Chilton holds that since Scripture teaches that all prophecy would be complete by the end of the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. -27) and since the book of Revelation contains prophetic material, therefore the book must have been written prior to the end of Daniels 70th week: We have a priori teaching from Scripture itself that all special revelation ended by A. But Chilton assumes the 70th week is completed with the destruction of Jerusalem in A. Chilton misinterprets the meaning of a passage in Daniel to prove his interpretation of Johns passage, but both interpretations are in error. it seems highly improbable that a book so full of liturgical allusions as the book of Revelationand these, many of them, not too great or important points, but to minutiacould have been written by any other than a priest, and one who had at one time been in actual service in the Temple itself, and thus become so intimately conversant with its details, that they came to him naturally, as part of the imagery he employed. 48:1, Ezekiel, like John, receives a vision of a Temple that, if taken literally, has never existed up to this day. In other words, special revelation would stopbe sealed upby the time Jerusalem was destroyed.Since then, however, opinion has shifted back towards a late date with little apparent reason for doing so. Whereas Christ warned that these prophecies would come within a generation (Matt. is about to come" ( NASB), Christ is coming "quickly" in judgment (22:7), and "must shortly take place" (22:6). Gentry lists 145 scholars who advocate an early dating of Revelation, including the great church historian, Philip Schaff, and others such as Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, F. -45, , ), similarly John in Revelation warns that these events will occur "shortly" (1:1), "the time is near" (1:3), "the hour . These judgments culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem under multiple armies under Roman command. They suggest that persecution under the emperor Domitian was what is described in Revelation, but there is scant evidence that persecution of Christians by Domitian ever took place--a fact that many late date adherents readily admit. Much has been made by late daters of a statement by Irenaeus in Against Heresies that seems to associate John or the book of Revelation with Domitian, but there are a number of translational, interpretational, and historical problems that caution against an overreliance on this ambiguous passage. asserts that all revelation ceased under Nero's reign. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches (Paul died in A. Over a million Jews were slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of others were enslaved, the city left in ruins, and the great temple was utterly destroyed within a generation (40 years) of Christ's prophesy (Matt. The late date advocates who believe that Revelation was written around A. The author of Revelation, John, repeatedly alludes to a "great city" which is very likely a reference to Jerusalem and describes the temple as if it were still standing (Rev. How can late date advocates make such claims of a city that history records was left in ruins in A. Bahnsen and Gentry cite external evidence for an early date: "Clement of Alexandria . Aspects of the text of the book of Revelation have been understood by some as being indicative of an earlier date. The angel Gabriel told Daniel that the seventy weeks were to end with the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. -27); and that period would also serve to seal up the vision and prophecy (Dan. [emphasis added] We concur with Chiltons basic premise: prophecy and vision will be sealed up at the conclusion of the 70 weeks of Daniel. This is the interpretive equivalent of two wrongs dont make a right. Here is revealed another Achilles heel of reliance upon internal evidence: it is too easily subject to cross-correlation which seems supportive, but is not necessarily related.Edersheim held that the many allusions in Johns Gospel and the book of Revelation to aspects of priestly service in the Temple inferred that John had close association with the priestly line (John John -16) and that the Temple was still in service at the time both books were written. While we might concur with Edersheims observations concerning Johns knowledge of priestly duties and the allusions found in his works, all that seems to be necessary is for John to have had such knowledge at some point during his life. Moreover, Ezekiel, like John, is told to measure the Temple he sees in his vision.These [allusions] naturally suggest the twofold inference that the book of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel must have been written before the Temple services had actually ceased, and by one who had not merely been intimately acquainted with, but probably at one time an actor in them. Clearly, the Temple was in operation during the times recorded by Johns Gospel (John John -19). Ezekiel received news of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in Ezekiel Eze. Even if Herods Temple were to have been standing at the time John wrote, the Temple he mentions in Revelation Rev. After all, Zechariah, writing during the Second Temple era, described a Temple future to his day.
1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20), then it would need to be written before AD 70 for the Preterist position to be true.If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. The correct date for the writing of Revelation lies somewhere between the extremes of Claudius and Trajan.