others) are quite clear on that point: just as the earthly Temple and - later - Christ's body would be the habitation of God's Spirit on earth, so now we are His holy habitation; each and every member of the body of Christ.  This is why the destruction of the Temple was necessary; you can't place new wine into old wine skins. 

The Old Covenant Temple paradigm had to go to make way for the New: New Temple, new royal priesthood, new Jerusalem and all of these are spiritual, not physical.  The Old Covenant is a shadow and forerunner of the New.  The book of Hebrews makes this quite clear. 

It's ironic that the physical Temple was the shadow of the spiritual temple, which is the substance. 

Shadow=Physical, Substance=Spiritual, yet the Jews rejected Jesus because they had it completely backwards, faith being the thing they lacked to see the difference.

[Stormcrow]

And just to follow up on the previous post, this is why the heaven and earth metaphor is so important in both the Old Testament and the New.  Jesus uses this same metaphor in Matthew 5:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV)

Heaven and earth is a metaphor for the Temple, which was the center of Jewish Law, society, and religion.  Jesus is saying here that the Law would remain in effect until "heaven and earth" passed away.  Dispy/futurists read this as the literal heaven and earth of the planet and universe, but this is not what Jesus meant.  He was speaking of the passing of the Old Covenant paradigm symbolized in the Temple.

He places a time constraint on the events surrounding the Temple's destruction in Matthew 24:

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Matthew 24:34-35 (ESV)

Again, what did the disciples ask Him at the beginning of the chapter: "When will the Temple be destroyed?"

Finally, John sees a vision of the Temple's destruction in Revelation 21:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. Revelation 21:1 (ESV)

(The sea to which John refers is both a reference to the brazen sea that was part of the priestly cleansing rituals in the physical Temple, [see 1Kings 7:23-47], and the gulf that separated men from God.  So many parallel images to this, such as the children of Israel passing through the sea to reach the promised land; the blood of Christ replacing the waters of the sea used to cleanse the priests, etc.)

The point is that there is a beautiful harmony between Revelation and the Gospels when read as the apostles wrote them: from the perspective of 1st century Jews witnessing prophecy unfolding right before their eyes.

Now, compare Matthew 5:18 with Luke 21:20-22:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.  Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,  for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Luke 21:20-22 (ESV)

See it? 

...until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near...for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

The desolation of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of the Law, and the fulfillment of the Law meant heaven and earth had passed away, therefore, the desolation (destruction) of Jerusalem was the passing of heaven and earth.  The new heaven and earth (New Jerusalem) is here and those who name Christ as Lord are part of it.

[raggthyme13]

And it's important to remember that the whole of Jewish religion, politics, and society revolved around the Temple. 

Yes, which reminds me that the Jews were trying to bring the believers back into bondage, and to serve the shadow rather than the reality. Once the temple was destroyed, any who would have been tempted to return to that form of worship would know assuredly that God had done away with it.

I like your point about the earthly temple as merely a shadow of the heavenly temple that God was constructing in his people. The former's destruction would have been quite a testimony to all, that God meant what he said when he gave his Son the words to speak against Jerusalem, that generation which killed the prophets, and ultimately his own Son.

I have a hard time with the fact that for over 10 years I never saw how central ad70 was to the entire Bible. Oh well, I guess better late than never! ;)

[Stormcrow]

And it's important to remember that the whole of Jewish religion, politics, and society revolved around the Temple. 

Yes, which reminds me that the Jews were trying to bring the believers back into bondage, and to serve the shadow rather than the reality. Once the temple was destroyed, any who would have been tempted to return to that form of worship would know assuredly that God had done away with it.

I like your point about the earthly temple as merely a shadow of the heavenly temple that God was constructing in his people. The former's destruction would have been quite a testimony to all, that God meant what he said when he gave his Son the words to speak against Jerusalem, that generation which killed the prophets, and ultimately his own Son.

I have a hard time with the fact that for over 10 years I never saw how central ad70 was to the entire Bible. Oh well, I guess better late than never! ;)

I spent the better part of 30 years as a Futurist/Dispensationalist, pre-trib, pre-mil, basically the stuff taught by most seminaries and churches.  Everybody was looking for the return of Christ within the generation of Israel's return to the land in 1948.  When 1988 came and went proving Hal Lindsay (among others) wrong, they started looking at 1967 as the date for when the "rapture clock" would reset.  Hasn't happened.  Won't happen.  Jesus has made us His arms, legs, hands, feet, heart, and voice here on earth.  There is nothing more that can be done or needs to be done to redeem all mankind that He hasn't already done. 

