This "never getting it right" practice has caused many to lose faith in the Watchtower organization as God's spokesman. Many have asked, "if the "faithful slave" really have God's holy spirit, then why can't they ever get it right the first time?" Why the "pin the tail on the donkey" method? Are we to conclude that "trial and error" is God's approved way of bringing us all to the "Truth?" As we all know from reading the Bible, this kind of scholarship is not found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures. Even so, over 7 million people faithfully follow them as the channel through which God speaks. But does he?

Millions of Witnesses have put their lives on hold and are hard at work trying to earn enough points with God so they can live in peace in a future "Paradise Earth." What is not realized is, that all this volunteer work for a better future life down the road has as its reward much sadness and bitterness. Comments like, "the new system was supposed to be here by now" or "it wasn't suppose to end like this" are common when long sought after goals are finally realized to be in vain.

The Watchtower Society constantly dangles the carrot in front of these workers so they will reach out and do more with sayings like, "the end is imminent", "we're in the last days of this system", or "the end is just around the corner", and "Armageddon is knocking at the door."

The premise behind all this working for a future reward is the assumption that the Bible book of Revelation was written by John on the island of Patmos in 96 AD. But why is this so important?

If this date (96 AD) is true, then the book of Revelation would all apply to the future and have very little, if any, application to Jerusalem. But if evidence revealed that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then Revelation would have applied to the destruction of the whole Jewish system 2000 years ago, and would not apply in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses and many other futuristic religions have predicted.

This paper is an effort to share some of what I have found in researching this subject, and to help you be aware of the vast amount of information regarding the early date that is available. I have added Highlights and underlining to these articles for emphasis.

The pages entitled The Book of Revelation and Eschatology by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. makes these comments:

The Date of Composition

There are two basic positions on the dating of Revelation, although each has several slight variations. The current majority position is the late-date view. This view holds that John wrote Revelation toward the close of the reign of Domitian Caesar--about A.D. 95 or 96. The minority view-point today is the early-date position. Early-date advocates hold that Revelation was written by John prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70.

I hold that Revelation was produced prior to the death of Nero in June, A.D. 68, and even before the formal engagement of the Jewish War by Vespasian in Spring, A.D. 67. My position is that Revelation was written in A.D. 65 or 66. This would be after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in November, 64, and before the engagement of Vespasian's forces in Spring of 67.

Though the late-date view is the majority position today, this has not always been the case. In fact, it is the opposite of what prevailed among leading biblical scholars a little over seventy-five years ago. Late-date advocate William Milligan conceded in 1893 that "recent scholarship has, with little exception, decided in favour of the earlier and not the later date."

Two-decades later in 1910 early-date advocate Philip Schaff could still confirm Milligan's report: "The early date is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." [1]

End of Mr. Gentry's comments.

In the book Prophecy: The Year 2000 And Beyond? by Gene Fadeley, he asks some good, solid questions that need answers:

Readers of Revelation have long wondered 'what did the time statements "long time", "at hand", "near", "soon" mean in the Hebrew scriptures? Because the Bible assures us:

"The Lord is not slow about keeping his promise"... 2 Peter 3:9

Yet many teach that what the Lord promised in the lifetime of the first century disciples has not yet occured nearly 2000 years later. Did God really mislead mankind by telling them things were "at hand", and "near" when they were really thousands of years away?

It is one thing for God to promise something and not to give any indication as to when it would be fulfilled. Its entirely different for God to indicate a time frame then not bring the promise to fulfillment.

Consider the following thought provoking time statements by Mr. Fadeley:

Balaam prophesied concerning Christ, "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near" (Numbers 24:17) He was speaking 1400 years before Christ and he stated that this event was "not near."

Daniel was told in a vision (530 BC) about the death of Antiochus (165 BC), "But seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future" (Daniel 8:26) This prophecy was fulfilled 365 years later and Daniel was told that it concerned "the distant future".

Jeremiah told the captives in Babylon that "it will be a long time" (Jer. 29:10,28) He was speaking of their captivity that lasted 70 years.

