Tonight we are continuing our series Eschatology and the Antichrist. This is part four of this series. And tonight I want to tackle a question that has to do with the date of the book of Revelation. So we're going to engage in a topic we don't often cover, New Testament introduction, which is part of seminary education and deals with the authorship, the origin, the genre, and the critical issues perspective of particular books of the Bible. The issue with Preterism is, as you know, there are a number of popular writers can gently among others who make a large issue of the date of the book of Revelation and so at some point in this series, this has never an issue we haven't addressed. I haven't addressed it in any place yet. I do have an extensive appendix on it in my book and if you want the references go there and I deal with that in some detail and we'll cover that material tonight. So the theme, the date of the book of Revelation and the subpoint is a problem for Preterists. Now as I note on my first point, a theological position is only as strong as its weakest link and the Preterist interpretation of the doctrine of Antichrist and the Beast is based upon the fact that John was supposedly given his apocalyptic vision before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Now this allows Preterists then to identify the beast of the book of Revelation with Nero, thereby limiting any Christ to the series of heretics mentioned in John's epistles who will plague the church until the Lord's return. So if you know the contemporary Preterist's position and I want to just define the term against, you know how I'm using it. I'm now speaking of Preterism for the generic view that most of the events of New Testament are completed by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and we're not talking about partial Preterism or full Preterism now. We're just using it in the generic sense of those who would like to contend that eschatology is pretty well fulfilled with the exception of the second coming of Christ by the events of AD 70. So according to Preterist then the events of Revelation 13 to 18, which we went through last week in some detail, those events lie in the past and we're fulfilled in the first century. And so that means there will be no future manifestation of a Nero like Beast or an end times Antichrist who will persecute the church immediately before our Lord's return at the end of the age. And as I've been arguing, as I see it, most Preterists were former dispensationalists or have come out of fundamentals and toward reformation theology and they are overreacting, I think, against so much of the dispensational overextension with tying current events to biblical prophecy. And so one of the ways to solve that is to just push everything back in the past and take it off the table and it's no longer an issue. As I've argued many, many times and I won't go through it again tonight, I think there's a pronounced tension in the New Testament between things fulfilled and things yet to be fulfilled, this already not yet, this age age to come tension, I think it's the pervasive eschatology of the New Testament. And so if you take that tension and cut through it, futurists push all the eschatology into the New Testament off until the time of the end. And that's the probably center dispensational friends who don't take seriously the fact that in the book of Revelation, John says he's writing about things that are soon to come to pass. On the other hand, Preterists then remove eschatology by and large from the New Testament by pushing everything back into the past. And I think that's a problem on both sides. I think there's that pronounced tension between those two things. And I think we have to hold those things in their proper tension to make sense of a number of things taught in the New Testament. Now if it can be shown that the book of Revelation was written after 8070, the Preterist interpretation of the beast as a figure entirely of the past becomes untenable. And while the case for the view of Antichrist and the beast that I'm going to present tonight is surely strengthened by a post-8070 dating of Revelation, the overall case for my position as a reformed omelinarian is not dependent on the book of Revelation. So the third point listed, I'm going to basically make the case that I think the evidence points toward the late date between 1990-95, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty much overwhelming in that direction. But reformed omelinosum doesn't stand or fall at all on the day of the book of Revelation. You have people like Jay Adams and others who are reformed and omelennial and yet see a pre-8070 date for the book of Revelation. But if you're a preterist and the book of Revelation is written after 8070, then preterism collapses. And there are a number of issues then that are raised. So this really is a point that preterists have to make, that the book of Revelation is written before 8070, and that's why there's so much interest in the date of Revelation. It comes out of the preterist camp because it's really a non-issue from my position. But it's a huge issue if you're a preterist. You have to show that early date or else your position is greatly weakened. So someone like Ken Gentry in his book before Jerusalem fell, which is a significant book on the topic, argues for a pre-8070 date. He would hold the full preterist position that these events are largely fulfilled. He's of course not a hyper-preterist in any sense and holds the orthodox view of the second coming and so on. But there are a number of other scholars that hold to an early date that don't fit the omelor preterist campus of the critical scholars. I'm thinking of someone like John E. T. Robinson, who wrote his famous book redidding the New Testament when Robinson makes a very compelling argument that every book of the New Testament was written before 8070, including the book of Revelation. And I tend to, just so you know, be on the side that says, yeah, I think that thesis is probably sustainable. I think there's a lot of evidence that shows the books of the New Testament are written early on rather than later, except for the apocalypse. So I think the evidence for the apocalypse being written much later is pretty much overwhelming. Another critical scholar that is quoted often as a jam Ford, who has some very bizarre views about the book of Revelation, very liberal scholar, who believes that this John, in fact, may indeed be someone associated with John the Baptist, and no other scholars except that position is tenable. And then are the three famed English New Testament scholars who dominated the world of biblical scholarship well into the early part of the century. I'm thinking of people like Westcott, Horton, Lightfoot, who have done a very good job in arguing for this early date. They're arguments, I think, are the most cogent and salient. But you end up with that small minority of scholars arguing for the early date when virtually all critical scholars, all evangelical scholars opt for the so-called late date around 80, 95 during the reign of Domitian. Now I think we have to talk about methodology here just briefly. There really isn't a smoking gun argument. There is no smoking gun piece of evidence that definitively dates the book of Revelation for us. And so we have to look at this by basically looking at evidence that's currently available and then assuming that this is going to be a probability case, what does the general thrust of the evidence say about the date of the book of Revelation? And I think it's important we lay that up methodologically because as I read, for example, Ken Gentry's book or some of the others, Gary DeMar and others, I get the strong sense that for theological reasons elsewhere, they've adopted predarism. And then come to the book of Revelation and say that has to be written before 87 year olds when I've assumed elsewhere cannot be true. And so you get the sense then that this is a theory in search of facts. So I think this is a theological argument for predarism that then has to approach the book of Revelation instead of saying, what does the overall sense of this book, what does the internal and external evidence say about when it was written? And looks at Revelation says, how do I get this before 8070? So you