A study of the "Revelation" - date & significance, then & now

[Yeshua1]

Which is not exclusively dispensational. Many of my fellow non-dispensationalist Chilliasts are pre-trib. The two are not the same. Please!

I am interested in this, as thought that only Dispy saw a pre trib rapture, as historical premil see it and second coming as same event. correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I just have a very brief time, then I'm done for the day. I'll just point out that the OT books often quoted in Rev. are also apocalyptic.

As for Daniel, many of the prophecies in it have been fulfilled literally already. Simply because a book is apocalyptic does not mean every bit of it must be interpreted figuratively. That would be hermeneutical error.

the Lord always fulfilled His prophecy in a literal manner, correct?

 

[asterisktom]

The Great White thrown and second coming are still future, correct?

No. The second coming had already occurred.

 

[asterisktom]

Revelation tells us who its first designated audience was (Revelation 1:11). These churches, being in the Roman province of Asia, were largely Gentile, though there will probably have been Jewish people living in most (maybe all) of them. The wider audience is Christians of all times and places. There is nothing in the book that limits its application in any way to Jews.

Read my post for content, not ammunition. You conveniently left out my next sentence that it certainly applied to Gentiles as well . And then faulted me for a misquoted post.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Read my post for content, not ammunition. You conveniently left out my next sentence that it certainly applied to Gentiles as well . And then faulted me for a misquoted post.

What I was disagreeing with specifically was your statement that Revelation was written 'to Jews as well.' It was not; it was written to churches which may or may not have included Jewish Christians. But I disagree with the rest of your post as well if that makes you feel better. I just lacked the energy to address it. But here you are:

The end of Jew's world ("age") was certainly in view. In light of the context and of cross-references this refers to the "elements" of the Jewish system. All of that came to a fiery end with the burning of the Temple, the crucial center of their worship. Without the Temple - the altar and all that pertains to it, and all who ministered on it - there is no way for them to approach God - according to the Law. Ever since the Parousia there has been only one priesthood, the Melchizedekan one of Christ. The Levitical had become forever deprecated, made obsolete.

What happened with Bar Kochba was irrelevant as far as the topic here is concerned. It was just an unfortunate event of Christ-denying Jews having their faulty eschatology bloodily corrected.

I disagree. The Jewish rabbinate continued after AD 70 as did the synagogue system. The hatred against Christians did not end, but increased, with curses upon Christians included in the prayers from around AD 80. And as we all know, the Jews continue with us to this day which is more than can be said for the Roman Empire.

Preterists make far too much of AD 70, terrible as it was. Our Lord's prophecy of Matthew 24:5 was certainly not fulfilled for all time in that year, for in 132, Simon Bar Kochba- 'Son of the Star'- claimed and was believed to be the fulfilment of Numbers 24:17. After his defeat and execution, so many rabbis were executed that it was almost impossible to keep up the rabbinic succession and circumcision was banned until the end of Hadrian's reign. The very name Jerusalem was abolished until the reign of Constantine, almost 200 years later. Before that, in Trajan's reign there was a major Jewish revolt in Libya, Cyrene and Egypt, where they hoped to set up a Jewish state. If the age of the Jews was over in AD 70, nobody told the Jews.

 

[John of Japan]

the Lord always fulfilled His prophecy in a literal manner, correct?

Yes. Hard for preterists and others who like "spiritual interpretation" to handle that, but it's true.

 

[asterisktom]

You know, you preterists (including Covenanter) keep railing against dispensationalism, sometimes violently. But almost none of you have said what you oppose. You can oppose Zionism if you want, but that really has nothing to do with dispensationalism. Asterisktom opposes the literalism of dispensationalism, but then you have to oppose that in general, because there are other theologies that use a literal hermeneutic.

Frankly, as much as you oppose it, I don't think you guys know much of anything about real dispensational theology, judging by what I've seen on this thread and previously on the BB. As my signature says, "You cannot teach some people anything because they already know so much that is not so."--J. B. Gambrell, Texas preacher.

First of all, I would say that last quote could be used for you as well.

Second,"you preterists" needs addressing. It is as if all preterists are alike. We are not alike. There are some who call themselves that who deny the deity of Christ, the Incarnation, etc. It is a wide spectrum. But so is dispensationalism. It would, likewise, be rude of me to say "you dispensationalists". You are all different. So why do we not deal with specifics instead of broad-brushing? I said nothing in my post to warrant this response of yours.

 

[asterisktom]

I disagree. The Jewish rabbinate continued after AD 70 as did the synagogue system. The hatred against Christians did not end, but increased, with curses upon Christians included in the prayers from around AD 80. And as we all know, the Jews continue with us to this day which is more than can be said for the Roman Empire.

The issue is not what the Jews did in their misguided post AD 70 worship. The issue is God's perspective. The Bible is written from that perspective. Christ's warning on the end of the age, and all the other passages of the passing of that age had to do with God-appointed worship. Sure, there was continued Jewish religious activity. But it had no prophetical significance.

Preterists make far too much of AD 70, terrible as it was. Our Lord's prophecy of Matthew 24:5 was certainly not fulfilled for all time in that year, for in 132, Simon Bar Kochba- 'Son of the Star'- claimed and was believed to be the fulfilment of Numbers 24:17. After his defeat and execution, so many rabbis were executed that it was almost impossible to keep up the rabbinic succession and circumcision was banned until the end of Hadrian's reign. The very name Jerusalem was abolished until the reign of Constantine, almost 200 years later. Before that, in Trajan's reign there was a major Jewish revolt in Libya, Cyrene and Egypt, where they hoped to set up a Jewish state. If the age of the Jews was over in AD 70, nobody told the Jews.

Somebody did tell the Jews. Not the exact date, but the signs accompanying the event. It is all right there in Matthew 25. All of the other things you mentioned are beyond he scope of the prophecy. A careful reading of Matthew 25 constrains us to see all of this in a 1st century setting. For instance, just to mention one point, v. 21 speaks of not having to flee on the Sabbath. We know that Sabbath observance was bound up with he Law. But without the Temple - not the synagogue - there cannot be total Law observance. So observing the Sabbath likewise is no longer the issue - in God's eyes. He who observes the law is required to observe all of it, James 2:10, Gal. 5:3. "All of it" requires a Temple and Levitical priesthood.

 

[Covenanter]

The issue is not what the Jews did in their misguided post AD 70 worship. The issue is God's perspective. The Bible is written from that perspective. Christ's warning on the end of the age, and all the other passages of the passing of that age had to do with God-appointed worship. Sure, there was continued Jewish religious activity. But it had no prophetical significance.


Somebody did tell the Jews. Not the exact date, but the signs accompanying the event. It is all right there in Matthew 25. All of the other things you mentioned are beyond he scope of the prophecy. A careful reading of Matthew 25 constrains us to see all of this in a 1st century setting. For instance, just to mention one point, v. 21 speaks of not having to flee on the Sabbath. We know that Sabbath observance was bound up with he Law. But without the Temple - not the synagogue - there cannot be total Law observance. So observing the Sabbath likewise is no longer the issue - in God's eyes. He who observes the law is required to observe all of it, James 2:10, Gal. 5:3. "All of it" requires a Temple and Levitical priesthood.

Check your references Tom!
Please edit your post - then I can agree with it.

 

[asterisktom]

kyredneck said: ↑
"The late date theory for the writing of Revelation is a house of cards that won't bear scrutiny:"

Unless, or course, you actually know something about Church History.

Can we agree that Philip Schaff knows something about Church History? He, in the course of writing his excellent 8 volume set on that subject, came to change his position on the dating of Revelation to earlier than AD 70.

...


It is only when you try to force the Preterist Hermeneutic onto the text of the bible that you arrive at such absurdities as it taking place before 70 AD.

Was he also absurd? He certainly was no Preterist. BTW, it was going through this very set of books that I began to question that later date for Revelation. And this was long before I became a Preterist.

In my memory - I don't have the set here in China - I think he deals with all or most of the quotes you brought up. There were not such iron-clad proof for a later date at all.

 

[asterisktom]

Check your references Tom!
Please edit your post - then I can agree with it.

Can you specify?

 

[Covenanter]

Then I would still like him to answer my question RE:

...and serve him day and night in his temple:

What is the locale of this temple?

HankD

Certainly not in Jerusalem -

Heb. 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
.....
12:22 but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. ​

Where would YOU place that temple?

Does this statement [7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;] suggest those who disagree with you do not have ears to hear? If so you may wish to reconsider.

That statement calls on the all hearers (& readers) to pay full attention:

Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.​

 

[Covenanter]

Can you specify?

