In the strongest case presented by both sides of the debate for the dating of Revelation, is the statement made by Irenaeus, concerning what was seen. It is rejected by Gentry as being unreliable based on the interpretation of the Greek word ἑωράθη.[1]

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For ἑωράθηwas seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.^[2]

Gentry addresses the quote from Irenaeus and concludes no definite answer can be determined as the word ἑωράθη can be translated in several ways based on the grammar. The question is raised, “what was seen” was it John or was it the Revelation? This infers ἑωράθη can be translated as “he” or “it.” Gentry points to “announced by him” as the antecedent for what is seen, but a stronger case can be made that what was “beheld” was the apocalyptic vision.[3] It has been established previously by Irenaeus that John was seen during the days of Trajan.

In examining what Irenaeus wrote, from the same book and section that centered on the identity of the “antichrist,” Irenaeus made it clear that he understood John lived until the time of Trajan.^[4] Irenaeus stated twice previously in the book, “For he remained among them until the time of Trajan”^[5] which establishes that John was seen during the reign of Trajan, as Gentry admits.^[6] This would suggest there is no need to question if what was seen was John or the Revelation of John in the preceding contested quote. By naming Domitian as the time frame in which something was seen would strongly suggest it was the vision and not John since Irenaeus had already established John was seen up to the time of Trajan. If John lived to the time of Trajan who proceeded Nerva, and Domitian, what was being seen nearly in their day would have been the apocalypse and not John himself according to the context of the discussion, which was about the visions of John and not John himself.

Gary DeMar takes a novel approach in his work for the early dating, The Early Church, and the End of the World. He would advocate that what was seen was an “ancient copy.”[7] DeMar proposes that the implied statement would have been best understood as, “For it (the ancients copy)was seen not very long time since,” and not the vision itself based on the reference of Irenaeus in Book 5, 30. 1, “Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient[8] copies [of the Apocalypse].” The suggestion that the “ancient copy” was seen at the end of Domitian’s reign would be problematic hermeneutically since it does not fit the grammatical structure of the specific passage. “Ancient copies” is illegitimately inserted into the idea of what is being seen since it can only be him or the vision itself contextually, not the written record of the vision.

Gentry seeks to use a negative approach to undermine Irenaeus’ credibility referring to other statements made by him that prove his historical testimony as unreliable. In one such negative argument Gentry claims that Irenaeus believed that Jesus attained the age of fifty during His earthly ministry and used this as a means to discredit Irenaeus.^[9] Yet in the same passage and discussion Irenaeus strongly supports that Jesus was thirty years old when He began his ministry and that He only saw or experienced three times the day of Passover during His ministry and before His crucifixion^[10] suggesting that Irenaeus spoke of His maturity and respect level from among the people as being equal to a leader of the age of fifty.

Gentry’s use of scriptures for the internal evidence equally suggests a biased interpretation that favors one particular view. His interpretation of the temple in Rev 11 as being literal, suggests the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when John saw the vision and when he was asked to measure the temple. Verse 19 states, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.” This identifies that the temple being measured was the temple of God in heaven, a spiritual temple, unless Gentry would claim the earthly temple still had the ark of the covenant. It is inconsistent that he was told in a vision to go measure a literal temple that was thousands of miles away and yet never taken to Jerusalem and measure the literal temple^[11] or offers up what those measurements are.

Thomas in his critic of Gentry’s work highlights the main problem with his thesis in trying to formulate an argument for an early date. His claim is that Gentry failed to follow a consistent hermeneutic when it came to interpretation. When a passage speaks of the same thing such as Rev 11 where the temple is mentioned at the beginning and then at the end of the chapter, in context the rule of hermeneutics demands that both are understood in the same way. Thomas demonstrates this point,

Gentry assigns the term naos both a literal and a symbolic meaning in consecutive verses. In fact, he refers the temple and the altar to literal structures earlier (pg. 169-170) and to the spiritual temple of the church a few pages later. (pg. 174) This compares to changing the rules in the middle of the game. Any interpretation can win that way.[12]

It is recognized that apocalyptic language uses metaphors, symbolism, analogies, and figurative language, but the failure to follow the grammatical principles in interpretation allows for the interpreter to play hard and fast with the language. Woods argued that the preterist comes to a text that does not square up with the events of AD 70, they assume that John is employing some type of elevated apocalyptic hyperbole to justify their interpretation. They ignore the context of the global language being used,[13] “which comes upon the whole world” (Rev 3:10, 12:9, 17:8.)