Christians need to engage in every facet of life on this earth while we are here.  He called us to be salt and light.  The fact that so many sit in pews praying for Jesus to come physically to earth again to save the world from evil is an affront to the gospel of Christ: He's already done it one temple brick (us) at a time. 

[raggthyme13]

I honestly would love to see Jesus come again to put an end to all the wickedness and perversion on this earth. But when I read about his coming it always seems to be in the context of that generation to which he first came. I wonder how partial preterists separate out another coming and what scriptures are understood to back that up. But I guess that is for another thread.

Still hoping someone will answer my question at the top of this page about first century saints calculating the number of the beast... to get back to the book of Revelation...

[Stormcrow]

I wonder how partial preterists separate out another coming and what scriptures are understood to back that up. But I guess that is for another thread.

Most of them that I have seen read a gap into the text between Matthew 24:35 and 24:36 (they believe Jesus suddenly changes the subject there.)  Others believe Matthew 24 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem while Matthew 25 deals with the end of the world scenario.

People familiar with linguistics, grammar, and literary context don't buy such arbitrary divisions in the text. 

Still hoping someone will answer my question at the top of this page about first century saints calculating the number of the beast... to get back to the book of Revelation...

The dispy/futurist believes John was writing Revelation to us living 2,000 years later, and so would argue that this generation - the one they believe is the last - is the one that needs to calculate the number (as ridiculous as that all seems.)

Thank you Cyrus Scofield.   

[Covenanter]

The answers Stormcrow & Lehigh give are good & Scriptural, & cannot be readily refuted. They go against the consensus of the consistent expectation of a final coming of the Lord Jesus for resurrection & judgement.

They represent interpretation according to a Preterist hermeneutic, & need to be examined according to a covenant theology hermeneutic as well as an approach without hermeneutical preconceptions.

I am studying this & will be back.

[raggthyme13]

Thank you Cyrus Scofield.   

pretty much.

[k-pappy]

Who is Cyrus Scofield?

[Stormcrow]

Who he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._I._Scofield

And why he matters to this discussion:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20090507.htm

(Conspiracy theories aside, the author of the latter link documents Scofield's history pretty well.)

And one reason why the SRB is an abomination...

Here's what the Word says:

'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'" Matthew 13:30 (NASB)

And here are Scofield's notes on this verse:

Verse 30

The gathering of the tares into bundles for burning does not imply immediate judgment. At the end of this age (Matthew 13:40) the tares are set apart for burning, but first the wheat is gathered into the barn.; John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

Scofield contradicts Matthew, and this isn't the only verse wherein he does so.  Here's the problem with Scofield, as some see it (the author of the article is quoting another writer):

"Why would a wealthy German Jew like Untermeyer living in America sponsor Scofield and spend money on a man who was working on a new Bible translation and preaching Jesus Christ?" Torell asked.

Jewish leaders long ago recognized the bonanza for them if they could force the teaching of an imminent rapture on Christians and move them to abandon their moral hold on society. Darby was financially supported and Scofield, Darby's successor, could make this teaching central in all Christian churches. Removal of Christians from politics and public schools would leave the door open for Jewish writers and political leaders to move in and remove the Bible and prayer from public schools and political institutions.

Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I'm not comfortable at all with this "blame the Zionist Jews for everything" screed.  Still, the idea that Evangelicals have ceded moral authority in this society because they're too busy helping rebuild Israel's Temple so that "Jesus can return and make everything right" is evident in the actions of the church, many of its seminaries, and its American leaders. 

I have often argued that this is one of the unintended consequences of Dispy/Futurism: it shifts the emphasis and responsibility for Christian involvement in society to Christ who - whenever He returns - will simply say the word and make everything perfect!  Therefore, why worry about how bad the world gets while we're in it?  It's completely contrary to Jesus' admonition that we are to be "salt and light", i.e. to heal, preserve and enlighten the world around us.

Scofield's teachings are the real heresy, yet they are at the heart of American and British Fundamentalism, and seminaries - like Dallas Theological - continue to train new generations of pastors with the Scofield Reference Bible.  If ever there were a book that needed to be burned and a name drummed out of existence, it should be Scofield and his heretical bible.

[DaveW]

The Bar Kokhba rebellion was doomed to failure from the beginning, because Christ's reign had already been established for the aeons, 65 years earlier, at the Consummation of the Eschaton (in 70). Bar Kokhba and his men were trapped under the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ from the very day they were conceived.

If that is so, why did so many Jesus believers join in the fight? (at least until Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba the "messiah" and they left the fray being unwilling to fight for a false messiah)

The Talmud records that Bar Kochba was the final total separation of church and synagogue.  The Jesus believers had just been welcomed back into the synagogues following their exit from the 70 ad fight which traditional Jews saw as abandoning them.

