David Chilton and the Greek

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Does such a denomination exist today? Have you found it? ( I'm NOT Landmarkist)

No, I do not believe it does. However, I was simply stating what the Primitive Baptists I was associated with believe.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

.I know he did not share the view of soteriology that I do. I also know he sought to win the lost ,and serve the Lord.
Again he spoke to people in his day so I can be thankful he was very active.

Excellent.

Although I have left that camp....your view of the Great Commission both in word and deed...keeps you on track and obedient.
You have not retreated into a Christian turtle shell waiting to be raptured out, you understand that the Great Commission is not optional but it is a privilege and a duty for all believers.

If anyone has "retreated into a Christian turtle shell" (I don't know anyone like that), they are certainly not understanding dispensational eschatology. The Rapture should encourage living closer to Christ, according to 1 John 3:2-3--"2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

Others do, but if you do not , you will not be hindered by it.

It is my belief that those who see premil dispensationalism in this way are ill informed about it.

I like the activity, the doing.....when I saw your presentation {Friendship Baptist} I was glad as you urged those people to active service, not as an academic in an Ivory tower, but an academic that gets out there and comes face to face with sinners. That was an encouragement to me.

Praise the Lord!

 

[John of Japan]

I have heard latreuo preached upon....not the other.

Any complete view of worship in the NT must consider all of the words translated "worship" in the NT, both nouns and verbs.

 

[John of Japan]

Chilton sources David Estrada and William White Jr., The First New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978) on p. 5. I have this book. Please stay with me here, since this is a little bit complicated.

Chilton is using their work as proof for an early NT. First of all, it’s not correct to call their studies “archaeology,” as Chilton does, but rather it is textual criticism. So, as I said before, Chilton did not understand textual criticism. But then you can't understand textual criticism without knowing Greek, right? And even then it takes a lot of study.

Now, the reference to Estrada and White's book is in a footnote for this statement in the text of the book: "The Canon of Holy Scripture was entirely completed before Jerusalem fell." In other words, Chilton is citing Estrada and White as evidence that Revelation was written before AD 70. The only problem is, Estrada and White do not list Revelation as being in the documents they studied (p. 138 in their book), so they are definitely not dating Revelation in their book. Chilton is thus being disingenuous, outright lying, or ignorant (meaning he never read the book).

In another odd twist, Chilton refers to John A. T. Robinson's work, Redating the New Testament, in the same footnote. The problem with Chilton using this guy is that Robinson was a flaming, all out liberal and a universalist. Probably the only thing Chilton would agree with him on is the early dating of the NT. It would have been nice if Chilton had told us this, rather than just presenting him as an authority on the subject. (I normally don't recommend Wikipedia as anything other than giving a direction to actual research, but according to their article, Robinson also recommended to Christians the reading of a certain dirty book, defending it in court.)

 

[John of Japan]

There is a critique of Days of Vengeance by a fellow postmillennialist to Chilton here: <Option>SW197--The Aftermath of Jewish Wars. In this critique a reference to an error in Greek grammar by Chilton is made, viz:

David’s commitment to the imaginative guesswork of IM renders his commentary on Revelation unsound. Take as one example his treatment of Rev. 7;1-8 (the revealing of the 144,000). The text says that winds are inhibited from hurting “the earth, the sea, or the trees” (vv. 1, 3). David mistakenly claims that the change from genitive to accusative case for “tree” in v. 1 is meant to draw “special attention” to that word. In fact, the change of case simply pertains to the use of the Greek preposition epi: the wind blows “upon” the earth and sea (epi with genitive), but blows “against” the trees (epi with accusative). What makes this more than an embarrassing error in Greek grammar is the “special attention” David now gives the word “trees.”

Let me briefly explain. In koine Greek, each preposition must take a certain case in the other words in the prepositional phrase. Students are taught to memorize these cases when they memorize the prepositions themselves, like this: "en with the dative." The student would learn "epi with the genitive" and then "pro with the accusative," and thus easily understand that the change in case simply means a different preposition is being used. Once again, it is plain that Chilton did not even take first year college Greek.

