An Assessment of Kenneth L Gentry's Internal Evidence For Dating Revelation

I can see this discussion is devolving into a shouting match and edification of the body is unlikely. I graciously acknowledge my part in that.

I have tried to correct myself by stating that I cannot read your mind ... while at the same time ignorning your remark that you can read mine ... "I know what you believe. You obviously don't know what I or Dr. Ken Gentry believe ..."

I clarified my remarks by being more precise concerning Gentry's position. Perhaps in the heat of the moment you missed that.

Let me spell out my position clearly. I have argued that there is no such thing as a partial, mild, or modern ... preterist.

There is only a consistent preterism (what most people call full or radical) and inconsistent preterism (what most people call partial, mild, or modern).

Why do I make this distinction? Because to believe that everything up to Rev 19 was fulfilled in 70 AD (Gentrys position) but Rev 20-22 is still future (he allows a second Second Coming, a final judgment, yadda, yadda) is to ignore the charge in Rev 22:10 that the time is near for these things; which ironically (in light of Rev 1:3) is one of the pillars of the preterist argument for why Rev 6-19 must have described the events of 70 AD.

How can the fulfillment of 6-19 be assured because the time is near (Rev. 1:3) but Rev 20-22 is still future ... even though the time is near (Rev. 22:10)? Its the double edged sword of seeing 'the time is near' as requiring the 70 AD event.

This is why I argue that there is no such thing as mild or partial preterism; there is only inconsistent or consistent preterism. Gentry's brand is inconsistent preterism. By what you have told me, namely, that Rev 6-20:6 happened in 70 AD but that all of Rev has not been fulfilled ... my conclusion is that you are an inconsistent preterist with Gentry. You admitedly have differences with him, but in the sine qua non, you are an inconsistent preterist. Perhaps you mix in some additional flavors of eschatological thought (historical premill, reconstruction, post-mill) into your view, AND THAT IS FINE. We both have the burden to defend our particular position.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ...

I'll give you the last word ...

By definition, I am not a preterist, since I believe in future fulfillment of some prophecies.

>>>There is only a consistent preterism (what most people call full or radical) and inconsistent preterism (what most people call partial, mild, or modern).<<<

>>>Why do I make this distinction? Because to believe that everything up to Rev 19 was fulfilled in 70 AD (Gentrys position) but Rev 20-22 is still future (he allows a second Second Coming, a final judgment, yadda, yadda) is to ignore the charge in Rev 22:10 that the time is near for these things; which ironically (in light of Rev 1:3) is one of the pillars of the preterist argument for why Rev 6-19 must have described the events of 70 AD.<<<

That is also what Tommy Ice and Mark Hitchcock argue. I believe to be consistent, one has to think the opposite way. That is, if a short time period is given, say forty and two months, then consider it a short time period, unless otherwise directed. If a long time period is given, say 1000 years, consider it to be a long time period.

>>>How can the fulfillment of 6-19 be assured because the time is near (Rev. 1:3) but Rev 20-22 is still future ... even though the time is near (Rev. 22:10)? Its the double edged sword of seeing 'the time is near' as requiring the 70 AD event.<<<

It is a simple explanation. Throughout the Revelation short periods of time are mentioned, except once. The book goes into great detail (though cryptic) in every thing, except for the one long time period, which contains virtually no detail. In fact, Paul wrote about as much detail about the final judgement in 1 Cor 15:22-26, as did the Revelation in chapter 20. This is Paul:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order:

[1: resurrection of Christ] "Christ the firstfruits;"

[2: first resurrection] ". . . afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

[3: final judgement] "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

This is the final judgement in the Revelation. Note that in each case, the last enemy destroyed is death:

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:11-15 KJV)

There are all sorts of references to the first resurrection, in practically every book of the New Testament; but only the occasional reference to the second resurrection. For example:

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:10-12 KJV)

There are clearly two accounts or resurrections. Those of the first resurrection cannot be hurt by the second death, which occurs in the final judgement:

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:6 KJV)

It is just as clear in this old testament prophecy that the first resurrection did not include everyone. In fact, in only mentions Daniel's people (e.g., Israel,) and specifically states that "many" are resurrected, not "all":

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)

Philip

>>>Again, since the main achilles heel of preterism is the date of the book of Revelation, a detailed examination is in order. <<<

One thing we should hear more often from dispensationalists, but don't, is the main achilles heel of dispensationalism, and all futurism generally, is the date of the book of Revelation.

LOL!

Critics of Gentry's book have use several "debaters techniques" to mislead the reader. For example, in this post's article, author Robert L. Thomas writes:

"When discussing the 144,000, this author [Gentry] is uncertain at one point whether they represent the saved of Jewish lineage or the church as a whole. 14 Yet just ten pages later they are definitely Christians of Jewish extraction, because he needs evidence to tie the fulfillment of Revelation to the land of Judea.15 This provides another example of his lack of objective hermeneutical principles to guide interpretation."