end up with a number of very odd interpretations of passages that scholars have generally rejected and predators have to assume these things to make the argument stick. Now I'm going to go back to one point that I skipped because I think it's important to touch on here. I'm of the opinion that these arguments for the early date of Revelation seem very contrived. And that is, predarism is assumed and then you look at the book of Revelation and find all the areas that could possibly hint at an early date and force that interpretation upon those. So that's methodologically I'm going to respond to some of this here as we go through the points tonight. Now what are the arguments for the early date of the book of Revelation by early date? I mean before 8070. What are these arguments and how do they work? Well the first one is found in Revelation chapter 11. So you may want to turn there and look through that. I'm going to just read it off the text here. In Revelation 11 verses 1 to 12 and we're going to concentrate here on the first couple verses momentarily. John mentions the Jerusalem temple supposedly according to predators as though we're currently standing when he was given his vision. And so obviously this seems like a very strong point that if the temple was still standing when John recorded his vision then the book of Revelation must have been written after the temple's destruction before the temple's destruction at the hand of the Rome is in 8070. So if it can be shown that John refers to the temple as though the temple were still standing that necessitates a terminal date of 8070 and there for Revelation has to be written before that. The passage that I want to appeal to first the first two verses of Revelation 11, John records the vision as follows. I was given a read like measuring rod and was told go and measure the temple of God and the altar and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court do not measure it because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the city the holy city for 42 months. So the argument runs as follows if John is speaking of the temple in Jerusalem and it's still standing when John's given his vision then this demands a date of composition before the temple was destroyed. Now on the face of it that seems like a very strong argument. So what do those who reject the pre-8070 argument say? Now I think the response is just very simply to notice that the passage uses very highly symbolic language throughout and that obviously points us away from a physical temple to a spiritual interpretation of the temple as the church. Now it's one thing to say that how are you going to prove that and that's the criticism that all millionarians always get from our dispensational friends. Well you just made the passage of wax nose you're going to just twist it all over the place how on earth are you going to prove that point. Well let's follow this through here momentarily and look at the passage in a bit more detail and see if that isn't the plain reading. Now G.B. Carrad famous commentator on the book of Revelation he makes this point I think it has to keep this in mind. In a book in which all things are expressed in symbols the very last things the temple on the holy city could mean would be the physical temple on the earthly Jerusalem. Remember everything in the book of revelations we saw several weeks ago has to be read through two lenses. One is where do we find that in the Old Testament we've argued that the book of revelations is basically a divinely given commentary on the Old Testament summing up all those things left undone. And the second thing is the historical situation when John is writing and that is the Roman Empire looking behind everything. And so all of these words that appear in Revelation loaded with symbolism have to be seen against the Old Testament backdrop. And so as Carrad points out he says look if John's referring to the Jerusalem temple as it's still standing then a rather remarkable thing has said to occur here. What do you get if the preters argument is in fact true? Well the Gentiles who according to this pre-870 dating and that would mean the armies of Titus who invade Jerusalem destroyed the city in the temple. They would occupy the outer court of the temple for three and a half years but leave the inner court and the altar undefiled. Now think about that for a minute. That didn't happen when the temple was destroyed and it lacks any connection to the historical events of 1870. Read Josephus the temple complex falls in one big push. There's no time where the Romans occupy the outer court for three and a half years while the inner court is remaining pristine. That never happens. And so if this is a prophecy it didn't come to pass because the historical events are greatly different. It also ignores John's use of these metaphors of Jerusalem and the temple and the metaphor of the outer court and the inner sanctuary where the altar is. But the passage makes perfect sense if the temple had already been destroyed when John writes because the time of the Gentiles was already underway. The outer court was presently being trampled while the true court the heavenly temple remains undefiled because it is protected by God. The outer court and the symbolism is the Gentiles overrunning the church but the inner court always remains pristine why it is in heaven. It's already not yet and so the passage then makes much better sense if in fact these are symbols of the church and the heavenly temple. Now Revelation 3-11 goes on to tell of two witnesses who prophesy for the same period of time as the outer court is trampled by the Gentiles that is this language of 1,260 days or 42 months. And as I argue in my book and both books actually I think in Revelation these are interpreted to be the entire interadvental age and these flow out of the last part of the prophecy of Daniel of the 70 weeks. And so John then interprets that final three and a half years of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks as the entire interadvental period. Now if that's true in the first part of Revelation chapter 11 verses 1-2 John is again speaking of the entire interadvental period. And we see this in Revelation 11, 3-11 the rest of this particular vision because here there are two witnesses and they prophesy for that same amount of time and they exercise miracle power that calls to mind at least it should the images of Moses and Elijah. And who then are slain by the beast in the great city and what's that city called in verses 3-11? Not Jerusalem, what's it called? You may remember Sodom and Egypt. So do we really want to say this is the literal Jerusalem temple? I don't think so because John goes on to use all kinds of images drawn again from the Old Testament of Sodom and Egypt. And these witnesses then are slain, only to be raised from the dead. And I take that to mean a picture of the martyrs preaching the gospel throughout the course of that age. When Satan the beast appears to kill them, they just come back stronger than ever with greater power than they had before. This is the promise of Jesus at the gates of hell will not prevail against this church. Now based on that account from John then the time period is very likely a symbolic description of that entire period between Christ first and his second coming. Not that time, immediately before the temples destroyed in 87, that's in the lifetime of the apostles. In fact, if you look at this closely, this is Bill's argument, I think this is very, very compelling. Bill says the measurements given by John, given by John to the angel, do not reflect in any sense the historical temple of Jerusalem. Instead what do they reflect? The vision of Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 of that heavenly temple which is regarded by almost all commentators as a reference to the church. And so it's important to recall that John isn't instructed to measure a temple that's still standing in Jerusalem rather than the angel instructs John to measure the temple he sees before him and the heavenly vision. And that's I think demonstrated by the fact that the 42 months and the times of the Gentiles are much more likely a reference to the interadvental period and not limited that time right before 8070. So I think on the face of it passage makes much more