If 1400 years is "not near", 365 years is in "the distant future", and 70 years is a " long time" then what does "at hand", "near", and "soon" mean?

Jesus, immediately before he was crucified instructed, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house" (Mt. 26:18) Jesus was in the last week before his crucifixion.

Mr Fadeley continues: If we observe the time statements and place the prophecy where it is supposed to be, it fits neatly in fullfillment. However, if we take these verses without observing their time statements, and try to place their fulfillment nearly 2000 years in our future to a time peroid of which they were never intended, then they don't make sense and are all confusing. [2]

End of Mr Fadeley's comments.

Adding to this mountain of evidence in the paper "Dating the Book of Revelation" by Kurt Simmons, he writes:

Evidence For 96 A.D.

As wide spread as agreement for the date of 96 A.D. is, one would think that there must be considerable evidence to support this position. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is like the doubt the New International Version throws upon Mark 16:9-20 by separating the text from the rest of the gospel with the note: "The most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20." We possess about 6,000 manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 are missing in only two, and these two manuscripts are probably the worst in our possession (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Yet, by sheer weight of the editors' assertion, many are duped into believing that the last 12 verses of Mark are not authentic. Similarly, by the assertion of marginal notes in their Bibles, the date of 96 A.D. is assumed to be dependable despite the fact that there is little or no reliable evidence to support it. The evidence in favor of 96 A.D. can be summed up as follows 1) Oral tradition has it that John was banished to the isle of Patmos by the Emperor Domitian sometime around 96 A.D.; 2) a statement by Irenaeus, a second century "church father," and 3) the supposition that apostasy in the Asian churches prior to 96 A.D. is unlikely and requires the later dating.

Banishment Of John To Patmos

There is no reliable evidence that John was banished to Patmos by Domitian. The whole tradition is similar to the oral tradition among the Catholic church that Peter was once bishop of the church at Rome: Not one verse of scripture or reliable piece of historical evidence can be cited to support it. Jerome states that John was seen in 96 A.D. and was so aged and weak and infirm that he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people."[1] The fact that John was so old and weak as to have to be carried renders doubtful that he could possibly have written the book in 96 A.D. Indeed, the Revelation itself says John must again "prophesy before many peoples, nations, tongues and kings" (Rev. 10:11) something he could not do in the state of decrepitude that we would expect of one of such advanced years.

Statement Of Irenaeus

This is the only evidence of any value, and it is so slight as to be nearly worthless. Irenaeus was a church father of the second century, many of whose letters have come down to us. Concerning the mystic number of the beast given Revelation 13:18, Irenaeus says thus: "If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign." It should be observed that the subject of the verb "was seen" is ambiguous, and may be understood to refer to either John or the apocalypse. To argue as do some that the subject of the verb is the apocalypse is purely arbitrary. In fairness, either John or the apocalypse may be the subject. But what is the point of saying the vision was seen in recent times? The nearness of the vision cannot not open the symbols of the book. It was the author John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning of the mystic name. Thus if the reference is to anything, it would seem to be to John. However, even if Irenaeus' statement is granted to mean what advocates of the 96 A.D. say, this is the only independent, external evidence favoring that date.

But did Irenaeus refer to Domitian? Robert Young, author of "Young's Analytical Concordance," wrote a commentary on Revelation published prior to 1885 wherein he makes the following statement: "It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date." Because of the ambiguity of Irenaeus' statement and the identity of the emperor he referred to, there is such a divergence of scholarly opinion regarding the credibility of the Irenaeus quotation as to render it almost worthless as external evidence of the later date. Thus the whole of the evidence favoring the date of 96 A.D. comes down to something little more than nothing. Moreover there is no internal evidence in the book itself upon which to corroborate this date, but much against. Therefore, let us proceed to examine the evidence for an earlier dating.

External Evidence:

The Syrian Version

The Syriac is among the earliest and most important versions. The oldest of these is dated to within about one hundred years of the pens of the inspired writers. There are several versions of the Syriac in our possession, including the Peshitto ("simple"), the Curetonian, the Philoexenian, and Harclean. The oldest of these lacks the books of II Peter, II and III Jno., Jude and the Revelation. Where these books are present, Revelation is captioned and entitled thus: "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar" Thus, from the oldest and most important versions in our possession comes unequivocal testimony placing the Revelation in the time of Nero.

