Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 112

WHY MUSLIMS ARE CONVERTING

By Breaking Christian News

‘One reason they’re killing is that they wish to stop the rapid spread of Christianity. There has never been a time when a greater percentage of Syrian Muslims, in-country and refugees, have believed in Christ than in the past three years of civil war. We all agree that it’s the greatest awakening happening since the beginning of Islam.’ –Mission Director

The Middle East —Atrocities by the Islamic State (ISIS) are softening the hearts of Muslims to Christianity, and evangelistic techniques and technologies are proving effective, but locally-based missionaries say the main reason for the spike in conversions in the Middle East is simply that former Muslims are finding God is real.

In war-torn areas of Syria and Iraq where ISIS is fighting to establish a caliphate, Muslim refugees to neighboring countries, Internally Displaced People and people remaining at home are learning about Christ from native aid workers, podcasts and broadcasts. Tent churches among refugees are sprouting like mushrooms. For people who have suffered such deep loss, seeing that they can pray to a personal God whom they can call Father has been the critical factor.

‘You can see the tears in their eyes when we pray—that God would care,’ said the director of one ministry working in the region. ‘It’s the connection that makes a huge difference.’

Muslims who were previously taught to pray by rote to Allah, who by Koranic definition was unknowable, can feel the difference of having a relationship with God through Christ.

Limited Time: 50% Off Sale

Until May 31, 2015

Several Christian education products at KennethGentry.com are on-sale for 50%

(see our home page). Other items are on-sale from 20% to 40%

www.KennethGentry.com

‘They see that God can give you strength, can heal you,’ said the director. ‘They say that things have changed, that they have a peaceful attitude towards those ‘who have done this to my kids, wife, or husband—I can pray about it and give it to God.’‘

Former Muslims, who once prayed five times a day as a duty, say they don’t quite know how to describe the difference.

‘They say, ‘Now with our relationship with God, we see a huge difference; something has changed in our life,’‘ he said. ‘You can see it on their faces. They say, ‘Every time we pray, there’s a difference.’‘

The soul-crushing loss of loved ones, home and country that people have suffered at the hands of ISIS has helped open Muslims to the Gospel. Another ministry director said Syrian and Iraqi refugees are more open to the Gospel than at any time in history because of atrocities by ISIS.

‘Absolutely,’ he said, ‘because ISIS is saying that the things they are doing come from the Koran.’

Christianity and the World Religions:

An Introduction to the World’s Major Faiths

By Derek CooperCooper examines the rival worldviews found in Hinduism,

Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, Judaism, Islam, and irreligion.

He engages these worldviews from a Christian perspective.

See more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Tailoring evangelism to the Muslim worldview has also played a part, and one way of contextualizing the Gospel for Muslims, ironically, involves the Hebrew Scripture. Middle Eastern Muslims are familiar with the blood sacrifice and prophets of the Old Testament, and Christian workers build bridges with those references. They talk about why Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, animal sacrifice, and the meaning of blood in ancient times, Moses and the saving blood smeared on doorposts in Egypt, and then Jesus’ shed Blood. (Photo via Christian Aid Mission)

‘So we go from the Old Testament to the Blood of Jesus that saves us; 99 percent of the people I know will use this method,’ the ministry director said.

Continue reading: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=15074#

DANIEL’S BEASTS AND REVELATION

PMT 2015-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time-to-time I get questions that I think are insightful and may be helpful to other readers. The question below came from a Facebook friend, Cindy D. I believe this will be helpful to publish more broadly than simply in a Facebook “message.”

Question

Hey, Ken,

I have a question! I loved your book, The Beast of Revelation, and to me, it cleared up a lot of questions, and had a hand in bringing me OUT of futurism. I just now saw a post by a guy in a group I am in who wrote the following about why he says Nero can’t be the Beast. Can you give me some feedback on his post that I can share with him on it?

Thanks! Here’s his post:

There is of course yet another glaring mistake in The Preterist claim that Nero is the beast…… NOTICE in [Rev 12:3 KJV] 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

The CROWNS are on the heads of the beast.This undoubtedly shows that this phase of ROMAN rule is BEFORE the breakup into a DIVIDED kingdom of ten toes or ten horns NOTICE: [Dan 2:41 KJV] 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

There you have it the KINGDOM (ROME) shall BE DIVIDED into ten toes ten horns

Now back to rev 13 WHERE ARE THE CROWNS???? they are on the HORNS the ten toed divided kingdom of ROME:[Rev 13:1 KJV] 1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

UPON HIS HORNS ten CROWNS….. obviously there had been a shift in power

look Rome split into ten kingdoms after 476 when ‘’the beast was not’‘ BUT it rose again in its 8th HEAD the dynasty of the POPES who reclaimed ROME and filled it with gold stones jewels and AUTHORITY.

For although the horns fought against each other what united Mediaeval Europe was the PAPACY all the horns submitted to him.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Answer:

Thanks for writing!

His basic problem is: he doesn’t what he is talking about. He mistakenly believes that Revelation is giving the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. But John actually reworks and reapplies OT verses, particularly from Daniel, his second leading source (behind Ezekiel).

For instance, note that Daniel’s image involves four successive, distinct beasts (Dan 7:3). And these are counted seriatim: “first,” “second,” third (implied), and “fourth” (Dan 7:4-7). Whereas John’s beast is one beast: “a beast” (Rev 13:1). And his one beast is even a compound that employs only three of Daniel’s four beasts: leopard, bear, and lion (Rev. 13:2).

This fellow is confusing adaptation-and-reapplication with direct fulfillment. Clearly Revelation changes much regarding Daniel’s imagery.

Furthermore, his interpretation rolls roughshod of John’s repeated declaration that the events of Revelation must occur “soon” (Rev 1:1; 22:6) because the time is “at hand” (Rev. 1:3; 22:10).

