The Bible truly is an inexhaustible living, breathing Word of God. It never ceases to teach and reveal.

I wish Dr Sproul was still alive and I could attend his church! He is by far my favorite preacher/teacher! Thank you RC Sproul-What a gift God gave us in you! 🙏❤️🙏

The more I study the less I know.

Love how he's not dogmatic about this position. Sure appreciate him and his ministry.

A very clear explanation and solid evidence on the dating of Revelation by the wonderful and beloved teacher RC Sproul who has now gone to be with the Lord.

I still listen to his lectures and sermons. Calms me down.

God willing to speak to you in Heaven my brother Sproul at the feet of the LORD. Sleep in peace until the glorious Day of the Lord Yeshua.

RC would have made an amazing attorney, but praise the Lord, he chose the right path in life.

Thank you Mr. Sproul for pointing out that amazing observation concerning the book of Revelation speaking so much about the temple. How true it is that if the dating of the book is post 70ad, why does the apostle not mention 1 time about such a world shaking event that happened. Great great point. Love it.

This is like powerlifting for my spiritual mind. I feel stronger already.

One more thing to add. If you do indeed start counting the 7 kings starting with Julias Caeser, then the 7th king that the angel mentions would be Galba. Galba only reigned for roughly a year. Just the like the angel mentioned when he said: "...five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; *and when he comes, he must remain a little while* "

Amazing! Praise Jesus!

So critical is the date of Revelation, it effects the expectations of the saints and what to hope for and trust in.

Amen. I as a believer in Yeshua always knew, without external evidence, that every book of the New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. REASON - I simply cannot comprehend, that believers would not use the greatest evangelistic, polemic tool, such as destroyed Temple, namely God completely removing (even though false) alternative to faith in Yeshua, existence of sacrifices offered in the Temple. This is incomprehensible in Jewish evangelism.

Thank you R C Sproul.

Excellent teaching!

This is absolutely fascinating

Awesome. Sproul was one hell of a communicator.

Excellent

Wonderful

Dr Sproul. I listen to your preaching of the word. You are a blessing to us. I thank God for you. I would like to ask if cremation can be for believers

I am surprised the RC didn't mention that Irenaeus studied under Polycarp who was under John. Irenaeus was very close to the source.

For those who hold to Revelations Judgments being in our future.Think again! Revelation 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. Mt.23:35 That upon you [1st century Jews] may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Luke 11:50"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world.

I could think of one good reason as to why there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in Revelation. That is because Jesus told John to "write the things he saw", not to write a commentary on past historical events. Nowhere in Revelation does John write any personal or historical commentary.

Around and around we go!!!!!

I have done some research on the dating of the book of Revelation. John was exiled to Patmos in 95 AD. The book is prophetic (as most Biblical scholars agree) therefore it would seem then that Revelation would not be about Titus’s onslaught in 70 AD.

For those with the position that all of the prophecy in Revelation are complete, that seems applicable up thru Rev 20:6. Verse 7 (at the conclusion of the “1000 years”) seems to suggest a new prophecy that takes us thru the end of this world and into eternity.

Why doesn't he talk about Ezekiel 12:21-28?? That passage directly refers to these "time statements" in the New Testament and in my opinion proves his case..

No entiendo nada de lo que dice pero me encanta su voz. 😅

He's spot on here guys. The "Tribulation" Is way behind us. Fear not, Christ will conquer this world. God will not have to remove His church because the Gospel failed.

Where in the book is it said that prophecy only occurs once? Most great events in the Bible have shadows in the past of the same thing.

Speaking to churches made up of a lot of gentile believers 100s and 100s of miles away from Jerusalem about the temple doesn't make sense. Also, there is no mention of Paul or his epistles using the earlier date doesn't make sense either. Thank you for this perspective though

Read “Before Jerusalem Fell” by Kenneth Gentry- this lecture is heavily based on the form and content of this book. He is a proponent of an early date of Revelation and is a great book

🙏

Firstly, I hold my view on revelation somewhat loosely, however, the dating would be hard to convince me, only that John identifies the specific circumstances of his writing, which was on Patmos. We know when this happened. Domitian was trying to kill him in boiling oil, but the Lord protected him (not that he was unharmed, I believe most believe he was scarred from this, but just didn’t die) and so to get rid of him he was sent to Patmos for a few years. This was when Revelation was written. So, in the 90s.

John the Apostle was banished to Patmos by Titus Flavius Domitianus. He ruled from 81 to 96. John wrote Revelation while on Patmos, so it could not have been written in the 60s.

