“him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.3)
According to Joel Richardson in this video the fact that he traveled to Patmos somehow allowed him to settled the debate that Preterism is wrong. A conclusion that he already had before his travel to Patmos along with his confirmation bias.
Let’s look at the key piece of evidence that he is using without the need to travel to Patmos.
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” –– Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 30, Section 3
Irenaeus wrote these 5 books over several years, sometime between 180 to 189 AD. Which would be just about a century after the futurists think when John wrote Revelation in 95 AD. Irenaeus never met John, never seen John, he was not an eyewitness of John writing Revelation on Patmos.
Let’s establish a few undisputed facts. Irenaeus (≈ c. 130 – 202) never met, seen, or talked to John the Apostle. He was a student of Polycarp who most likely a disciple of John. The text Against Heresy is not the original Greek text that we use to translate into English. It is a Latin translation of the Greek from Irenaeus.
These are the facts. So what is the one fact that Richardson claims destroys preterism. I suspect preterism was already destroyed before this one fact in Richardson’s mind, so it is not a surprise the he would see this bit of text as destroying preterism. The question is what did Irenaeus meant. Did he mean that John beheld the vision of the apocalypse at the end of Domitian’s reign? Or did he meant John who beheld the apocalypse was seen at the end of Domitian’s reign.
What was the context of Irenaeus saying that. In that chapter Irenaeus was addressing the problem with the Gnostic’s heresy of minding secrets and hidden codes including using the gematria 666 to figure out the name of the antichrist. He is saying stop playing with these Gnostic mysteries. If John wanted us to know he would have told us explicitly. That’s why I am not guessing the name. It makes no sense if Domitian was the antichrist and John hid his name as 666 but Irenaeus said I am not going to positively affirm the name of the antichrist and then names the name of the antichrist. Unless Irenaeus don’t think that neither Nero and Domitian is the 666 antichrist which would mean that he thinks that the antichrist is still in the future from his time and he just contradicted himself by positively determining that 666 is not Nero or Domitian.
The bottom line is that whole paragraph of identifying John, the vision and Domitian is not a clear cut of what Richardson think it said.
Let dig into the original text where this English translation came from.
The Latin reads:
Si autem oportebat et nomen eius manifeste in hoc tempore praedicari, per ipsum utique dictum esset qui et apocalypsim viderat.
Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est, sed pene sub nostro saeculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii.
Literally:
But if it had been necessary for his name to be openly proclaimed at the present time, it would certainly have been spoken by the one who also saw the Apocalypse.
For it was seen not very long ago, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.“
The Latin is even more explicit. The “for it” the pronoun “it” is a neuter/impersonal noun which actually is strong evidence that the it refers to the apocalypse. If you do a substitution it would read like this. “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by John who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For Apocalypse was seen not very long ago, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign.”
The problem I have with this interpretation is that it doesn’t make sense in the context. He is criticizing the Gnostic heresies. He name drops John to support his criticism. But saying when the apocalypse was written has no relevance to why Gnosticism is wrong. But if he was saying that the guy who saw the apocalypse which was not that long ago and he was still alive at the end of Domitian’s reign, even John did not reveal the name. Now that is significant. Irenaeus is say if John did not reveal the name of the antichrist as recently as Domitian’s reign we don’t need to mystical it out. For for some reason Irenaeus wanted to make a off topic comment on when Revelation was written, he could have made it explicit or should have made it explicit because it is off topic to his context. Irenaeus could have said “John who beheld the apocalyptic vision during the reign of Domitian“, he said that then there would be no debate. That’s problem number 1.
Then there is the problem of original text from Irenaeus. There are no complete extent writing of the original Greek. Unlike the Bible there are no complete copies or copies of copies of the original Greek in Greek. We have Latin translations of the original Greek. So could the original Greek have different aspect for the pronoun used in that last sentence. We don’t know. But let’s assume that is exactly what the Greek text said. Which it does make sense since Irenaeus is seen to be a futurist believing the apocalypse was still in his future. But he never explicitly said John wrote the book of Revelation during Domitian’s reign not just here not anywhere in his writings. And how would he know that even if he thought that. The only way he would know is from Polycarp and nowhere does Polycarp ever said that John wrote Revelation during Domitian’s reign. Neither did Irenaeus ever said that Polycarp told him when Revelation was written. When he is defending the stories in the gospels Irenaeus explicitly cite Polycarp sitting with John the Apostle recounting the events and miracles to him. Giving the gospels a direct chain of custody from John the eyewitness to Polycarp his disciple and now to Irenaeus. But he show no such explicit custody for dating when Revelation was written. Contrary, it is the opposite direct eyewitness custody. In section 1 “Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it];” He did not base his understanding of when or how the Apocalypse was written on eyewitnesses. Irenaeus based his commentary on Textual Criticism of his time. So even if he did mean to say that it was written in 95 AD that’s just his opinion not a fact. This and the lack of an explicit statement that John wrote Revelation in 95 AD is the second problem for the late date futurists.
But the real problem is the internal evidence of the Revelation. It forces us back to the internal data of the text itself—the standing temple, the Neronian gematria, and the immediate geopolitical context of Asia Minor—all of which, logically points heavily toward an immediate, urgent 1st-century context prior to 70 AD.
Regardless of what Irenaeus think on this subject the internal inconsistency between the Text of the Apocalypse and a late date has to disqualify it as such. The biggest inconsistency is the omission of the destruction of the temple, the physical measurement of it as it is still present in John’s time. The late dater like Richardson will argue that is because this is a temple that has not been build yet. The problem with that is that it also never mentioned about this new temple being built. I mentions that it is being destroyed apparently not long after it is newly built according to the futurists. When John describe a new structure, he told us how that structure or city came about. “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” Rev 21:2 Does Revelation mentioned a new temple being built? It refers to the temple as something that is already in existence. Does that fit more the temple that currently exists in John’s time or some magical temple that just exists in the future? Is John thinking about what Jesus told them in the Olivet discourse about the temple they were looking at will be destroyed or does he just skipped over that and imagine the temple in his vision just appear out of nowhere.
While Irenaeus was against the calculating the name of the antichrist that was not John’s intention. “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” Rev 13:18 John explicitly told those with understanding calculate it. Calculate it! Not don’t calculate it. And that calculation fits with Nero. It is true, playing with different names it also fits with 666 but does any of those names fit the context of what John was talking about, having the power of the antichrist? No, who is playing with statistics, not John, it is Irenaeus. And if you take the geopolitical context into account of the seven churches, Rome’s seven hills, Babylon. It all fits nicely before 70 AD not 95 AD.