Skip to comments.Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation
Posted on 01/21/2011 8:20:05 AM PST by dartuser
In 1989, a well-known spokesman for the theonomist camp, Kenneth L. Gentry, published a work devoted to proving that John the Apostle wrote Revelation during the sixties of the first century A.D. Basing his position heavily on Rev 17:9-11 and 11:1-13, he used internal evidence within the book as his principal argument for the early date. ...
Inconsistency marks Gentry's hermeneutical pattern. Predisposition keeps him from seeing the book's theme verse as a reference to Christ's second coming. His explanation of Rev 17:9-11 is fraught with weaknesses, as is his discussion of 11:1-2. Two major flaws mar Gentry's discussion of John's temporal expectation in writing the book. Besides these problems, five major questions regarding Gentry's position remain unanswered.
(Excerpt) Read more at tms.edu ...
Dr. Thomas has provided a scholarly work here to demonstrate the issues with Gentry's work. Many of the arguments that he makes have been developed by earlier authors; however, I personally have not seen some of these arguments presented before. While he interacts with the formidable Gentry in a straightforward manner, he also refutes the claims that traditionalists are clinging to a single citation as the totality of evidence for the AD 95 date. He provides a host of evidence from the NT and NT history that clearly combats the logic of an early date.
WARNING, this is not an easy read and it is quite long (16 pages).
This is old news............
Topcat54, do you want to get in on this action?
It is best to let FReeping blogs die...............
Probably not. The two items in the subject are unrelated. Rest can’t be good.
Besides, I’ve already asked dart questions about futurism that have gone unanswered. I can see the pattern.
Gentry’s book Before Jerusalem Fell is available online to read for free. If dartuser is prepared to read it and discuss it, that would be more interesting. And it would demonstrate the potential for independent thinking.
Wow! Thomas does a thorough job of destroying the credibility of Gentrys and the whole of Preterist hermeneutics as it relates to Revelation. He points out not only the inconsistency with which Gentry interprets but also shows the underlying rational to try to justify a predisposed position. He does an excellent job of showing the falsehoods of Preterism, theonomy, and Dominionism.
I apologize for not answering your questions topcat, its not my intention to exit an interesting conversation (and we were having an interesting one) ... but I have been unusually busy at work, lots of technical reviews coming up along with a major flight test.
I will try to keep up with the rest of the class ... lol.
I posted this article because I did a google search the other day on “date of revelation” (or something like that, dont remember the exact words) and was shocked to see defense of an early date in 19 of the 20 first hits.
Each of them puts forth the same basic arguments that Gentry has outlined, contains (imho) lots of exceptionally weak arguments, and does little to advance the case for an early date.
lol ... yeah, because that MA in Mathematics, that PhD in Electrical Engineering, and the years of seminary training hasn't adequately prepared me for an undergraduate discussion in theology up here on FR.
Keep it above the belt and I will be happy to have at it some more.
You're read Gentry then?
I said demonstrate.
You've already gotten more responses than the last time you tried this.
When the author starts by poisoning the well, you can figure the rest won't be very good.
Going after the speaker rather then the facts sounds familiar somehow.
This is not 'The Revelation of or by John' as a lot characterize it. It is The Revelation given by God the Father to John and us to reveal future events concerning His Son, Jesus.
The only role John had in this is as a scribe or stenographer detailing what God the Father showed him with an Angel and/or the Spirit of God. This is God's prophecy, not John's.
What time in John's life it was written has no bearing as to what he wrote. It could have been written anytime before John died. BVB
That's about the only truthful statement in these comments.
So I bothered to read a bit of this atrocious critique of Gentry, and I must say that I'm shocked by the writer's plain misreading of the book and its premise.