In Gentry’s next argument he puts forth the idea that the Beast is Nero as a statement of fact.^[14] What Gentry seems to overlook is that in this same chapter of Against Heresies, Irenaeus is presenting his argument and states that,

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved.^[15]

so that it is implied that Irenaeus believed these Revelation events were all future and not something fulfilled in AD 70. Irenaeus clearly expressed his opinion on the matter of who the Beast was,

But now as he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition, Revelation 17:8 as one who has no existence; so, neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed.[16]

From the same source Irenaeus also stated,

He will reign for three years and six months and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire.^[17]

this places the Revelation account into a future time of fulfillment. At this point in time of Irenaeus’s writing the temple had been destroyed and the sacrifices had ceased along with the nation of Israel. Clearly Irenaeus did not identify Nero or any such person as the Beast in the events leading up to AD 70 or after. Irenaeus does make the implication that the temple would exist in the future for these predictions of His Coming to be accomplished.

It was also Irenaeus’ belief by inference that the “sixth king” in Rev 13 is not identifying Nero as this Beast as the one “who is.” The historical evidence does not support the biblical narrative of Nero being the “Beast” then creating a mark, making people worship him based on signs and wonders performed by a false prophet. It seems improbable that Irenaeus writing about AD 150-160 would be completely unaware of something of such historical church significance that the Beast had already come some seventy years earlier or that even the Second Coming had taken place. It is inconceivable that the Second Coming could have taken place in AD 70 and not one person from the church ever declared He came.

Eusebius also presents a narrative of quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Hegesippus, and Tertullian, identifying by inference that John lived unto the time of Trajan after being released from Patmos after the reign of Domitian and was finally buried in Ephesus.[18] Eusebius even comments that such truth can be uphold through the testimony of good and righteous men, namely Clement[19] and Hegesippus.[20]

Eusebius in book three quoted extensively from Hegesippus who predates Irenaeus by almost thirty years, and dates John’s banishment to the reign of Domitian and adds his own statements of beliefs.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.[21]

But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, voted that     Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.[22]

Eusebius goes on in his narrative,

At that time, the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.[23]

While many works of Hegesippus are lost, some of his works were saved in the quotations used by Eusebias. Eusebius also includes in the first few chapters of book 3, a narrative of the destruction of Jerusalem using Josephus own words. Eusebius presided over the Nicene council that framed the creed that declared Christ Second Coming was still future about AD 325. There is not  first or second century church writer that explicitly states John was banished by Nero or that he was sent to the island under Nero.[24] The dating for the book becomes paramount when it is understood that the FP paradigm cannot exist without the early date. Partial preterism and several other eschatological forms necessitate that the Olivet Discourse also be part of the Revelation narrative to prove it happened soon, in respect to their understanding of timing markers.[25]

In a close examination of the material written concerning the authorship and dating of the Revelation the arguments being presented are to describe the sitz en leben at the time of composition as the best evidence for when the book was written. If the three major events described, namely the Second Coming, (rapture and resurrection of the dead), Great White Throne judgment, and the coming of the new heaven and earth are still yet future then the sitz en leben of the days in which it is to be fulfilled must be taken into consideration as a major presupposition for interpretation.

In a second logical observation of our current sitz en leben, Israel exists as a nation. There is no cause given in scripture as to why Jerusalem must be regathered for a second time (Isa 11:11) and then destroyed for a third time so that in some way the Olivet Discourse is to be fulfilled for a second time. It should be noted all eschatological authors prior to 1948 did not have that historical perspective of Israel’s rebirth.