sense to see this as post 8070 instead of pre 8070 because if it is pre 8070, this doesn't fit historical circumstances. If it's post 8070, it would follow the use of the metaphor throughout the book of Revelation, but the temple on earth, the church on earth is constantly under assault from the beast and his forces. And yet the heavenly church, the church triumphant, is unassailable because it's in heaven and protected by Christ. So I think the passage makes much more sense post 8070. Second argument. Our predecessors will say that in Revelation 17 verses 9 to 11, the chronology of the kings mentioned by John requires a date before 8070. We spent a lot of time on that passage last week, but let's turn there again. Revelation 17 9 to 11, I'd just like to read the passage briefly. John in this vision of the great prostitute in the beast says this calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated. As I argued last time, there is no way John's readers understood this to refer to anything but the city of Rome. That's clearly what's implied by the city with seven hills. So there are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen. One is, the other is not yet common when he does, he must remain for a little while only. As for the beast that was in this knot, it is an eighth king, and it belongs to the seven that it goes on to destruction. So there are eight kings in view here, and it's argued then by a preterist that these kings are a reference to contemporary emperors before the time of Nero, and that the first in this series of kings is either emperor Augustus or Julius Caesar. And then the sixth king would be Nero. And both of whom, then, if that's true, if you follow this from either Augustus or Julius Caesar, follow this example through, and this is supposedly Nero, then this would require a chronology of a pre-870 date. Now on the face of it, I think that's the strongest of all of the preterist arguments. But as Bill and others have pointed out, there are a number of real problems with that historical identification. Now I know Ken Gentry is very confident that this is going to be done relatively easily, but I don't think that's necessarily the case because the question is, with which emperor do you start counting? Who's the first of these five kings, and then who's the sixth and who's the seventh being, and then who's the eighth, and remember the eighth king is still off in the future. And as I argued last time, that eighth king is really the reminder that the beast not only imitates the death and resurrection of Christ, the beast also imitates Christ's second coming, and so you have this manifestation of a final beast at the end of the age, that eighth king who appears off at the end of time. And so I think the preterist interpretation basically ignores that kind of apocalyptic structure here that's in the passage. So do you begin with Augustus? Do you begin with Julius Caesar? And then you have a problem, are all the emperors to be counted in that series, or only those emperors who participated in the imperial cult, there are four emperors who rule for a very short period of time. If you include them, the whole chronology gets messed up, and it doesn't work. So this isn't as easy to do as some of our preterist friends would like to believe. More importantly, how does the preterist interpretation square with Revelation 1711? Because we read the beast who once was, and now is not, who is an eighth king, he belongs to the seven, and is going to his destruction. How does this list fit? How do you get the eighth king in here? He's yet future. So that seems to fit with what we argued last time for a first century fulfillment in the Nero being replaced by Domitian. Domitian comes back with even more fear than Nero did, and that pointing ahead then to a final manifestation of evil before Christ returns at the time of the end. That seems to make much better sense, and by the way, it's exactly what John says here in Revelation chapter 17. So I think that the preterist argument for these being kings pointing up to Nero is very hard to defend. Now, let's suppose preterism is true and that argument's right. Either then John is teaching a literal resurrection of one of the earlier kings, and hence this Nero myth that we see coming back again and again, or else this is symbolic language that points us in the direction of a non literal interpretation of the succession of leaders. And I think that's an option we have to consider. Is John giving us a lesson in Roman history? And I think that's the question we have to ask. Preterists, of course, say yes to that, and this is a real chronology that everyone should immediately understand. How many kings are there? There are five, six. The prophecy seems to be fulfilled by the seventh, and pushing head to an eighth. Whenever you see the number seven, the book of Revelation that tells you what, we're talking about a completion of a fulfillment. So listen how a number of critical and evangelical scholars have tackled this. Beasley Murray says, and I think he's right, this whole procedure of identifying Emperor should be viewed as misguided. John is not only giving his, I read him again, John is not giving his readers a history lesson, nor is he speaking to the question of the exact number of the Roman emperors. As James sweet points out, John's readers all knew about Nero, but were as unlikely to have known the succession of emperors as readers today know that of the presence of the United States. This assumes, if you've ever seen Jay Leno and Jay Leno walks up to people and asks them, who is the president four terms ago? Can they tell you most of them can't? He's making the point that the Romans are much like our contemporaries are not really interested in this kind of stuff, and they know who it was if you told them, but in other words, that wasn't the point of this vision. It wasn't a lesson in the history of Roman emperors. The number seven is used throughout revelation as a symbolic number of completeness, and therefore his cared points out in his license of humor. John did not arrive at the number seven by counting emperors. The number seven is not to give us a lesson in Roman history. It is to tell us that when these emperors have come and gone, what God has ordained is complete, then comes the eighth and final king. That I think is what John's trying to tell us, and I think the critical scars and the eventual scars are only correct about this. John's point that would be that the church must face persecution throughout the entire present evil age, the completeness of this period symbolized by seven emperors, and the church must not suffer, the church must suffer not only under the seventh king throughout the course of this age, but at the end of time faces eighth king, who will arise in conjunction with the releasing of Satan from the abyss. Remember at the end of the Interadivinal Period, Satan is released from the abyss, he goes forward to deceive the nations, and I think John has told us again and again and again throughout revelation that the first century church facing Rome is a picture to Christians throughout all ages of the God hitting beasts, persecuting God's people. And then at the time of the end when Satan is released, we face one last final and terrible manifestation of the dragon empowering the beast or the state. And I think that's what John is showing us here in Revelation chapter 17. So the identification of the kings then in this passage, far more difficult than people would like to believe I think, and the issue for John's reader really isn't the chronology of the emperors, I think John's readers would be more interested in knowing who that eighth king was. I don't know about you, that's the king that I would be more worried about than the series that I had lived through. Who is this final king that who was and who is not and who is this false Christ-like figure, who's yet to come? So if you take the pretters position, you've got a big problem because John's readers are worried about the guy yet to come, the Christ figure who looks like a lamb but really is a roaring beast. So I don't think the pretters interpretation of this passage makes the best sense. Now, argument three for an early date of the book of Revelation is one we spent a little bit of time on last week. And that is since the number 666, likely refers to Nero, and we granted that that number probably does refer to Nero, it may indeed be a reference to Nero. But as I tried to argue last time, I think to speculate about the individual misses the theological import of the number 6666. 