For example, under the section Temporal Expectation of the Author, the writer says,
The coming of Christ for the church, he says, is the Neronic persecution of A.D. 64-68, but John did not write the book until 65 or early 66. This "coming" was not imminent; it was already in progress.Gentry does not refer to any of this activity as the coming of Christ for the church, which the writer no doubt thinks is the rapture. It's a misrepresentation of Gentry's views. But he also quibbles about the word imminent and where exactly within the timefame of the Neronic persecution these events represent.
Again, the writer in clearly confused about the events of AD70 and the Second Coming, the former being quite predictable while the later is not. Yet the writer tries to conflate the two claiming that Gentry somehow predicts the Second Coming, which is not the subject of Before Jerusalem Fell at all.
For Gentry, "soon" means already (i.e., Christ's coming for the church), in two years (i.e., Christ's coming for the Jews), and in four years (i.e., Christ's coming for the Roman Empire).A careful examination of Gentry here will show that He never refers to the Neronic persecution as Christ's coming for the church.
This is how Gentry actually refers to the event:
A magnitude that is so covenantally and redemptively significant as to be, in an important and dramatic sense, a coming of Christ (Rev. 1:7; 2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 11, 20; 16: 15; 22:7, 12, 20)?Note, Gentry does not use the words that the writer suggests. He refers to the events of AD70 as Coming of Christ upon 'those who pierced Him' (p. 127), coming of Christ and the close of the Old Dispensation (quoting Farrar, p. 144), or similar language. Never does he use the rapturist language of dispensationalism.
How can this be considered a fair critique if the writer is essentially incapable of correctly conveying the views of Gentry? The word straw man comes to mind again and again. The only thing that can be said of this writer is that he has managed to prove that Gentry is not a dispensational futurist.
The rest of this critique is similarly flawed. The writer has read his biases into Gentry's work to the extent that he plainly misrepresents Gentry's basic thesis.
Anyone who thinks this is a thorough job of destroying the credibility of Gentrys hermeneutics, is sadly mistaken and suggests they have neither read Gentry nor this writer, at least not fairly.
>>Note, Gentry does not use the words that the writer suggests. He refers to the events of AD70 as Coming of Christ upon ‘those who pierced Him’<<
So you would say that Gentry is saying that in AD70 when Christ came upon those that pierced Him everyone in the world saw Him and all wailed because of Him? The Romans, even though they were the ones killing the Israelites were wailing? Seriously?
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Then you/he use Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
In that verse he was speaking to the church of Ephesus. By all accounts the church at Ephesus were Christians not Jews. Either way, how could you say that Christ coming upon those who pierced Him be applied to the Christians at Ephesus?
The same can be said for verse 16 where He is talking about those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which held that there is a hierarchy in the church. Surely not those who pierced Him.
In non of the references you use is He talking to the Jews in Jerusalem but to Christian churches.
Again I quote your post >>Note, Gentry does not use the words that the writer suggests. He refers to the events of AD70 as Coming of Christ upon ‘those who pierced Him’ (p. 127),<<
Yet you use references in Revelation that are not talking about the Jews in Jerusalem at all.
Once again, the Preterist/Theonomy/Dominionist views can not be held as credible.
>>What time in John’s life it was written has no bearing as to what he wrote.<<
While I agree with that, it does make a difference when talking to Preterists who claim that most all of the prophecy of Revelation has happened prior to or in 70AD.
Revelation 1:3 : How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered at hand, as per Swete, Barnes, and others? Several generations of these Christians would have waxed and waned over such a period. Even more difficult to understand is how events two or three thousand years in the future could be considered at hand, as per Mounce, Walvoord, and others. How could such events so remotely stretched out into the future be at hand? But if the expected events were to occur within a period of from one to five years as in the case with Revelation if the book were written prior to A.D. 70 then all becomes clear. (Gentry, BJF, p. 141)
Don't take my word. You can read Gentry for yourself here.
>> How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered at hand,<<
Its rather easy when you understand that with God there is no time. Jesus is telling John what will happen but time to Him is not bound by our minds.