Plus he is probably left-handed and parts his hair on the right. :)

Beast of Revelation: Identified

(DVD by Ken Gentry)

A biblical and historical argument for Nero being the beast of Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

PRETERISM JUSTIFICATIONS (4)

PMT 2015-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final argument for the preterism approach to Revelation. In this blog posting I will be focusing on Revelation’s Thematic Indicators.

As mentioned previously, the theme of divine judgment on Israel fits perfectly with the Olivet Discourse. Virtually all commentators note the remarkable parallels between Matthew 24 and Revelation 6. These parallels are sufficient alone to suggest the same theme. But other correspondences exist.

In Matthew 23 Christ scathingly denounces Israel’s leadership as he approaches the dramatic conclusion of his earthly ministry. He notes that Israel’s present failure is not an isolated event, but the culmination of a lengthy historical pattern:

“So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. ‘Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.’” (Matt 23:31–32)

Later in the NT both Stephen (Ac 7:52) and Paul (1Th 2:14-16) join in on this condemnation of Israel.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation.

Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Then Jesus concludes his rebuke with a prophecy that Israel will “fill up” (Mt 23:32) her guilt in “this generation” (23:36) when she “persecutes” those Jesus is “sending” (23:34; cp. Ac 8:1; 1Th 2:14-16):

Thereupon, Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (23:37), declares her temple “desolate” (23:38), and ceremoniously departs from it (24:1a). When the disciples express confusion at his rejection of the temple (24:1b), He prophesies its utter destruction (24:2). This specific prophecy prompts the disciples’s questions about the time of this judgment (24:3). Jesus responds with his Olivet Discourse.

The first portion of the discourse (24:2-34) focuses particularly on the temple (Mt 24:2) in Judea (v. 16) during that “this generation” (v. 34), just as John’s Revelation focuses on the Jews (1:7; 2:9; 3:9) and the temple (11:1-8) in the near future (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). As noted previously, both John and Jesus merge Zechariah 12:10 and Daniel 7:13 in this context of approaching judgment upon Israel (Mt 24:30; Rev 1:7). Both prophecies warn of A.D. 70.

Furthermore, several other NT passages warn of the Jerusalem’s judgment in A.D. 70:

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (Mk 9:1).

“The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1Th 2:15-16).

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

Presents solid principles and clear examples of biblical interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

“Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near” (Heb 10:25).

“You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jas 5:8-9).

“The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer” (1Pe 4:7).

It is abundantly clear that preterism is well justified by the exegetical (and historical!) evidence from Scripture.

PRETERISM JUSTIFICATIONS (3)

PMT 2014-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third installment answering the question: “Why does modern postmillennialism adopt a preterist approach to Revelation?” This is an important question, not only for approaching Revelation itself, but also for challenging the futurist hegemony in modern evangelical book publishing.

Elvis Presley once had an album titled: “50 Million Fans Can’t Be Wrong.” Apparently that sentiment prevails in modern dispensational circles. Judging from book sales among the dispensational faithful, the hits just keep on coming.

In this study let’s focus on the: Historical Indicators.

I agree with Puritan Hebrew scholar John Lightfoot: Revelation appears to prophesy Christ’s judgment upon the Jews in A.D. 70. John’s opening statement of purpose (1:7), the seven letters (2:9; 3:9), and the body of Revelation (4-19; e.g., 7:1-8; 11:1-8) all reflect this truth.

Just after mentioning the nearness of the events (1:1, 3) and just before alluding to the dire circumstances of his original audience (1:9), verse 7 warns: “Behold he comes with the clouds, and will see him every eye and those who him pierced, and will wail over him all the tribes of the land. Yes, amen” (Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English NT; cp. Robert Young, Literal Translation). Though this sounds like a Second Advent reference, the following evidence points to A.D. 70.

Coming with the Clouds

Cloud-coming language often speaks of historical divine judgments. For instance, Isaiah 19:1a warns: “An oracle concerning Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt” (cp. Ps 18:7-15; 104:3; Joel 2:1,2; Na 1:2ff.; Zep 1:14,15). This speaks of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon conquering Egypt in 671 B.C. As Young notes: “The scene does not necessarily suggest that the Lord comes from the Temple at Jerusalem nor from heaven, but merely that He comes as a judge” (Isaiah, 2:14), i.e., providentially, not personally.

Israel in the Bible and History (9 CDs)

Conference lectures highlighting the nature, call and identity of Israel.

Important rebuttal to dispensationalism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Interestingly, John follows Jesus in merging Zechariah 12:10 and Daniel 7:13. Like John, Jesus mentions the “coming on the clouds” (cp. Mt 24:29-30) against Israel (Mt 23:36-24:2, 16). And like John, Jesus ties the events to the near future: “all these things shall come upon this generation” (Mt 24:34).

Those Who Crucified Christ. Christ’s judgment-coming is against: “they who pierced him.” Jesus blames the Jews for his death: “Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed” (Mt 16:21; cp. Mt 20:18-19; 21:33-43; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22). The apostles also lay the covenantal blame for his crucifixion upon Israel: “Then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified” (Ac 4:10a; cp. Jn 19:5-15; Ac 2:22, 23, 36; 3:14, 15; 4:8-10; 5:30; 10:39; 1Th 2:14-16). Revelation 1:7 must refer to the first century in that those who “pierced him” are now long since deceased.

The Tribes of Israel

This judgment brings mourning upon “all the tribes of the land” (1:7; Marshall’s Interlinear). These “tribes” (phyle) must be the tribes of Israel (cf. Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30). TDNT notes that the Septuagint “with few exceptions .　.　. has phyle, so that this becomes a fixed term for the tribal system of Israel” (9:246). Revelation clearly mentions those Jews who were saved out from “the tribes” of Israel (7:4-8; cp. 21:12); and John sets these over against other “tribes and peoples” beyond Israel (7:9; cp. 11:9).

