It is hardly possible to read the book of Revelation without noticing that its fulfillment was near. Many folks believe the book was written late in the first century, and, therefore, couldn’t be an indicator of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, but this simply isn’t so. The error lies in simply believing what the fourth century church father, Eusebius, said about the writings of Clement of Alexandria who lived in the latter part of the second century AD and the beginning of the third. It is impossible for Clement to have said what Eusebius claimed. Yet, modern scholars seem bent on receiving Eusebius’ testimony.
This error is further complicated by trusting the questionable Latin translation of the original Greek text written by Irenaeus. Scholars admit that the translator was clearly out of his line of expertise, when he translated Irenaeus’ works. In some cases today’s scholars had to translate the Latin back into the Greek, in order to understand what Irenaeus might have meant. Yet, scholars today hold up the work of this ill-equipped translator, whose work claims the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, which contradicts Clement of Alexander’s clear testimony that the entire New Testament was written between the reigns of Tiberius and Nero. The entire controversy stems upon a single pronoun. Did Irenaeus write, “that was seen…” meaning the Apocalyptic vision was seen during the reign of Domitian, or did he write, “he was seen…” meaning John was seen during the reign of Domitian? Should the obviously uneducated translator or the highly educated Clement of Alexandria be our guide at this point?
Obviously, a choice must be made, and the scholars have made theirs. We must make ours as to whether we believe the scholars’ rather shaky foundation or the very clear context of the book of Revelation, which shows that it is a work that would be fulfilled very soon after it was written (see footnote #1 below).
Jesus told his disciples that the day and hour of his coming into his Kingdom had signs of imminence to it, and when all those signs came together his coming would be at the doors (Matthew 24:33; Mark 13:29), but no one, not even Jesus, during his earthly ministry, knew the day or the hour (Mark 13:32). In fact, not long after Jesus rose from the dead, the Apostle asked Jesus again if he would restore the Theocracy at that time (Acts 1:6) but Jesus told them that the day and the hour were still under the Father’s authority alone (Acts 1:7). However, a peculiar thing is stated in Revelation 1:3. Not only are we told that the time is at hand, i.e. the time is very near, but we are told the time – kairos (G2540) is at hand. According to Thayer, kairos means a “fixed and definite time.” That is, the day and the hour was now (at the time of John’s writing) being revealed.
In Mark 13:32 no one, not even Jesus, knew the time (the day or the hour). There the Greek words are: hemera (G2250) for day or the larger block of time (Thayer = used of time in general), and the second Greek word is hora (G5610) for the smaller block of time (Thayer = a certain definite time). I don’t believe a 24-hour period v/s 60 minutes is in view here. Rather, hemera (G2250) is to chronos (G5550) as hora (G5610) is to kairos (G2540) (see Acts 1:7 and compare with Mark 13:32).
Therefore, the Father, who knew the day and the hour, gave the revelation (G602), which means the unveiling of something up to this time was unknown, to Jesus. What was the only thing Jesus admitted that he didn’t know? In as much as I am able to understand, that would be the day and the hour (Mark 13:32). What did Jesus do, when he knew the day and the hour? He gave that knowledge to his disciples through John (Revelation 1:1).
 Revelation 1:1, 3; 2:5, 16; 3:11; 6:11; 10:6; 11:18; 12:12; 14:15; 20:3; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20.
 Clement of Alexandria: The Stromata; Book 7; Chapter 17