>>Don’t take my word. You can read Gentry for yourself<<
Youre the one in here who is defending Gentry. It doesnt matter who is saying it. If its in error its in error. Again, you are the one defending and agreeing with his view.
So, IOW, it's God's version of a throw away line. It's meaningless to human. The God who condescended to become man to bring us our salvation and His Word at times speaks in riddles. Do you really believe this?
In this case only as part of the process of pointing out the mistaken representations of the writer. If you want to get into Gentry, as opposed to this writer's imaginative views of Gentry, read the book and ask the questions.
IOW, if it doesn't fit with the dispensational futurist view, then it's error. That's essentially the argument of this writer. At least y'all are consistent.
>>at times speaks in riddles. Do you really believe this?<<
Riddles? No where did I say it was a riddle. Its not a riddle to understand that God sees time from a different perspective then we do. God isnt restricted to our understanding of time. We, on the other hand, can understand that when God says that a day is like a thousand years to Him we can understand that when He says soon it could easily mean thousands of years.
>> IOW, if it doesn’t fit with the dispensational futurist view, then it’s error. That’s essentially the argument of this writer. At least y’all are consistent.<<
No, actually he gives Biblical reference as I did. Thomas points out the errors in Gentrys interpretations and consistencies or lack thereof.
But God is communicating information to His people. He is condescending to speak in our language. That is why He became a man.
The fact is that if we cannot take the words of God at their face value in this matter (when compared to the rest of the Bible), then we cannot take them that way anywhere. If we can arbitrarily apply the vague God time of 2 Peter 3:8 in any situation, then we can make the Bible speak anything we wish, chronologically.
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ." (Matt. 4:17)Perhaps not really at hand. Could mean not for thousands of years. After all, we need to take into consideration God time.
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand . Repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand .Maybe Paul was using God time and really planned to stay around for months or even years.
And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand . (Rev. 22:10)Why not seal up the book if the events in God time are still thousand of years away? Surely the readers were familiar with the words of Daniel:
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." (Dan. 12:4)Why would Daniel be told to seal a book about visions that were, in the main, a few centuries away, while John is told not to seal up visions that were thousands of years away? God must be a riddler.
The deducible internal sitz im Leben (situation in life) of the recipients of Revelation also demands the maintenance of the preponderate scholarly lexical and translational consensus. John writes to seven contemporary historical churches (Rev. 1:11 ) facing very real serious, repeated, and intensifying threats (Rev. 2-3). He speaks of his own present enduring of the tribulation with them (Rev. 1:9). He notes with concern the expectant cry from the altar: How long, O Lord? (Rev. 6:10). Walvoords view that when Jesus eventually comes He will come with great rapidity would have offered no consolation to these persecuted saints. To interpret this passage to mean that some two or three thousand years in the future Jesus will come with great rapidity would be a mockery of their historical circumstances. Surely this [...] is the hinge and staple of the book. When the advent of Jesus is hailed as a relief it is no consolation to say that the relief will come suddenly; sudden or not, it must come soon (v. 7), if it is to be of any service. (Gentry, p. 139)
Thru the Historian Flavious Josephus' book War with the Jews we know it had to be prior to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus in AD66, a time when the apostle John was also imprisoned, in Rome.
There you go again. Context is key. Youre still trying to put God in the time box from a human perspective. When Jesus said he kingdom of heaven was at hand in Matthew and Mark He was talking about His kingdom which at that point was not of this world yet but it was at hand in the spiritual sense. In Daniel it was to be sealed until the time of the end an expression that is used in other prophecies designating the end of this age and the time of Tribulation and the coming earthly reign of Jesus.
No argument there. And the principle usually works until you bring your preconceptions to the text first. This is the futurist approach to Revelation (and Matthew 24). The books starts off with a fairly clear statement as to the impending nature of the prophecies. But the modern futurist has already determined that Revelation is about events thousands of years in the future from the time the visions were originally seen by John. It's about future Israel as opposed to first century Israel. So they are forced to go back and insist that since the context is future (according to their theology) then the language of at hand or shortly come to pass must be spiritualized ala the futurist rubric derived from 2 Peter 3:8.