Internal Evidence:

Imminence Of The Impending Events

Despite the impressive array of external authorities that may be cited for the earlier date, it is the internal testimony of the book itself that is most important for it bears clear and unequivocal evidence that it was written before the siege of Jerusalem. Because of limited space we cannot cover each of these, so we must limit our discussion to those that are most important.

The book makes numerous reference to the imminence of the predicted events. The exhortation to "read, hear and keep" the contents "for the time is at hand" (Rev. 1:3), clearly shows that the events depicted would come upon that generation ("must shortly come to pass" Rev. 1:1). Over and over, Jesus gave personal warning to the churches that he would come upon them quickly in the events of the vision and catch them unawares if they failed to repent. (Rev. 2:5,16,25; 3:3,11; 16:15; 22:6,10,12,20.) Application of these time elements and allusions to events thousands of years later, and to centuries yet to come, does violence to the text. Jesus had told the apostles that before they had opportunity to preach in all the towns of Israel he would return: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Matt. 10:23; cf. 16:27,28) Jesus warned Caiaphas that he would "see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Obviously a reference to the destruction of the Jewish nation by Rome. Why search for fulfillment in the myriad pages of medieval history when abundant testimony exists showing Christ's return in vengeance upon the Jews of that generation? (Matt. 23:36; 24:35; Mk. 13:30; Lk. 21:32)

Tribes Still Extant

Related to the activities of the Judaizers is the fact John portrays the tribes of Israel as still intact in their land, from which God "seals" a remnant hundred forty and four thousand. (Rev. 7:1-8) The clear implication of this imagery is that, at the time Revelation was composed, the longsuffering of God was giving adequate opportunity for the Jews to obey the gospel before the storm of war, pestilence and famine swept across Palestine, destroying the nation for all time.

The Representation That The Temple And City Of Jerusalem Were Still Standing

Revelation chapter 11:1-19 depicts the temple in Jerusalem as still standing. John is told to measure the temple and altar and them that worship therein. (v. 1) "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." (v.2) This passage clearly indicates that the temple and city are both in existence at the time of John's writing. The forty two months refers to the 3 1/2 yr. war of the Romans against the Jews and the siege of Jerusalem. The identity of the "holy city" is clearly given in verse eight where it is referred to as the "great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." In Matthew 24:2, Jesus predicted that the buildings of the temple would be overthrown and not one stone left upon another. The apostles asked when these things would be fulfilled, what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the mosaic age. (v.3) Jesus answered saying "This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled." This definitely limits the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation 11 to the forty odd year period following Jesus' ascension. Since the temple and city were both destroyed in 70 A.D. by Rome and they are depicted as still standing in Revelation 11:2, we can be certain the book was written prior to the war against the Jews.

The Sixth Emperor Was Still Reigning

Revelation 17:10-12 marks the period in which John wrote the Revelation. Like the reference to the city and temple, this internal evidence cannot reasonably be disputed. Chapter 17:10 states unequivocally that the sixth emperor is still on the throne: "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come. "The Caesars are as follows: (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, (6) Nero. "Five are fallen" - Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius were deceased, "one is" - Nero was yet on the throne. The reign of Nero extended from 54 A.D. to 68 A.D. Therefore the book was almost assuredly written sometime between these dates. Alternatively, if Julius is omitted upon the premise he was not among the emperors (the empire really began under Augustus), then the sixth emperor would be Vespasian, the Roman general Nero commanded to prosecute the war against the Jews and who came to the throne of the empire after Nero's death. In favor of this it is argued that the beast that "was and is not and yet is" (Rev. 17:8) referred to Nero, i.e., he was the incarnation and personification of the beast but was now dead and Vespasian ruling in his stead. Advocates of this interpretation also point to the language of Rev. 17:11 which is thought to refer to Domitian, the eighth emperor of Rome: "And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition." But whether it be Nero or Vespasian for present purposes, is of but little consequence. Either way, a pre-destruction of Jerusalem dating of the Revelation is easily sustained.