Gentry’s position is that nearly all of Revelation was fulfilled and Nero is identified as the Beast, which by implication makes for the Second Coming to be in the past. Irenaeus is clear that at Christ’s coming Jesus kills the Beast, placing the tribulation and the Beast far into the future in clear cut contradiction to Gentry’s assertions (2 Thess 2:8.) There is no answer to who the false prophet was or what signs and wonders did Nero perform to trick people or from the false prophet as well.

Gentry concludes the section with:

In light of all this “We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.^[26]

The weakness of this stated position is easily provable as being untenable based on historical records of events and actions of John either by direct reference or tradition, secondly by scriptures themselves. There is no early external evidence that states anything specific of John writing the vision during the reign of Nero. All evidence that could point to Nero comes from the third or six century writers,^[27] while historical evidence towards the life of John[28] and the events of AD 64–70 bear no possibility as proof for John’s exile and return during the reign of Nero.

In one such argument made by Gentry, he quoted from Tertullian

But If thou art near to Italy thou hast Rome where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church is that on which the apostles poured out all their doctrine with their blood: where Peter had a like passion with the Lord where Paul hath for his crown the same death with John where the apostle John was plunged into boiling oil and suffered nothing and was afterwards banished to an island.[29]

Gentry suggests the quote means that John was banished by Nero at the same time as Peter and Paul’s martyrdom, as suggested by Jerome comment on Tertullian. Yet the context of the above quote focuses on Rome as the place where John was boiled in oil. It says nothing about the time. It would seem the author is so focused on proving his case that references from the ANF are forced by a way of thinking to fit the proposed narrative which ignores basic grammar, where the apostle John was plunged into boiling oil not when.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Paul notes that the wicked one is killed by the coming of Christ, and in Revelation 19, the Beast is thrown ζῶντες into the Lake of Fire. Nero committed suicide in AD 68 removing the possibility that Nero is the Beast. Josephus reported no Roman leader being killed in AD 70, who would fit the description of the Beast let alone the false prophet.^[30]

The Beast’s power and authority only lasts forty-two months (Rev 13:5) which would suggest he holds power with the other nations only during the Jewish Wars. Nero ruled from ’54 to ’68, fourteen years. Also, John would not have been released until after Nero’s death as Eusebius notes is a customary practice among the Roman senate.^[31] When John wrote down the vision he stated, the things he was writing about must soon take place not “were” taking place. If John wrote Revelation in or close to AD 68 about what must soon take place, how can it soon be taking place when the events of Revelation are already half over according to the forty-two-month restriction of his reign  in Rev 13:5? Why would the seven churches have to be warned of the judgment to come in Jerusalem (Israel)? Why would these seven letters be sent to churches in Asia and not to Jerusalem itself and to the believers to warn them to flee? Hitchcock states in agreement with the same observation.^[32] There would have been no time to flee based on a warning that came too late. Eusebius records that the saints were warned by a prophet and fled to Pella.[33]

According to Gentry’s claims the forty- two months cannot begin any later than AD 66, and Nero did not rule for forty months nor the forty-two months prior to AD 70. Eusebias recorded that,

Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, (after Nero’s death in AD 68)  Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.[34]

Gentry must change the date to AD 71 for the complete fall of Jerusalem to account for the full forty-two months by starting in ’68 or abandon the position all together. Gentry cannot have John being released by AD 68 based on the evidence provided by Eusebius and other ANF pertaining to John’s banishment not ending until after Caesar’s death.

The ANF were very expressive as to what they believed concerning the last days beginning with the epistle of Barnabas. The evidence being presented in the works of the ANF is framed in the knowledge that Eusebias in AD 325 helped codify the general consensus of the church’s beliefs namely, the Second Coming of Christ was still future[35] through the certification of the Nicene creed. Eusebius also accepted the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the fulfillment of Christ’s prophetic utterances in the Olivet Discourse.[36] The prevalence of the Apostles Creed in the late first century also establishes the idea of a physical bodily resurrection[37] of the saints which coincides with his return as church dogma.[38] These statements in of themselves do not prove that the Church was correct but carry a strong weight that is hard to ignore or explain away. Understanding the ANF positions and their scriptural basis for their arguments on such topics establishes a pattern and foundation for the church’s understanding in the decades to come.