6 is the number of man, always trying to attain deity and never making it. 6666 is the number that tells us of something that is perfectly imperfect. They can never arise to the level of deity. And so Nero may have been the first to be identified as this emperor who desires to be divine and who claims divine prerogatives and who never can, but he's not the last. He's a picture of God hitting beasts that are going to arise throughout the course of this age, out of Hitler, Stalin. I mean, we see a whole list of these kind of guys that appear again and again in the course of history and are always seeking divine prerogatives and never able to get there, always working, never coming to rest. There's just a lot of theological import to that number that people overlook by being so preoccupied with figuring out who it is instead of what it is. Now, the prerogist position is that if this refers to Nero, then Revelation was written during, or shortly after Nero's reign, Nero's reign came to an end in 86.8 with his apparent suicide. And somehow this vision was completed before 870. Now, as we've seen, since the number 666 is at least as theological in a significance as it is historical, what symbolized by that number extends beyond Nero to all state leaders who oppose Christ and His kingdom. That's not just a Roman emperor. If you want to know what it's going to be like, Nero's a picture of us, but anytime a leader of the state takes unto himself divine prerogatives and thinks of himself as an object of worship, he in fact is manifesting what Nero did to the early church. So this isn't fulfilled by 870. As a matter of fact, the 1st century fulfillment points to continual fulfillment across time and a final fulfillment at the end of time. Now it fit with this beast dying and rising and then returning again just as our Lord has. And so no question here. Nero's in the mind of John's readers, but Nero's reign of terror doesn't exhaust the prophecy of Revelation 13. Now remember the beast imitates the resurrection of Christ when his deadly wound is healed and John's probably making the point that even though Nero was long dead, he had in fact returned in a sense through the person of domicion. Because domicion is the one currently persecuting the church when John's given his vision. You know, it looked like the beast had come to life, had tormented the church, terrorized the church, Nero put Peter to death, he put Paul to death. He is Christians as torches in his garden, he did all these horrible things, and then he commits suicide. And everybody goes, he's dead. Now 25 years later, it's even worse. It's now spread in Asia Minor where the churches of the book of Revelation exist. And it's back even worse under domicion. Because whereas Nero thought of himself as a demigod, domicion not only thinks of himself as a god, it's domicion not Nero who's insisting that people worship his image. So it has come back with a vengeance. It's worse than it was before. And so this is the Nero myth. Nero come back. It's probably in the form of this ongoing emperor cult, culminating with domicion. The beast is present when John writes Revelation in the form of this Revive Roman Empire. And it's natural to see John warning Christians across time of what to expect when they encounter what Richard Balkham, I think, beautifully calls a deification of power. This is the state taking to itself divine prerogatives. This is the leader of the state, the second beast from the land, trying to get the nations of the world to worship the state. So I mean, I'm with Augustin on that. This goes back to Augustin that the false prophet is the leader of the state. The beast is the state and the dragon is Satan who empowers them all. So I think this is an image of something that's ongoing, not something that's limited to the events of 1870. And so this opposition then from a series of beasts will continue until the end of the age when it intensifies and this eighth and final beast is revealed to be destroyed by Christ. Now, argument number four is the reference to Babylon throughout the Book of Revelation is symbolic of Jerusalem and apostate Judaism. This is one aspect of the pretters position that on the one hand has apparently a lot of evidence for it and yet claps as I think the quickest upon inspection. This is one of those you read the pretters or anything. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I've never thought of that before. And then as you start to examine it, you realize that that argument is pretty spacious. Now, in Revelation 11 verse 8, we read of the two witnesses. Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. So it's argued then that Jerusalem, the place where the Lord was crucified, is therefore identified as the great city. And then according to pretters, if you go ahead to Revelation 18, the great city is specific identified as Babylon. And so that means that the destruction of Babylon in 1870 fulfills the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon in Revelation chapter 18. So Jerusalem then's Babylon, when Jerusalem is destroyed in 1870, the Babylonian whore is destroyed. And all those images are pulled out of the Old Testament that seem to imply that apostate Jerusalem really is like Babylon. And there are a number of passages, probably 8 to 10 of them, that seem to make that point that Israel has become a spiritual Babylon and saw our pretters, friends, let's see. If Babylon's Jerusalem then Babylon is destroyed before 1870, and that argues then for the earlier date of the book of Revelation. Now, the problem with that is, very simply, that the same verse that's used to identify the great city as the place where Jesus is crucified isn't just called Jerusalem, it's also called Sodom and Egypt. Now, that suggests, I think, very clearly, a non-literal reading of that passage, especially in light of the fact that throughout the book of Revelation, Babylon is clearly a reference to the city of Rome. You can't tell me that somebody hearing John's vision in the first century, hearing of a city with 7 mountains and 7 hills didn't immediately think of Rome. And to argue that this is Jerusalem starts to get weaker and weaker and weaker than where you consider it. Sweet makes an interesting point. He says, like Hiroshima is for us, Sodom and Egypt and Babylon and Jerusalem are heavy with meaning. The great city in whose street the witnesses lie cannot, any more than vanity fair, be limited to one place in one time. That's John's old point. The place where the witnesses lie dead is any apostate city in the world that has killed God's messengers. It's like vanity fair. It's an ideal. It's a metaphor to show us wherever there are ungodly people and the gospels preach and they kill them. That's where the witnesses lay in the street. That's where they come from once they come back. And so the identification of Rome as Babylon, interestingly enough, was made by virtually all Jewish writers and commentators after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 1870 but never before. Indeed, this is a reference to the city of Jerusalem in the apostolic period. It would be the only place where such an identification is made. The Jews identified Babylon as Rome after Jerusalem fell because Rome did to Jerusalem what the Babylonians did but the Jews themselves never identified Jerusalem with Babylon. And if that's the case, then this is the only place in the New Testament where that interpretation would be made. And it's very much like the Man of Sin problem we saw before. If the word not on there at Temple is a reference to the Jerusalem Temple in 2 Thessalonians, that's the only place in the New Testament where that interpretation is used because everywhere else in Paul, not oner temple refers to the church. So, if preters are right, this is a unique reading in the New Testament and nowhere else in the book of Revelation is the term used of Jerusalem. It's always used of Rome. It's certainly used of Rome in the previous chapter because Rome is a city with seven hills