Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?-Part 9

By: Dr. Thomas Ice; ©1999

When was the book of Revelations written? What bearing does the date have on your interpretation of end-time events? Thomas Ice explains.

Contents

Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Part IX

As the end of this series on preterism nears, I have a few more items to deal with. One important issue is the date of the writing of Revelation. The interpretation of no other book in the canon of the Bible is affected by the date in which it was written as much as the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Preterist Ken Gentry declares, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in smoke.” Dr. Gentry refers to fellow preterist David Chilton’s commentary on Revela­tion. Thus, if Revelation was given after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 then it could not have been a prophecy about that event as preterists have to contend. I think it was written around A.D. 95 and renders the preterist interpretation impossible.

Dr. Gentry’s Argument

The date of Revelation is so important to preterism that Dr. Gentry wrote his Th.D. dissertation defending a pre-A.D. 70 date. Preterism requires an early date for Revelation, otherwise the view would be impossible. For futurists, like myself, the date does not matter since these events are still future to our own time. The importance of the date for futurism would be that if it was written late then preterism would be impossible. The crux of Dr. Gentry’s Neronian date rests upon three basic arguments.

First, since John refers to Jerusalem’s temple in Revelation 11:1-2, then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70. Second, the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-6 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Dr. Gentry explains, “‘one is.’ That is, the sixth one is then reigning even as John wrote. That would be Nero Caesar, . . . The sev­enth king was ‘not yet come.’ That would be Galba, . . . Thus, we see that while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future.” Finally, Dr. Gentry believes that the relationship of the Jews to Christianity, as pictured in Revelation, is not yet distinct. He believes that the two entities became distinct during and after the destruction of the Temple. Yet he contends that Revelation reflects a situation where they are still to­gether. He concludes that “When John writes Revelation, Christianity is not divorced from Israel. After A.D. 70 such would not be the case. This is strong socio-cultural evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 composition.”

Rebuttal of Dr. Gentry’s Argument

While there are a number of other issues that can be studied in determining the date of Revelation, these are the three that Dr. Gentry believes makes his case. I will take them in the order listed above.

The Temple in Revelation 11

In the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is obviously transported in some way to that future time in order to view the events as they will unfold. This is why the word “saw” is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events. It does not matter at all whether the temple is thought to still be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision, since that would not necessar­ily have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by the angel accompanying him during the vision to “measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measure what temple? The temple in the vi­sion. In fact, Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a temple (Ezek. 40—48) was told to mea­sure that temple. Dr. Gentry would agree, that when Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a temple, that there was not one standing in Jerusalem. Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever, that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical temple standing in Jerusalem at the time. Frankly, this is not only a weak argument from Dr. Gentry, it is no argument at all.

The Seven Kings in Revelation 17

This argument is polluted by the same assumption that underlies Dr. Gentry’s previous contention about the temple. Dr. Gentry assumes that “the sixth one is then reigning even as John wrote. That would be Nero Caesar, . . .” Once again Dr. Gentry begs the question. John is seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame that he is referencing would be of that time in which he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previ­ously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views. Dr. Gentry has not previously established such a time frame. That is why he cannot then turn around and assume a certain time frame that he then presents as an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. In fact, we are finding that Dr. Gentry’s proofs all presuppose a preterist interpretation, which certainly has not been established.

Regardless of the interpretation of this passage, it cannot be used as a proof for when Revelation was written. I believe that the kings referred to in this passage provide us with a landscape of biblical history. The five which are fallen refer to Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time which John wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist, known in Revelation as the Beast. Robert Thomas provides an additional reason why Dr. Gentry’s whole interpretation is not likely.

The future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words,…“when it comes, it is necessary for it to remain for a little [time]”. The adjective… “little” has the idea of brevity as it does in Rev. 12:12. This is a limitation of God’s will (Lenski) and indicates among other things that its time will be shorter than the six previous empires (Seiss). This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors.

The Jews in Revelation

This argument is built upon Dr. Gentry’s replacement theology belief that the church has forever replaced national Israel as an instrument through which God works. Typical of this mentality is Dr. Gentry’s reasoning that, “In Revelation the Jews are represented as emptily calling themselves ‘Jews.’ They are not true Jews in the fundamental, spiritual sense, which was Paul’s argument in Romans 2. This would suggest a date prior to the final separation of Judaism and Christianity.” This is hardly an argument based upon a clear-cut historical observation. Instead, this argument, like the two previous ones, is based upon Dr. Gentry’s interpretative bias. The language in Revelation is not such that one could draw some kind of conclusion that would impact when Revelation was written.

Some of the things that Dr. Gentry brings out about a rift between Judaism and Chris­tianity were going on since the inception of the Church on the Day of Pentecost. But a different understanding is just as plausible. Hebrew Christian scholar and expert, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum paints a different picture than that of Dr. Gentry.

But even during the controversies after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Hebrew Christians continued to live in the midst of other Jews….The rift caused by the desertion of Jerusalem proved to be a temporary one, and a partial reconciliation did come about despite Hebrew Christian opposition to the new Judaism of the rabbis.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum goes on to note that the kind of rift that Dr. Gentry contends does not really start taking place until the A.D. 90s, with the real break coming as a result of the Hebrew Christian non-support of the Bar Cochba revolt around A. D. 135.

Irenaeus’ Statement

Early Church father Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) made a statement about the date of Rev­elation. Writing around A.D. 180 Irenaeus said the following:

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 not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

This is why a majority of scholars date Revelation around A.D. 95. Dr. Gentry dismisses the clear statement from Irenaeus through a complicated web of sophistry that fails in his attempt to explain away this testimony. He suggests that it was John who was seen, rather than John who saw the revelation. If such were the case, it seems odd that Eusebius, who was a theological opponent of Irenaeus in the area of Bible prophecy, clearly thought that it was John who saw the apocalyptic vision. So desperate is Dr. Gentry’s attempt to suppress Irenaeus’ clear statement that one scholar observes: “Despite the lack of any extant textual evidence, Gentry argues that the Latin text has been corrupted and was originally con­structed so that John would have been understood as the subject of the verb.”

Conclusion

Since a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final book in the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appear viable. For those of us who are futurists, the date of Revelation does not affect our interpretation of the book. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in our day. The only exception, as a class of interpreters, to the late date advocates are preterists. It is not surprising to realize that while their view is short of solid reasons for a pre-A.D. 70 composition, preterists make a heroic, but inadequate effort for their view. It appears to me that the major reason that preterists believe in an early date for Revelation is that their system requires it.

Notes

 

1. Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Days of Vengeance: A Review Article,” The Counsel of Chalcedon, Vol. IX, No. 4., p.11.
2. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta: American Vision, [1989], 1998).
3. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “The Date & Theme of Revelation,” The Counsel of Chalcedon, Vol. XV, Nos. 5 & 6., pp. 21-22.
4. Gentry, Ibid., p. 23.
5. Gentry, Ibid., p. 24.
6. Gentry, Ibid., p. 23.
7. For an in-depth presentation of this view see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 291-300.
8. Thomas, Ibid., p. 299.
9. Gentry, op. cit., p.23.
10. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Hebrew Christianity: Its Theology, History, & Philosophy (San Antonio: Ariel Press, 1983), p. 41.
11. Fruchtenbaum, Ibid., pp. 42-44.
12. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, v.xxx.3 (emphasis added).
13. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, pp. 45-67.
14. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III. xvii & xviii.
15. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p.20, f.n. 112.

 

Contents
Read Part 10