Barnabas is accepted as one of the earliest writers after AD 70, to declare in his epistle the destruction of Jerusalem as foretold by Christ was a past event,

It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture says, and it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheepfold and tower, to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. [39]

and yet declared his belief the Second Coming was still future along with the destruction of the “wicked man.”[40] Barnabas as an apostle, walked with Paul for many years and lived through the events of AD 70. His testimony above all should carry the most theological and authoritative weight. While the early church accepted his Epistle as cannon to be read in churches, the book was dropped in later discussions from the cannon for anti-Jewish rhetoric.[41] Further doubts have been cast against a Barnabas authorship assigning a later date of composition suggesting that it is psuedographical without any dedicated support from the ANF in that regard.

Eusebias is the principal reference as to the thoughts of the early church in which he stated his belief in the events of AD 70 as the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse,

These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself.[42]

Christ foretold in Matt 23 that Jerusalem would be destroyed for “ all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah.” This is what is shown through the historical narrative as being accomplished in AD 70. Judgment comes upon a nation as in OT times of judgment. In a NT context the nations are judged in Revelation as well as the people of the Beast’s kingdom for their persecution of the saints of God (Rev 7:9-17). Then the ungodly who have rejected Christ and have gathered against him (2 Peter 3:7, Rev 19:19.) The question must be asked concerning modern-day Israel, for what specific crimes should she be judged over and against the other nations who repeatedly have come against her in this present-day reality?

Zech 14:11 seems to in part answer some questions concerning Israel’s future, where it states that Jerusalem shall dwell in security. If the Olivet was the last decree of her destruction in scriptures,[43] meaning we find no such decree in Revelation or that Jerusalem needs to be destroyed for a second time,[44] then why would Jerusalem not dwell in security, which also implies Israel and Jerusalem is once again a nation in order to dwell in “security.”

A primary argument towards first century fulfillment made by FP is based on “time statements” made in the opening and closing statements of the Revelation. The Revelation opens with, “…what things must take place in quickness”[45] or “…the things that must soon take place.”[46] If the Neronic date is accepted by the preterist, then AD 70 becomes what happens soon and so the events of Revelation are in part about AD 70 for the PP; All the events of Revelation are fulfilled in AD 70 in the FP paradigm.

Gentry points out that,

As we seek to establish an early date for Revelation in this the major portion of our study, honesty compels us to admit at the outset that there are many good scholars of both schools of dating who agree with the assertion of late date.[47]

and so, he readily admits the late date is the most prominent view as held by many good scholars. The reason for dismissing the late date view is based on the interpretations of time texts that the Revelation speaks to the events concerning AD 70 and the Jewish wars in what comes soon or quickly in Rev 1:1. The charge laid against the Domitianic dating and futurists by the preterist community in general is that it fails to honor the time statements made by John within the opening chapter.[48]

The Greek word τάχος[49] is used only eight times in the NT and is translated either as soon or quickness in Rev 1:1. The exact phrase is also used in Rev 22:6 as an inclusio. The grammatical structure of ἐν τάχος is a prepositional phrase, and τάχος is being used as the antecedent of “what things” but the prepositional phrase modifies the verb, γενέσθαι, it tells how the verb is to happen or to be carried out. So “what things must take place” are to take place quickly not that they are to happen within a short amount of chronological time, following the composition of Revelation. The events happen in a short duration of time with the emphasis of these events will surely happen at the right time and will not be delayed.

In Luke 18:8 τάχος is also being used in a prepositional phrase and indicates that “he will give them “speedy justice,” meaning the justice will happen quickly and not necessarily in a short duration of time or in a long-drawn-out time or that justice will be delayed in its coming but concerns the nature in which the justice is being given. The idea conveyed in the vernacular is, “hurry up and get the whole process done quickly,” which includes the concept the process was done as soon as possible in time. Hence the confusion of interpretation. The emphasis of Rev 1:1 is that the events will happen very quickly at the appointed time and without delay.