What is more, John associates these “tribes” with “the land” (tes ges), the well-known Promised Land (cp. Lk 21:23). As Edersheim observes: “Palestine was to the Rabbis simply ‘the land,’ all other countries being summed up under the designation of outside the land.” Indeed, the OT mentions “the tribes” and “the land” together in numerous instances (e.g., Ge 49:16; Nu 26:55; Jos 14:1; 19:51; Eze 45:8; 48:29).

In the seven letters John specifically mentions the defection of the Jews from God. He even informs the churches that Christ will vindicate them by judging the Jews:

“I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.(2:9)

“Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie, behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you.” (3:9)

Surely this humiliation of the Jews was in the lifetime of the recipients of Revelation — in A.D. 70 when the Jews were “cast out” (Mt 8:10-12) and the kingdom was given to the Gentiles (Mt 21:44).

Van Til Conference on Eschatology (3 CDs)

Three formal lectures on various aspects of postmillennialsm.

An excellent introduction to postmillennialism from a distinctly Reformed perspective.

Includes discussion of the leading objections to the postmillennial hope

as well as an application of Van Til’s apologetic method to the postmillennial argument.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Temple and Holy City

Revelation expressly mentions the coming destruction of the temple, and with language drawn from the Olivet Discourse.

“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Lk 21:24b).

“But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months” (Rev 11:2).

Note that both of these passages inform us that the “holy city/Jerusalem” will be “trampled” by the “gentiles.” And both appear in prophecies confined to the short term (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10; Lk 21:31-32). Evidently, these texts are referring to the same events, with John deriving his cue from Christ’s discourse about A.D. 70 (Lk 21:6-7).

Interestingly, the time of the formal imperial engagement of the Jewish War until the destruction of the temple was forty-two months. According to F. F. Bruce, after the initial Jewish uprising in A.D. 66, Vespasian “arrived the following spring [A.D. 67] to take charge of operations. . . . Titus began the siege of Jerusalem in April, 70. The defenders held out desperately for five months, but by the end of August, the Temple area was occupied and the holy house burned down, and by the end of September all resistance in the city had come to an end.” From Spring A.D. 67 to September A.D. 70, covers a period right at forty-two months. This is a remarkable correspondence which fits relevantly with all the other evidence.

PRETERISM JUSTIFICATIONS (2)

PMT-2015-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this brief study I am offering justifications for the modern trend to adopt a preterist approach to eschatology. We live in an age dominated by evangelical futurism. As a consequence, preterism can be a hard sell.

I am presenting a four-fold exegetical justification for preterism in the Book of Revelation. These justifications should be conclusive to anyone holding to the integrity of Scripture. In this study, we are ready to consider: Audience Indicators.

John was not writing Revelation as an experiment in abstraction. Rather when he emphasizes the nearness of his prophetic events, he is doing so because he as writing a work most relevant to his original recipients. In fact, to delay the prophetic events thousands of years would contradict his whole point in writing Revelation. (Admittedly, John did not understand the principles of modern book publication which prefers excitement over truth.)

John’s Addresses

In this regard, we should not first that John writes to seven historical churches. Immediately after twice declaring the nearness of the events (1:1, 3) we read: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4a). In 1:11 and 2:1–3:22 he specifically names the churches. John informs these first century churches of events ‘soon’ (1:1) to come to pass because “the time is near” (1:3). How could they have understood John to really mean that either 2,000 years would elapse before the events broke out or that they would drag on and repeat themselves for 2000 years?

Sovereignty of God

(7 mp3 Gentry sermons on USB drive)

In these seven sermons will be found a practical demonstration of God?s absolute sovereignty.

This series serves as an excellent introduction to this difficult doctrine.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

The Churches’ Settings

Second, studies by William Ramsey, Colin Hermer, and Roland Worth show how intimately Revelation addresses those specific churches regarding their histories, settings, and struggles. The seven letters are occasional letters designed specifically for their concerns. Interestingly, only Worth sees the significance of the evidence as leading to a preterist approach. I highly recommend reading Worth’s two volume study on the matter.

Roland H. Worth, The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Roman Culture. New York: Paulist, 1999.

Roland H. Worth, The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture. New York: Paulist, 1999.

The Churches’ Expectations

Third, within these letters we also find temporal qualifiers suggesting those churches would experience the shock waves from the events of Revelation (2:5; 2:16; 3:11; 22:12, 20). One of them was “about to” be tried by Satan (2:10; cp. 1:19 Gk.). To another Christ is “coming quickly” in judgment (2:16; cp. 1:1). To still another He promises: “I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world [oikumene]” (3:10; cp. 1:19 Gk.). Indeed, a church must “hold fast” for awhile in that Christ’s judgment-coming will trans transpire “quickly” (3:11; cp. 1:1).

Before Jerusalem Fell

(by Ken Gentry)

Coctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing.

Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history,

and objections to the early date by scholars.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Churches’ Experiences

Fourth, John wrote Revelation while these churches were enduring stressful times: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus” (1:9a). Revelation promises quickly to vindicate the martyrs who cry: “How long?” (6:9). The were told “they should rest for a little while longer” (6:10-11; cp. Lk 18:7-8). In fact, later in Revelation, we learn “there shall be delay no longer” (10:6). Yet, on the non-preterist interpretation, their vindication was not after “a little while,” and the events await an enormous delay.

How could John be writing those people about events that lay hundreds of years in the future? Such a presentation would be taunting them rather than ministering to them.

This series will continue. Stay tuned.