What odd here is that even the early church fathers claimed by the premils as one of their own never took this view of the at hand. They truly believed that Christ's return was imminent, at hand, not potentially thousands of years in the future. This is fundamentally different from modern futurists who are forced by circumstances to adopt a spiritualized reading of Rev. 1:3.
The use similar reasoning to ignore the plain sense meaning of this generation in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Everywhere in the gospels where the phrase is used it's plainly a reference to Jesus' contemporary generation of Jewish brethren.
But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. (Luke 17:25)But strangely when futurists get to Matthew 24:34 they are forced by the convictions of their theology to deny the connection.
So, context is important. That's one thing that makes futurism so difficult to take seriously. It's virtually impossible to interpret the text of the Bible without first overlaying their theological dogmas.
Even is that were true, it does not help with explaining why John was told NOT to seal the book, for the time is at hand. It fact it undermines your theory. The difference in years between Daniel and John is relatively minor compared to Bible times vs. today (or even possibly thousands more years in the future). So if Daniel and John were speaking of the same events (your future great tribulation) thousands of years in the future from both perspectives, why is one told to seal and the other not to seal. It makes no sense unless the events in view are not the end of time absolutely, but the end of the age, that is, the end of the old covenant age.
This makes considerably more sense and one is not forced to distort the time text to fit with preconceived theological dogma.
We have already been told that Jesus appeared at the end of the aeon (Heb. 9:26). The Jews of that day understood the meaning of the phrase. That seems to be lost on modern futurists who can only think in terms of the second coming/end of the world (2 Peter 3:10), and place little if any theological significance on the destruction of the temple, end of the Levitical priesthood, and the passing of the old covenant age.
Ok, lets look at Matthew 24. The disciples ask the question in verse 3, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
He then describes what will be happening just before and at the end of the world. Clearly He was talking about the generation that would be alive when those things begin to happen. Surely you would agree that the end of the world didnt happen during the lifetime of the apostles.
Now please dont change your plainly reference mantra and begin to tell me that the end of the world means something different here. Surely you would maintain your hermeneutics and not divert to the spiritualized reading that you accuse us of.
The other day I was fellowshipping with some friends of mine near the ESV display at the Shepherds Conference. Scott Hill was seated next to me reading my copy of Kenneth Gentrys third edition of Before Jerusalem Fell. I highly recommend this book even if you already own a previous copy, because the preface of the third edition has Dr. Gentrys rebuttals to the many critiques of his book including the ones made by TMS own Dr. Robert Thomas. So, we were seated together and guess who happen to walk by our table? Dr. Thomas!
As we laughed about the whole thing, a conversation sparked about interpretive principles. We asked Dr. Thomas about his issue with the New Testaments nonliteral interpretations of key Old Testament passages, as he puts it. Dr. Thomas said, Because Israel rejected the Messiah, the apostles had to reinterpret the Old Testament to open the door for salvation to a new church that included Gentiles. I could not believe that he said that so I asked him to repeat it and he did.
Dr. Thomas believes that because the Jews rejected the Messiah the Apostles had to go back into the Old Testament and discover, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, meanings that were not originally understood either by the one who originally wrote it or by the audience who originally read or heard it.
Dr. Thomas believes, NT writers applied OT texts to situations entirely different from what the corresponding OT contexts entailed. The NT writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they wanted to make. They may have maintained some connecting link in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT meanings are absent from the citations. We may call this nonliteral use an inspired sensus plenior application of the OT passage to a new situation. Such a usage is inspired because the NT writing in which it appears is inspired by God. It is sensus plenior in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.
