Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[xzins]

PFRS Home > Doctrinal Studies > Preterism Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse Copyright © Tim Warner - 010/2003 The date of the writing of Revelation has been hotly disputed by preterists. Until the last century, Christian tradition has placed John's exile to Patmos during the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). The dispute over the date of the composition of Revelation is a crucial one. If it was composed by John after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem preterism is at once refuted. Revelation is a prophetic book, predicting the coming of Christ in the future. A post-AD70 date makes equating the coming of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem utterly impossible. There is no question that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of the Roman state, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. That much can be gathered from the first chapter of Revelation. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1] There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors were either indifferent to Christianity, or did not consider it a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the decade of the 60s, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in AD67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded. There is no record of Nero's banishing Christians to Patmos, only his brutality against the Christians of Rome. It was Nero who made a sport of throwing Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance. After Nero's death Rome left the Christians alone until the rise of Domitian to power in AD81. Although not as cruel and insane as Nero, Domitian had some Christians killed, the property of Christians confiscated, Scriptures and other Christian books burned, houses destroyed, and many of the most prominent Christians banished to the prison island of Patmos. All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John's banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero's reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John. Eusebius the Christian historian, living only two hundred years after Domitian's reign, gathered evidence from both Christian and secular sources that were still extant at the time (some of which are no longer extant today). All of the sources at Eusebius' disposal placed the date of John's Patmos exile during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius' earliest source was Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John. But he also used other unnamed sources both Christian and secular to place the date of the Patmos exile of Christians during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). "It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] 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. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: 'If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ." [2]  While Eusebius quoted Irenaeus' statement, notice that he also indicated that other secular histories at his disposal accurately indicated the banishment of Christians to Patmos occurred during Domitian's reign. Eusebius continues: "Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: 'Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.' But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's horrors 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." [3] Here again Eusebius mentioned an ancient Christian tradition, but did not quote his sources, that placed John's return from exile on Patmos after Domitian's fifteen year reign, and Nerva's rise to power (AD96). There is more early evidence, both explicit and implicit, from other early writers prior to Eusebius, as follows: Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus. "'And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.' He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God." [4] A little farther, Victorinus again made the same claim. "The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba."[5] Clement of Alexandria (AD150-220) recounted a story about John shortly after his return from exile, while a very old man. "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." [6] The expression "the tyrant's death" can only refer to the death of either Nero or Domitian, the only two "tyrants" that ruled in the first century. Eusebius related that upon the death of Domitian, the Roman senate voted to release those exiled by Domitian. This seems to parallel Clement's statement above. However, the above statement COULD refer to Nero, except for one fact. In the story that Clement related, he clearly stated that John was a very old and feeble man. The story is about a young new convert whom John entrusted to a certain elder to disciple in the Faith. The man had formerly been a thief and robber. Upon John's return from exile on Patmos, he heard that this young man had returned to his old life of crime. Upon hearing this, he sharply rebuked the elder in whose custody he had left him. John immediately set out for the place where this robber and his band were known to lurk. Upon reaching the place, he was assaulted by the band of robbers. He demanded of them to take him to their leader. They brought John to the very man whom John had formerly won to Christ, and left in the custody of the elder. When the young man saw John approaching, he began to run away. John began to run after him, calling, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.” John then explained to him that forgiveness and restoration was still possible. Clement then stated, "And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church." [7] From this account we see that upon John's release from exile on Patmos, he was a feeble old man. John could have been in his teens or twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD96. If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the "tyrant" referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties, fifties, or early sixties. He would hardly be spoken of as a feeble old man by Clement. That John lived until after the reign of Domitian is also shown by Irenaeus' repeated references to his own mentor, Polycarp, being John's disciple.