PRETERISM JUSTIFICATIONS (1)

PMT-2015-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I often receive questions asking how modern postmillennialism differs from, say, Puritan postmillennialism. As is the case with all eschatological positions, postmillennialism has experienced some changes over time.

Two of the most significant changes in modern postmillennialism are:

(1) The “millennium” is no longer deemed distinct era that will arise toward the end of the Church age. Rather, modern postmillennialism understands John’s “millennium” to be another way of speaking of Christ’s kingdom, which extends from the first century until the end of history. (2) Older postmillennialism tended to be governed by either historicism or futurism, whereas the modern postmillennial school is largely (though not universally) associated with preterism.

In this brief series I will be focusing on the preterist element in modern postmillennialism. I will be providing the justification for preterism in an evangelical world largely committed to futurism. Why would anyone adopt a preterist approach to biblical prophecy?

In this brief study I will present a four-fold exegetical justification for preterism in Revelation. These justifications are rooted in interpretive demands derived from the text itself, not from theological predispositions (e.g., anti-premillennialism) or from traditional predilections (e.g., John Lightfoot emulation). In this article I will focus on the Temporal Indicators

The leading preterist evidence derives from John’s temporal delimitations, which he emphasizes by strategic placement, didactic assertion, frequent repetition, and careful variation.

He strategically places them twice in his introduction (1:1, 3) and five times in his conclusion (22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20), thereby bracketing the highly wrought drama within (4:1–22:6). In these didactic passages John employs two terms demanding preterism: tachos / tachu (1:1, cp. 22:7, 12, 20) and eggus (1:3; cp. 22:10). For example:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly [tachos] take place. . . . Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near [eggus].” (Rev 1:1a, 3)

Tongues-Speaking: Meaning, Purpose, and Cessation

(Book) by Ken Gentry

A careful study of the biblical material defining the gift of tongues.

Shows they were known languages that served to endorse the apostolic witness

and point to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, after which they ceased.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Here we see that John immediately impresses upon his reader the nearness of his prophetic events. Opening Revelation to its first page should settle the matter of preterism v. futurism. Unfortunately, prophecy enthusiasts (who often call themselves and their back-patting friends, “prophecy experts”) tend to pole-vault over the first chapter into the exciting parts that speak of nuclear weapons, China’s population, computer warfare, and so forth.

Lexicographers agree on the temporal significance of tachos in Revelation: The Baur-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Lexicon (BAGD) notes that en tachei means: “soon, in a short time Lk 18:8; Ro 16:20; 1 Ti 3:14 v.1; Rv 1:1; 22:6; 1 Cl 65:1; shortly Ac 25:4.” Thayer offers the following range of meanings: “quickness, speed and quickly, shortly, speedily, soon,” listing Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 with the “speedily, soon” entries. Abbott-Smith concurs: 1:1 and 22:6 mean “quickly, speedily, soon.”

Greek text editors F. J. A. Hort, Kurt Aland, and Howard Marshall agree. Hort translates it “shortly, soon.” Aland comments: “In the original text, the Greek work used is tachu, and this does not mean ‘soon,’ in the sense of ‘sometime,’ but rather ‘now,’ immediately.” Marshall cites Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 as evidence that the normal use of the phrase en tachei “suggest[s] that soon is the meaning.”

In fact, all English versions translate it either as: “soon” (NIV, RSV, Beck, NRSV, NAB, CEV, ESV, NET), “shortly” (KJV, ASV, Weymouth, NEB, NASB, NKJV), or “very soon” (Moffatt, Phillips, Williams, TEV). Tachos obviously indicates temporal brevity elsewhere (e.g., Lk 18:8; Ac 12:7; Ro 16:20). The same is true of its related form tachus (Mt 5:25; Mk 9:39; Lk 15:22; cp. Rev 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20).

This evidence is reinforced by John’s linking tachos with eggus in the same contexts, as if to provide a two-fold witness (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). BAGD provides the following entry for eggus: “of time near a. of the future: kairos Mt 26:18; Rv 1:3; 22:10.” The other lexicons cited above concur. TDNT notes that the term means “temporally near at hand” and observes that “like the Synpt., Rev. uses eggus only as a term for the near coming of the kingdom of God. Thus we have ho gar kairos eggus in 1:3; cf. 22:10″ (3:330, 331). The various samples of eggus in the NT all agree: some relating spatial, others temporal nearness (Mt 24:32, 33; 26:18; 13:28, 29; Lk 19:11; 21:30, 31). And again, all translations of Revelation agree; all versions cited above have either “near” or “at hand.”

Revelation, God and Man

(24 mp3 lectures by Ken Gentry)

Formal Christ College course on the doctrines of revelation, God, and man.

Opens with introduction to the study of systematic theology.

Excellent material for personal study or group Bible study.

Strongly Reformed and covenantal in orientation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Perhaps the most interesting proof of the meaning of these terms is the various competing, innovative, counter-intuitive attempts to get around their obvious significance! Indeed, if these terms do not express temporal nearness, what terms could John have used to do so? I am firmly convinced John prophesies the fast approaching destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

ESCHATOLOGICAL DIPLOPIA?

PMT 2015-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time-to-time I get personal emails seeking answers to eschatological questions. This one is a question I hear quite frequently regarding both the Olivet Discourse and Revelation.

Question

“Thanks for the constant supply of good articles & blog posts. Here is a question for you that I thought might be a good one for a blog post sometime. If you also think so, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

When I’m discussing passages such as the Matthew 24: 1-34 or other related passages with dispensational friends and I’ve shown them how clearly these passages relate to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, they usually can see that its pretty clear, but unable to let go of their pet position on the subject, they often retreat into their immune fortress of … “Dual Fulfillment”. I try to explain that biblical prophecies that have a literal historical fulfillment sometimes also have a foreshadowing of something spiritually fulfilled in Christ, but aren’t typically fulfilled twice in a literal historical context, but this doesn’t sway them from insisting on Dual Fulfillment. I find that a hard nut to crack and I don’t feel I have a great way of responding to it. Have you encountered this much and if so what is your response to it?”

Answer

I have a four-fold response I give in conferences or in radio interviews. Perhaps this will be helpful for you.

Unnecessary complaint

The first point I like to make is as follows: Obviously you have seen the exegetical warrant for preterism. You have not cast out the preterist perspective regarding Olivet. And for good reason: the exegetical evidence is quite strong. But you still try to get around the “problem” for your eschatology by supposing it could occur twice.

Lord of the Saved

(by Ken Gentry)

A critique of easy believism and affirmation of Lordship salvation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consequently, you are admitting the preterist perspective. You are being pushed by your eschatological presuppositions, even though you have the preterist evidence causing you to stumble. You ought to let the biblical evidence inform your eschatological position, rather than vice versa.

No exegetical warrant

Despite your theological presuppositions, we have clear indications in the Olivet Discourse that Jesus specifically taught that the events would be soon: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34). There is no way around it.

You also see the reason for the Discourse: because of Jesus’ pronouncement against the Temple to which his disciples were pointing: “Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt. 24:1–2). That Temple is gone. Just as Jesus prophesied. And in the time-frame he prophesied.

But when you look for an indication of double-fulfillment, you can find none. The text is clear as it stands. The exegetical evidence you need is lacking.

Contextual contradiction

What is more, this approach not only empties Jesus’ express declaration of its meaning (“this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”). But it also contradicts the lead-up to the Olivet Discourse.

In Matthew 23 Jesus is denouncing the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees of the first century. The scribes and Pharisees who no longer exist. Jesus concludes his denunciation with a clear time reference: “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation” (Matt 23:32–36).

This also is very clear. Thus we have exegetical evidence within the prophecy (Matt 24:2). And we have exegetical evidence leading up to the prophecy (Matt 23:36).

Olivet Discourse Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Historical absurdity

It requires us to believe that the Temple will be rebuilt and will be taken apart stone-by-stone once again in history. And that there will be another “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:16). And another “great tribulation”such as “has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will” (Matt 24:21).

Yet by your own admission, these events have already occurred. It is absurd to require them again, simply because of your system’s need. This is simply another evidence of what Jay Adams has called “eschatological diplopia”: double-vision.

OUR POSTMILLENNIAL SAVIOR

PMT 2015-052 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the greatest postmillennial teachers was the person who made the postmillennial hope possible: our Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord. Though postmillennialism seems to some Christians to depend mostly on the Old Testament, Jesus himself has much to say to encourage us to hope for the conversion of the world.

And this was the case even as his ministry opened.

The Kingdom Announced

Christ is introduced to Israel and the world through the ministry of John Baptist, who was prophesied in the Old Testament to be Messiah’s forerunner (Isa 40:3; Matt 3:3). John prepares the way for him by preaching: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2). Jesus picks up this theme in Mark 1:14–15:

And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel.”

I will note three crucial aspects of this declaration.

First, Christ declares “the time” has arrived. What is “the time” to which he refers? It surely refers to the prophetically anticipated time, the time of the coming of David’s greater Son to establish his kingdom, for he immediately adds: “the kingdom of God is at hand.” After all, the Father sends Christ into the world in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10), to initiate the “favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:16–21). This time is “the acceptable time,” “the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). It is the very day righteous men and angels in the old covenant long desired to see (Matt 13:17; Luke 2:28–30; 10:24; John 8:56; Heb 11:13, 39–40; 2 Pet 1:10–11).

Second, Christ declares that the time “is fulfilled.” He does not say “the time may be fulfilled — if you will receive the promise.” Rather he forthrightly declares that the God-ordained time is fulfilled. Because of this Paul can later call this “the now time” (2 Cor 6:2; cf. Rom 3:21–26; Eph 3:10; 2 Tim 1:9–10). Though John and Jesus announce that the time is fulfilled, Jerusalem does not recognize the coming of “the time” (Luke 19:44; cf. Matt 23:37).

Third, Christ declares that since “the time is fulfilled,” therefore “the kingdom of God is at hand.” That is, because the God-ordained time is now fulfilled, the kingdom of God is finally right at hand. The coming of the kingdom does not await some distantly future return of Christ. During his first coming, at the very opening of his ministry, Jesus preaches that “the kingdom of God is at hand.”

God Gave Wine

(by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The kingdom’s early new covenant revelation, then, declares its nearness in time, not its potential nearness, and certainly not its distance. Consequently, Jesus promises that some of his hearers would live to see the kingdom’s acting in great power in history: “There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (Mark 9:1). Thus, not only is his kingdom present in his ministry, but some of his disciples will live long enough actually to see its exhibition in power. This exhibition would not be immediately, for some of his disciples would die first. Yet this must occur within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This apparently refers to the dramatic A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and the removal of the Old Testament worship system (cf. Heb 8:13; 12:25–28). This occurs as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21–23; Matt 21:33–46; 22:1–7; 23:31–34:34).

Christ’s Kingdom Established

Because “the time” is “fulfilled” and the “kingdom of God” is “at hand,” we should expect its appearing in the Gospel record — and in fact it does appear therein. Perhaps one of the clearest Gospel proofs of the presence of the kingdom is Matthew 12:28: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” Since Jesus does cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom has come. The very fact that Christ invades Satan’s kingdom and takes away possessions (demoniacs, Matt 12:25–29) proves that the kingdom comes during his ministry.

In Luke 17:20–21 we read another announcement of the kingdom’s presence:

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Notice that Christ answers the Pharisees’ specific question regarding “when” the kingdom should come. He answers them by using the present tense, informing them that the kingdom is present now. It is not awaiting a future, visible, Armageddon-introduced manifestation; it exists spiritually now and among them. Hence, even during his ministry men are entering into it: “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it” (Luke 16:16).