Dr. Sproul’s use of Clement’s anecdote of John chasing an apostate on horseback (preserved in Eusebius’ _Ecclesiastical History)_ seems to be iffy. The account reads in part, “But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might” (Ecc. Hist. III 23:17). This seems a specific reference to John’s _old_ age, whereas Dr. Sproul uses this story as evidence of John’s _young_ age.

Rev 3.12, John 17.3, John 20.17, and many other scriptures.

I'm amazed, and humored, but not surprised by your simplistic dismissing of the internal evidence of the John in the isle of Patmos. Great lengths must be taken to maintain doctrinal errors.

How does one get to follow up teaching?

I guess I'm ignorant, but John, himself says he was on Patmos when he had the vision. Is the question about when John was exiled to Patmos? Another question: is it possible that John didn't mention the destruction of the temple because Jesus rose from the dead-Jesus being the fulfillment?

Irenaeus also said Jesus died at 55 yrs of age

The sound is awful. Very brilliant theologian

Revelation opens with the words, what must "soon take place", and focuses upon the Great Persecution, which ran from the mid first century to the early 4th century, when Constantine became the first Caesar to embrace Christianity and halted the persecution. See the Edict of Milan. See also the Lapse Controversy.

Doesn't it say Paul wrote it on the island of Patmos

I have to ask, is it true that early Christian writers are almost in agreement that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian which ended in AD 96?

Please could you give the reference to the "ancient copies of revelation"? (minute 13)

I know a LOT about a LITTLE BIT of the BIBLE

When has the end of a movie lasted longer than the movie?

For the most part im a partial preterist. Full preterism is very dangerous and daunting. People who view revelation in a futuristic way seem to pick and choose whats literal and what isnt. Whereas when you let the scripture speak for itself, it seems that imagery is very common amongst this writing. It paints a picture, its the same thing as a simile and metaphor that we lesrned about when we were young and in school.

Jim714- Matthew 16:28 Some of you standing here will not die till they see the son of man coming in his Kingdom. What do YOU think that means?

Using external writers as a God is not always a good thing, especially when it comes to church fathers and I say that because everybody knows the Catholic church has altered various writings concerning them, all in an attempt to make themselves successors of the priesthood

Antipas who is named in the book of revelation died long after 70 AD... so what ?

Or, did John receive the vision years before he got to write it all down?

Wich writing of Clement is he referring to?

When we talk about scholars, are we talking about Bible believing scholars? More specifically, those who believe that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Messiah that died, buried and resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father (God) in Heaven? I say this because, otherwise, we would lend a great deal of credence for a far more myriad of views, secular views, like Bart Ehrman for example. One of the most popular views is we have to know the background of who was writing, when they were writing, the climate and so forth. I would agree to some extent. But how do you put yourself in the place of an eternal God? Jesus? And the Holy Spirit that inspired the writings? What I'm saying is, how far do we allow our Biblical scholars to get away with secular views? Do we allow them to decipher the 27 books of the New Testament like they are books on the New York Times Best Seller List to be deciphered by any secular book critic? That is what is going on in our Universities and Colleges and this has been going on for many decades now. Also in our Seminaries, Catholic or Protestant, the whole shabang so to speak.

The only time when I saw R.C. to delve into more guesswork, conjectures and speculations was when he was getting destroyed by his beloved friend Dr. John MacArthur in the infant baptism debate...

Well John was told to measure the temple which was destroyed in AD70

The NASB, ASV, KJV, ESV, MKJV, all have MOUNTAINS in Rev 17:9. Newer versions like NIV, CEV, NLT have HILLS. Its seems to me that the first five version mostly used by scholars use MOUNTAINS or MOUNTS, which would refer to Jerusalem, whereas HILLS may refer to Rome. I would go with Jerusalem which also has seven mountains or mounts surrounding Jerusalem. The seven kings may be seven Jewish Kings. Recall that the Harlot was carried by the beast with seven heads therefore closely related to him rather than Rome. Just thinking.

Rev.11:8 seems to indicate that many verses must be known 'spiritually', not literally, which reads: 'And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified'!!!

My apologies; just seems that the references to Irenaeus and Clement, with respect to their life span being mid 2nd century does not seem to fit the narrative of an early write. in my opinion. Nothing here to convince me that John wrote this before the 90's. :)

I agree, however as with most bible prophecies, its dual.