Now the gist of what Dr. Thomas is saying is that the OT prophets did not foresee the sufferings of the Messiah or the New Covenant church. In dispensationalism the Church is deemed a new and unprophesied aside to Gods major plan for the Jews. John Walvoord writes of the Church: There is good evidence that the [Church] age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament. . . . [T]he present age [is] an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned. Dr. Walvoord clearly asserts that, in his theological opinion, God had a special, Jewish only program in operation in the Old Testament and the present Church age is but an interruption of that program.
Furthermore, Dr. Thomas contends that the OT was written with the intention of having only one meaning and that meaning, as far as OT prophecies are concerned, being in its grammatical-historical sense is Premillennial. Now something about all of this just doesnt add up in my mind. Dr. Thomas implies that the New Covenant church is entirely different from what the Old Testament was anticipating, that all the OT prophets were Premillennial, that the promises of God were for national Israel. And it is hard for me to believe that Jesus and the Apostles re-interpreted the Old Testament after prophecies didnt work out just right.
[Read more at Does the Bible Mean What It Says .]
 Dr. Thomas commonly now refers to such interpretations as inspired sensus pleanor or charismatic exegesis. Also see his use of this phrase in this article.
 Fourthly, someone might ask, Why did the NT writers attach these sensus plenior meanings to OT passages? In most instances, if not every instance, the new meaning given to an OT passage relates to Israels rejection of her Messiah at His first advent and the consequent opening of the door of salvation to a new people, the church (see Romans 9-11). The new people consist of both Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of Christ, a mystery not revealed in the pages of the OT (cf. Eph 3:1-7). New meanings through special divine revelation were necessary to relate this new program to what God had been doing throughout the OT period. Robert Thomas, New Evangelical Hermeneutics and Eschatology, 2003 Pre-Trib Study Group.
Will you first admit that everywhere else in the NT the phrase this generation refers to Jesus' first century contemporaries?
I have prioritized my time (I am currently in the middle of 3 other books and one formidable commentary) by looking at the section dealing with the Iraneaus quote (in my mind this is where the most fruit will be found, in the external evidence). I find the way he builds his case to be very contradictory and confusing, and thus unconvincing.
He spends alot of time developing the "could haves." He quotes lots of work to support the notion that the Latin and Greek translations could be wrong, the Latin translator was probably a moron, and that the Greek text is second hand. Further, and where I believe he makes an error, he goes on to try to convince the reader that Iraneaus is very confusing in many points in his expression and in his historical facts; but then he goes on to synthesize a "Sitz im Leben" and expects us to accept the results as a another point of a solid argument.
If Irenaeuss famous statement is not to be re-interpreted along the lines of the argument as outlined above (although the present writer believes it should), it may still be removed as a hindrance to early date advocacy on the following grounds. These grounds may not be so substantial when considered individually, but when their combined weight is added to the above translational problem, they tend to render Irenaeuss statement of questionable significance.
His approach and his conclusions, leave much to be desired and they often read with an aire of desperation (as it should be).
His bibliography is quite scholarly and provides lots of background work for those who wish to investigate further; for this we are all indebted to him.
PS: I am currently in the middle of
1. Biblical Eldership by Strauch (Sunday night mens Bible study)
2. The Exemplary Husband by Scott (Sat morning mens study)
3. George Muller, Man of Faith and Miracles by Miller
4. The Epistle to the Romans by Moo (he's also a post-trib), this work is massive.
What are you currently reading? If I can finish 2 of the first 3 I plan on putting Kik in the hopper. I have been doing a little part time background on his theology (I was actually saved in a Presbyterian church and discipled by the assistant pastor), it looks more interesting than most of that persuasion.
That is an incorrect translation. The correct one is end of the age. The Greek word used here is aeon, not kosmos.
