SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Revelation-Why no mention of temple destruction?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA

 Revelation-Why no mention of temple destruction?

If the book of revelation was written after 70 AD why does it not mention the most significant apocalyptic event in Jewish history, namely the destruction of the temple and demolition of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD?

Just curious.


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/17 11:32Profile









 Re: Revelation-Why no mention of temple destruction?

Good question, since John was instructed not only to write
"the things which shall be hereafter", but the things which thou hast seen. But, on Patmos, John did not see the destruction of Jerusalem, if he was on Patmos at that time. So, where was John in 70AD?

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 2014/3/17 13:42
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA

 Re:

John surely would have received news of such things on a roman penal colony.


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/17 14:06Profile









 Re:

I certainly would think so. But the Lord gave John the words to write and after all, God set aside, disanulled, abolished the Old Covenant as a way of satisfying Him. Because no man is made righteous by the law.

There is a new temple in town now where God dwells and it is the Body of Christ and Revelation is about the Bride and the Bridegroom and their New Covenant, together.

It was no longer appropriate to make the OT Temple prominent in the letter to the Churches (book of Revelation). Especially, with Judaizers in that day trying to impose "Hebrew Roots" on the Early Church. They would have really latched on to any mention of the physical temple in Revelation and further twisted the Scriptures.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. .

 2014/3/17 15:53
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2265


 Re: Revelation-Why no mention of temple destruction?



Ques. "Revelation-Why no mention of temple destruction?"

Ans. No mention of it because it had not yet taken place!

Revelation 11:1,2 And there was given me a reed like a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship in it.
But the court which is without the temple, leave out, and measure it not; for it is given to the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Measure the temple of God - This must refer to the temple of Jerusalem; and this is another presumptive evidence that it was yet standing. But the court - is given unto the Gentiles - The measuring of the temple probably refers to its approaching destruction, and the termination of the whole Levitical service; and this we find was to be done by the Gentiles, (Romans), who were to tread it down forty-two months; i.e., just three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days. This must be a symbolical period.
Adam Clarke

Revelation was written:

Before Jerusalem Fell - Dating the Book of Revelation
by Kenneth L. Gentry, JR.

The evidence may be garnered from Revelation’s self-witness and from church tradition that John wrote Revelation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in August, A.D. 70, rather than in A.D. 95-96, as many scholars believe. Gentry convincingly argues for a date around A.D. 65 or 66, after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution and before the death of Nero Caesar.

The book may be downloaded for free at:

http://www.freebooks.com/christian/before-jerusalem-fell/

 2014/3/17 20:58Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA

 Re:

I happen to agree with you savannah. I was just wanting to see those who hold to a late date for Rev explain this missing piece of vital info.

My personal belief is that 80% or so of revelation was really about things that really would soon come to pass most of which was fulfilled by the events of 70 AD

I realize that is a minority view but just makes a lot more sense, at least to me. The same applies to most of the Olivet Discourse.


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/17 22:22Profile









 Re:

Hi TMK,

I have spent the day doing more study on the early view and now I am very open to it. Still more study to go. It's always good to stay teachable.

 2014/3/17 22:36
hulsey
Moderator



Joined: 2006/7/5
Posts: 653
Missouri

 Re:

Why is there a letter written to the Church in Smyrna when there is no record of any such church existing until the 80's A.D.?

The earliest, most reliable accounts place the writing of Revelation in the 90's A.D.

If it were written before the Jewish war with Rome it would have been written at a time when Paul was still ministering to those churches. Why does Paul never mention the condition of the churches being as such when he clearly would have been writing letters to them at the same time?

Why is Paul praising the Ephesian Church at the same time that Jesus is rebuking them? (This would have been the case if the book of Revelation were written in the 60's A.D.)

John's ministry to the Churches in Asia Minor didn't begin until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Until then he was one of the apostles at Jerusalem.

John's imprisonment and subsequent release fit the pattern of two Roman emperors at the close of the 1st century, not Nero who simply executed political prisoners.

Nero's persecution of the Church consisted of Christians in Rome only. It was very brief and was one of political expediency rather than a philosophical difference. He clearly didn't see them as a threat to his empire as later emperors did. Empire wide persecutions did not begin until just after the close of the 1st century. Until then, most persecution of the Church was from Jewish resistance to the Gospel as the Church was largely a part of the synagogues. It was only after the Church left the synagogues and the Christians were taken off of the synagogue lists that they became an illegal religion.

These and many more are why I believe that the book of Revelation was written as is testified by the earliest Church Patriarchs in the 90's A.D.


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2014/3/17 23:21Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2265


 Re: Date




'The Gospel of John was most probably written at Ephesus, A.D. 68, and, judging from the comparative purity of its Greek, after the composition of the 'Revelation' in Patmos.'

'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 (A.D. 175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, i.e. Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou 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 favour of the earlier date. The temple at Jerusalem was still standing (ch. 11.1-10); the exact duration of the siege is foretold, viz., 42 months, 31/2 years, or 1260 days; the two witnesses are to be slain in the city where our Lord was crucified; Nero was reigning at the time, for it is said of the seven kings of Rome; 'five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.' The five kings are Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. The 'one who is ' is Nero; the one who 'must continue for a short space' is Galba, who reigned only seven months. Everywhere the events are 'to come quickly,' lit. 'with haste,' or speed (ch. 1.1; 2.16; 3.11; 11.14; 22.7, 12, 20). The escape of the Christian Jews from Jerusalem to Pella is undoubtedly referred to in ch. 7.1-8, compared with Mat. 24.30.'

Robert Young (1822-1888)

John 5:1,2 After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and there is in Jerusalem by the sheep- gate a pool that is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches

 2014/3/18 7:34Profile
budgie
Member



Joined: 2011/2/25
Posts: 266


 Re:

The most important reason why John did not mention anything regarding the Temple Destruction or any other events regarding Jerusalem at the Time is because the Book of Revelations is a Prophecy that God the Father gave to His Son Jesus to give to His Servants via John.
John was clearly instructed by Jesus to only write the things that he saw and heard.
Nothing was to be added to or taken away from the Prophecy
John only wrote what he was instructed, it was not just the inspired word of God
It was the very direct and clear verbal and visual words, revelation of God and His Son Jesus.
The whole of Revelations is called a book of Prophecy and it is in regards to the Coming of Jesus, given to instruct us and to prepare us.
It was written to the 7 churches in Asia at that time and is also relevant to the churches in that region at the end of time, as well as to us in all of the world.
He that overcometh and keeps overcoming will receive the crown of Life and eat of the Tree of Life and so on.

 2014/4/8 20:25Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy