A Wise Comment from Adam Clarke

[asterisktom]

From his Commentary on Rev. 10:11:

"I must once more say that I do not understand these prophecies, therefore I do not take upon me to explain them. I see with regret how many learned men have mistaken their way here. Commentators, and even some of the most modern, have strangely trifled in these solemn things; all trumpets, vials, woes, etc., are perfectly easy to them; yet from their descriptions, none get wise either to common sense or to the things that make for their peace.

"On the same ground I cannot admit the interpretation that is given of the word χρονος, translated time in Revelation 10:6, which some have construed into an artificial period of 1,111 years, which they term chronos; hence we have the chronos, half-chronos, and non-chronos. Bengel has said much on these points, but to very little purpose; the word in the above place seems to signify delay simply, and probably refers to the long-suffering of God being ended in reference to Jerusalem; for I all along take for probable that this book was written previously to the destruction of that city."

 

[asterisktom]

I was going to comment and highlight some points from this commentary from Clarke but did not do it in time to edit the above.

" I see with regret how many learned men have mistaken their way here. Commentators, and even some of the most modern, have strangely trifled in these solemn things; all trumpets, vials, woes, etc., are perfectly easy to them; yet from their descriptions, none get wise either to common sense or to the things that make for their peace."

These fanciful interpretations of the image of Revelation are not unique to our time. Antichrist has been surely assumed to be, variously, Napoleon, Hitler, and a few other bogeymen. I am sure that in the future people will look at what is written by Christians today and wonder how we could come up with Cobra gunships and Covid vaccines as having anything to do with this book.

"On the same ground I cannot admit the interpretation that is given of the word χρονος, translated time in Revelation 10:6, which some have construed into an artificial period of 1,111 years, which they term chronos; hence we have the chronos, half-chronos, and non-chronos. Bengel has said much on these points, but to very little purpose; the word in the above place seems to signify delay simply, and probably refers to the long-suffering of God being ended in reference to Jerusalem; for I all along take for probable that this book was written previously to the destruction of that city."

Clarke saw clearly that the min thrust of the book was concerning the Jews, the ending of the Jewish dispensation, and the final judgement on Jerusalem. As he shows in his last sentence, his view here was disputed by some. But his view, well before the onset of Darbyism, was much more popularly accepted than in more recent times.

 

[canadyjd]

How refreshing to see a very learned scholar admit, “I don’t know”.

We could use a lot more of that.

peace to you

 

[timtofly]

I am sure that in the future people will look at what is written by Christians today and wonder how we could come up with Cobra gunships and Covid vaccines as having anything to do with this book.

Did not see you as a futurist....

No one is going to read this in the future. The former things will shortly be wiped from memory. This forum is a former thing, without a long shelf life.

That is the point of this thread, no?

If God's Word is a popularity contest (it is not), then which NT author was the most accepted historically and why? For those of you claiming Revelation is contemporary with Paul (it is not), would not Paul be contradicting John? The alledged claim being made is "time is up and 70AD declared Revelation is complete". On the other hand Paul is claiming no second resurrection nor coming and it is still future. 5 years later and Paul's writings would be obsolete and never included in the Canon. None of the ECF declared Paul obsolete, because John's writings trumped Paul and 70AD Sealed the deal. Paul's explanation over before it was even necessary.

If Revelation 10 was true in the first century, the entire Bible would be obsolete and unnecessary. All would have been settled and Christ would be ruling on earth in Jerusalem. No one would have been confused nor having arguments and voting on the fact if Jesus was God or man for 200 years. One cannot dismiss the creeds, 1600 years after the fact and claim God had already settled time in the first century.

The church expected "soon" and "this generation" at any moment years after 70AD. Even the generation that escaped Jerusalem were still waiting for Christ seeing the very signs given as Rome approached and decimated Jerusalem and the Temple. No one since 90AD has claimed Jesus was a false prophet for failing to return. No one confirmed it either. No one today dare question Jesus' words. They just question the acceptance it is still future. Is that not deflecting the blame from Christ to those still looking for a future fulfillment?

Was the failure of the 2nd and 3rd centuries to remember that Jesus was God the result of people just accepting God failed yet completed Revelation in the first century? Hardly. It would be because they had the wrong expectations. Why is it so important for some 1991 years later to state God declared it all over in the first century? The aftermath proves otherwise. The NT has never been considered strictly an historical record of a time once forgotten. The church is still a force in the world. The Holy Spirit is still working. People are still sinners, and sin still leads to death. Christ is not in person ruling from Jerusalem to offer the vineyard up to God, and Death has not been finally defeated. All those prerequisite points to allow time in Revelation 10 to be up as given by the prophets. Yet we have had the record given by Paul and John in full agreement with each other that as long as the church proclaimed the Gospel the Second Coming would remain future until it was on record that Christ had come back down and set foot on the Mt. Of Olives.

Prophetically stated at a time Jerusalem was under control of Israelites, about to be engaged in a battle with many other nations who meant them harm. Obviously a glaring point never once realized in the first century. Christ came as a newborn, and Jerusalem was removed from the historical record as being habitable. Neither points definitive of a Savior rescuing Israel from many nations. Rome held empire status as the last of Daniel's great image. There was no multi-government coalition in existence.

 

[asterisktom]

How refreshing to see a very learned scholar admit, “I don’t know”.

We could use a lot more of that.

peace to you

Agreed. We have nothing to gain by appearing more confidant than we are. To candidly admit that we are not sure about certain topics makes for much better discussions. And it also makes it more likely that that puzzle piece will fit into place earlier. But if we just double down on our preconceived dogma this works against that.

 

[Dave G]

How refreshing to see a very learned scholar admit, “I don’t know”.

I agree, and I see that sort of thing all the time...

But my question, objectively, would be:
Why didn't he know?

Why is it that learned Bible scholars who spend their entire lifetimes in the Scriptures, attend "Bible colleges" and "seminaries", earn Masters degrees, doctorates and so forth, and do their very best to search out and to understand every subject that is in them,
find that they are unable to ever come to the place that everything fits together properly and cohesively?

I notice that very thing in God's word itself,
The Pharisees and Sadducees also had that problem;

Did not the Lord address that question in Matthew 11:25-27?
Matthew 13:10-11?
Mark 4:9-11?
1 Corinthians 1:18-31?
1 Corinthians 2:14?

Did He not tell them why people reject His words in John 8:43-47?

"Learned scholars", from our point of view, aren't the ones that God is giving the privilege of knowing Him.
Rather, has God not chosen the poor of this world ( the "nobodies" ), rich in faith and the heirs of eternal life?

Has He not given to them the privilege of knowing the mysteries of the kingdom of God?