Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
 photo jesuslamb.jpgA forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
Add Reply
May 6, 2008 Why I believe Revelation was written in AD 68-69
Topic Started: Jun 5 2008, 07:24 PM (70 Views)
lightninboy

May 6, 2008
Why I believe Revelation was written in AD 68-69

Earlier today I had a very edifying discussion with my friends Zane Hodges and Bob Vacendak about the date of Revelation. We all hold to the view that it was written during the reign of the sixth Caesar, Galba, who reigned from June AD 68 until Jan AD 69. Revelation 17:10 says “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen [Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero] one is [Galba], and the other [Otho] has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time (he reigned only 3 months). For a listing of the dates of the emperors, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Emperors

Why is this important? First, it is the only view that takes Rev 17:10-11 literally. The text indicates that John is talking about kings, men, not kingdoms. The early date position shows that John is speaking with absolute precision about the first 7 Roman emperors.

Second, it shows that the entire NT was written during the generation alive at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. A Biblical generation was 40 years. That the entire NT was completed before AD 73 shows it was all written at the time when a large percentage of the eye witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus we still alive.

Third, it shows that John didn’t leave out something vital, like the destruction of the temple. Surely if the temple had been destroyed, he would have mentioned it.

The futurist view of Revelation, which I hold, does not demand a pre-70 date for the book. The full-preterist position does. However, the futurist interpretation certainly is not in any way compromised by an early date. In fact, I’d argue that it is enhanced.

Pastor Bob Vacendak has written our commentary on Revelation and both Zane and I feel that he did a fantastic job on the commentary. It is a grand slam. I believe all of you who end up reading it will be blessed, as I’ve been as I’ve edited it.

Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lightninboy

Responses to “Why I believe Revelation was written in AD 68-69”

1. dwags4him Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
That was a helpful insight….the nice thing is that the futurist viewpoint is in no way compromised….

I also never thought about the importance of the entire NT being written while most eyewitnesses were still alive.

Any ideas on the dates of 1-3 John….same time frame?

Dave

2. Bob_Wilkin Says:
May 20th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Hi Dave,

Yes, I think 1-3 John were probably written in the 60s, though they could have been written earlier. In his commentary on 1-3 John, Zane Hodges suggests a date of AD 64-65 before the start of the Jewish Wars (p. 27). He suggests that it is conceivable that they could have been written as early as AD 55 (p. 26). He cites NT scholar J.A.T. Robinson who postulated a date of AD 60-65.

There is a lot of guesswork in getting precise dates for most NT books. But I consider the idea that all were written before AD 70 to be highly probable.

3. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I have tried posting, but my posts didn’t get posted.

4. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I’ll try breaking up my post into smaller posts.

5. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Bob Wilkin said:
“Second, it shows that the entire NT was written during the generation alive at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. A Biblical generation was 40 years. That the entire NT was completed before AD 73 shows it was all written at the time when a large percentage of the eye witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus we still alive.”

How does it show that?
I do not see that the Holy Spirit could not put off the completion of the canon until more than one generation had passed. Why couldn’t He?

6. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bob Wilkin said:
“Third, it shows that John didn’t leave out something vital, like the destruction of the temple. Surely if the temple had been destroyed, he would have mentioned it.
The futurist view of Revelation, which I hold, does not demand a pre-70 date for the book. The full-preterist position does. However, the futurist interpretation certainly is not in any way compromised by an early date. In fact, I’d argue that it is enhanced.
Pastor Bob Vacendak has written our commentary on Revelation and both Zane and I feel that he did a fantastic job on the commentary. It is a grand slam. I believe all of you who end up reading it will be blessed, as I’ve been as I’ve edited it.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin”

I don’t think that the destruction of the temple would surely have been mentioned, particularly if that had happened 25 years earlier. Neither do most other Dispensationalists.

7. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bob Wilkin said:
“Yes, I think 1-3 John were probably written in the 60s, though they could have been written earlier. In his commentary on 1-3 John, Zane Hodges suggests a date of AD 64-65 before the start of the Jewish Wars (p. 27). He suggests that it is conceivable that they could have been written as early as AD 55 (p. 26). He cites NT scholar J.A.T. Robinson who postulated a date of AD 60-65.
There is a lot of guesswork in getting precise dates for most NT books. But I consider the idea that all were written before AD 70 to be highly probable.”

Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges want to be identified with J.A.T. Robinson and Preterists who promote Replacement Theology and Lordship Salvation?

8. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
http://gesot1.compsupport.net:8081/WB/default.asp?action=9&boardid=52&read=1404&fid=56

Bob Wilkin said:
“I don’t recall that John says who sent him to Patmos, or when. Rev 1:9 just says that he was on the island of Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I do not need to prove that Nero banned Christians to Patmos, or that any emperor did. John never says that.”

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

9. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Here is a section I have trouble getting posted:

Bob Wilkin said:
“Earlier today I had a very edifying discussion with my friends Zane Hodges and Bob Vacendak about the date of Revelation. We all hold to the view that it was written during the reign of the sixth Caesar, Galba, who reigned from June AD 68 until Jan AD 69. Revelation 17:10 says “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen [Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero] one is [Galba], and the other [Otho] has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time (he reigned only 3 months). For a listing of the dates of the emperors, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Emperors
Why is this important? First, it is the only view that takes Rev 17:10-11 literally. The text indicates that John is talking about kings, men, not kingdoms. The early date position shows that John is speaking with absolute precision about the first 7 Roman emperors.”

10. Von Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Here is my reply to Bob Wilkin’s first point in this blog:
Bob Wilkin is saying that there is no way that the traditional Dispensationalist explanation could be right?
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1368
http://www.666beast.net/chapter5.htm
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/crockett/beast.html
What is wrong with Mark Hitchcock’s numbering system of the Caesars?
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lightninboy

11. dwags4him Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Brother Von….

I would love to understand your posts, but it is tough to see where your quoting and where you are adding your own thoughts….

Could you help those who can’t read minds and just state what weaknesses you see in Brother Bob’s post?

I did catch that you seem to imply that in aligning himself with Robinson, Bob is aligning himself with someone who perhaps did not stand for everything else that Bob and the FG movement stand for….now, that may be true, but it seems to be a gross error to assume that since I might occasionally agree with an opponent (for example John MacArthur and I both would die for the deity of Jesus), that really has nothing to do with me agreeing with that same man on EVERY other point.

I rarely agree with myself….let alone others….there should be some overlap on differing issues in the fold of orthodoxy.

12. dwags4him Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
And my grammar in tha previous post was poor.

“but it seems to be a gross error to assume that since I might occasionally agree with an opponent (for example John MacArthur and I both would die for the deity of Jesus), that really has nothing to do with me agreeing with that same man on EVERY other point.”

SHOULD READ

but it seems to be a gross error to assume that since I might occasionally agree with an opponent (for example John MacArthur and I both would die for the deity of Jesus), that I agree with him on EVERY other point of doctrine.

oops
No I will not, No I will not
Not go quietly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · GES Blog · Next Topic »
Add Reply


View My Stats Msn bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit Yahoo bot last visit powered by  Bots Visit