[8] Polycarp was born in AD65, and died in AD155. He was five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was two years old when Nero died. His being tutored by John therefore must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward. More than one early writer mentioned the persecution of the Apostles under Nero. They spoke of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but made no mention of John's exile during this persecution. As is obvious to the unbiased reader, the early external evidence that Revelation was written under the reign of Domitian is indisputable. No evidence exists, from the first three centuries of Christian tradition, placing the composition of Revelation during the reign of Nero. Nor is there any evidence (Christian or secular) that Nero exiled any Christians to Patmos. Preterist argument from internal evidence. The clear familiarity of John with Temple worship in Revelation is alleged to indicate that both he and his readers relied on personal knowledge of Temple worship in Jerusalem. According to preterists, this implies that the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Revelation was written. However, this argument is flawed at its very foundation. The Old Testament is full of the same Temple imagery. Any Gentile Christian familiar with the Old Testament (LXX) would be sufficiently familiar with the Temple imagery. Furthermore, familiarity with the New Testament book of Hebrews would also be sufficient. Even a cursory reading of Revelation reveals that John's visions and comments reference Old Testament prophecy on every page. Ezekiel saw a future Temple in his prophetic visions. [9] Yet, his visions occurred during the Babylonian captivity years after Solomon's Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of those who returned after the seventy year captivity to rebuild the Temple had never seen Solomon's Temple, or observed its rituals. [10] Their familiarity with the Temple was based solely on the Torah and scrolls like Ezekiel's and Daniel's. The Temple destroyed by the Romans has been gone for nearly 2000 years. If preterists' claim is correct, we should not be able to understand Revelation or write about Temple worship today because we have no personal first-hand knowledge of the Temple and its rituals. Such a position is absurd, since our knowledge of the Temple comes from the Scriptures. Neither the writing nor understanding of Revelation requires or implies first hand knowledge of the Temple. The Old Testament is sufficient. John certainly was himself familiar with the Temple, having been there with Jesus on several occasions. And his readers were well trained in the Old Testament Scriptures. That John was told in his vision to "measure the Temple and them that worship therein,"[11] is likewise no indication that the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. This prophetic vision clearly parallels Ezekiel's vision. [12] Ezekiel saw his vision during the Babylonian captivity, fourteen years after Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.[13] Yet, in his vision, Ezekiel was taken to Jerusalem, shown a glorious Temple far larger than Solomon's Temple, and proceeded to record all the measurements of the Temple in great detail. John saw his prophetic Temple vision during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). We don't know exactly when during his reign he was exiled, nor how long prior to his release he wrote Revelation. But, the possible timespan covers anywhere from eleven to twenty six years after the destruction of the Temple by Titus. It certainly COULD have also been fourteen years following the Temple's destruction, just like Ezekiel's Temple vision. It is obvious that the command given John to "measure the Temple" was meant to parallel Ezekiel's vision. Since Ezekiel saw his Temple vision fourteen years after the first Temple had been destroyed and lay in ruins, there is every reason to conclude that the same situation existed when John wrote Revelation. Ezekiel's Temple vision and prophecy was clearly intended to indicate a future rebuilt Temple. Ezekiel did not see the former (Solomon's) Temple that had been destroyed, or a Temple that was currently standing. Therefore,  John's vision of the Temple in Jerusalem should be seen in the same way, being an indication and prophecy that the Temple will indeed be rebuilt. Contrary to the claim that John's Temple vision indicates that Herod's Temple was still standing, when compared to the parallel account in Ezekiel, it seems obvious that both prophecies of measuring the Temple were given shortly after the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The former in Ezekiel's day by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and the latter in John's day by Titus and the Romans. That this is how the early Christians understood Revelation, even after the destruction of the Temple, is clear from their statements to the effect that the Temple in Jerusalem will be the seat of the Antichrist in the last days. [14] The preterist's attempts to date Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem fail on both internal and external evidence. This failure is indicative of their whole system, which is forced upon the Scriptures, and in this case, upon history as well. Preterist scholarship on this question is clearly agenda driven. Notes: [1] Rev. 1:9 [2] Eusebius, Bk. III, ch. xviii [3] ibid. ch. xx [4] Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, XI [5] ibid. ch. XVII [6] Clement, Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved, XLII [7] ibid. [8] Irenaeus, frag. ii [9] Ezek. 40-44 [10] cf. Hag. 2:3 [11] Rev. 11:1-2 [12] cf. Ezek. 40:3ff & Rev. 13:1-2 [13] Ezek. 40:1 [14] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk V, XXV, i-ii, Bk. V, XXX, iv, Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, xxxix, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, vi, Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV <

[P-Marlowe]

Preterism is dead.