and the series of kings. So, this is a classic case of one of those instances where, all right, I've got to get this before 1870. What am I going to do with this passage? And you force a reading on a text that you would never read that way unless you'd already assumed Revelation was written before 1870. That I think is the methodological problem with preterism. Instead of gathering the evidence and saying, okay, what's the best case here? You've made a theological determination now you're looking for facts to support it. So, you're not doing inductive historical kind of investigation and you're begging the question I think before you're already starting. This is a very good case at that. The argument 5 is that in Revelation 1 verse 7, John speaks of Jesus is coming on the cause of judgment which as you know, preters believe to be the events of 1870. And they argue then that this is a kind of prophetic interpretation, a prophecy basically of Jesus coming in judgment upon Israel in 70, which they say that fills the prophecy in Zechariah 12, 10 through 12. Where the world is equated with Jerusalem and the mention else where of Revelation tribes then is thought to be a reference to Israel and so of true preters will say, ah, there it is before 1870. But again, you look at this closely and there are all kinds of problems with that interpretation for one thing. The prophecy from Zechariah chapter 12 is a reference to Israel's eschatological salvation not to final judgment, that prophecy is a reference to the time when Israel is going to be saved which I take to be before the end of the age. It's not a reference to Israel's judgment or destruction but to Israel's salvation. And then the peoples of the earth literally the tribes of the earth, preters say, that has to refer to Israel. But where in Scripture do we have a reference to the peoples of the earth being a reference to Israel? It's just not there. And so nowhere unless it's here then do the tribes of the earth refer to just Israel I tribes, whenever that's used in the Septuagint it's translated all nations, not all Israel. And so I think this is a point again where on the face of it all of the Lord is going to come in judgment on it. That's got to be a prophecy of 87 and then when you look at the reference to the prophecy to which it's referring it's got nothing to do with Israel, it has to do with the nations. And that seems to me we could have this discussion later on. We probably ought to do some more work on the all of the discourse, the speciality of preterism, but the idea of coming in the clouds being limited to just Jerusalem doesn't fit with anything in the epistles because that's always universalized to the judgment on the world not just Israel. So this is another quasi case of having to make a text fit with a preconceived idea regarding the date of the book of Revelation. Okay then what are the arguments in favor of a post 8070 date of authorship? What are the arguments for the other side? Well I think far and away the most important reason for dating Revelation after 8070 is the evidence throughout the book of the presence of emperor worship and this imperial cult that underlies much of what takes place through John's vision. In other words I think the pastoral issue that John is addressing to the seven churches in the book of Revelation is the fact that these churches are beginning to come under tremendous persecution from the Roman emperor cult. They will not worship demission. They will not worship the Roman emperor because to them Jesus is Lord not Caesar is Lord. And the minute these Christians confess that Jesus is Lord Caesar gets his shorts in a wad because Caesar thinks he is to be worshiped and Christians won't go by the little staff to the emperor outside the marketplace and throw in the pinch of incense. They rather not go in and do that. Therefore they are not able to bind a cell. They are suffering economic deprivation and hardship. They are even cases of Christians being arrested as in Pergamon with Antipas, arrested and having been put to death already. So I think the historical circumstances in Asia Minor much better fit the time of demission than the time of Nero. Remember Nero's persecution was limited largely to Rome. Now we have it beginning to break out in other parts of the empire. And so it seems to me that this is talking about something that is much later say 20 years at least later than the time of Nero. And you can look on my book for all the passages I think that describe the emperor cult in the book of Revelation. Now if the famous scholar Moth at once put it, whether the persecution of Christians had already become widespread or not, quoting here, the few cases of repressive interference and of martyrdom in Asia Minor and elsewhere were enough to warn John of the storm rolling up on the horizon. There was yet only one or two drops had actually fallen. And I think that fits the pastoral situation with these seven churches. All of a sudden, remember in Romans 13 Paul had described the Roman Empire as a minister of God. Now all of a sudden empowered by the dragon, that state has turned against the church. And Christians are being persecuted, put to death, arrested and being prevented from buying and selling and suffering great. Economic hardship. So the persecution of Christians definitely began during the reign of Nero. It wasn't widespread historians tell us until the time of Domitian. Domitian lived between 81 and 96. And at several studies of Nero have demonstrated the evidence shows, I think very clearly, the persecution of Christians in Rome and not in Asia Minor where John was. And Nero didn't persecute Christians because they didn't worship him. Nero persecuted Christians because they were the scapegoats for the fire. That Nero probably started to burn down the hill sites that could build his golden palace there. That's what seemed to be Nero's object of wrath against Christians. He could blame them for starting the fire that he may have started. That's a huge debate among Roman scholars, whether he actually started that fire or not. Now there are a couple of historical studies at the background of Asia Minor that really have to be considered. One is the famous book by SRF Price called Rituals in Power, the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, and the other is Leonard Thompson's book of Revelation, Apocalypse and Empire. And they both argue that by the time of Domitian's reign, the Imperial Cult and Emperor worship is in full flower. The pictures of emperors are on coins and they're called deities. The Imperial Seal, on any mail, had the Emperor's name calling a deity, and that's where we get the language of the mark of the beast, that seal comes right out of Roman mail and the Imperial Seal. Then we have statues of emperors every place, and the emperors were worshipped as deities that hearkens back to Nebuchadnezzar and the building of the statue and all that kind of stuff. So, emperor worship is becoming the full flower. Christians are really feeling the weight of this. And so, Thompson for example, he is very interesting and kind of weird interpretation here. He admits that Roman sources depict Domitian as an evil tyrant without exception. But he says, and I don't know how he can conclude this, that under Domitian's time, Christians weren't persecuted Empire-wide, and then he turns right around and says, the Imperial Cult preceded Domitian by many reigns and it began to intensify under Domitian. This is the classic case of scholarly equivocation, I guess. It really wasn't that bad. Even though Roman sources had this terrible, it really wasn't that bad. Oh, but under Domitian Christians began to be persecuted. Okay? Now, the only firm date we have in any of this is 113 AD. This is the only date we've got in concrete. Pliny, a Roman author and senator, wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan, who was the emperor who came after Domitian. And he had a question, and that question had to do with Christians who refused to worship the Emperor. And Trajan replied that Christians were not to be sought out and executed but if they did not worship the Emperor and were convicted by a court, they were to be put to death. So that much better fits the depiction of the conditions in Revelation at a later date, the time of