In Revelation 3:11, (Rev 22:7, 12, 20) the adverbial form ταχύ is being used. An adverb modifies how the action takes place. Jesus said, “I am coming quickly,” which describes how his coming is to take place, it is a very quick coming (1 Cor 15:52), in the twinkling of an eye, at the right time without being delayed which also includes the idea that he comes when he is not to be expected. Woods stated that,

In addition to understanding these words chronologically as indicating the time of Christ’s return, it is also possible to understand them qualitatively as indicating the manner of Christ’s return. In other words, when the action comes, it will come suddenly or with great rapidity.[50]

Woods points out that John Walvoord stated this same belief.[51] Woods then affirms that the broad semantic range of these terms, the context determines whether it is to be understood qualitative or quantitatively since the Second Coming and other events have not come to pass, qualitative must be assigned to the meaning of these words or one must affirm the second coming happened “soon” in time. For woods, there is simply no middle ground to say the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 but the Second Coming is two thousand years away.[52]

The futurist applies a consistent literal or normal interpretive framework keeping to the plain meaning of a word in its normal usage. Normal interpretive methods recognize figures of speech and other literary forms in the text and account for its meaning. The Preterist begins with an interpretive rule that argues for understanding Revelation begins with its apocalyptic genre, “where symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception.”[53] It allows the interpreter to claim a passage is to be understood symbolically without due diligence in exegesis, and they fail in consistency as Thomas points out. The real issue is that symbolism is being used to describe real events. If the same precision was made to the nature text it is clear a contradiction exists between the timing, nature of the events, and the historical narrative. In the Second Coming Christ himself is to appear in glory and power. There is no account of Christ appearing or that his feet stood on the mount of Olives (Zech 14:3) in AD 70.

Thomas also demonstrates that Gentry’s perspective is one of “theonomy” which creates a pre-supposition that is used to force the text to conform to the readers preconceived contentions. Something Gentry later denied in his second edition of his book.[54]

Hanegraaff states in his book,

… The literal principle of Exegetical Eschatology. Simply put, this means that we are to interpret the Word of God just as we interpret other forms of communication—in the most obvious and natural sense. And when Scripture uses a metaphor or a figure of speech, we should interpret it accordingly.[55]

This plainly specified that the goal of exegesis is to separate the imagery from the literal nature of the events being described in the language used which means the language must be identified as symbolical or some type of figure of speech and not merely asserted because the literal understanding contradicts the presuppositions of a view. The literal understanding veiled behind the imagery or symbolism should be sought as the understanding of the text’s purpose.[56]

Gentry goes on to argue from Revelation 17 that all we must do is find out who the Beast was is that “one is ” is to identify who the current Roman leader is in order to follow the timing. Gentry then makes a list of Caesars that ruled during the time when John was writing to make Nero the sixth. Interesting enough if we follow the six kings starting after Nero who died in ’68 AD, we have the start of the Flavian dynasty with Galbo[57] followed by Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian is named as the sixth after the fall of Jerusalem. Nerva (7) only reigned two years and makes his rule a “little while.”

Another valid interpretation is the sixth kingdom is Rome followed by the Ottoman empire,^[58] as the seventh. The eighth kingdom is a revival of one of the seven (Rev 17:11). As Gentry and Hanegraaff admit there are many versions and even choosing who the “sixth king is” is not set in stone. In both cases they turn Nero into the one who best fits the “Beast,” as the one doing the persecution of the saints. The problem is that the focus of the Olivet Discourse is judgment against Israel over her rejection of the messiah and vindication of the OT prophets. The saints fled Jerusalem before  AD 66 and Roman persecution that began in AD 64 did not end until the close of the third century.

The year AD 69 of four Caesars also disproves the preterist theory of “who reigns a short time” since the historical nature of the events disprove a literal singular king who reigns a brief time without justifying why one or the other should be counted in the latter list. In the other, Trajan becomes the (eighth) one who is to come, the one in which John died under.