Volume is too low in these videos

The post-70 A.D. dating of the book of Revelation renders all preterist thought null and void. You can be a futurist and believe in the early date (Neronic) or late date for this book, but it's impossible to be a preterist and hold to the late (Domitianic) date. The earliest Christian historian who recorded the church's knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation was Hegessippus in 150 A.D. (around the time when most of those who would have known John had likely already died), and this continued to be the accepted unanimous view until about 4 centuries later with the Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript in which someone wrote that John was exiled under Nero. It is sometimes claimed that the Neronic dating is in the original, but this is impossible since the original lacked the book of Revelation. From what I've been able to gather, there is no source or reasoning given for this change in that 6th century manuscript. This is problematic at best, and lacks the authoritativeness that would be required to credibly make such a huge revision to what was commonly accepted and passed down from the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd. The same can be said for the Muratorian Fragment, which is the 7th century copy of the 2nd century original, with no way to prove the Neronic dating was in the original. There is no record of any of the early church fathers holding to the early mid-60's date of Revelation. A fascinating glimpse into the early church fathers and what they believed on a variety of topics is in 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs', over 700 pages compiled by David Bercot. In addition to Hegessippus (who, notably, wrote this some 30 years prior to Irenaeus), Tertullian , Eusebius, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, and a number of other church fathers both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until the 6th century should give early-date advocates pause. This cannot be swept under the rug so easily. That's like if someone today claimed that Queen Elizabeth I of England had a child, when in fact we know that she died childless in 1603. It would not be seen as a credible claim because there's no evidence for it. Likewise, from John's death until the 6th century there passed over 400 years without a single claim of Nero exiling John to Patmos. Not one. So at least most of the events of Revelation are still in our future (some view the messages to the churches as having already been strictly for them and completely fulfilled, while some view each church as symbolic for a different time period, and of course there could be room for double-fulfillment of most of those first 3 chapters). There was a celebration on Patmos in 1995 commemorating 1900 years (approximately, as in 95 or 96 A.D.) since the Revelation Jesus gave to John. Also, what other events in the 1st century A.D. are ever claimed as taking place 2 or 3 decades earlier (or later, for that matter)? With all of the accurate records kept during the Roman Empire era and surviving today, there is little room for such a vast difference being feasible. It's commonly believed that Jesus died around 30 or 33 A.D., Paul and Peter were martyred in the 60's, Nero lived from 37-68 A.D., etc. No one says Jesus died in 3 A.D. or 60 A.D., or that Peter and Paul were martyred in the 30's A.D. or 90's A.D., or that Nero actually reigned around the time of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. The majority of scholarship places John's writing of Revelation in the mid-90's, but somehow preterists think it's ok to go against the overwhelming consensus of the past 2000 years? Why isn't this the case with any other historical event from the same time period? The great fire of Rome took place for nearly a week during 64 A.D., but no one places it in 54 A.D. let alone 34 A.D. A powerful earthquake in 60 A.D. devastated Laodicea. And yet no one ever says that earthquake took place in 30 A.D. 30 years prior. I have yet to see any preterist respond to this fact with a shred of credibility. Domitian exiling John to Patmos was common knowledge among the ante-Nicene church. With the vast majority of evidence to the contrary, preterism literally rests on this single pillar of the dating of the book of Revelation. And, really, that is no pillar at all in light of the historicity of the late date.

John was sentenced to Patmos by Domitian. Domitian "reigned" from 81 - 96 AD. How could John be on Patmos prior to AD 70?

Love RC (RIP) but as to explaining the book or Rev, he is not one I would go to. Just finished Robert Thomas' 2 volume exegetical commentary. Excellent commentary for the price. BTW, Peter used the same time references when he wrote that "the end of all things is near." The 96AD dating has the best historical evidence. Paul taught imminency believing that Christ could return in his own life time. Peter did as well even though he knew he would die prior to His coming. The 7 churches and their situations also point to the later dating. 1200 pages was a lot to read but Thomas' exegesis is sound. RC's analysis of the "kings" is totally wrong because kigs were not the subject but rather empires as in Daniel. One thing the Reformation didn't reform was the allegorical hermenutic.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Revelation 1:19. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; Jesus tells John to write 3 categories. The things which he’s already seen, the things happening now, and the future. So When Jesus tells John that some things will shortly come to pass that’s what he’s talking about not the category of the future. Revelation 22:10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Meaning: Time at hand means it has started all the things in revelation from beginning To end chapter 1 to 22. Happening from when John got the vision to the end 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Meaning: I come quickly word in Greek means fast moving like lightning from the east to west not near future. Revelation chapter 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Meaning : I come quickly word in Greek means fast moving, in blink of an eye, not now or near future.

