The WTS and the Book of Revelation

by Quendi 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Quendi

  I am starting this thread in response to an inquiry by jookbeard in another discussion. It concerns the dating of the book of Revelation and why this is so important in WTS theology. The WTS, as well as many other religions, maintains that Revelation was written at the end of the first century, years after Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. This belief is now taken as plain and obvious truth, but that is not the case. As a matter of fact, for centuries, prominent churchmen and scholars had maintained that Revelation was written before Jerusalem's fall and, furthermore, that most of its prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. Here's what I shared in my first post:

  "As for the book of Revelation, I believe that was written in the years prior to Jerusalem's destruction. A thorough discussion of this is given in Kenneth Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. This would explain why John said that the things related in the prophecy 'must shortly take place' and that 'the appointed time is near.' John and his readers were looking, not to the 'end of the world' but to Jerusalem's destruction at the hand of the Romans. Most of Revelation has been fulfilled, but there are some elements that are still awaiting this."

  I'd welcome further discussion of this because it has a direct impact on current WTS doctrine. The Society teaches that Revelation's prophecies were fulfilled mostly upon it during the twentieth century. Well, that is patently false, but it is a very important part of Witness belief and activity today. What is even more interesting to me is how the 'Revelation Climax' book has been revised twice because of the false expectations and thinking the Society has advocated in the past. Of course, such revisions are put forth as 'new light' which rank-and-file Witnesses think is proof of Jehovah's guidance on the organization. It would be interesting to see what some of the more thoughtful among them would do if they read Gentry's book and other related information.

  Quendi
• 

  snowbird

  I haven't read Gentry's book, but I'm putting it on my list.

  I've often thought that Revelation is more about Jews than Christians, because some parts of it almost mirror Matthew chapter 24 - which is ALL about the end of the Jewish Temple arrangement.

  There is so much to learn when you can look at the Bible without Watchtower lenses. As an example, I've recently finished reading the Book of Jasher which covers the creation of Adam until the time of the Judges or Elders.

  One thing I noted that was very intriguing. There were 12 Judges or Elders of Israel. Does this have anything to do with the 24 Elders of Revelation?

  So much to question, so much to learn, and we can do it on our terms now.

  Hallelujah!
• 

  jookbeard

  so the bottom line is that if Revelation was written pre 70 CE then all the countless prophecies ;types and anti types,trumpet blasts etc pertain solely to the fall of Jerusalem and are not relevant to any modern day fulfillment?
• 

  snowbird

  Bingo!

  It sickens me that I used to gobble that stuff up like it was milk and honey.
• 

  jookbeard

  one thing 'I've always laughed about is the WTS interpretation of the the 144k in Revelation with they claim is a literal figure yet the 12 tribes in which it derives from is figurative! and the 7 trumpet blast's in which the drunken alcoholic crook Joe Rutherfraud claimed he was directly fulfilling!
• 

  MrFreeze

  Well they think 607 is a plain and obvious truth when it is proven wrong time and time again, why should their other interpretations of Bible passages be any different?
• 

  snowbird

  LOL.

  Also, according to the WT, the 24 elders are a composite of the 144K, yet, Revelation chapter 14 shows the 144K singing a song in front of the 24 elders that only the 144K can master!
• 

  jookbeard

  singing the "new song"!
• 

  Quendi

  Thank you, one and all, for your comments and I look forward to reading more from other posters. I have a few more things to share myself and will do so in due course. I'll have to look into the Book of Jasher because it sounds quite fascinating. By the way, snowbird, I have sent you a PM.

  Quendi
• 

  Bobcat

  Quendi:

  This is something I'm going to research also for the sake of no longer just accepting someone's word for it without seeing what the evidence suggests. To that end, I'd like to quote part of the opening paragraph of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on Revelation, under the "Date" section. (p.6, Grant R. Osborne) Not because it settles the issue, but because it gives an overview of the various views and who held them. This should help broaden the discussion some. So here goes:

  "Carson, Moo, and Morris (1992: 473-74) state that four dates were proposed by early Christian writers: the reigns of Claudius (A.D. 41-54, by Epiphanius), Nero (A.D. 54-68, by the Syriac versions), Domitian (A.D. 81-96, by Irenaeus, Victorinus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen), and Trajan (A.D. 98-117, by Donotheus, Theophylact). Of these, most contemporary scholars opt for either Nero or Domitian. Aune (1997: lvii) points out that the Domitianic date prevailed from the second thru the eighteenth centuries and again in the twentieth century, while the Neronic date dominated the nineteenth century (Aune believes that the first edition appeared in the 60s and the final in the mid-90s) To determine which view is best, several issues must be discussed." (Note for those who don't know: Claudius, Nero, Domitian, and Trajan were Roman emperors. Carson, Moo, Morris, and Aune are Bible commentary writers. The rest of the names are various Christian writers from about the 2nd century on.)

  So, to outline that:

  Claudius (41-54 AD) (Supported by: Epiphanius [367-402 ?])

  Nero (54-68 AD) (Supported by: Syriac Versions, In connection with this I found this site, but there are others.)

  Domitian (81-96 AD) (Supported by: Irenaeus [late 2nd cent], Victorinus [late 3rd cent], Eusebius [late 3rd cent], Clement of Alexandris[late 2nd-early 3rd], and Origen[1st half of 3rd])

  Trajan (98-117 AD) (Supported by: Donotheus [?], Theophylact [?])

  The reference quoted above lists the major issues involved in trying to resolve a date. They are:

  Emperor Worship/ Imperial Cult

  Persecution of Christians

  Background of the Churches

  I'll stop there for the time being. Hope this helps to build a sort of foundation to work from.