Domitian than the time of an earlier date before 8070. Because what was the practice, whether official or otherwise, by the time of Domitian, by the time of Trajan rather began in Domitian, and many Roman historians themselves say, that is the most volatile time in Roman history when Domitian was the Emperor. And sadly, Pliny and his letter to Trajan goes on to say that there were Christians who had apostatized from their faith as long as 25 years ago when the persecution began to be intense. So in Pliny's letter, writing to Trajan saying, what do we do with these Christians? Do we arrest them? Do we hunt them down? Trajan says, no, don't seek them out, but if they won't worship the Emperor, put them to death. He refers to a apostasy beginning 25 years before. Do the math, 117 minus 25, that gets you a date of about early 90s, not 70. So everything we have pushes us toward this later date in terms of external evidence. And that is a very sad case because here we have Christians who renounce their faith, and Pliny speaks of this as going on as much as 25 years before. So I think you can make the case that the seas of this yes begin in their narrow, but, and while it's possible revelations written under Neronian persecution, the evidence just is much greater that this occurs under Domitian and that this is an escalation that is not in Rome, but is spread now into Asia Minor, and historically that happens much later than the reign of Emperor Nero. And so as one scholar puts it quote, the evidence points much better to the time of Domitian. Now, argument two for a post-8070 date is that the historical situation facing the seven churches in Revelation two and three seems much better than lying with the circumstances after 8070 than does a date before 8070. There's a famous book by Colin Hammer called the letters to the seven churches in Asia and their local settings he picks up where William Ramsey had left off. And he argues I think in a very compelling way that the churches in Revelation two and three are under persecution as much more like the time of Domitian. And that includes evidence of persecution in these particular provinces from local authorities. And that explains why three of these churches, Smurna and Purgaman and Philadelphia, were presently experiencing persecution when John writes the letter to them. There's also evidence of Jews living in these same areas who to avoid the persecution of the imperial cult, pay tribute to Caesar to avoid persecution, and who rat out Christians and other Jews who are not paying attention. And so there's this kind of turn on your own thing going on here during this period of time and that would fit with some of the circumstances facing these churches where their own members now are ratting them out for attending Christian worship services, which is causing them to be arrested. And this was affecting the amount of Christians but that Jews as well. There are a couple of other things I think we have to consider in these seven churches. The first is the spiritual lethargy of the church in Ephesus. Remember in Revelation two, verses one to seven the church in Ephesus is guilty of, and you may remember what that was, losing it's first love. And that seems to I think presuppose a time well after the establishment of that church in the mid-50s. We know that the church in Ephesus was founded in the early 50s. Would John warn them before 8070 that they'd lost their first love, or would that not be more likely to have taken more time than that? Now it's not a concrete art, it's a probabilistic argument which is more likely, well obviously the latter is more likely. And that's what I'm getting at my, so we don't have a smoking gun here historically. We just have evidence and the evidence seems to point naturally in that later date. We also have the church of Leodicea, which is described as wealthy, but we know from Roman sources that a huge earthquake decimated that entire area in 8061, and with that church have recovered its wealth sometime before 8070. That's not likely, but by 8095 we know from Roman sources that church had regained much of its wealth and its prestige. And this is a church in Pregaman that had been home to a man named Antipas who had been put to death as a Christian martyr sometime earlier, and that persecution broke out years before, and John speaks of Antipas' death as way in the past. And that seems to point to 95, someone who died say in the late 80s as opposed to somebody writing about 68, 69, and he died in the 50s. It just seems to point to the later date in every one of these circumstances in these churches. Now, Bill tells us, and I think Bill is absolutely right, there is no evidence that Nero's persecution of Christians after the Great Fire in the city of Rome ever extended into Asia Minor where these churches are located. It just isn't there. This clearly seems to fit a later date. Now, what's the preters response to this argument? Well, Ken Gentry says, and I'm quoting, these arguments do not carry sufficient weight to serve as an anchor for the late date theory. Well, I'm not saying they prove the late date theory, but I'm saying they certainly make a lot more sense if the later date were true than they do if the earlier date were true. And that's my point from the very beginning that as I look at these preters arguments, I get the sense that they've made a theological judgment elsewhere, and Dad Gummitt revelations going to fit that judgment. When, in fact, if you just looked at the evidence, you wouldn't come up with that particular conclusion. And so I think the preters arguments again and again seem very contrived here, because you've already assumed a second coming date of 87, you coming in judgment. Argument three, the image of Babylon and Revelation is always a reference to imperial Roman power and greed. It is not a reference to Jerusalem. I think this is the strongest argument for a later date, because an all-known Jewish literature written after 1870, and the destruction of the temple Rome is universally identified as Babylon, because like the ancient Babylonians, Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. So if John's writing to Jewish Christians throughout these churches, Babylon to them would immediately be a reference to Rome, because Rome had done to Jerusalem with the Babylonians did. And I think it's a real stretch to say, no, the reference to Babylon is a reference to apostate Jerusalem. And the anti-Semitism jumps out of this. I'm not saying preters are anti-Semitic, but there is this whole cultural line that people pick up on. Well, we all know that Jews are merchants, right? So the language of Babylon, the great committing harlotry with the merchants of the world, well, that sounds like something Jews would do. That is in there, but would the first century audience think of it like that? I don't think there's any way they would have made that connection to Jerusalem in the temple. It was clearly a reference to Rome, because Rome did to Jerusalem in the temple exactly what the Babylonians did, and that's why every Jewish commentator sees it just like that. I think that becomes a very, very strong argument for the late date. Argument for. The testimony of the church fathers is unanimous in affirming the late date. Again, church fathers are not biblical texts. I'm always amazed at Rome that says, you know, we think we need an infallible church from the interpret scripture, but the church fathers are quoted as though they're self-interpreting. We can find church fathers saying contradictory things on the same page. I'm almost convinced Joseph Smith was right that there's some apostasy after the apostolic. I'm teasing. But when the church fathers are unanimous about something, I think that has to be way that that's additional historical evidence. What do the church fathers say? Well, they're unanimous for the late date, Clement and Eusebius and Origen and Irenaeus, among others. All state the book was written by John during the latter part of Domitian, and yes, they could all be mistaken. Yes, they could all be utilizing an erroneous tradition, but there is no evidence for anybody arguing for a pre-AD70 date of authorship. And the absence of any contrary position, I think, is a very, very interesting story from silence. Again, you have to be careful