Is Sproul a teacher if preterism?

Rome is called Babylon. It recalls the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians. In addition, the new Jerusalem does not have a temple of stone. Because God Himself is amog his people.

He did his best but his age and era influenced some interpretations In the Bible especially about women

I feel like you have to ignore a lot of scriptures about who the future Beast is when accepting Sproul's view of preterism. The people at the end will worship and marvel at the Beast because he has a deadly head wound that has been healed, another way of saying he's come back to life from the dead! None of the examples he's given of people around the time of the destruction of the second temple fit this description. Also it's clear that the false prophet who makes people worship this Beast will force a mark on everybody that they can't buy or sell without it. Again, there is no antecedent for this around the second temple destruction

At 12:45: A techical analysis of Irenaes: "the apocalyptic VISION....that was SEEN" is self expanatory. Visions are seen. You are welcome. You may return to worshipping the eloquence of your Calvinists now.

the inspired word of God only states what needs to be stated; not a reference to the temple unless it is necessary; so don’t rational from such a position. It wasn’t needed.

The "time of the Gentiles" can be understood as "the time of all unbelievers." Therefore, the gathering of "Israel" is the gathering of all "believers" at the end of history.

There is another crucial internal evidence of the early date reference that nobody sees very few do. As RC scrolls says about chapter 17 verse 9 and 10 we see that there are Kings. But up in verse 3 we see that John is in the spirit and sticking out into the wilderness so from that point everything we see is a vision not when he's writing the book. But in 10 versus later in 18:2 we see the Babylon has been destroyed. So in chapter 17 verse 9 and 10 is talking about the destruction of Babylon and chapter 18 verse 2. Here where it gets pretty interesting and chapter 18 verse 20 and 24 we see that the saints and Prophets and apostles got to revenge when Babylon was destroyed. If we go back to Matthew chapter 23 we see that Jesus gives the Pharisees and strategies that condemnation. He told them that they killed the prophets and apostles in the saints no one else got that claim. And in 70 AD they were judged for that so how can Babylon in the future have the same judgment as Jerusalem in the past. So Babylon and chapter 18 has to be Jerusalem if it is not then sometime in the future the prophets and apostles have to be risen or we have a new set of apostles and Prophets. Or everything happened in 70 AD. And with all the short time statements and Jesus this generation statements and Paul telling a Thessalonians that they will see relief when Jesus comes back and their lifetime. There is no question that 70 AD was the second coming of jesus. Luke and chapter 21 verse to 24 is quite clear that these are the days of vengeance where everything that was written will be fulfilled. If we look at 70 AD and said it was not his second coming or a partial second coming then we are calling Jesus and his apostles a liar always saying that they are confused they don't know what's going on.

And the beast is not a man. The beast is the angel of the bottomless pit, the king of the locusts, whose name is Abaddon/Apollyon. He is mentioned in 9,11, 13, 17, and 20.

I have this to say. As with all the epistles and letters written by the apostles, which were written FOR the believers and followers of Jesus Jew and gentile alike, the Book of Revelation was written NOT for the non-believing Jewish population, but for Christian Jews and gentiles. Thus, no mention of the Temple's destruction. There was no need to. Jesus' warnings in the Olivet discourse we're enough to speak on that matter and it did help save the Christians who must have left Jerusalem due to that impending doom event. It is my understanding that multitudes of Christians left the city and Judea prior that. Since Jesus spoke about the temple's destruction many decades prior, why would He double down and include it in His revelations to John at Patmos? Jesus didn't because it doesn't concern those who have decided to follow Him and become Christians, and later heeded His advice to flee Jerusalem. I believe that the contents and intents of Revelation were meant primarily for Christians who would by all purposes, be exclusively familiar with the language used (particularly that of 'church' and His promised return), whose meanings would be lost to a Judaiser or non-believer. As early as Jesus' pre-crucifixion, I believe the Apostles have understood the meaning of Christ's statement to the woman by the well that "the day will come when people shall worship neither in Jerusalem nor in this mountain (in Samaria)". This in my view renders the temple as no longer necessary for Christians, and accept that His words in Matthew 24 is a pronouncement of God's judgement on Jerusalem, Judea and all it's people who rejected Jesus. The target audience of Revelation is Christians, with the purpose of giving a view to future events, so that to me makes it irrelevant WHEN it was written.