During his trial under Pilate, the Lord speaks directly of his kingship and kingdom:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:36 –37a; see also: Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3).

Here Jesus defines his kingdom as something other-worldly, rather than a political kingdom. His kingdom differs from Caesar’s political kingdom — and it differs from the dispensationalist’s political conception of the Messianic kingdom. And as such, his kingdom is already present: He speaks of “my kingdom” (John 18:36a). He claims to have his own “servants” (even though they do not fight with sword to defend Him, John 18:36b). He even clearly states “I am a king” (John 18:37a). And, as we might expect, given our study of Mark 1:14–15, he states that he has come into the world for the purpose of being king (John 18:37b).

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole,

then focuses on its glorious conclusion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Christ himself states that he was establishing his Messianic kingdom during his first coming. This is precisely the position of postmillennialism, though this contradicts the position of dispensationalism.

PROBLEMS WITH THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION (4)

PMT 2015-051 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final study of the leading objections to the early date. I am using Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) in considering the arguments.

The historical situations of the seven churches (Rev. 1:4; 2; 3), suggest a late date. Since these are historical churches to which John wrote, the letters may contain historical allusions helpful in dating Revelation. As Morris states it, the “indication is that the churches of Asia Minor seem to have a period of development behind them. This would scarcely have been possible at the time of the Neronic persecution, the only serious competitor in date to the Domitianic period” (Morris, 38). Mounce, Swete, Kümmel, Guthrie, and Beale employ the same argument.

Since I have not previously touched upon this evidence it deserves a little lengthier treatment. I will consider the four strongest arguments from this perspective, once again following the order found in Morris’s work on Revelation.

The Wealth of Laodicea (Rev. 3:17)

The first evidence Morris offers in this regard is drawn from Revelation 3:17: “Because you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched anti miserable and poor and blind and naked.” Morris notes that in this letter the Laodicean church is spoken of as “rich,” but “a. the city was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60/61 this must have been considerably later” (Morris, 38). All late-date advocates follow Morris’s approach.

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture

(DVD by Ken Gentry)

A summary of the evidence for Revelation’s early date.

Helpful, succinct introduction to Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

According to Tacitus, Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake about this time (Tacitus, Annals 4:27). The idea behind the argument is that such a devastating event as an earthquake necessarily must have severe and long-term economic repercussions on the community. And in such. a community, the minority Christians could be expected to have suffered, perhaps even disproportionately. If Revelation were written prior to A.D. 70, it is argued, the time frame would be insufficient to allow for the enrichment of the church at Laodicea. But by the time of Domitian a few decades later such would not be difficult to imagine.

Despite the initial plausibility of this argument it is not as strong as it appears. In the first place,

who is to say that the reference to “riches” mentioned by John is not a reference to spiritual riches? Alter all, such language is used in Scripture of those who glory in their presumed spiritual riches: Luke 12:21; 16:15; 18:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 1:5; 13:12; 2 Corinthians 8:9. In fact, this language is used in a way very similar to Revelation in 1 Corinthians 4:8 and Hosea 12:8. If the spiritual riches view is valid, then the entire force of the late-date argument would be dispelled. Surprisingly, this is even the view of late-date advocate Robert Mounce: “The ‘wealth’ claimed by the Laodicean church, however, was not material but spiritual.” And this despite the fact he uses the wealth of Laodicea as a late-date evidence. [1].

Second, fascinating historical evidence undermines the whole foundation of the late-date point, even if material riches are in view: Laodicea had a relatively effortless, unaided, and rapid recovery from the earthquake. Tacitus reports that the city did not even find it necessary to apply for an imperial subsidy to help them rebuild, even though such was customary for cities in Asia Minor. [2] Thus, despite the earthquake, economic resources were so readily available within Laodicea that the city easily recovered itself from the damage.

Third, who can say that the Christian community was necessarily overwhelmed by the quake in

that city? In Revelation 3:17 the church is in view, not the city. Even the horribly destructive earthquakes in Mexico City on September 19 and 20 of 1985 did not destroy every sector of the city. Perhaps, by the grace of God, the Christians were in areas less affected by the quake, as Israel was in an area of Egypt unaffected by the plagues (Ex. 8:22; 9:4, 6, 24; 10:23; 11:27). If the Laodicean church had been spared the effects of the quake, would this token of God’s providence lead the Laodiceans to a too proud confidence in their standing, as in Revelation 3:17? Perhaps a roughly analogous situation is found with the situation at Corinth, which Paul set about to correct (1 Cor. 4:6-8). Such boastful pride is ever a danger to those blessed of God (Deut. 8:18, cp. vv. 11-17).

Redeeming Pop Culture

(by T. M. Moore)

How should a Christian understand pop culture?

What in it should we appreciation and enjoy?

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Existence of the Church in Smyrna

Morris’s second argument is that “the church at Smyrna seems not to have been in existence in the days of Paul” (Morris, 37). Obviously, if the church mentioned in Revelation 2:8-11 did not exist until after Paul’s death it could not have been founded before Paul’s martyrdom, which occurred in A.D. 67 or 68. Thus Revelation’s date could not precede A.D. 67/68. (It would not necessarily affect, however, a date after A.D. 67 and before A.D. 70)

This late-date objection is based on a statement by Polycarp in a letter written to the church at Philippi:

But I have neither perceived nor heard any such thing among you [i.e., the church at Philippi], among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who are praised in the beginning of his Epistle. For concerning you he boasts in all the churches who then alone had known the Lord, for we had not yet known him [1].