Gentry also rejects the theory that the seven kings represent “kingdoms” by arguing that it ignores Rome being the geographical referent with its seven hills. Yet Jerusalem itself sits on seven hills but cannot be the Kingdom of the beast.[59] In verse eight the Beast is identified as, “ … because it was and is not and is to come.” Then specifically, in verse eleven, “the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth, but it belongs to the seven.” Also, Rev 13:18 tells us this beast is a man with his name numbering 666. This demands that the Beast is not the sixth king, but the eighth kingdom not yet seen but a revival of one from the past, namely the revival of the sixth kingdom in some sense.

In another observation, the Greek word ζῶντες demands the Beast and False Prophet were living, alive when they were thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:20.) In Wallace’s Greek Grammar he points out the proper interpretation for the word ζῶντες is while still alive.[60] The Beast while still alive demands that it could not be Nero who died in AD 68 by his own hand. The grammatical structure also demands that this was not a metaphorical or spiritual “being” who is thrown into the LOF as a war is taking place and the two enemies are captured alive and being alive, they are thrown into the lake of fire. Secondly John specifically states the Beast is “the number of a man” who’s name numerical numbering equals to 666 (Rev 13:18) making the Beast a singular person.

There is no indication from the language that the events that are to take place should be taken metaphorically, or as an analogy of anything figurative. In fact, the FP demands it is a literal war being described in Rev 19 against Jerusalem, but to claim God gets the spiritual victory over his enemies is an obvious contradiction.[61] Jerusalem was to be destroyed in judgment in AD 70 and the second coming is in defense of Jerusalem. This cannot happen on the last day at the same time. In the absence of proper hermeneutics, the PP also identified the army of the Beast as the Roman army that came in AD 66 and defeated Jerusalem. In Rev 19 the army of the Beast is being utterly defeated by the return of Christ who comes in defense of Jerusalem even according to OT prophecy (Zech 12:8.)

With the arrival of Christ in His Second Coming the Beast and his persecution of the church described in the Revelation account comes to an end. Roman persecution did not end in reality until the conversion of Constantine about AD 325. This then dictates that Jerusalem is never destroyed or can be the harlot, or Babylon of chapter 17 of Revelation as Hitchcock argues.[62] Babylon is described as the one drunk on the blood of the saints. The saints fled Jerusalem prior to the siege, and none were killed in the ensuing war.[63]

The seven bowls are poured out on Babylon  in Rev16:19  and the kingdom of the beast. Babylon was the one drunk with the blood of the saints not of the prophets of old (16:6, 17:6), not Jerusalem. Babylon is described as the Great City “that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” The Beast turns on her (17:16) and burns her with fire. Jerusalem was never part of the Kingdom of the Beast in which she ruled with the Beast, nor did she ever have dominion over the kings of the earth. In Revelation 13 it is the Beast and his kingdom that make war on the saints. In the apparent contradiction made by the FP interpretation Jerusalem becomes the kingdom of the Beast and sets its own army against itself.[64]

In Revelation 20 Jerusalem is called the “camp of the saints” and the city he loves defying the idea that she is a harlot to be cast out and to be found no more forever (Rev 18.) in AD 70. In Rev 20:9 the word παρεμβολὴ[65] is the camp, barracks, or a fort in which an army resides is the characterization made by John concerning Jerusalem after the Second Coming. The saints are identified in Rev 19:8, 14 as the ones wearing the “fine linen, bright and pure” who come following after on white horses as the armies of heaven (Rev 19:14.) In this return the saints who come with Him take up residence in which Jerusalem becomes the barracks for this army. Which does two things for the interpretation; it demonstrates a continued presence of Jesus in Jerusalem after the resurrection and His coming (Zech 14:16.) Secondly, it refutes the claims of scholars who suggest chapter 20 is a recapitulation of history from Christ ascension to his Second Appearing. This would suggest emphatically that Jerusalem has not been the camp of the saints for the last two thousand years. Before AD 66 the saints were warned to flee Jerusalem and they escaped to Pella.[66] It would not have been a “camp of the saints” just prior to the events of AD 66.