You're quoting Mat. 24:20 not 25:21.

Your post #88

 

[asterisktom]

You're quoting Mat. 24:20 not 25:21.

Your post #88

Oh, DUH. Thanks!

 

[John of Japan]

First of all, I would say that last quote could be used for you as well.

Second,"you preterists" needs addressing. It is as if all preterists are alike. We are not alike. There are some who call themselves that who deny the deity of Christ, the Incarnation, etc. It is a wide spectrum. But so is dispensationalism. It would, likewise, be rude of me to say "you dispensationalists". You are all different. So why do we not deal with specifics instead of broad-brushing? I said nothing in my post to warrant this response of yours.

I'm pretty sure I know more about preterism than you know about dispensationalism. (How many varieties of dispensationalism are there, and what are they, hmm?) I've actually had to do research and lecture on preterism.

I will say that, unlike most of the preterists on the BB, you've been a gentleman in our discussions, as much as we disagree. Some of your fellow preterists are extremely nasty.

 

[HankD]

Certainly not in Jerusalem -

Heb. 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
.....
12:22 but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. ​

Where would YOU place that temple?

These verses in Hebrews cannot refer to the locale you are attempting to reference

Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

...and serve him day and night in his temple:

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Unless, or course, you actually know something about Church History.

Like I said, a house of cards.

Except Nero was never known as "Domitius Nero."

And you know that how?

As for Irenaeus, read my earlier post. It was Irenaeus who wrote (Adversus Haereses) that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and attested to the fact that John ordained Polycarp around 100 AD.

Irenaeus! Like I said, the late date theory is a house of cards that won’t stand scrutiny:

“Irenaeus said of the age of Jesus, “but the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…” (Quoted in Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, p. 63) Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!”..."

When Was The Book of Revelation Written?
(a really informative piece, you should read it)

the <70 AD date, which has been thoroughly disproved.

Only in your imagination.

 

[TCassidy]

Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!”

Well, duh! He was teaching in the temple when he was 12. 12 + 15 = 27. And he was born in 5 BC and died in 31 AD. That's 36 years old, which is pretty close to a rounded off 40.

I know you are desperate, but your one error filled quote does not negate the overwhelming consensus of the early church fathers who all agree, John was on Patmos from 94/95 until 96/97 AD where and when he wrote the Revelation.

And your repeating your "evidence" calling history "a house of cards" doesn't make it so. Post a quote from 3 church fathers who say John was on Patmos before 70 AD.

If you can't, just sit back and accept that a couple thousand years of history disagree with you.

 

[kyredneck]

It is only when you try to force the Preterist Hermeneutic onto the text of the bible that you arrive at such absurdities as it taking place before 70 AD.

And what is it you're attempting to 'shoe horn' into the text by reading 'thousands of years and still waiting' into these plain words?:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;,,,,,,, Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev 1: 1, 3

I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown. Rev 3:11

Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. Rev 12: 12

And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.,,,,,,,,,, And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.,,,,,,,, Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. Rev 22:7,10,12,20

 

[TCassidy]

(How many varieties of dispensationalism are there, and what are they, hmm?)

Now that is an interesting question, and worthy of some discussion. When we say we (or someone else) is a "dispensationalist" what do we really mean by that?

I have often separated dispensationalists by the number of dispensations they see.

The "Ultras" see more dispensations just in the book of Acts than most see in the whole bible. Church started in Acts 28. Paul not like other Apostles. Reject believers Baptism. (Bullinger, Welch, et al)

The "Hypers" divide the book of Acts, but not always in the same places (Acts 9 or Acts 13). (O'Hair, Baker, Stam, Ruckman? Larkin? - the last two are included only due to their "many different plans of salvation" position)

The "classic" dispensationalists are of the Darby/Scofield type, seeing 7 (or 8 if you include Eternity) dispensations. (Walvoord, Ryrie)

Then there are the "limited" or 4 dispensation adherents, lumping Innocence, Conscience, Government, and Promise as a single "Patriarchal" dispensation.

And now we see a new "Progressive" dispensationalism which tries to reconcile the "parenthesis" issues and provide a clearer link between the Old and New Covenants (one Covenant with a partial fulfillment now and a complete fulfillment later). (Blaising, Bock)

Then there is the minimalist (kind of like me) who see the Old Testament era, the New Testament era, and the Kingdom era. (Historic Chiliasm: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, et al)

Have I missed anything?