 

[John of Japan]

Chilton makes a similar error in the footnote on p. 315 about Rev. 12:11, where he writes, "Blood and word are both in the accusative case, but the preposition should be read in the sense of means as well as grounds here."

However, as the beginning student learns in his very first semester, "dia with the genitive" means "through; by," and "dia with the accusative" means "because of; on account of" (Learn to Read New Testament Greek, by David Alan black, p. 62 in the vocabulary list).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If anyone has "retreated into a Christian turtle shell" (I don't know anyone like that), they are certainly not understanding dispensational eschatology.

''What we are about to consider will tend to show that, instead of permitting ourselves to hope for a continued progress of good, we must expect a progress of evil; and that the hope of the earth being filled with the knowledge of the Lord before the exercise of His judgement, and the consummation of this judgement on the earth is delusive. We are to expect evil, until it becomes so flagrant that it will be found necessary for the Lord to judge it.............Truly Christendom has become completely corrupted; the dispensation of the Gentiles has been found unfaithful: can it be restored? No! Impossible.'
[J.N. Darby, in a lecture delivered in 1840 on the 'Progress of evil on the Earth.' Collected writings]

 

[John of Japan]

''What we are about to consider will tend to show that, instead of permitting ourselves to hope for a continued progress of good, we must expect a progress of evil; and that the hope of the earth being filled with the knowledge of the Lord before the exercise of His judgement, and the consummation of this judgement on the earth is delusive. We are to expect evil, until it becomes so flagrant that it will be found necessary for the Lord to judge it.............Truly Christendom has become completely corrupted; the dispensation of the Gentiles has been found unfaithful: can it be restored? No! Impossible.'
[J.N. Darby, in a lecture delivered in 1840 on the 'Progress of evil on the Earth.' Collected writings]

And your point is re the OP?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And your point is re the OP?

Nothing. I was replying to a statement you made. However, if you think J.N. Darby did not understand dispensational theology, you have no need to concern yourself.

Actually I think you have done a pretty good job on this thread. Even someone like myself, who has a certain knowledge of Greek, is likely to accept authoritative-sounding statements on the language made in a book without checking them. Thank you for reminding me of 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

 

[John of Japan]

Nothing. I was replying to a statement you made. However, if you think J.N. Darby did not understand dispensational theology, you have no need to concern yourself.

Okay, thanks. I'm not sure what statement.... As for Darby, my understanding is that he didn't actually systemetize dispensationalism, but merely laid the groundwork. We've come a long way since then.

Actually I think you have done a pretty good job on this thread. Even someone like myself, who has a certain knowledge of Greek, is likely to accept authoritative-sounding statements on the language made in a book without checking them. Thank you for reminding me of 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Thanks and you're welcome. I've noted that you do seem to know the Greek. Keep up the good work.

 

[John of Japan]

I thought I was done with this thread, but have found more "junk Greek" by Chilton. In The Great Tribulation, 27-28, he wrote:

"Instead of the simple form of the word, the term used by Jesus has the Greek preposition epi prefixed to it. This is a favorite New Covenant expression, which intensifies the original word. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 will reveal Him as having come with clouds to receive His Kingdom; and it will display His Church before the world as the full, the true, the super-Synagogue.'

This is malarky (to use a technical term ). When a preposition is added to the front of a Greek verb, the meaning simply becomes the combination of the two words, not some "intensified" word, as Chilton would have it. So ek (out) + ballo (I throw) becomes "I throw out," not "I throw intensely." In this case, sun (with) + ago (lead) = sunago, "I gather together." Then add epi (on) to the beginning, and it means "gather to one place," as any lexicon could have showed him. So Chilton's whole preterist point is negated, and he is shown once more to be making up his Greek grammar.

 

[John of Japan]

Again in The Great Tribulation, pp. 25-26, he contradicts himself in one paragraph.

“Finally, Jesus announced, the result of Jerusalem's destruction will be Christ's sending forth of his 'angels' to gather the elect. Isn't this the Rapture? No. The word angels simply means messengers (cf. James 2:25), regardless of whether their origin is heavenly or earthly; it is the context which determines whether these are heavenly creatures being spoken of. The word often means preachers of the Gospel (see Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; Revelation 1-3). In context, there is every reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of the worldwide evangelism and conversion of the nations which will follow upon the destruction of Israel.”