Polycarp (ca. A.D. 69-155), was the bishop of the church at Smyrna and is thought to have been the disciple of John. He seems to refer here to the Smyrnaeans church when he writes “we had not yet known him.” By this statement he may mean hi church at Smyrna was not yet founded while Paul was alive. Several late-date advocates consider this among their strongest arguments. Nevertheless, strong objections undermine its usefulness.

First, it is not at all necessary that Polycarp’s statement be interpreted in the manner demanded by Morris and others, i.e., as indicating that the church was founded after Paul died. Re-read the statement for yourself Does it demand that Paul was dead before the church at Smyrna was founded? Or could it easily be interpreted to mean that Paul praised the church at Philippi in his letter before the church at Smyrna was founded? It is much easier to understand Polycarp to be merely stating that Paul praised the Philippians for their conversion, which praise occurred before the Smyrnaeans were even converted. Polycarp would not then be saying that the Smyrnaeans church was founded after Paul died.

In the second place, most probably Smyrna was evangelized soon after Ephesus. We say this in light of the statements in Acts 19:10, 26. The Acts account emphasizes in conjunction with Paul’s labors in Ephesus, that “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” and that “in almost all of Asia” Paul was making progress in the promotion of the Gospel. Smyrna is one of the cities of Asia (Rev. 1:4, 11). If Smyrna was evangelized soon after Ephesus, then this would put Smyrna’s founding before the year 60. No necessity exists for assuming a late date for Revelation based on John’s letter to Smyrna and Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians.

The Spiritual Decline in Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea

The most familiar of the evidences from the Seven Letters is derived from warnings of spiritual decline at Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea. Obvious spiritual decline is noted in Revelation 2:4, 5; 3:1-2, 15-18. Morris states the late-date position thus: “All the churches in chapters ii and iii appear to have had a period of history. Especially is this the case with those of whom things could be said like ‘thou hast left thy first love’ (ii. 4)” (Morris 38).

Late-date theorists insist that the spiritual decline manifested in the churches demands a period of time more readily available if John wrote during Domitian’s reign. It seems a reasonable expectation that the early fervency of a newfound faith would wane only after the passing of various perils encountered over an extended period of time.

Despite all the vigorous assertions, however, a major objection destroys this argument: Granting a marked deterioration in the churches, the whole question of the length of time necessary for such lies at the heart of the situation. How long does it take for faith to wane? Was not Paul surprised at the rapid decline among the Galatians when he wrote: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel”?

Consider also Paul’s concern over the multitude of troubles within the church of Corinth. This church was founded in A.D. 49 and Paul wrote to it with heavy heart in A.D. 57. Apparently, Paul anticipated such problems among churches virtually as soon as he left the scene, as he noted to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:29ff.). Was not Timothy urged to remain at Ephesus because of the entry of false doctrine within Paul’s lifetime (1 Tim. 1:6)?

Paul also experienced distressing defections from fidelity to him as a servant of Christ within his ministry (2 Tim. 4:10). Paul expresses concern over the labors of Archippus at Laodicea (one of the churches in question) when he warns him to “take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it” (Col. 4:13-17).

How much more would such a problem of slackened zeal be aggravated by the political circumstances generated from the initiation of the Neronic persecution in A.D. 64? Did not Jesus’ teaching anticipates such (Matt. 13:20, 21; 24:9, 10)? No compelling reason whatsoever requires rejecting the early date of Revelation on the basis of the spiritual decline in certain of the Seven Churches. After considering this line of argument, late-date advocate Aune confesses: “Both lines of argument are capable of a variety of interpretations, so that a firm date late in the first century A.D. cannot be based on these arguments.” [2]

Conclusion

A careful consideration of the merits of the major arguments from the Seven Letters demonstrates their inconclusive nature. Neither the arguments individually, nor all of them collectively compels acceptance of the Domitianic date of Revelation. This is all the more obvious when their inconclusive nature is contrasted with the wealth of other internal considerations for an early date, as rehearsed heretofore in the present work.

In fact, the Seven Letters even have elements suggesting a period prior to the destruction of the temple: (1) The presence of strong Judaistic elements in the churches (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). This bespeaks an early period of Christian development prior to the cleavage between Jew and Christian in the A.D. 60s. (2) John’s exhortation to the churches anticipates the “judgment coming” of Christ (Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3, 10). No events expected in Domitian’s day approached the magnitude and significance — either culturally or theologically — of the Neronic persecution, the death of Nero and the extinction of the Julio-Claudian imperial line, the destruction of Judaism’s temple, and the near demise of Rome in the Civil Wars of A.D. 68-69.

The early date stands, despite the attempted objections on the foregoing bases.

Notes

Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 11:3.
David Aune, Revelation 1-5, lxiii

PROBLEMS WITH REVELATION’S EARLY DATE (3)

PMT 2015-050 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief series on problems scholars have with the early (pre-AD 70) date of Revelation. I am using his Leon Morris’ book: The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) as my main source. Let’s get to work!

A most unusual phenomenon seems to appear in Revelation, according to Morris. His third argument is very popular among late-date theorists. This evidence regards the very unusual and ancient legend known as the Nero Redivivus myth. Morris briefly explains the myth and confidently employs it: “Again, it is urged that the book shows evidence of knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. xvii. 8, 11). After Nero’s death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually dead. Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as early as we can expect it” (Morris 37).

In providing the myth as late-date evidence David Aune boldly claims that “it is not likely that the Nero redivivus or Nero redux myth was widely circulated until the end of the first century A.D.”[1] In Moffatt’s commentary on Revelation 17 he speaks strongly of the myth’s role in interpreting the passage, when he noted that “the latter trait is unmistakably due to the legend of Nero redivivus, apart from which the oracle is unintelligible.” [2]

Nero so fearfully impressed the world in his era that pagan, Jewish, and Christian legends quickly sprang up around his death. These legends asserted themselves among the general populace throughout the far-flung reaches of the empire. In the pagan literature references to the expectation of Nero’s return after his fall from power may be found in the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Xiphilinus, Zonaras, and Dion Chrysostom. [3] Among the Jews the myth surfaces in the Talmud. In Christian circles :Lt is mentioned in books by Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Jerome, and Augustine. [4] Several Sibylline Oracles of various origins — Christian, Jewish, and pagan — use the myth as well. [5]

Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting.

Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Interestingly, the myth was not simply a “wives’ tale” of little significance. It had a measurable impact even on political affairs. Pretenders to the imperial throne, claiming to be Nero used the myth in quests for power. [6].

Clearly the existence, spread, and influence of the Nero Redivivus myth cannot be disputed. It is one of the most fascinating and best-known legends in all of political history. But the questions with which we must deal are: Does the myth appear in Revelation? And if so, does this necessitate a late date for the composition of Revelation?

Despite the confidence with which some late-date advocates employ the Nero Redivivus myth, two intriguing facts arise in regard to its use by Biblical scholars.

First, not all late-date proponents allow the argument as helpful to the question of the dating of Revelation. Donald B. Guthrie, a most able late-date adherent, carefully considers the merits of the Nero Redivivus argument, but discourages its endorsement in the debate: “If then an allusion to the Nero myth is still maintained as underlying the language of Revelation xiii and xvii, it must be regarded as extremely inconclusive for a Domitianic date. The most that can be said is that it may possibly point to this.” [7] In fact, some admit it could arise soon after Nero’s death: “Given the presence of this legend, the Book of Revelation cold not have been written in its present form before 68 CE when Nero died, but the legend could have spread quickly after Nero’s death.” [8]

Second, a number of early date advocates believe the myth appears in Revelation, but still maintain the Neronic dating position. John A. T. Robinson is a case in point: “As virtually all agree, there must be a reference to Nero redivivus in the beast that ‘once was alive and is alive no longer but has yet to ascend out of the abyss before going to perdition.” [9]

It is most interesting to find proponents of both dating positions able to admit the presence of an element which the late-date school proffers as a leading proof for its position! Beyond these two initial problems, however; significant and reasonable possibilities available to hand wholly undermine the Nero Redivivus argument for a late date.

Despite the intriguing correspondences between the Nero Redivivus myth and some of Revelation prophecies, the two are not related. We may easily interpret the relevant passages in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nero Redivivus myth. In addition, this interpretation is more appropriate, not only in regard to one of the major events of the first century, but also to the theme of Revelation. What John is speaking about is not a myth, but the historical phenomena associated with the death of Nero, the near demise of Rome, and its reestablishment under Vespasian.

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles appliend to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Late-date proponent James Moffatt is particularly interesting at this point. He attempts to hold to the best of both worlds: (1) He vigorously attests that the Nero Redivivus myth appears in Revelation 13 and 17. He urges that its appearance helps establish the late date for Revelation, in that its highly developed form is not possible until Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81-96). [10] (2) But then he also adopts the interpretation of Revelation 13 and 17 like I suggest: That the death wound and revival of the beast refer to the Roman Civil Wars of A.D. 68-69. Notice his comments on Revelation 13:3:

The allusion is . . . to the terrible convulsions which in 69 A.D. shook the empire to its foundations (Tac Hist. i. 11). Nero’s death with the bloody interregnum after it, was a wound to the State, from which it only recovered under Vespasian. It fulfilled the tradition of the wounded head. . . . The vitality of the pagan empire, shown in this power of righting itself after the revolution, only added to its prestige. [11].

Thus, a vigorous late-date advocate and Nero Redivivus enthusiast admits that the references allude to the Roman Civil Wars and Rome’s revival under Vespasian. This is a telling admission. If the references in question can be applied to the Roman Civil Wars of A.D. 68-69, how can these same references point to Nero Redivivus and demand an A.D. 96 date for the book?

If the verses in Revelation can properly be understood as making reference to the earth-shaking historical events of the era, why would any commentator be driven to employ a myth to make sense of the passages? And this being the case, how can the myth be used as a major chronology datum from the internal evidence?

From our observations, it is obvious that the Nero Redivivus myth cannot be used with any degree of success to establish a late date for Revelation. There is good reason to doubt that it even appears in Revelation. The presumed evidence based on this myth cannot undermine the facts derived from the documented historical matters by which we may establish its early date.

Notes

David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, lxi. See also: James Moffatt, Revelation, 317.
James Moffatt, Revelation, 450.
Tacitus, Historic 1:2; 2:8, 9; Suetonius, Nero 40, 57, Domitian 6; Dio Cassius, Roman History 63:9:3; 66:19:3; Xiphilinus 64:9; Zonaras, Annals 11:151-8; and Dion Chrysostom, Orations l.
Lactantius, On The Death of the Persecutors 2; Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History 2:28; Jerome, Daniel 11:28; and Augustine, The City of God 20:19:3.
Sibylline Oracles 3:63ff.; 4:1 15ff.; 5:33ff.; 8:68ff.; 12:78; 13:89ff.
Tacitus, Histories 1:78; 2:8; Suetonius, Nero 57.
Donald B. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1990), 953.
Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford, 1990), 14.
John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 245. Moses Stuart and E. Earle Ellis are orthodox orthodox early-date scholars who allow that the myth appears in Revelation. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover: Allen, Morrill, Wardwell, 1845). E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Boston: Brill, 1999), 212.
Moffatt, Revelation, 317.
Moffatt, Revelation, 430.
Interestingly, Mounce does the same thing: On page 19 of his work, he employs the myth to demonstrate a late date for Revelation, but in his commentary at Revelation 13 and 17 he opts for the revival-of-the-Empire interpretation (Revelation, 248, 318).