It is my understanding that the Epistles of Paul are the deadliest of the Christian canon. He would have surely been a witness. But I do not recall him mentioning the destruction of the Temple or the attack of the Romans on Jerusalem. 😇😉🤔

Revelation was written in code, which the Jewish Christians would have understood, while the Romans would not. It uses symbols and themes from the Hebrew Scriptures, which were familiar to the Jewish Christians. They understood the point, because they knew and understood their Scriptures.

Where is the third temple in all this?

way too much speculation to fit an agenda

The seven mountains have nothing to do with literal mountains. They are also the heads of the beast. One of his heads was wounded to death and revived, so obviously this is not about literal mountains. And the sixth is Rome itself, not one of its emperors. The beast is the eighth, and is of the seven. He is one of the heads of the dragon, which are also seven kings.

Here’s early church quote What Eusebius Thought Irenaeus Said Here’s how Eusebius utilized Irenaeus’s statements: “There is ample evidence that at that time the apostle and evangelist John was still alive, and because of his testimony to the word of God was sentenced to confinement on the island of Patmos. Writing about the number of the name given to antichrist in what is called the Revelation of John, Irenaeus has this to say about John in Book V of his Heresies Answered: ‘Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign’” (The History of the Church, 3.18). Irenaneus was bishop in 1st century knew polycarp John’s disciple I think these people who were there know what there’re talking about

He is saying John wrote this before 70 A.D.?

Jesus gave 2 discourses one in the book of Matthew one in the book of Luke you need to read them and study them you will find they are two different discourses given at two different times in two different locations one pertains to the future and one pertains mostly Jewish nation at that time and does discuss the destruction of Jerusalem you’ll find that in the discourse in the book of Luke where Jesus clearly says when you see the city of Jerusalem surrounded… that obviously pertains to the destruction of the temple and 70 D but then Goes from that point into the future the one in Matthew is different it pertains to the future that’s why Jesus gave two different discourses

Look I’m sure he was a good pastor commentator I don’t know his actual credentials I did research to see if he spoke Greek or Hebrew and could not find that he did so his opinion is just his opinion you really need to check things in the original language to make sure that you potentially have the right interpretation

The Bible tells you what must happen before tribulation starts Thessalonians 2:7 The restrained must be taken out of way. The restrainer is Holy Spirit (in the church) the church will be raptured then tribulation starts. Read Mathew 24.

This is nice and all but "when" the book was written is irrelevant but rather the contents of the book. Knowing when it was written has absolutely no bearing on the things that will happen during the 2nd coming which is likely very soon.

Bottom Line. It is "just" personal" theory. If it was important to know when it was written John, Jesus, the Holy Ghost would have told us. 🤔😇😉

God will show you who he is I promise you I will never worship Jesus God is my only creator

Notice how he changes the wording in chapter 17 from “Mountains” to “hills” it is a quick slight of hand to make is argument more plausible. Mountains have a specific meaning in Old Testament prophecy. For him to change it to hills is being dishonest with the text.

Because he preaches doesn’t mean every single thing that he taught is correct it is his opinion he didn’t speak Hebrew I’m not even sure if yhwh spoke Greek

This is why seminary is like being in a cemetery, this is so dead , how does this scratch where I itch ? Give me the spiritual truths to apply to my life , a date doesn’t touch my life. Goodness !

Daniel describes times of Gentiles in statue of Nebuchadnezzar, it’s not Jerusalem, that rock not hewn by hands of men, that destroys before Kingdom, but the last Gentile empire. So to claim all had been fulfilled in 70 AD, doesn’t make sense. My subjective opinion, this is what happens when you ignore Tanakh and only use New Testament for interpretation. Short summary of several verses, that the Lord uses in the Gospels and ignore volumes of the chapters that the same Jesus spoke through Patriarchs, Moses, Prophets and Psalms on this topic, is more than inadequate. All GOD’s prophets always spoke of near limited fulfillment of certain event, but projecting the prophecy to the greater and distant future fulfillment. This was a way prophets fulfill the Torah requirement, to distinguish between true and false prophets. Thus first century was a lesser fulfillment of the greater future fulfilment of the 70th week of Daniel, to end the times of Gentiles and finish promised redemption of Daniels people, Israel. Church age is not a Gentile age, it’s a mystery age of Jews and Gentiles in a new Body of the Messiah and is no way, shape and form connected to any generation of prophecy, including earthly ministry of the LORD Yeshua the Messiah. There is no church replacing Israel, but some Gentiles are grafted in to the promises made to the fathers. PS. Romans did not invade Palestine, but invaded by then reunited kingdom of Israel, which took place during Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. Palestine did not exist until Romans attached this name out of spite to the land of Israel in 135 AD. It was, is and always be the Land God gave Israel, even when we rebel against Him, in the same way there never was, is and never be Palestine.