World Condition

A final consideration that should be mentioned in passing is that the events of Revelation are more consistent with the world condition under Nero, the civil wars that followed his death, and the siege of Jerusalem than any other time in history. No other period witnessed such moral depravity, license and wanton abandon as did the empire under Nero. Tacitus' and Suetonius' descriptions of Nero's depravity, bloodlust, and reign of terror stretch out in an almost endless list of murder, cruelty and vice, ended only by a violent death which launched the world into a condition of near anarchy as the world witnessed four emperors in the space of year battle for the imperial throne. Domitian's reign by comparison seems almost tame and perfectly inconsequential. Certainly, there is nothing in the reign of Domitian that was of eschatological significance, such as the extinction of the Jewish state and the destruction of the city and temple. The world condition under Nero, the persecution he waged against the church, and the eschatological events culminating in the destruction of the Jewish state, coupled with the imminence of the events prophesied in Revelation, all point to date of composition under Nero, not subsequent emperors.

Conclusion

These are not all the evidences that point to an early date of composition, but they are among the most critical and most concise. The book of Revelation is about the consummation of the ages - the bringing to fruition God's plan of redemption by closing out the national kingdom of apostate Judaism and bringing in the new, Heavenly Jerusalem, the Bride and church of Christ. The events depicted belonged to the generation of those to whom the book was addressed, the seven churches of Asia. Those who are looking for future fulfillment are certain to be disappointed. No substantial or credible evidence exists in support of the traditional date of 96 A.D. Every reliable indication is that it was composed prior to 70 A.D. and the destruction of the Jewish state by Rome. 1

End of Mr Simmons comments. Used with my thanks to, and by permission of Kurt Simmons. [3]

The paper entitled "The Battle of Armageddon" by Jerry W. Bernard put the term "Armageddon" in the proper prespective. He comments:

I did not want to foolishly believe something for my generation that was not going to happen. So, I started my private study of the subject. First of all, did the Bible teach that a battle would occur in the valley of Megiddo? I looked through my notes on the subject. The most quoted and famous passage was Revelation 16:14-16. John described it graphically. "They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs and they go out to the kings of the whole world to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed. Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon."

I discovered in the foot-notes in my Bible the fact that Armageddon should be translated "mount of Megiddo." That would not be a valley as I had been told. I also noticed that the kings of the earth would assemble at Armageddon, the mount. However, they would not fight there.

They assembled at (H)armageddon to make war on Jerusalem (16:16), many miles away.

The book of Revelation makes no mention of a war in the valley of Megiddo. In fact, I could never find the words, "Battle of Armageddon" in my Bible. Zechariah 14:2 was another verse that speakers used: "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it." All of this seemed to have a familiar ring to it. However, none of the verses fit conference speakers' conclusions.

It was later that I read the account of Josephus, the first-century historian who told of "a great day of God Almighty (16:14) in 70 AD, when the Roman forces from all nations assembled at Har-megedon to make war on Jerusalem (16:16).

Neither the Bible nor Josephus described a battle taking place at Har-megedon, the mount, or the valley adjoining it. Both accounts say that the armies assembled there to fight against Jerusalem, many miles away. Josephus was a Jewish General who was defeated in the first battle of the Jewish-Roman war in 67 AD. Because of many good things about Josephus, the Ruler of Rome commissioned him to become a historian for the Roman Empire and to give detailed information on the activities of Titus and his Roman Army as they waged war against the rebellious Jews. This account covered three and one-half years of battle, until Jerusalem was completely destroyed to the ground. Not one stone of the Temple sat upon another stone.

Josephus had recorded how Titus, the Roman General and son of the Emperor, led his troops out of Egypt, north along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, bypassing the region of Jerusalem, and how he came to the vicinity of Caesarea, bordering Mount Megiddo. Titus and his famous Roman tenth legion waited there for other troops to arrive from beyond the Euphrates River to the northeast and from Rome to the northwest. Once the troops were assembled at Har-megeddon, Titus gave instructions and they marched against the city of Jerusalem.

