Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
Just to add to Warner's article:
Many of the Church Fathers since John have written of the mystery of the identity of the Anti-Christ.
If John had just known it, why hadn't he revealed it to them? Why all these puzzled early fathers still wondering who it WILL be? (Note future tense.)
Excellent article for your files.
Just to add to Warner's article:
Many of the Church Fathers since John have written of the mystery of the identity of the Anti-Christ.
If John had just known it, why hadn't he revealed it to them? Why all these puzzled early fathers still wondering who it WILL be? (Note future tense.)
The dating of the book of Revelation plays a central role in how the book may be interpreted. Was Revelation a warning to churches of impending persecution prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Or did persecution occur much later, in A.D. 95-96 after Jerusalem was destroyed? The argument for preterism, the belief that the destructive prophecies in Revelation described events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, depends on the book of Revelation having been written before that date. Premillennialists, who believe these prophecies of destruction are yet future, are quick to argue for the late date because it "destroys this entire theory"[1] of preterism.Some significant research on the dating of Revelation has recently been conducted by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in his doctoral research which is contained in the book Before Jerusalem Fell[2] and in an excellent, but less technical summary entitled The Beast of Revelation.[3] Gentry describes the history of the scholarly opinion as an ebb and flow with respect to the dating of Revelation. As liberalism grew in the 1800s, there was considerable pressure to assign late dates to many of the New Testament books. This bolstered the argument by liberals that redactors had added to, modified, or deleted portions of the Bible. Toward the late 1800s, however, the evidence for an early dating of Revelation was considered so compelling that a "strong majority" of scholars favored an early date. Since then, however, opinion has shifted back towards a late date with little apparent reason for doing so.
Gentry lists 145 scholars who advocate an early dating of Revelation, including the great church historian, Philip Schaff, and others such as Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, F.F. Bruce, Alfred Edersheim, John A. T. Robinson, and Milton Terry.
The theme verse of Revelation reads "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen" (Rev. 1:7). Cloud comings refer to swift judgment upon God's enemies (Ps. 18:7-15; Joel 2:1,2, Zeph. 1:14,15) in this case upon "they who pierced him." The Jews were covenantally responsible for Christ's death: they sought His death, paid for His capture, brought false witness, convicted Him, turned Him over to Roman civil authority, and declared "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25).[4] The Greek word for "earth" can also be translated "land," thus the reference here likely refers to the twelve "tribes of the [promised] land," the Jews.
Thus, the judgment Christ prophesied against the Jews (Matt. 21:40-45; 23:32-24:2, Luke 23:23-30) is echoed throughout the book of Revelation. Whereas Christ warned that these prophecies would come within a generation (Matt. 12:41-45, 23:36, 24:34), similarly John in Revelation warns that these events will occur "shortly" (1:1), "the time is near" (1:3), "the hour . . . is about to come" (3:10 NASB), Christ is coming "quickly" in judgment (22:7), and "must shortly take place" (22:6). These judgments culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem under multiple armies under Roman command. Over a million Jews were slaughtered, hundreds of thousands of others were enslaved, the city left in ruins, and the great temple was utterly destroyed within a generation (40 years) of Christ's prophesy (Matt. 24:2).
The late date advocates who believe that Revelation was written around A.D. 95-96 have a problem on their hands. They suggest that persecution under the emperor Domitian was what is described in Revelation, but there is scant evidence that persecution of Christians by Domitian ever took place--a fact that many late date adherents readily admit.[5] The author of Revelation, John, repeatedly alludes to a "great city" which is very likely a reference to Jerusalem and describes the temple as if it were still standing (Rev. 11:2). How can late date advocates make such claims of a city that history records was left in ruins in A.D. 70? Much has been made by late daters of a statement by Irenaeus in Against Heresies that seems to associate John or the book of Revelation with Domitian, but there are a number of translational, interpretational, and historical problems that caution against an overreliance on this ambiguous passage.
Bahnsen and Gentry cite external evidence for an early date: "Clement of Alexandria . . . asserts that all revelation ceased under Nero's reign. The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170) has John completing Revelation before Paul had written to seven different churches (Paul died in A.D. 67 or 68). Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) places John's banishment in conjunction with Peter's and Paul's martyrdom (A.D. 67/68). Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) twice states Revelation was written under `Claudius [Nero] Caesar.' The Syriac version of Revelation (sixth century) has as a heading to Revelation: `written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.'"[6]
Since Nero died in A.D. 68, the writing of Revelation must have preceded that date, most likely having been written sometime between A.D. 64 and 67.
