Revelation and Jerusalem's Destruction {in AD 70} - Ecumenical thread

Westside Church of Christ ^ | 2009 | Rusty Miller

[Cronos]

Note -- many folks mistakenly mix up Revelation with Daniel with the writings of Paul. Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in Antiochus IV and his desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of the Jewish Kingdom by the Maccabees, while Paul's is about the future.

Revelation is purely about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is complete.

[Cronos]

Ping to you — an interesting article.

[Tzfat]

Revelation is purely about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is complete.

Complete? Oops. How embarrassing, those Jooooz never go away. Now they have the gall to have the non-city of Jerusalem (destroyed and unoccupied, like Babylon) declared as their capital! Clearly, the Jooooz did not get the Praeterists' memo. No wonder supercessionists hate Israel. It messes up their "nice," "neat," packaged "theology."

[Lee N. Field]

This should be interesting.

[Daveinyork]

When was Revelation written?

[Psalm 73]

Daniel IS about Antiochus IV and the other events that would happen over the next 400 years (where no prophets appeared and God seemed to be silent).
Revelation, like other parts of the Bible is talking about two events, one being the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (the near future) and also about the judgement of the world (far future).

Much of the content of the Bible is not in linear time as we understand it - the Hebrew writers seemed to have a different concept of "flow of time", and God also, being outside the box of space and time, would not "view" time in a linear fashion (there is no past and future, as Jesus is the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundations of the earth were laid).

The Bible is written so that even the simplest of people can understand its message (redemption), but also deep and complex enough for life-long scholars to wrangle over meaning and content - we never have to worry about getting bored by studying the Word.

[Cronos]

What are you talking about, TZfat? This is a historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 69-70

The FACT that the Jews of today have rebuilt Jerusalem (and YES, Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, full stop) has nothing to do with the FACT that what Revelation said, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69-70 happened.

the book of Revelation was about that time, not any future time

[Scotsman will be Free]

From what I’ve read, Revelation was written about 95AD while John was on Patmos.
Secondly, some prophecies referred to more than one event.

[Cronos]

There are two options:

1. Iraeneus says that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, during the last part of the first century, about 95 or 96 A.D. -- all other sources using this date quote from Iraeneus (NOTE: I'm not saying he wasn't right, or that he was right, just that Iraeneus is the source of the 96 AD date) in Adversus haereses -- ‘that the Apocalypse was seen not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign,’
2. Epiphanius according to Moses Stuart in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, vol 1 says that John was banished and then returned under Claudius and john "who prophesied in the time of Claudius... the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed". Epiphanius places John's kicking out ot Patmos in connection with the banishment of the Jews from Rom in AD 54
   
   Note that at the beginning of the Syriac version of Revelation the document states that it was written in Patmos, “whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.”

Now a lot of the problem about interpreting this is that we in the modern world don't realise that the names of the Roman Emperors, at least the ones we call them, may not be their real "names" and were not necessarily "titles" etc. --> for example, "Nero" was born "Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus", he was adopted by Claudius and became "Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus" and then took the TITLE "Augustus" when he was made Emperor

Note that Caesar was the name adopted by those from Caesar's "family" -- Augustus (who was born Octavian and took the TITLE Augustus) was Caesar's grand-nephew and adopted son, hence he had the name Caesar. Tiberius, Augustus' adopted son was born "Tiberius Claudius Nero" and adopted as "Tiberius Julius Caesar"! Then you had Caligula whose name we know "Caligula" was actually a nick-name given to him as a kid when he wore little shoes (Caligulae!) with the troops in Germany when he accompanied his father Germanicus

anyway, the point is that Nero's name also contained "Domitius" -- while the guy we call Domitian (who was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96) was called "Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus "!

As a side note -- even the "Emperors" before 300 AD weren't called that - their official position was "princep" or first citizen. The "imperator" word meant field-marshall.

Anyway, so we've seen that the other Christian writers place this in the time of the guy we call "Nero" and if we examine Iraeneus closely he says that this was during Domitian's time, but he would know the names of emperors etc. a lot better than we English speakers 2000 years later knew -- so was this "Domitius Nero" he referred to? I think it's a lot more probable.

