Part 1 here.
I’ve been meaning to write this post since I wrote Part 1 (over two years ago). A friend’s recent question concerning Kenneth Gentry’s lectures on the Revelation encouraged me to bite the bullet and bust a gut and get it done. The question is this: Is the Revelation to be interpreted in the light of Josephus’ Jewish War, or in the light of the Bible itself?
Here’s a special offer for readers of Bully’s Blog: a discount on downloadable Revelation lectures from wordmp3.com.
Continue reading
Preterists have a go at dispensationalists for interpreting the Bible through the lens of current headlines. We recognize that the Bible must be interpreted in its historical context, for its “first audience.” But there’s a brand of “newspaper exegesis” that plagues preterism as well.
“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:14
Oh dear. This verse proves postmillennialism wrong. It also proves the rest of the Bible wrong because that is postmillennial too. Fortunately, this problem seems almost as simple to deal with as Irenaeus’ ambiguous text that non-preterists use to “unfound” preterism.[1]
There are conflicting traditions concerning John. A widely held opinion is that he was banished to Patmos by the Emperor Domitian who reigned from AD 81 through 96. If so, this makes preterism a paper tiger.
“It is most remarkable that not only in Revelation do we find large patterns of evidences befitting the AD 60s era, but also even many smaller details. It it surely no accidental similarity that allows us to find not only particular personages (Nero), cultural structures (the Jewish Temple), and historical events (the Neronic persecution and the Jewish War) that harmonise well with the Neronic era, but even time-frames for these that fill out the picture of the era of which John wrote. It can be no other than in the mid- to late AD 60s.”
Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, p. 255-256
An examination of the teachings of Jesus on eschatological issues. Also, a look at the dating and interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
by W.A. Young, Jr. Th.D. Covenant Theological Seminary www.trinityreformed.com
Nothing is more interesting than the study of what is referred to as the end-times. Nothing sells books, tapes, or videos like future prophecy. Preoccupation with the future is what sells horoscopes, palm readings, and the like. We all face the fears and hopes of what the future may bring. People want to know what will happen in the end.
The purpose of this paper is to review the nature of eschatology. There has been a major shift in eschatological perspective that has swept through much of evangelicalism today. This has occurred in the last one hundred to one hundred and fifty years. It has both violated and permeated much of the church’s teachings concerning the end of this age.
My own journey, especially during the early formative years, was one of vacillation. In the early days, I subscribed to the majority report among evangelicals, the dispensational view. This view is characterized by Hal Lindsey and others. Dispensationalism came about in the 1830′s and is built on the futurist system and supported by the Scofield Bible. It dominates evangelical preaching, education, publishing, and broadcasting today. I suspect the reason is that Scofield presents such a systematic approach that an individual can easily subscribe because it is so easily laid out in his footnotes. As I have grown in my understanding of scriptures I have come to see that the moderate Preterist perspective best presents the biblical perspective. This view is what is under consideration in this paper. Continue reading
Bible Matrix blog