So he starts out by saying the word "simply means messengers." So far so good. He's right. And it could mean actual angels or human messengers. He's right there, too. but then he contradicts himself and says that it can mean "preachers of the Gospel," and he has lost all credibility. Look at the passages he gives. No one preaches in those passages. Messengers do not preach in the Greek, they are sent with a task or a message. I checked several lexicons, and not a one of them had "preacher" for a meaning. So again, Chilton wrecks his own point by fake Greek semantics.

 

[Yeshua1]

He might not have been proficient in the Greek.....and of course that would not be a plus.
However....the texts being raised with the heavenly bodies not giving light ,rolling up like a scroll,etc.....are not really depending on if he used a correct tense, or verb, or noun....or some other nuanced grammar the way it might affect a verse on redemption or sanctification.
If you notice where his thoughts and verses can be discounted about the time texts, or the symbols, that would advance the discussion to show the position is not tenable.

His full on Pretierism though has always been seen as being not biblical by orthodox church/theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

On p. 52 of Days of Vengeance, commenting on Rev. 1:1, Chilton writes:

"It must be stressed that the Greek expression for our English word shortly plainly means soon, and those who first read the phrase would not have understood it to mean anything else (c.f. Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 22:6). A futurist interpretation is refuted in the very first verse of Revelation."

This is of course one of the famous "time statements" that preterists and others like to dig up ostensibly to prove their position. The idea is, if the fulfillment of the prophecy was "soon," then it couldn't be "someday." I have a number of times here on the BB proven (at least to my own satisfaction) that preterists have the same trouble with these time statements as anyone else. But I digress.

My first question for Chilton is, really? What proof do you have for these grandiose statements? How do you know that the a Greek reader of the first century would have interpreted it like you? He gives no evidence, quotes no authorities, seeks to prove nothing. He simply makes his statement, and we are then required to accept it without proof.

Now, Chilton apparently did look up the Greek word used here in Rev. 1:1 for "shortly," because his list of references is just where the word is used in the NT. The word is taxos, but the interesting thing is that in all six of these passages it occurs in the dative case in a prepositional phrase, viz, ἐν τάχει. Chilton doesn't explain this, maybe because he couldn't read Greek.

One important use of the dative, not just when the word stands alone but in the prepositional phrase, is the dative of means. In other words, I believe this phrase could and should be translated as "with speed." In other words, Rev. 1:1 is all about the speed with which God will accomplish His purpose once He begins, not about how soon it will happen.

In proof of my position, notice the clear meaning of "with speed" in Acts 25:4--"But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither." The idea here is that when you leave with Paul, travel fast, which will hinder the would-be assassins from carrying out their plan. The truth is, if taxos is not the Greek word for "speed," then NT Greek has no such word.

You are welcome to disagree with me. But notice one thing. I've given evidence for my position. I'm not simply saying, "This is the fact. I said it, so you have to believe me." That is something Chilton does over and over in his books, and it is arrogant.

Can it not also refer to when these things start to come to pass, that they will happen very quickly?

 

[Yeshua1]

Again in The Great Tribulation, pp. 25-26, he contradicts himself in one paragraph.

“Finally, Jesus announced, the result of Jerusalem's destruction will be Christ's sending forth of his 'angels' to gather the elect. Isn't this the Rapture? No. The word angels simply means messengers (cf. James 2:25), regardless of whether their origin is heavenly or earthly; it is the context which determines whether these are heavenly creatures being spoken of. The word often means preachers of the Gospel (see Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; Revelation 1-3). In context, there is every reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of the worldwide evangelism and conversion of the nations which will follow upon the destruction of Israel.”

So he starts out by saying the word "simply means messengers." So far so good. He's right. And it could mean actual angels or human messengers. He's right there, too. but then he contradicts himself and says that it can mean "preachers of the Gospel," and he has lost all credibility. Look at the passages he gives. No one preaches in those passages. Messengers do not preach in the Greek, they are sent with a task or a message. I checked several lexicons, and not a one of them had "preacher" for a meaning. So again, Chilton wrecks his own point by fake Greek semantics.