The Roman records confirm Johns release from prison and the emperor who released him please read the history it helps us to understand the the truth john was in his 90s he went back to his home town where he died of old age as Jesus predicted he would

This is what I submit. I submit that Bible scholars, including secular Bible scholars, in universities and colleges, to be valid, must view and analyze the Bible from the view that they are inspired by a Holy God. Regardless of whether they believe in God or not. Otherwise, their review and analysis is not relevant. Not valid. I'm not even saying that they should not review the Bible just from a worldly viewpoint. If they are not doing both, what are they? God? How can you be honest and objective without doing both if a scholar is not a believer? Otherwise, they spout their own views from their own perspectives. There are no other ancient writings and books of the Bible and surrounding the Bible, whether Old Testament or New Testament. And then archeology. Then there is the sheer volume of writings? Compare the exactness of the writings that are valid? And so forth. Nothing comes close, not in our world. Or they could be a scholar studying Alexander the Great?

this is a prime example of taking passages of scripture out of context, and the effect of presuppositions on interpretation, as well as the method of interpretation, such as the allegorical and hyperbolic approach. Clearly the cosmic signs referred to throughout end time prophecy, including Jesus sermon on the mount (Matt 24:29-31), which is immediately connected with the day of the Lord second coming of Christ (Rev 11:15-19), which is connected with the final destruction of the Beast, and the Antichrist (Rev 19) - which takes a lot of imagination and exaggeration to see as already fulfilled in that 1st century. This interpretation that Nero was the Antichrist also fails to take into consideration, or accurately interpret Daniel's prophecies, and how they are vital to the interpretation of what we see in Revelation, as the Beasts, and the one we call the Antichrist. Sproul begins with the mistaken interpretation of the seven heads as referring to the seven hills of Rome, while John clearly tells us that they represent seven rulers, five of which had come and gone, one was at his time (probably Rome), and one that was to come (Rev 17:8-11). He makes a big deal out of the English translation of the Greek word "basileus" as king, while it actually means "leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land," (Thayer's Lexicon), which would include "Emperors". He then interprets these "kings" as being the Ceasars gong back to Julius Ceasar, which is a glaring inconsistency in his arguments regarding the interpretations of the key words, as necessarily being Roman Emperors, not kings. However, the 7th Emperor after Julius or Augustus Ceasar is not Nero but Galba - another little discrepancy. Reading this passage Sproul adds a key word very sneakily, the word "also" before John's explanation of the 7 heads as rulers, implying that it is both the seven hills and the seven kings. His interpretation also seems to ignore the connection with the Harlot Babylon, and the ten horns of that final 8th beast, and begs for explanation of the final outcome described in the 19th chapter, as having already happened in the first century. Too many pieces of the puzzle are left out of this picture - is not letting scripture interpret scripture. His arguments for the dating of the book are very shaky based on the shared presuppositions of the men to whom he appeals for authority, not actual evidence. This is the Reformed Church view on prophecy and Revelation in particular, which has many problems scripturally, exegetically, and in reality. It is a view that relegates all the end-time prophecy to little more than history which makes it mostly irrelevant to us in the church today. Their non-literal allegorical approach opens the door to virtually unrestrained latitude with respect to speculative and imaginative interpretation mostly based on other presuppositions, such as the all the prophecies about the day of the Lord judgment on the whole earth with the darkened sun, the blood red moon, and the heavenly bodies falling from the sky, as all being fulfilled in 70AD with the destruction of tiny Jerusalem. But for those who don't really know the scripture on this subject, it sounds very convincing.

The Jews said no King but Caesar; that’s a dodge. Jews has kings Rome and emperors. Did the Jews say Caesar was a King. No it was left to be interpreted by Rome.

Lot of skips, a lot of ifs? A lot you do this? Then it works before 70 a day when in fact many scholars of the past did not understand that when Jesus gave two discourses one in Matthew and one in luke they were actually two different discourses at two different locations not the same discourse represented twice once you learn this and understand this you can clearly see that Jesus was prophesies in both about the destruction of Jerusalem and a future destruction of a temple in Jerusalem

The book of revelation is mostly writting for jews and gentilles belivers and unbelivers for those that will be present after the rapture so they will not stand in darkness throught the jugement of the One sitting on the heavenly throne , and the things comming after for distant hope on the world to come