Now, you were saying
>>So if Daniel and John were speaking of the same events (your future great tribulation) thousands of years in the future from both perspectives, why is one told to seal and the other not to seal.<<
Again, its rather simple. When Daniel was written there were many years before the time of Christ and the death of all the apostles. Revelation was the last book written by those that were direct students of Christ. Daniels prophecy was sealed because God did not want the people prior to Jesus to understand but those of us after Revelation should know because it was us who it was written for.
>>We have already been told that Jesus appeared at the end of the aeon (Heb. 9:26).<<
Youre right, He did appear at the end of that age. That would reinforce what I said above. Revelation was written at the end of that age when no more apostolic writing would be available.
>>That seems to be lost on modern futurists who can only think in terms of the second coming/end of the world (2 Peter 3:10)<<
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
This verse is talking about the end of the millennium not the coming in the clouds. At the battle of Armegedon there will be no doubt about who is coming and what is happening.
I appreciate time constraints. But let me respectfully suggest that if you want to pick on Gentry, albeit by proxy via Dr. Thomas, then you at least have the courtesy to read the book to get the impact of the entire argument. Perhaps you can do a better job of understanding things than Dr. Thomas apparently did.
To a much larger degree, the same can be said of your position.
Which is why theological method is the point of divergence between covenantalism and dispensationalism.
As I have said in the past, the covenant theologian begins in the NT, rendering the background of the OT almost irrelevant, especially the prophetic portions. The dispensationalist begins in the OT, and brings the entire context of the OT into the NT. Can the NT expound upon the OT? Yeah ... Can it clarify? Yeah ... Can it replace? No, not if we are going to claim that Gods word is trustworthy and that His promises are to be believed.
I look forward to seeing Gentry’s rebuttle. Not sure what Thomas is talking about wrt the NT use of the OT. Sounds like he is espousing a fifth view. Not sure that is needed.
It may be simple, but not for the reasons you give.
The phrase end of the age refer to the coming of Messiah and the end of the old covenant age of types and representations of Messiah's work. That means the end of the temple, sacrifices, Levitical system. Everything that marks Judaism out as distinct from the religions of the world. There is no more need for these things since the one to whom they pointed, the Messiah of Israel, had appeared in Jesus Christ.
the people prior to Jesus
But you've already told us that Daniel was supposed to be sealed until the tribulation period and earthly reign of Christ. That is what it says, no? Are you changing your tune?
Revelation was written at the end of that age when no more apostolic writing would be available.
It cannot be referring to the end of the apostolic age since that is never spoken of in this way in Scripture.
This verse is talking about the end of the millennium not the coming in the clouds. At the battle of Armegedon there will be no doubt about who is coming and what is happening.
There is no day of the Lord or thief in the night coming at the end of the futurist millennium. I realize your theology forces you to that conclusion, but where is your connection from Scripture?
1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night . 3 For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. (1 Thess. 5)Are these passages speaking of time after the futurist millennium? 2 Peter 3:10 fits in precisely with all that language.
The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord . (Acts 2:20)
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 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. (Matt. 24)
We can see that by your theological presuppositions you are forced to not see the connection between 2 Peter 3:10 and the rest of these passages which all are referring to the Second Coming by the common futurist scheme.
>> Will you first admit that everywhere else in the NT the phrase this generation refers to Jesus’ first century contemporaries?<<
NO. There is a good discussion of the definition of generation here.
I was looking for information on the date of Revelation to make notes for an up-n-coming church study and noticed plenty of pages that support your view. It has been almost 15 years since I have been in a church that has studied Daniel/Revelation and we are starting that study in March.
Most of the people who have online pages assume, quite ignorantly, that the Iraneaus quote is the sole support for the late date. Some of the musings are:
All belief in the late date rests upon one cryptic statment of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200AD) who wrote his "Against Heresies" around AD 174.
The late dating (AD 95) of the book of Revelation has its roots hanging on a very slender and precarious thread. This dating is determined from a single source statement by the Bishop of Lyons by the name of Irenaeus (AD 120202).