[Cronos]

Refer to my post above — all those that say it was in 95-96 AD refer to their interpretation of Iraeneus. Added to the confusion is that the Roman Princep’s names were kind of similar to us English speakers!

[Cronos]

true enough, but I’m talking about the historical timeline and the historical facts. People are also mixing up different books and different prophecies.

[Mrs.Z]

TZfat is pointing out the inconvenience of the Jewish return.

Since they have returned, (and therefore messed up your neat little Revelation is done) package...

your view agrees totally with the Palis...

Jews need to be out of Israel (which shouldn't exist anyway)...

and should all “disappear” to make sure they don't mess up any more of your replacement theology

[Oratam]

As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If this day you only knew what makes for peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

Luke 19:41-44

[Cronos]

Firstly -- there is NO relationship between the HISTORICAL FACT that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 with the FACT that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state of Israel TODAY. Utterly seperate facts

Secondly, why do you say that the Jewish return to Israel is inconvenient? I disagree with your statement -- some Jews stayed on through the centuries, others moved to Yemen, Egypt, Europe etc and many returned starting in the 1800s. This is NOT "inconvenient" as you state -- they have and had a right to go to a desert and make it blossom.

Thirdly, your statement "and therefore messed up your neat little Revelation is done" is again wrong --> Revelation talks about the destruction of Jerusalem not about the Jews never coming back to it. So, despite you saying that the Jewish return is inconvenient, I utterly disagree with you. I am pro-Israel and they have a right to their land. Why would you say otherwise?

Mrs. Z: "Jews need to be out of Israel (which shouldn't exist anyway)..." -- SHAME ON YOU. What a horrible thing to say. Israel has every right to exist despite what you or others may post. the Jews have EVERY right to stay on in Israel with Jerusalem as their capital. How can you state such horrible anti-semitic and anti-Jewish statements?

[Cronos]

Mrs. Z: "Jews need to be out of Israel (which shouldn't exist anyway)... and should all “disappear” -- SHAME ON YOU. What a horrible thing to say. Israel has every right to exist despite what you or others may post. the Jews have EVERY right to stay on in Israel with Jerusalem as their capital. How can you state such horrible anti-semitic and anti-Jewish statements?

But let's not make this about you and focus on this thread which talks of the historical fact that Revelation is about the past destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69-70

[circlecity]

"What a horrible thing to say. Israel has every right to exist despite what you or others may post. the Jews have EVERY right to stay on in Israel with Jerusalem as their capital."

Only as long as they have the power to keep it. If someone stronger comes along and takes the land then THEY have every right to stay on as long as they are powerful to keep it. On one has had any claim to that land other than by force of arms for over 3,500 years.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I think that you’d better read Revelation again. How you can reconile the entire chapter with just the destruction of Jerusalem is a mystery to me. Just read the first paragraph of chapter 21, for instance.

[Cronos]

Also, note that Apocalypse begins with "[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John"

[Cronos]

John is talking allegorically of how the Christian community is now the "new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." -- remember that this is Christ's bride, the church.

Ephesians 5:22-33 says

23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

This is clearly talking of how Christ's bride is readied after the destruction of Jerusalem as described in earlier chapters.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah John says in Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit *on* the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a *Trumpet*..... John was not talking about a Sunday morning sunrise worship day, he was speaking about ‘that’ day a specific appointed time yet to dawn.

So John by his own words tells us that he was brought forward in Spirit to the Lord's day. Peter tells everybody how God measures time, that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years... and that dispensation of time has not yet begun. a n d

Daniel was told to Daniel 12:9 And he (not Daniel) said, ‘Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Not even Daniel understood fully what he was directed to write. Hmmmm interesting now that there are 7 *seals* listed in Revelation and we have yet to have them all completed. So Antiochus is long gone and the ‘end’ is not yet here.

What John wrote in Revelation is what was given him by the Spirit as to the condition of what had taken place, what would be taking place, and declares Who the VICTOR would at the end of the Lord's day. Regardless of traditions of men that make up their own interpretations.