not to make more out of it than it really is, but it's an interesting point that tends to push things in the later date again. Irenaeus puts it this way. He says, and I'm quoting where I lost my place. I hear it when that happens. Quoting that the identity of the Antichrist would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalypse for it was seen not very long ago in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign. So that's most often taken to mean that John Revelation as an old man, he even exorcised on Patmos before Domitian died in 1896. And so I think Irenaeus very strongly supports the traditional date. It's a matter of fact the late date comes from the church fathers. And then, during the other hand, he realizes the significance of Irenaeus' argument, and he contends that what was seen wasn't the apocalypse, but John. And I think Greg Beild has a good job of taking him to the woodshed and arguing that everybody argues that was seen refers to the object which is the book of Revelation not to John who was not the subject of the verb was seen. And that's why I think everybody other than Gentry believes that Irenaeus' reading of that is referring to the book of Revelation was seen during the time of Domitian. Interestingly, that Irenaeus himself speaks about this, and he makes no reference to Nero, but he speaks to a Latinus who is the ancient king of the Latins. And I think that the antichrist is going to appear after the Roman Empire falls, and he makes no mention of Nero in this or an early date. So Irenaeus might be wrong, and that's certainly possible, but I think the Greek text is pretty clear. He's talking about the appearance of the book of Revelation during the time of Domitian, not that John was seen still alive during the time of Domitian. I think that's another case of assuming something and then having to prove it. Now all of that is to say, this is a probabilistic case, we don't know in the book of Revelation was written, we can't say with any certainty when it was written. But I think the preterist arguments that at first glance, look like they've got some pretty good substance behind them, all seem to evaporate pretty quickly upon close inspection. And by the time you put all this together, it's much more likely that this book of Revelation was written later rather than earlier. And again remember, an argument is only as strong as its weakest point. My position isn't going to be refuted one way or the other if the book of Revelation is shown to be written concretely by somebody in 8068. It's really not going to change, but more than a couple of texts in the book of Revelation. I mean, it's not going to affect my overall interpretation of Revelation at all. But if the book of Revelation is written late, the preterism has got real problems. And that's why the early date for the book of Revelation is so important. And that's why preterists are so, what's the term I want to use? I think their arguments are very contrived in trying to show the early date because if it is late, there's some real problems there. And that's why this is a far bigger issue for preterists than it is for anybody else in my there's no concern with the days of book of Revelation. But I don't know that I've ever dealt with this in any form and I thought at some point probably a good idea to do so. If this is of interest to you, the field is New Testament introduction. Read Carson Moon Morris. Read Donald Guthrie's New Testament introduction. Read Westcott and Hort who are the best on the early date. Read some guys before the current debate is going on because I think their arguments are better. They're not loaded with tension. And then look at Beale's overall interpretation of the book of Revelation. I think you find it makes much more sense that that eighth king is someone yet future and that really becomes a huge problem for those who want to push all this back before 8070. So it's a probability case and I think the argument stands strongly on the side of the late date. We have time for some questions. Go to the mic. Go to the mic. Yeah I had just more clarification on one of the preterist arguments. Verse 7. Every eye will see him even those who pierced him. How would you see that interpret that? I know you kind of went over that but I really wanted to be precise on that to know what you thought about that. Like the piercing part of Dick and I like who are those? I covered that in some detail in my chapter. So I would refer you to that. I also would refer you to Greg Bill's treatment of that because it's outstanding. Preters have to say that refers to Christ coming in judgment in the clouds against Jerusalem in 8070. Is that what the passage is saying or is it talking about every eye shall seem and the nations will weep and mourn. The same problem in the audit discourse. Yes Christ comes in judgment but it's not localized to Jerusalem. It's universal. You just got to watch this is referring to the eschaton not just a judgment on Jerusalem in 8070. The central theme in New Testament eschatology is Christ's second advent. I mean that is what all of eschatology is pointing forward to. And to cut all of that off and scoosh all of that back before 70 really cuts a lot. It really does great damage to the epistles especially that teach you know the part of see you. The epiphany all of that's reference to the second coming body of resurrection all of that stuff. Yes sir. Just to follow up on what he was saying. How does Zechariah 12 being quoted by John at the crucifixion of Christ? How does that factor in all of this? All of those events are kind of these little flashes from the transfiguration. All of those things are pointing ahead typologically to the second coming. And judgment. You know if you this now you read Romans chapter 1 but in the cross we not only see God's salvation we see God's wrath being poured out on sin. So that's why when Christ says in the cross there are also these constant manifestations very much like we saw in the transfiguration. So there are little flashes, there are little foreshadowings, there are typological pictures of the second coming. Because that is the heart and soul of New Testament eschatology is that. That glorious day of the Lord when Christ comes to judge the world and raise the dead and make all things new. The question ahead. By the way, Bill's got a great discussion of that in his commentary so you find it real helpful. You mentioned the chronology of the kings, the first seven kings that gets all messed up and I didn't quite follow you there. Ken Gentry is of the opinion that it's pretty straightforward. And I've been a while since I've looked at it. I think he wants to start with Julius Caesar if I'm not mistaken. It may be Augustus but is it Caesar? Yes. And if you follow that through the sixth king then would be nearer. But why not start with Augustus? Well, it's just kind of arbitrary which king you start with. Well, what will happen if you do start with Augustus? Then it's nearer, it's not the sixth king. Well, who's the king, who's the sixth king? I don't know. You have to ask Gentry that. To my interpretation, it doesn't matter. To Gentry it's huge. I don't think so. The king after nearer also was before 8070. And do we count the kings that were part of the imperial emperor cult or not? That's the question that the critical scarves have about that position because it assumes that we know this when we may not necessarily know. Who's the we? Who's the we you're referring to? The consensus of critical scarves that would reject that position. And then you've got the problem of dealing with the ideal number of seven that has cared another's point out. And we're not getting a lesson in Roman history here. We're being told that when this whole process is complete, then the eighth king comes. It's an escatological image. It's not a contemporary, it's not a lesson in Roman history. It's escatological. It's pointing us to the end. And that's the difference of interpretation between predators and and reformed all millionarians. And I think it's a, I think Gentry is much more optimistic about what that passage says than he should be. Well, that's what I'm asking. I don't see how whether you start the counting at Augustus or Caesar if it messes up Gentry's argument at all. Well, it would seem to me that you've got to get Nero as a sixth king. No, why is that? Ask Gentry because he's the one who makes a big deal of the beast being Nero. Okay. Well, Gentry's not here. He's not here. And I think that's why that interpretation is really, really problematic. The whole thing, and notice it has to work out just so or the whole thing is gone. Well, the only thing that Gentry has to prove is that whoever the sixth king is, he's before 8070. So if you start at Caesar or Augustus, you still get the sixth king before 8070. And then you have a seventh king living when revelations written and an eighth king yet to come. Right. And I just think that becomes more preoccupied with the names of the kings and their chronology than with the big picture, which is the ideal period of time those kings rule followed by the eighth king, which seems to fit the image and revelation 13 of the beast wounded, dying, apparently coming back to life, and then coming again at the end of the age. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Go to the S. Go to the mic, please. I don't see how you got. There has to be a divorce between the theological teaching and the historical teaching. Like, can you have both? I don't, the question is, why can't you have both? I think you certainly could. But I think to be preoccupied with the chronology of the kings, misses the fact that when sent seventh king runs its course, then we have the eighth king. It's in other words, it's an eschatological image. And I can live with the chronology of kings as long as you give me the bigger eschatological picture that's already been developed back in chapter 11, chapter 13. And I think, as I read Gentry and others, you're cutting yourself off from that underlying theme that there's a satanic trinity and a satanic redemption that it parodies the mimics the work of Christ. And part of that work of Christ is his death and resurrection. The resurrection's the mission being back. And his parrocia is the eighth king at the end of the age. I think that, and those of you who push all that back before 70, you're really missing the bigger picture there, isn't so much the chronology of the kings, but there isn't eighth king to come, and that eighth king does come at the time of the end. Okay, stop. I think you lose all that if the preter's position is correct. First of all, I just want to say that there were three kings after Nero or three Caesar's after Nero within a time I think of 18 months. I can't hear you. There were three Caesar's that came out after Nero, and then four minor ones, if I'm not mistaken. Three or four, yes. And like that. So I mean, you basically push his Nero back to the second of the first king, you know. So it's, if you're following a strict chronology, and that's what you're basing your theology on, there's an older commentator by the name of Isvon Beckwith, who has probably 40 pages on that discussion of kings. And if you start with this king, you get this. If you start with that king, you get this. And at the end of it all, he just says, you can make sense of it. But if you're trying to do the chronology, it just breaks down all over the place. Which is going to point out. It seems like I would suggest that you take a look at that, because that's been the best historical treatment that might anybody. Isvon Beckwith? It seems like that the priderous and the dispensationalist both, where they sort of mess up is when they look at apocalyptic literature and then try to take fits and pieces out of it as it should look like. So again, as I argued before, remember the book of revelations is very complex. It is the letter. It contains prophecy. And it genres apocalyptic. And you've got to be very careful here that in a chapter like Revelation 17, even if you do have contemporary kings in the foreground, you can't cut out the apocalyptic imagery. Those kings are getting at it. The apocalyptic imagery, those kings are getting at it in the long run. And that's my concern with priderism, is it just eliminates all the eschatological in a number of places in the book. Chapter 11 is a great instance of that. And yet on the other hand, some of the older Omel guys, like Hendrickson, didn't take the historical stuff going on in the background seriously enough, and made it all ideal. And I sort of think people like Johnson and Bill are really good correctives to some of the older Omel people, they are keeping the chronologies of these things in the foreground saying, look, that speaks to John's contemporary audience, but that's not what the passage is about. Follow it. Yeah, in regards to the argument number one for the late date theory. Just wondering what you say about the, you're doing an argument for the late date of persecution. What you would say about the book of Acts portraying the church being persecuted by the Jews, be it the Roman authorities, Romans 109, and Acts 412 seems to be a response to Roman persecution as well. So, one basically saying, it seems like the biblical evidence shows that there was persecution by the Romans. I read a book of Acts, right. What passage are you referring to the book of Acts? Acts, you said four. No, well, 412. There's no other name given among men. Yeah, but who's that proclaimed to? He's taking a Roman saying, and he's Christianizing it at that time. Maybe it will be, but he's talking to Jews, not Romans. And remember, all the way through the book of Acts, Paul, when he gets in trouble, appeals to Roman law as his defense against Jewish charges. Hey, I can go all the way to Caesar with this because I'm a Roman citizen. So, in the book of Acts, even with Paul on her house arrest, you get something very much like Romans 13, where the state isn't still a minister of God because it's using exercising justice and creating civil order. By the time you get to 95 in Domation, that same state is no longer protecting people like Paul, it's cutting his head off. So, Nero is the start of it, but Nero is certainly not the end of it. It really intensifies into Domation. So, I think you're describing, you know, I think revelations describing conditions much later than the book of Acts. But so, you would concede there was persecution of the church by Nero? No, I think the book of Acts is talking about Jews persecuting. But did the Jews make use of Roman authorities at all? No, Paul feels the Roman authority. Did he ever persecuted by the Roman authorities? Well, Paul ends up in Ephesus, where he's up against the state who want him to knock off his actions and get the riot that breaks out in Ephesians. But even there, Rome is concerned not with arresting Paul and killing Christians. Rome's concerned about keeping the merchants half and keeping the peace. That's what Rome's always concerned about. They were concerned about that during the crucifixion of Christ and Holy Week. So, I don't think that argument holds any merit at all. The conditions described in Revelation are much different than earlier in the New Testament. That's why I'm with the opinion that every book in the New Testament is written before 70 except Revelation. So, it's a probability case, which is more likely. And again, I would... The better early date guys are the English scars, Westcott Horton Lightfoot. The better late date guys, I think, deal makes a great case just by showing us the structure of Revelation. I mean, the literary structure of the book itself points beyond 8070. And then the adact to historical circumstances, I think the case is pretty compelling that's much later date. Well, let's close in prayer. Our gracious God and Father, we thank You for this wonderful book of Revelation and it's sure and certain reminder of the triumph of the Lamb, that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, and that even though the beast may rage against us, we triumph in Christ for in Him we come alive and reign with Him forever and ever. And for this we give you thanks and praise and Christ's glorious name. Amen. Now, so that concludes our four part series on eschatology and the anti-Christ. And just a reminder that next week we'll talk for Reformation Weekend about the Reformation then and now and talk about some issues at the Reformation and how they impact us today. And following that, Ken Samples will be here to talk about his book, A World of Difference. So, see you all later.