Just like the prophecies foretold, the battle happened at Jerusalem, not Har-megeddon. The kings of the earth (made up of nations with Titus) assembled at Mount Megiddo and made plans for a swift and brief battle against Jerusalem. Between Vespasian and his son, Titus, it took three and one-half years to complete this end to Jerusalem. This agreed with the prophecies of Zecharian 14, Revelation 16, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. The prophecies were fulfilled. Should we look for another fulfillment of judgment on Israel?

The Battle of Armageddon is not something for us to look for in our future. It belongs to the past with all the other events that brought an end to Judaism, Jerusalem, and all related prophecies.

In 30 AD, Jews foolishly believed that the time had come for them to throw off the Roman yoke and become a Kingdom of Prophecy. However, like Moses of old, miscalculation without God, proved disastrous.

On his way to the cross, Jesus said to weeping women, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children." Jesus knew the righteous judgment and extensive destruction that was to come upon them, their children, and the city. It occurred in a span of 40 years from the time He spoke those words -AD 70.

From the earliest days, generations were taught inaccurately that the battle of Armageddon would occur in their lifetime. Yet, Armageddon belongs to the closing days of the first century. This fulfilled Jesus' prophecies in Matthew 23:34-39 concerning the fate of national Israel which occurred in that generation. [4]

End of Mr Bernard's comments. Used with my thanks to and by permission of Jerry W. Bernard.

My Conclusion

The information presented by these men are conclusions they have reached from years of study and research. What is presented above is just the tip of the iceburg. Those supporting the 96 AD date are many and offer their opinions also. After examining both sides, I find evidence for an earlier date before 70 AD to be most compelling.

I now understand why the many religions out there teaching that Revelation's "Armageddon" and the "Great Tribulation" are yet in our near future, and why many other confusing applications have failed again and again. An example is the new light on "this generation" as explained by the Watchtower Society. This teaching has dramatically changed now for the 6th time. Their explanation of the book of Revelation has changed 4 or 5 times, each time adding more confusion. All of this because they have taken a book that was in fact being applied to the final days of Jerusalem in 70 AD, disregarded its time statements, and put people's hopes and dreams into a futuristic frame of thinking. This has led to deep depression and mental fatigue, as people's hopes and dreams go unfulfilled.

The evidence is there. It has always been there. We have simply been in a rut, and put our lives on hold to listen to the time-worn unconvincing arguments of those who advocate the late date of 96 AD for the writing of the book of Revelation.

Emotionally charged Christians are told over and over again in the name of the Bible that inescapable disasterous events are imminent. Yet these foretold events never materialize. The question is "Why Not"? If predictions are unreliable, then something must be wrong with their source. We don't want to be like the person who does the same thing over and over and expects a different result each time. This is not called "Faith," it's called "Insanity"

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein, US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955).

Footnotes

1. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Covenant Media Foundation, www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt552

2. Prophecy: The Year 2000 And Beyond, by Gene Fadeley, pgs 4-6.

3. Mr. Simmons website is www.preteristcentral.com/prev-dating-revelation.htm

4. Mr. Jerry Bernards website is www.freedomsring.org/65feature.html

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Frank Kavelin , March 10, 2010

Thanks for the terrific article. It holds together quite well.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

...
written by Daniel B , March 10, 2010

Thank you for the wonderful article! It really changed my perspective on the book of revelation and in some ways, the bible and christianity.

Very well put together!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by Ryan , March 15, 2010

Thank you for compiling this information. It just so happens that I have been wrestling with this idea myself; namely, the fact that various New Testament writers wrote as though Christ's return were imminent. At the close of the book of Revelation, Jesus himself says, "I am coming quickly." If Jesus were referring to his second coming, as traditionally taught by churches, well the word "quickly" is misleading, if not outright false. As I see it, either the greater part of Christians have misinterpreted this Bible teaching, or the Bible is not infallible.

I'll need to look into this more. Thank you.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Coffy , March 23, 2010

Interesting compilation of sources. Thank you.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0