[Stormcrow]

The Bar Kokhba rebellion was doomed to failure from the beginning, because Christ's reign had already been established for the aeons, 65 years earlier, at the Consummation of the Eschaton (in 70). Bar Kokhba and his men were trapped under the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ from the very day they were conceived.

If that is so, why did so many Jesus believers join in the fight? (at least until Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba the "messiah" and they left the fray being unwilling to fight for a false messiah)

The Talmud records that Bar Kochba was the final total separation of church and synagogue.  The Jesus believers had just been welcomed back into the synagogues following their exit from the 70 ad fight which traditional Jews saw as abandoning them.

Why do so many "Jesus believers" do the stupid things they do today?     

The Mosaic Age (Old Covenant; age of Law) ended with the destruction of the Temple.  Nothing that happened later is relevant to prophecy, because Luke tells us that those were the "days of vengeance" so that "all which was written would be fulfilled."

[DaveW]

The Mosaic Age (Old Covenant; age of Law) ended with the destruction of the Temple. 

That certainly is one theory.  But it cannot be proved by scripture. Hebrews says the Mosaic covenant (written shortly before 70 ad) was "About to disappear." That could be taken as what happened at 70 but that is never confirmed in scripture.

Indeed the various books by John (written between 95-105 ad) never confirm that.

[Stormcrow]

The Mosaic Age (Old Covenant; age of Law) ended with the destruction of the Temple. 

That certainly is one theory.  But it cannot be proved by scripture. Hebrews says the Mosaic covenant (written shortly before 70 ad) was "About to disappear." That could be taken as what happened at 70 but that is never confirmed in scripture.

Indeed the various books by John (written between 95-105 ad) never confirm that.

Except that Revelation wasn't written after 70 AD.  It was written before.  Furthermore, there is not a single book of the New Testament that can be proven to have been written after 70 AD.  All were written before, as the internal testimony of each looks forward to Christ's parousia within the generation of those who wrote the NT, just as Christ prophesied.

So the argument as to when the books of the NT were written ultimately boils down to this: how much faith do you place in Christ to be true to His word? 

If you don't believe Him, why do you follow Him?   

[Covenanter]

I understand that at the time of the rise of modernism in the early 1900s, Scofield's teaching of Biblical inspiration & authority in a one-volume commentary was welcomed by evangelicals as a defence of Scripture.

It was distributed to American Bible college students, so becoming the standard reference for Bible-believing Christians & establishing "dispensationalism" as the interpretative paradigm.

As you will see if you look around the forum, that situation hasn't changed. Scripture, thanks to Scofield, is now relegated to a "source" for random support for dispensational error.

[Stormcrow]

Scripture, thanks to Scofield, is now relegated to a "source" for random support for dispensational error.

And the scary thing is, that situation isn't likely to change soon.

The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible notes are now in the public domain, and the Bible is "consistently the best selling edition" in the United Kingdom and Ireland.[9] In 1967, Oxford University Press published a revision of the Scofield Bible with a slightly modernized KJV text and a muting of some of the tenets of Scofield's theology.[10] The Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

And here's yet another area where Scofield has cast people adrift on the endless sea of eschatalogical speculation (instead of grounding them in the truth!)

The Scofield Reference Bible promoted dispensationalism, the belief that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras were a framework for synthesizing the message of the Bible.[6] It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism grew in influence among fundamentalist Christians in the United States. Scofield's notes on the Book of Revelation are a major source for the various timetables, judgments, and plagues elaborated by popular religious writers such as Hal Lindsey, Edgar C. Whisenant, and Tim LaHaye;[7] and in part because of the success of the Scofield Reference Bible, twentieth-century American fundamentalists placed greater stress on eschatological speculation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

Read just about any "end time" discussion on any Christian web forum, or read virtually any blog on eschatology, and you will see the influence of Scofield on the minds of otherwise completely rational people.  He - more than anyone else - is responsible for the end-times madness that seems to have gripped America, so much so that even the American media - with no shortage of unbelievers - falls for it!  Look at the influence his nonsense has had over Hollywood!

Scofield's teachings tickle itching ears.  They are fantasy not grounded in any scriptural reality whatsoever.  Yet, there are people on this very website who - though they may not have heard of him - have been profoundly influenced by his lies. 

Go figure.   

[DaveW]

Except that Revelation wasn't written after 70 AD.  It was written before.  Furthermore, there is not a single book of the New Testament that can be proven to have been written after 70 AD.  All were written before, as the internal testimony of each looks forward to Christ's parousia within the generation of those who wrote the NT, just as Christ prophesied.

So the argument as to when the books of the NT were written ultimately boils down to this: how much faith do you place in Christ to be true to His word? 