In the narrative of Revelation 20 these armies of Satan surround the beloved city, it is not the Beast and False Prophet with their armies instead they are said to be in the lake of fire (Rev 19:20 20:10) which demonstrates a different time. The Beast and his army gather first in the valley of Megiddo[67] (Rev 16:16) for battle and is not a siege against Jerusalem. No siege takes place in Revelation 19 or in 20:9 as Christ brings the armies of the ungodly to a quick end who gather against the city. It seems inconceivable that when the armies of Gog and Magog gather against Jerusalem, that God could not make an end of it very quickly or that somehow it was a struggle to bring judgment against the world of the ungodly.

In Revelation 19 the saints are the bride, dressed in white linen who returns with Christ as His army (1 Thess 3:13). Christ returns to the mount of Olives in which His feet stand again (Zech 14:4; Acts 1:11.) In Zech 12:8 Jerusalem is protected, and salvation is given to Judah and the city in that day the armies gather against her and the rider on the white horse.

Many of these notable scholars disagreed on one simplistic fact. If the Olivet speaks of a second coming then, like Russel, it demanded that the second coming took place in AD 70 but they denied this proposition. The dilemma then presented to those who claimed that Revelation was in part about the destruction of Jerusalem, must deal with how they evade the language that Jerusalem is not destroyed in the Rev 19 account.” Secondly the reference in the Olivet to a second coming also happening in that generation (Matt 24:30-34.) Again, these prophecies must be harmonized with Zech 12, 14 and the clear statements made concerning the events surrounding the second coming.

While there is agreement that Revelation depicts similar characteristics and themes the contention is grounded in the context. The assertion is made that scholars have either ignored or simply evaded the context because of the complexity of proving the events of AD 70 are not outlined in the narrative of Revelation.

---

[1] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 94.

[2]  καὶ ὑποκαταβὰς περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φάσκει·* “ἡμεῖς οὖν οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς. εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν ‹ἐν› τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, διʼ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑορακότος· οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιαμοῦ ἀρχῆς. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3.

[3] Gentry deals with the historical context of the translation issues and how the ANF understood Irenaeus references as one that is repeated as fact but based in error. See Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, chapter 4.

[4] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5.

[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5.

[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4 has John living until the time of Trajan.

[7] DeMar, The Early Church, 176-177.

[8]  ἀρχαῖος can be translated as original, old, former, early, suggesting that that word does not always intend to refer to something old in time, but something held to previously. Gentry uses “ancient copies” as an indicating of something old to support an early date, but the word can also imply the original copies. NGD, s.v., “ἀρχαῖος.”

[9] This is covered in Part II chapter 4 of Gentry, “Before Jerusalem Fell,” EBL 2229.

[10] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.3.

[11] Thomas offers the same line of reasoning of trying to explain how a person is commanded to measure something real in a vision while in exile thousands of miles away. Robert, Thomas “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” MSJ, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 197.

[12] Robert L Thomas,. “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation.” MSJ, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 198.

[13] Woods, “Case for the Futurist Interpretation,” 4.

[14] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 219.

[15] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.3.

[16] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.4.

[17] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.4. This also supports the historical premillennial view.

[18] Eusebius, History of the Church 3. 16-32.

[19] Gentry also argues against the reliability of the comments made by Clement and Hegesippus.

[20] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3. 23.2.

[21] Eusebias, History of the Church, 3.17, 18.1.

[22] Eusebias, History of the Church, 3.20.10, 11.

[23] Eusebias, History of the Church, 3.23.1.

[24] The Peshitta of the fifth century did not contain the book of Revelation but later in the sixth and seventh centuries when it was included it was given the title of “Written in Patmos, wither John was sent by Nero Caesar.” Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 140.

[25] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 294.

[26] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 67.

[27] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 153.