I'm sure the Preterists will argue that John's Epistle was written before Nero became Emperor.

Dates are not a problem with Preterists. They are very fluid and they move with every scriptural or historical argument against them.

I don't know why they don't just move the date for the destruction of Jerusalem to 95 AD. That would solve all their problems.

[HarleyD]

"1. No one can nail down what or who the Nicolaitans were."

"6....He is talking about the "followers" of Nicolas....those who came after him. And who might have seriously perverted his acetic life.

This is the argument of F.F. Grant. If no one else knew, John knew and told us what the Nicolaitans were in Revelation 2:14-15. Admittedly there was apparently some disagreement within the church about Nicolas role in all of this and it needs further research. Irenaeus himself isn't entirely clear on Nicolas role.

But then that begs the question that if know one knows what the Nicolaitans were then how the heck can they say Nicolas wasn't involved with them? Doesn't this seem like an inconsistent argument? It sounds like people desperately trying to gloss over this. "We really don't know what the Nicolaitan were but Nicolas wasn't involved with them." Does anyone else see a problem with this?

It seems to me there is a clear understanding of the role of the Nicolaitans-at least I'm clear on the matter and that's saying something. ;O)

Whether this POSITIVELY refutes the date of Revelation to late '90s, I don't think so. However, I do believe given the number of other scriptures about problems within the early church and the similarity to the Nicolaitans there is a strong and compelling case for the date to be place before 70AD. The later day isn't as cut and dry as your author makes it out to be. If so we wouldn't be arguing this for 2,000 years.

[57chevypreterist]

I'd rather have a sharp stick in my eye than be a full preterist.

Anyone who tells you Christ already returned is simply wrong. This world is just too messed up for that to have occured.

Now THERE'S a well-reasoned, solidly biblical response - er- NOT! :)

[xzins]

The historic consensus for John's letters being written toward the end of the century is huge.

We've got to have John outside of Israel, writing to gentiles, having problems with gnosticism, reminding people of what used to be....the list goes on.

But...you're right. Preterism will probably move the date.

That should be evidence to them that their a priori assumptions are more important than evidence. That's why they attacked Irenaeus' clear dating of Revelation in the 90's during the reign of Domitian.

The preterist assumption couldn't exist until they got rid of the evidence, so they had to attack Irenaeus.

[topcat54]

The extensive gnosticism of 1 John means that this letter was written near the end of the 1st century. There is a huge consensus that this is the date of John's letters for CENTURIES.

Let's sing it once again boys and girls ... "Tradition ... tradition ...". There is no such thing as a "huge consensus". You either have consensus or you do not. In this case you do not have consensus on the issue. There may be a majority who accepts one date or another, but no consensus. (Unless you are referring to the Jesus Seminar folks. I'm sure they have reached consensus on the late date.)

Since this letter is written after 70 AD, ...

That sounds rather dogmatic. If I made that kind of statement using tradition as my only basis of fact, I'd no doubt be accused of walking the path to Romanism. In fact I have been so accused.

But, in about 90's AD, ...

Ditto ...

This really puts a nail in the preterist coffin!

Preterism is growing in support, in spite of the best attempts to dispensationalists to discredit it. There are no slam dunks in the matter, just a lot of preaching to the choir.

we wouldn't have Irenaeus wondering who he would in the future be, we wouldn't have Tertullian wondering, nor scaths of other early fathers wondering, and we wouldn't be wondering.

Maybe they just needed to do more homework. After all they were not infallible. Nether did they write extensively on every subject. They were just men like you and me. They put their togas on one leg at a time.