If you don't believe Him, why do you follow Him?   

I follow Him because I believe Him, and not your interpretation of Him.

The best historical evidence places Revelation being written about 95 ad, with the 3 letters somewhere about 98-99 ad and the gospel about 105 ad, and possibly compiled from his notes by his disciples after his death.

There is nothing in any of that to shake my faith.

[Stormcrow]

Except that Revelation wasn't written after 70 AD.  It was written before.  Furthermore, there is not a single book of the New Testament that can be proven to have been written after 70 AD.  All were written before, as the internal testimony of each looks forward to Christ's parousia within the generation of those who wrote the NT, just as Christ prophesied.

So the argument as to when the books of the NT were written ultimately boils down to this: how much faith do you place in Christ to be true to His word? 

If you don't believe Him, why do you follow Him?   

I follow Him because I believe Him, and not your interpretation of Him.

The best historical evidence places Revelation being written about 95 ad, with the 3 letters somewhere about 98-99 ad and the gospel about 105 ad, and possibly compiled from his notes by his disciples after his death.

There is nothing in any of that to shake my faith.

The very best historical evidence places the writing of the book during the reign of Nero.  Or have you never heard of the 5th century Syriac verisons of the New Testament?

Murdock Syriac (5th Century)

"The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."
   
Etheridge Syriac (5th Century)

THE REVELATION WHICH WAS MADE UNTO JUHANON THE EVANGELIST, FROM ALOHA, IN PATHAMON THE ISLAND, WHITHER HE HAD BEEN CAST BY NERO CAESAR.

Robert Young, who authored "Young's Analytical Concordance, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation which was published about 1885. In that work, Young makes the following statement: "It [the book of Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosins, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."

Alfred Edersheim in his book, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, Books for the Ages, Albany, Oregon, 1997, states on pages 95 and 96 that the internal evidence of the book of Revelation points to a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem for the writing of Revelation.

Philip Schaff in his work History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, vol.1, p. vi writes "...the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before."

There is no evidence - either internally or externally (save a misinterpretation of Irenaeus' words) - to suggest that the book of Revelation (or any book of the NT, for that matter) was written after 70 AD.  None.

But I bet you take Scofield at his word.   

[DaveW]

"The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."

Except the Roman records show it was Domitain (next caesar after Nero) who exiled him there in the early 90s and the Senate released him from exile circa 97 ad.  Domitain exiled a couple of thousand "prisoners" that he did not like for various reasons and the Senate reversed almost all of them as soon as he died.

[notreligus]

Scripture, thanks to Scofield, is now relegated to a "source" for random support for dispensational error.

And the scary thing is, that situation isn't likely to change soon.

The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible notes are now in the public domain, and the Bible is "consistently the best selling edition" in the United Kingdom and Ireland.[9] In 1967, Oxford University Press published a revision of the Scofield Bible with a slightly modernized KJV text and a muting of some of the tenets of Scofield's theology.[10] The Press continues to issue editions under the title Oxford Scofield Study Bible, and there are translations into French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

And here's yet another area where Scofield has cast people adrift on the endless sea of eschatalogical speculation (instead of grounding them in the truth!)

The Scofield Reference Bible promoted dispensationalism, the belief that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras were a framework for synthesizing the message of the Bible.[6] It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism grew in influence among fundamentalist Christians in the United States. Scofield's notes on the Book of Revelation are a major source for the various timetables, judgments, and plagues elaborated by popular religious writers such as Hal Lindsey, Edgar C. Whisenant, and Tim LaHaye;[7] and in part because of the success of the Scofield Reference Bible, twentieth-century American fundamentalists placed greater stress on eschatological speculation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

Read just about any "end time" discussion on any Christian web forum, or read virtually any blog on eschatology, and you will see the influence of Scofield on the minds of otherwise completely rational people.  He - more than anyone else - is responsible for the end-times madness that seems to have gripped America, so much so that even the American media - with no shortage of unbelievers - falls for it!  Look at the influence his nonsense has had over Hollywood!

Scofield's teachings tickle itching ears.  They are fantasy not grounded in any scriptural reality whatsoever.  Yet, there are people on this very website who - though they may not have heard of him - have been profoundly influenced by his lies. 

Go figure.   

I used to be a card-carrying Dispensational, but I have studied this subject enough to know that anti-Zionists re-wrote the history about Scofield and lied about him.  Yes, before he was saved he was a drunkard and probably a crook.  Much the same could be said about many before they were saved.  I have read smear campaigns concerning Scofield and these things are said about him as though he was always a drunkard and a crook.  Like the adage, I take what is said by the folk who have such a disdain for him with a grain of salt.