Featured A Curious Omission

JonC you are correct. If the God of the Bible is all knowing and I believe he is, then he knew exactly what would happen in redemptive history when He made his promises to Abraham, Moses, David and so forth. He knew He would be rejected but if He is a God with integrity, and I believe he is, then he is obliged to keep his promises made to even those who reject him.

And that still applies today. Jehovah is obliged to some day future open the eyes of the Jews, as He has promised and at that time they will believe in their Savior, they will receive the land as an everlasting inheritance also as promised. I don't have to personally like this teaching but it's really not up to me.

Abraham and his sons will have to be raised in spite of the fact that the Sadducees, smart as they were, didn't believe such a thing was possible, this for (Abraham and sons) to live in the land. If I'm unwilling to believe that OT promises to the nation of Israel will honored, then by what line of reasoning shall I believe that Jehovah will keep His promises to the NT Church? Are we that much more deserving than the OT sons of Abraham? Given the sad state of the modern Church, I think not.

Trust the Word and let the chips fall where they may. As wretched as I am I'm depending on God's promises, I have to. Without them I have no hope.

The restoration is not going to happen because anyone deserves it, rather it will happen for God's Holy Name's sake.

 

[QUOTE="
NOTES
1. Philip Schaff showed exemplary courage in his later life. Even though his earlier editions of the History of the Christian Church assumed a late date for Revelation he, upon further study, corrected the date to pre-AD 70 in later editions. He wrote:

"The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders, 1257 but the internal
evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70)." - The History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 653.

2. Although Theonomist Greg Bahnsen wrote a glowing Preface to Chilton's. "Days of Vengeance" he withdrew all further endorsements when Chilton converted to (what he considered was heretical) Full Preterism a few years after publication of the book.[/QUOTE]


Where you see Schaff as showing exemplary courage in his later life what I see is someone who has lost his understanding of scripture and the value of history and the early support for the late date {90-95} for Revelation. After reading through the posts made here I did some online reading of the Preterist view. What i did find was not compelling in the least in fact I would say that it was wanting in support for your view.

 

The warnings of Revelation were only meant for those whom it would have a direct impact on, not people far away.

While most commentators do place Revelation in Domitian's time, many place this book (and John's exile) during Nero's time. The strongest evidence for the late date points to an obscure quote by Irenaeus. "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 such long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of Domitian's reign". It's not clear from this quote what it was that Irenaeus saw. Was it John, or the Apocalypse? Other ECF place John's exile to Nero's time. Irenaeus is also noted for claiming that Jesus lived to be 50 years old.

I personally believe the Bible's internal evidence points to the early date. The temple was still standing. The Jewish War was coming. Nero easily fits the "6th king" of Revelation 17. The phrase that the events "must soon take place" occur several times in the book. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" took over 400 pages to make the case for the early date of Revelation, so I can't do it justice in a couple of paragraphs. To the point of this thread, the absence of Jerusalem's destruction in any book of the New Testament strongly indicates that books were written prior to AD 70.

 

My Grandfather was seminary trained and ordained. He opted out of the ministry but could rattle off Scripture from memory all day and half the night. He also had been in the merchant marine and had traveled all over, had visited many of the places mentioned in NT.

In spite of this he told me on many occasions that truth is whatever you want it to be. He never told me that salvation is based on grace through faith in the risen Christ.

Grandpop knew the Bible better than I ever will. Difference between us is I actually believe it, he didn't, sad to say.

 

What's it doing in the Bible then, if it was only relevant for three or four years? If Revelation has no relevance to me, is it OK if I tear it out of my Bible? No, no. Revelation was certainly meant to bring comfort to 1st Century Christians, but not only to them. It speaks of the whole time between our Lord's ascension into heaven and His glorious return. It gives hope and instruction to Christians of all ages.

The arguments are on both sides and, as I said, I don't think we'll ever know for sure in this life. Certainly, the vast majority of N.T. books were written before AD70, but the letters of John and Revelation seem to come from a much different time. For instance, the situation in Ephesus in Revelation 2 seems quite different to that in 1 Timothy. But it really doesn't matter much to me because my understanding of eschatology is not affected by when I suppose Revelation might have been written.

 

"'Tis ordinarily said, that the Jews were a typical people, the whole divine economy toward them is doctrinal and instructive to us, not immediately or literally, but by way of Anagogy" - Henry Hammond

 

...probably because He spent very little time there (in Jerusalem).

 

Isn't that like asking what the prophecies warning Israel about coming events are doing in the Bible when those events came to pass centuries ago? Of course Revelation is relevant to us today, but not as a warning about the "End Times", "the Antichrist", etc. As John tells us at the beginning, this is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I suggest that our understanding of eschatology is affected by our understanding of when it was written. For instance, if Revelation was written in the 90s, Nero wouldn't fit as the "6th king" (Rev 17:10). This would affect the way we interpret large parts of the rest of the prophecy. The early date is very much a key to the Preterist interpretation. The late date view pretty much eliminates the Preterist view. Considering the significance of the Temple, it is very curious that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are absent if Revelation was written in the 90s. While we may not agree on when it was written, I am fully convinced of the early date because it fits the prophecies best.

 

Not. At all.

...Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever.... Mt 21:19

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

 

Such events can be omitted by the scriptures.

Excerpt from a book I'm finishing on Daniel by the grace of God, which has bearing:

"It is peculiar that Daniel claims to have lived past the year of the return of the Jewish exiles, in
the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan.6:28), yet never mentions the return.

The Pulpit commentary remarks: 'We regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon [Personal Note: the return is indirectly pointed to in Daniel 1:21, see note] as one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it. This is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passed—the greatest political change of this century—we find that most of them never once refer to it. If any one should take Cowper’s’ Letters, written during the American War, he will find comparatively few references to the whole matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have letters for nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred pages. Now, if a person were condensing these and selecting passages from them, he might easily make such a selection as would contain not a single reference to that war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle that was going on.[1]"

[1] The Pulpit Commentary – Daniel 1:21

 

Another thought:

• If John finished Revelation before 70 A.D.
• If Revelation lays out amillennial eschatology

Then Jesus Christ returning to reign, and the signs prophesied in the Olivet discourse, were all fulfilled before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

 

How? I am missing part of your argument.