Pilgrim

I thought needed to say that I need to approach this matter with humbleness.

As I study the issue, as I said before at present I tentatively hold to the earlier date of the book of Revelation. However, I must emphasize the word “tentatively”.

Both sides have some pretty impressive Reformed voices on their side and that alone makes me tentative.

I do appreciate the spirit of the last half of what you said. It is something, we need to remember.

Unfortunately, during my research and reading critiques on both sides. Both sides are not always cordial with the other side.

I thought I would add something from someone who holds an early date, on why he does so.


Quote
I believe the early date of Revelation—before AD 70—is the most consistent with Scripture itself, and I’d like to share why.

⸻

1. Internal Evidence Points to an Early Date

The text of Revelation gives clear signs that Jerusalem and the temple were still standing:
• Revelation 11:1–2: John is told to “measure the temple.” If the temple had already been destroyed in AD 70, this would make little sense unless John was speaking of a literal structure still in existence.
• Revelation 17:10: The beast is described as representing a series of kings. “Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come.” Counting the Caesars from Julius to Nero, Nero is the sixth—“the one who is.” This places the book firmly in the 60s.
• Revelation 1:1, 3 & 22:6, 10: The events are said to take place “soon” and “the time is near.” The natural reading is not thousands of years away, but within the lifetime of the original hearers.

These time markers make the early date self-evident. If words like “soon” and “near” are stretched beyond their normal meaning, then the reliability of all biblical prophecy is weakened.

⸻

2. The Context of Imminent Judgment

Jesus Himself had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation (Matt. 24:34). Revelation, written in the same apostolic period, functions as a covenant lawsuit against apostate Israel:
• The harlot in Revelation 17–18 is not pagan Rome, but Jerusalem, “the city where their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).
• Revelation’s imagery mirrors the Old Testament prophets (e.g., Ezekiel, Jeremiah) when pronouncing judgment on Israel for covenant breaking.

This is why the early date is not only possible, but theologically necessary: Revelation ties directly into Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and the covenantal end of the Old Covenant order in AD 70.

⸻

3. The Testimony of History

Yes, Irenaeus is often quoted for the late date, but his statement is ambiguous and can refer to John himself being seen in Domitian’s reign, not the vision being written then. Other early witnesses—such as Epiphanius and the Syriac tradition—support a Neronic context.

The “long-standing” late-date view gained traction because it supported certain eschatological systems (like futurism), but it does not outweigh the internal evidence of the text itself.

⸻

4. Christ’s Victory in History

Where I think partial preterism strengthens faith is by showing that Christ has already vindicated His Word:
• The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 proved Jesus to be the true prophet and King.
• Revelation is not an obscure code, but a testimony that He judged His covenant-breaking people and established the New Covenant church as His temple (Rev. 21:22).

Thus, we don’t “lose the obvious truths” of Christ’s return by holding to an early date. Rather, we see His faithfulness both in past judgment and in future hope.

⸻

Closing

So, while I respect Hendriksen, Gerstner, and others, I would argue the early date is biblically self-evident. Revelation is not merely about the far-off end, but about the climactic end of the Old Covenant order. And that, far from being speculation, anchors us more deeply in the reliability of Christ’s Word.

Like you, I long for the day of His appearing. But I also rejoice that much of what Revelation warned has already been fulfilled, proving that Jesus’ words never fail.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:43 PM.