[57chevypreterist]

...unless you are going to deny that Jesus is going to come back bodily, you are stuck with a third coming.

The scriptures do NOT indicate Jesus' return as being "bodily" (or "fleshly", if you prefer.)

The scriptures DO indicate Him coming back in the same way He went up, i.e., in a cloud (Acts 1:9-11). This is consistent with the OT comings of Jehovah in clouds. It is also consistent with Luke 21:27.

[jude24]

Now THERE'S a well-reasoned, solidly biblical response - er- NOT! :)

Fine.

1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction...

8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
- 2The. 2:1-3, 8 [NASB]

It couldn't be more clear. Jesus Christ hasn't come back yet.

[xzins]

Eusebius says that Nicolas himself was a godly man who remained that way. That needs to be taken into account.

Eusebius is a strong and compelling reason to change your conclusion.

You are mistaking gnosticism which already existed in Paul's day with nicolaitanism. Gnosticism goes back to a century or more before the church. I understandthere was even a JEWISH version of it. Therefore, there is no justification for placing nicolaitanism within the context of the Pauline and Petrine era. Pauls concerns with aeons and demiurges are PURELY gnostic.

[jude24]

So obviously you don't believe we are in the Millenial Kingdom and you don't believe that Satan is bound?

Different. Satan is clearly said to have been bound in Matthew; otherwise, the gospel could not expand.

[57chevypreterist]

Your response does not prove that Jesus' Parousia is still future to us. The scriptures you quoted only state that His Parousia was future to those living at the time it was written and who were reading the letter.

On the other hand, Jesus said that some of His disciples would still be alive at His Parousia (see Matt. 16:27-28). He also states in the Olivet Discourse that His return (coniciding with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem) would be within a generation of that time, a generation of course being about a 40 year period.

Yes, Jesus' Parousia was future to those writing and reading the scriptures in the first century. To insert a 2000 year time gap where the scriptures do not indicate one does violence to the scriptural text, in my opinion.

The multiple time frames given in scripture place the Parousia as something about to happen back then, 2000 years ago. To try to disassociate His Parousia from the destruction of the temple twists the scriptural intergrity of the Olivet Discourse, esp. the Luke 17 sequence of events.

[topcat54]

That fits the context best, and better fits the fact that "Israel" is NOT ONCE, EVER unambiguously applied to any non-Israelite, though it is constantly applied to Israelites.

Which, of course begs, the question. What is an "Israelite" for prophetic purposes?

Is it someone who is physically descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob?

Does it include "gentiles" who have been brought into Israel by way of the circumcision (cf. Ex 12:48). Were the "mixed multitude" (Ex. 12:38) who came out of Egypt with the nation, and whose males were circumcised, considered part of Israel or not?

What about gentiles that have converted to a form of Judaism since the time of Christ and subsequent to the establishment of the new covenant? Are they considered part of "Israel" for prophetic purposes?

What about Jews that have converted to some other religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, are they still considered to be "Israelites"?

Without a definition, your distinguishing statements are meaningless.

[topcat54]

Out of 13 references, 6 of them are to scripture.

The writer offers no commentary or exegesis of those passages to support his theory. They serve merely as window dressing and generally state the obvious. It is the testimony of outside sources that form the basis of the article.

[topcat54]

That's encouraging.

[xzins]