[28] Recounted in Eusebius, History of the Church, Book 3 Chapters 14-21.

[29] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 132. Tertullian, Exclusion of Heretics, 36.

[30] Some FP recognize this problem and now suggest that the beast was actually the High Priest, or the Zealots who started the civil war in Jerusalem just prior to the siege.

[31] Eusebius, History of the Church 3. 20.10.

[32] Hitchcock, Mark; “A Critique of the Preterist View of Revelation and the Jewish War” BSac 164, (January-March 2007): 100.

[33] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5.3

[34] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5.1

[35] As formed and understood based on the Nicene creed. Eusebius, Letter on the Council of Nicea https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm.

[36] Eusebias, Church History, 3.5,6; https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

[37] In opposition to Gnosticism and other heresies, Athenagoras, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Methodius, Rufinus, Tertullian, and Victorinus all wrote concerning the physical bodily resurrection.

[38] See Jack Rogers, Presbyterian Creeds, Westminster John Knox Press,  1985, 62–63. Jonathan F. Bayes,  The Apostles’ Creed: Truth with Passion. Wipf and Stock Publishers 2010. James Orr, “The Apostles’ Creed”. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Reformed. 2011. Herbert Thurston, The Apostles’ Creed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, editions of 1907. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.1. New York: Robert Appleton Company 2013. “Apostles’ Creed”, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005.

[39] Epistle of Barnabas, 16.

[40] Epistle of Barnabas 15, 16 (Ca 70-90) Higher criticism doubts Barnabas authorship and places it as a second century writing.        

[41] C. Hezser, The Epistle of Barnabas. Outlook and Background. By James Carleton Paget. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2 Ser. 64. 1996) Pp. xi 323. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck, 1994). 120.

[42] Eusebias, Church History, 3.7.4.

[43] Zech 14:11 And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security.

[44] This question is premised on the idea that the Revelation account has nothing to do with the events of A.D. 70 or the fulfillment of the Olivet discourse.

[45] The literal Greek grammatical structure.

[46] As translated in the NIV, NLV, ESV, BSB, NASB, CSB.

[47] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 114.

[48] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 291.

[49] TGL, s.v. “τάχος.”

[50] Andy Woods, “A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Annual meeting of the Pre-Trib Study Group, (Dallas, TX., 2007): 5.

[51] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, (Chicago, Ill; Moody Press, 1966), 35.

[52] Woods, Case for the Futurist Interpretation,5.

[53] Woods, Case for the Futurist Interpretation, 3.

[54] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, Preface to the New Edition xxiii.

[55] Hank Hanegraaff, , The Apocalypse Code, (Nashville: TN:Nelson Pub. 2007), 2.

[56] Woods, “Case for the Futurist Interpretation,” 3.

[57] According to FP accounting it began with Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius—had fallen, Nero was presently on the throne sixth, and Galba the seventh king had not yet come; But when he did, he only remained on the throne for seven months—or as John put it— “a little while.” Hanegraaff and Gentry use both lists.

[58] Ottoman empire ended in 1922.

[59] Hitchcock, A Defense of the Domitianic Date, 155- 156.

[60] Wallace, , “Greek Grammar,” 627.

[61] This begs the question: in what year did God destroy the nations who came against Jerusalem? Roman empire became Christian about AD 325 so in what sense was Rome destroyed and punished for her crimes against Israel? 

[62] Hitchcock, A Defense of the Domitianic Date, 174.

[63] Eusebius, Church History, 3.5.3.

[64] In part the “War of the Jews” by Josephus, speaks of the civil war instigated by the zealots during the siege as a justification for the Zealots being identified as the kingdom of the beast by some FP.

[65] TGL, s.v. “παρεμβολὴ.”

[66] Eusebius, Church History, 3.5.3.

[67] “Armageddon” comes from the Hebrew, הַר har, meaning hills or mountain, hill country Megiddo is a location in Manasseh or located in the Jezreel Valley about a hundred miles southwest of Jerusalem. Not to be confused with the modern-day city of Megiddo.