When Gentry's work is read with a critical eye, the opposite is true. Thomas' footnotes cite pages 223-224, and 233. Let's analyze those pages, and in-between.

On page 223, Gentry was rehashing the debate of "who is the true Jew?" (Rev 2:9; 3:9) But he closes his rehash on p. 224 with this:

"And, of course, the “twelve tribes of Israel” is the longstanding historical configuration of the Jewish race. 12 In light of this, it would seem that two possible interpretations easily lend themselves to consideration: either this number represents the totality of the Christian Church as the fulfillment of the Jewish hope, 13 or it represents the saved of Jewish lineage. 14"

Note there are three footnotes: 12-14. The first is a long list of old testament references. The 2nd and third were by Henry Barclay Swete, and Saint Victorinus of Pettau, both late daters. Gentry continues:

"In either case the interpretation most likely supports the early date of Revelation in that Christian history was at a stage in which either the Church at large was called by Jewish names or in which the bulk of Christians were Jewish."

That was the "uncertainty" that Thomas cited. The problem is, there was no uncertainty. Gentry was simply using a heavily-footnoted, scholarly approach to derive at his conclusion, which was far from over on page 224. Other indicators used are:

1. The Revelation is very Hebraic, and some Hebrew words used (Rev (;11; 16:16)

2. The Church is depicted as a woman with a crown of twelve stars on her head (Rev. 12:1 ff ).

3. Christians are represented as worshiping in the Temple and ministering in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-8).

He continues,

"In light of such evidence, we can safely observe that “the Apocalypse of John plainly belongs to the period in which Jews and Christians still lived together." (p.225)

Then Gentry cites John A.T. Robinson, and comments:

"As noted in Robinson’s quote, Barnabas, soon after the fall of Jerusalem (c. 100), posited a radical “us/them” distinction between Christians and Jews. This is in keeping with later, post-Temple Christian practice. Ignatius (c. 107) writes: “It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.”18"

Afterward he quotes Justin Martyr, Brandon, Torrey, Streeter, and on and on and on, along the way to his conclusion. On page 27, he cited Tacitus in writing:

"Up until the era of the mid-A.D. 60s (but not after A.D. 70) the Remans -were prone to identify Christianity as a sect of Judaism, intimately and necessarily bound up with it.26 This was obviously due to: its object of worship (Christ, a Jew); its origin (Judea) and leadership (Jewish apostles), and the bulk of its membership (predominantly Jewish); its self-designation (“Israel of God” [Gal. 6:15], “seed of Abraham” [Gal. 3:29], “the circumcision” [Phil. 3:3] etc.); and its constant involvement in the religious life of the Jews"

On 229 he writes:

"Many scholars recognize the significance of A.D. 70 in the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps a catena of their authoritative statements will prove helpful in throwing light upon the matter. "

He then cites Schaff, Ewald, Harnack, Henderson, Brandon, Davies, Reicke, Dix, Frend, and Gieseler, before presenting his conclusion to Chapter 13 on page 231:

"The matter seems clear enough: When John wrote Revelation Christianity’s situation was one in which it was still operating within Jewish circles and institutions to a very large extent. Its grammatical peculiarities and cultural allusions are evidently of a strongly Jewish color. Historically we know that this simply was not the case in the post-temple era beyond A.D. 70. The cleavage between Judaism and Christianity was too radical. Hence, this factor of the Sitz im Leben is indicative of a pre-70 date for Revelation."

Now on to Chapter 14, and pages 232-233. Gentry quotes James M Macdonald who argues his reasoning for believing only Jewish Christians were selected as servants. Then, for the first time, after a dozen pages or so of presenting arguments for the role of Jewish Christianity; Gentry presents his own reasoning for an Israel-only 144,000. This is only an excerpt:

"Clearly the reference to the Twelve Tribes is to Christians (as noted previously), for: (1) God intervenes to protect them, and (2) they are called “bond-servants of our God.” Just as certainly may we understand that these are Christians of Jewish extraction, for: (1) they are in “the land” (w. 1, 2), and (2) they are contrasted with the “great multitude” from “every nation” who praise God (v. 9). The designation “Twelve Tribes” is another common means by which to refer to “the tribes of the land” (cp. Rev. 1:7). Here, however, it is not the entirety of the Twelve Tribes that is protected (the whole race of Israel, as such), but only 144,000 of them, i.e., “the cream of the crop,” a perfect number,3 those who have converted to Christ. [Moses] Stuart presents a very logical question: “Why were these 144,000 designated by Jewish tribes?” His answer is most reasonable: it was because the pending destruction was threatened against Judea; “if not, why should Jewish Christians alone be here mentioned and selected?”4"

Where is the uncertainty Thomas claimed? There is none.

Philip

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.