The Dating of Revelation by Jack Van Deventer
Notes:
1 Dave Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven? (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1988) p. 249.
2 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
3 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).
4 Gentry, Beast, p. 90-91.
5 Ibid, p. 54-55.
6 Bahnsen, Greg L. and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. House Divided, The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 259-260.
Preterism utterly fails on multiple fronts, but the dating of the Revelation is the final nail in the coffin.
The resolution to the preterist/end-time-intepretation controversy is very simple: the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian is a description of all of history from the time it was written until the end.
St. John himself in his epistles uses "antichrist" not as an escatological figure, but as any who oppose or seek to supplant Christ.
The text applies to St. John's times, to the rise of Napoleon, to WW II, to now, whether ours is the end-times or not. Thus, we can see the rise of antichrist in our times, without knowing whether the last great Antichrist has arisen.
In this way we can both read the signs of the times, and repent, for the end is nigh, and have no idea of the time known only to the Father.
All of the arguments of your post seem clearly refuted in the posted article.
Additionally, there is no evidence of the death of the Apostle John around 70 AD. That would appear to end speculation about the date of Revelation.
Actually, no. It doesn't seem to deal with the extent of the persecution under Nero vs. Domitian and it also doesn't deal with the time texts ("things which must shortly take place", 1:1; 22:6; "Surely I am coming quickly", 22:20).
How so? There's nothing in Revelation regarding the timing of John's death.
Does not Paul teach that Jesus will destroy the antichrist - the man of sin - upon his return to earth?
I assume you are referring to:
"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." (2 Thess 2:8)
The Lord Will ConsumeAnd then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders. (2 Thess. 2:8-9)[32]
As just indicated, the lawless one was eventually openly revealed. The mystery form of his character gave way to a revelation of his lawlessness in Nero's wicked acts. This occurred after the restrainer [Claudius, who maintained religio licita] was "taken out of the way," allowing Nero the public stage upon which he could act out his horrendous lawlessness.
According to Hendriksen verse eight destroys any preterist interpretation identifying the Man of Lawlessness with the Roman emperor, because it ties the events to the era of the Second Advent.[33] The strong preteristic indications in the passage heretofore, however, demand a different understanding of the destructive coming of Christ here mentioned. As already shown in the discussion of verse 1, Matthew 24:30 is most relevant here: "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." And that verse is specifically applied to the first century (Matt. 24:34), as is Revelation 1:7[34] (cp. Rev. 1:1, 3); Matthew 26:63-65; and Mark 9:1. Christ comes in judgment upon Jerusalem in the events of A.D. 67-70.
In that judgment-coming against Jerusalem there is also judgment for the Man of Lawlessness, Nero. There is hope and comfort in the promised relief from the opposition of the Jews and Nero (2 Thess. 2:15-17). Not only was Jerusalem destroyed within twenty years, but Nero himself died a violent death in the midst of the Jewish War (June 8, A.D. 68). His death, then, would occur in the Day of the Lord in conjunction with the judgment-coming of Christ. He will be destroyed by the breath of Christ, much like Assyria was destroyed with the coming and breath of the LORD in the Old Testament (Isa. 30:27-31) and like Israel was crushed by Babylon (Mic. 1:3-5). In fact, by God's providence Nero's death stopped the Jewish War briefly so that Christians trapped in Jerusalem could escape (cp. 1 Thess. 1:10).[35] The Man of Lawlessness/Beast, Nero Caesar, dies in the Day of the Lord with the Great Harlot, Jerusalem (Rev. 19:17-21; cf. Rev. 22:6, 10, 12).
The Man of Lawlessness: A Preteristic Postmillennial Interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Notes:
[32]Such imperial arrogance would produce alleged miracles as confirmation. Vespasian is called "the miracle worker, because by him "many miracles occurred." Tacitus, Histories 4:81; Suetonius, Vespasian 7. Notice that Paul speaks of these as "lying wonders."
[33]Hendriksen, I and II Thessalonians, 173.
[34]See my Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), ch. 8.