We guessed it. They changed the date of 1 John, PM. And they have the gall to state that dispensationalist a priori assumptions dictate their scriptural interpretations. There is a huge consensus. (Incidentally, in management theory, consensus is generally consider something like 60-67% or higher.) External and internal evidence for end of the century dating of John is huge. We've gone through it already. (Greek Orthodox Source)We have a strong tradition supported by early authorities which connects John the Apostle with the city of Ephesos. According to Eusebios of Caesarea - perhaps the earliest historian of the Church true to name - Polycrates (bishop of Ephesos at the end of the 2nd century) claimed his city to be the home of John, of that particular John 'who reclined in the bosom of the Lord'. Irenaeus the bishop of Lyons and a contemporary of Polycrates, said that when a youth he himself had heard Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) speak of having known John in person. Irenaeus concludes that this John, the disciple of the Lord, lived in Ephesos until the reign of Trajan and published his Gospel there. According to tradition, during the persecution of Domitian John was exiled to the small island of Patmos (one of the present Dodecanese Islands) where he put in writing his Christian visions in the form of the Revelation as we have it today. According to the same tradition, John died in Ephesos about the year 104 A.D. over 100 years old. His evangelical symbol is the Eagle, apparently because of the 'high flying' introductory ideas of his Gospel and because of the sky-dwelling visions' of his Revelation. His memory is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on May 8 and September 26. Raymond Brown states (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 389-390): Most scholars think the Johannine Epistles were written after the Gospel. More precisely, I would place I and II John in the decade after the body of the Gospel was written by the evangelist (ca. 90) but before the redaction of the Gospel (which may have been contemporaneous with III John, just after 100). What particularly differentiates I and II John from the Gospel is the change of focus. "The Jews" who are the chief adversaries in the Gospel are absent; and all attention is on deceivers who have seceded from the community, and by so doing have shown a lack of love for their former brothers and sisters.

[blue-duncan]

"There are no slam dunks in the matter, just a lot of preaching to the choir."

Isn't that what we've been doing for the last couple of weeks here on these various threads? We are dealing with allusions, inferences, implications, interpretations and speculations. All of our best efforts are like the three blind men feeling various parts of the elephant. One thinks it's like a rope, one like the side of a barn and the an other like a hose. We are dealing with probabilities and presenting them as absolute truth.

I just wish you people could be as right as me on this and then we could get on to another subject!

[topcat54]

They changed the date of 1 John, PM.

That's funny. I guess we all missed the verse 0 in 1 John. You know, they one that goes:

                                    12 La Vida Via
                                    Ephesus, Asia Minor

                                    Sunday, Sept. 12, AD90

Dear Friends,
    As you can see from my Miss Manners heading I'm writing 
this day from a sunny city in Asia Minor.

[jude24]

All of our best efforts are like the three blind men feeling various parts of the elephant.

I hate that cliche. It overstates the case. Yes, our interpretations are colored by our biases and assumptions, but we are in no way blind.

[blue-duncan]

" but we are in no way blind"

But we do see darkly and no one knows the hour or the day but the Father.

[blue-duncan]

P.S. I guess we could also use Plato's cave illustration.

[webstersII]

If John wrote 666 and knew the person who fulfilled it, and it was in his own era, then why did he not just say, "It was so and so."

Then we wouldn't have all these Christians of his era and that immediately afterwards going around wondering who the Anti-Christ WOULD BE WHEN he got around to showing up some day in the future."

Because he was writing stuff that he knew would get copied and read widely. Anyone having that stuff in his possession that says, "Nero is the Beast of Revelation" would potentially get in a lot of trouble. And you wouldn't want any trouble from Nero.

Nero liked to do things like dip Christians in oil, impale them on stakes and then set them on fire to be human torches to light up his orgies and wild parties. He eventually went completely insane because the Christians weren't screaming out in pain and that upset him greatly. The man was sick and twisted beyond imagination, hence his nickname "The Beast".

Aside from relying on the interpretation of 666, it's not too hard to trace the prophecies from the OT to figure this out, either. The timeline of Daniel's 70 weeks starts with the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. It lays out exactly what happens all the way through the "weeks" of Jesus' sacrifice and the subsequent tribulation and destruction of the Temple. The blood ran in the streets during the Tribulation just as prophesied, the End of the Age (not the End of the World) took place, etc., etc. There is no precedent in OT or NT Scripture for the "prophecy clock" to stop as Lindsey and LaHaye teach. If you ignore their idea of clock stopping and look at the timeline as a continuous entity then it becomes clear what was prophesied and what took place exactly as prophesied.