The gathering of the elect refers to the Second Coming event, so for him to fit it into this, we had th actual glorification of just those few saints back then, and none since that time?

 

[Yeshua1]

Excellent.
If anyone has "retreated into a Christian turtle shell" (I don't know anyone like that), they are certainly not understanding dispensational eschatology. The Rapture should encourage living closer to Christ, according to 1 John 3:2-3--"2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."
It is my belief that those who see premil dispensationalism in this way are ill informed about it.
Praise the Lord!

Interesting that Dispys and calvinist both get really slammed here, yet both groups are ones that really went into missions and soul winning, not just escaping reality!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again in The Great Tribulation, pp. 25-26, he contradicts himself in one paragraph.

“Finally, Jesus announced, the result of Jerusalem's destruction will be Christ's sending forth of his 'angels' to gather the elect. Isn't this the Rapture? No. The word angels simply means messengers (cf. James 2:25), regardless of whether their origin is heavenly or earthly; it is the context which determines whether these are heavenly creatures being spoken of. The word often means preachers of the Gospel (see Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; Revelation 1-3). In context, there is every reason to assume that Jesus is speaking of the worldwide evangelism and conversion of the nations which will follow upon the destruction of Israel.”

So he starts out by saying the word "simply means messengers." So far so good. He's right. And it could mean actual angels or human messengers. He's right there, too. but then he contradicts himself and says that it can mean "preachers of the Gospel," and he has lost all credibility. Look at the passages he gives. No one preaches in those passages. Messengers do not preach in the Greek, they are sent with a task or a message. I checked several lexicons, and not a one of them had "preacher" for a meaning. So again, Chilton wrecks his own point by fake Greek semantics.

The great tribulation jesus called could not be AD 70, as all life was not threatened, nor all systems judged and placed under his kingdom back then!

 

[John of Japan]

Can it not also refer to when these things start to come to pass, that they will happen very quickly?

That's my position.

 

[Yeshua1]

Time is interesting in the scriptures, as the writers used terms that would reflect things happening right then and now, and also would happen quickly but in the future, and think the Holy Spirit was and is smart enough to make sure the correct terminology was put into use depending on the circumstances!

 

[John of Japan]

I thought I was done with this thread, but have found more "junk Greek" by Chilton. In The Great Tribulation, 27-28, he wrote:

"Instead of the simple form of the word, the term used by Jesus has the Greek preposition epi prefixed to it. This is a favorite New Covenant expression, which intensifies the original word. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 will reveal Him as having come with clouds to receive His Kingdom; and it will display His Church before the world as the full, the true, the super-Synagogue.'

This is malarky (to use a technical term ). When a preposition is added to the front of a Greek verb, the meaning simply becomes the combination of the two words, not some "intensified" word, as Chilton would have it. So ek (out) + ballo (I throw) becomes "I throw out," not "I throw intensely." In this case, sun (with) + ago (lead) = sunago, "I gather together." Then add epi (on) to the beginning, and it means "gather to one place," as any lexicon could have showed him. So Chilton's whole preterist point is negated, and he is shown once more to be making up his Greek grammar.

I have to apologize. A Greek scholar friend of mine informed me that sometimes the preposition added to the verb does intensify the word. He pointed me to A. T. Robertson's big grammar, where he quotes Winer, another grammarian, who wrote that the added preposition is due to "a love for what is vivid and expressive" (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 163).

On the other hand, my friend also pointed out that Estrada and White's book, referenced by Chilton's and commented on by me in post #44 above, has been debunked by the scholars--it does not prove any early dates, and does not appear to even quote the NT, but rather the mss. fragments referred to fit the LXX.

On the other hand (the third hand? ), my scholar friend points out that John Wenham, the father of Gordon Wenham who wrote Chilton's foreward, is a credible scholar for early dating. Personally, I've looked at the evidence and agree that a pre-70 date for Revelation is possible, but even if that were true it wouldn't change my theology. There is too much in the book that could not have been fulfilled in AD 70.