[35]See: Josephus, Wars 4:11:5. Cp. Luke 21:18, 20-24, 27-28; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:5:3; Epiphanius, Heresies 29:7. See also: Rev. 7:1-17 in Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 243-244.
(This article is very long, but you need to conmsider it carefully see all the implications.)
Indirectly, there is. It says it was penned while John was in exile on Patmos. We know from numerous Church fathers, Irenaeus and Eusebius among them, that Yochanan was exiled to Patmos during Domitian's reign. Therefore, the Apostle couldn't have died before Domitian's reign and was around in the 90s AD.
Gentry lists F.F.Bruce as an advocate of an early writing (pre 70 A.D.) of Revelation. However in Bruce's introduction to the Gospel of John he states the following:
"But within John's general Hellenistic environment can we think of one particular category of reader that he might have in mind? Whom are the arguments deployed in the great debate of his central chapters designed to convince? These central chapters are largely devoted to one sustained debate between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem--a debate which was carried on in the following decades between the followers of Jesus and the synagogue authorities.
The destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the cessation of the sacrificial worship in AD 70 made little difference to Jewish life in the dispersion. The debate between the disciples and the synagogue authorities reached a critical stage around AD 90, when one of the prayers in the synagogue service was reworded so as effectively to exclude the followers of Jesus.45 It was probably against this background that the Fourth Gospel was published, in order to bring members of synagogue congregations in that area of the dispersion where the Evangelist and his associates lived (and in other areas too) to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, the Son of God, the Revealer of the Father.46 Among members of synagogue congregations those most likely to be impressed were perhaps Gentile God-fearers who regularly attended synagogue services (the record of Acts illustrates how this was so in Paul's mission-field a generation earlier)."
If Bruce is correct, it would seem that the destruction John writes about in Revelation was not the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple from 66-70 A.D. but some later cataclysmic event.
Are these the same church fathers that replaced "authentic Christianity", aka Messianic Judaism, with the gentile church?
That tradition comes to us primarily from Irenaeus through Eusebius. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the testimony of Irenaeus still amount to a tradition and is open to interpretation. He was not a firsthand witness of these events. His accuracy and precision as to what he was describing is not universally accepted.
This is how Schraff records Irenaeus' words: "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."
The ambiguity exist in how to interpret the phrase "For that was seen", does "that" refer to John, his vision, or the account of his vision.
John could very well have been exiled under Domitian, yet had his revelation during an earlier exile under Nero. No one has claimed that he was only exiled once.
I'm not following. How do you conclude that from Bruce's comments?
Actually, if you understand Jewish thought at that time you'lll see they have only one event in mind. The destruction of the temple was intimately related to the "end of the age", that is the Jewish economy under which they were living. It is a misunderstanding to push "end of the age" out to mean some time far in our future. As we are told in Hebrews 9:26, Christ appeared at the "consummation of the ages" when He came the first time to deal with the sin problam of Israel.
I vaguely remember a post millennial interpretation that has Christ in a mini-advent in AD 70. I think this is clearly a faulty exegesis. We were clearly promised,
The confusion is that some people fail to distinguish between Christ's "cloud coming" in AD70 and what we call His second coming that is yet to be revealed. Matt. 24:4-31 and the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21 describe the former, passages like Acts 1 and 1 Cor. 15 describe the latter.
"The destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the cessation of the sacrificial worship in AD 70 made little difference to Jewish life in the dispersion."
The destruction in the vision in Revelation makes a big difference to Jewish life.
Obviously since the power of Rome was now the power of the church, they couldn't have a book predicting that the evil Roman Powers would be directly overthrown by Christ himself. It just didn't sit right.
Missler has said that while the Reformation reformed its views on soteriology and theology, they failed to make the necessary reforms to the Roman views on eschatology. IOW the preterist position is a throwback to the Holy Roman Empire eschatology. Earlier eschatology (prior to the marriage of the Roman government to the Roman Church) leaned towards a futurist interpretation and most of the early church fathers (prior to Augustine) held to the 95 AD date for the book of Revelation.
Only in Jerusalem. The effect would be negligible on Jews living in the diaspora. The only thing that would be affected is annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the various festivals. Revelation, like Matt. 24, was directed primarily against the Jews living in Jerusalem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.