Some tradition has up until recent times regarded the date Revelations authorship to be around 95AD. This has been based almost entirely on one vague statement by the second century Church Father, Irenaeus.
Thomas and others have documented, in critiquing the early view, a larger body of evidence that is mostly ignored ... perhaps Gentry will reverse that trend in the rebuttal that you mentioned is forthcoming.
In the end, I have to agree with one poster out there ...
Preterists attempt to get around this interpretation by asserting that it was John, not John's vision, that was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign. In doing so they allow for a more confusing grammatical structure of this passage in which "that" refers not to the immediately preceding noun "vision," (which would be the most natural reading of the text), but instead they insist "that" refers to the next closest preceding noun, "John."
This is a solid example of circular reasoning. One wonders how Preterists would read this statement if the phrase Domition's reign were replaced with Nero's reign. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate a very simple truth. One wonders what it is that the Preterists find so compelling to cause them to disagree with scholars traditional dating?
On this point we cannot ignore the fact that the entire Preterist doctrine hangs in the balance on this one simple question. With that in mind, there is little doubt that what Preterists find so compelling to cause them to disagree with the traditional date is the fact that their theory cannot survive so long as the traditional date stands."
Actually, not at all. Generally speaking, the non-dispensational view is to see Scripture as a basic unity. Aso when we want to understand one part of the Bible we read all we can from the rest of the Bible to help us get to the meaning of the individual texts.
The dispensational view is radically different. It is based on a fundamental disunity of Scripture. The Bible must be read dispensationally in order to be properly understood.
For example, the non-dispensatonalist might use Isaiah 13:10 and the idea of temporal judgment to help understand Jesus' use of similar language in Matthew 24. The dispensationalist doesn't do this because they already know that Matthew 24 is about far future great tribulation.
Actually, not at all.
Somehow ... I knew were going to come back with that.
Yes, but at least I gave valid reasons for my position, as opposed to this nonsense.
As I have said in the past, the covenant theologian begins in the NT,
Name a CT theologian who begins in the NT. I'm not even sure what that means. Do you mean starts with Jesus Christ, as opposed to ancient Israel? Perhaps that is true. The Bible is Christocentric.
Why would you say it is a bad thing to start with Christ in order to properly interpret the Bible?
Where does the Bible teach that it must be read dispensationally in order to be properly understood?
Who decided human tradition is a pillar in this matter? The futurists?
As Gentry makes clear, one can paint their biases back into tradition just as they do with the Bible. Of course a confirmed futurist will read their views into the ECF.
Thomas and others have documented, in critiquing the early view, a larger body of evidence that is mostly ignored ... perhaps Gentry will reverse that trend in the rebuttal that you mentioned is forthcoming.Documentation is not proof. It can only go so far. It is subject to scrutiny like other historical records. And the interpretation is also subject to scrutiny.
Of course Gentry spends some almost 30 pages looking at other external evidences besides Iranaeus and Clement of Alexandria. I'm sure you've reviewed that as well.
You are correct in one respect. A dispensationalist doesnt use a single verse as background into Matt 24. We use the entire OT as background.
The disciples questions in Matt 24 come directly out of Zech 12-14. In their mind the nations coming to destroy Jerusalem, the coming of the Messiah, and the Messianic kingdom with all its Jewish and universal blessings are all related events.
After His resurrection, Jesus spent 40 days teaching the apostles about the kingdom. Even after that, the apostles were still expected Him to set up kingdom that they perceived had not arrived as of yet. The non-dispensationalist argues the apostles didnt understand the nature of the coming kingdom, the dispensationalists argues the apostles knew exactly what the nature of the coming kingdom was.
And again, whether you realize it or not, we are quibbling over theological method now ... which is where the foundational differences lie ... and where there is unlikely to ever be a "bridge of understanding."
Wow, I sound like Nancy Pelosi in that last phrase lol.
My weekend chores await ...