PMW 2020-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The preterist approach to Revelation holds that Revelation is to be understood as already fulfilled in the first century. Consequently, it has a strong historical interest.
Ironically though, many critics of the preterist approach to Revelation attempt to discredit it on an historical basis. They argue such things as:
“Preterism goes against the witness of the very early church” (Mal Couch).
“Alcazar, a [17th century] Spanish Jesuit, started the idea that the Apostle John . . . was writing about what was happening in his own day, and that his Antichrist was probably the Emperor Nero or some other early persecutor” (Duncan McDougall). Continue reading
PMT 2019-069 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Revelation 17:8–10 is an important passage that helps us determine the date in which John composed Revelation. That passage reads as follows:
[17:8] The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. [17:9] Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, [17:10] and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.
Since there is a serious debate over the dating of Revelation, and since we are in one of the passages that offers us evidence for its date (Rev. 15–19), I thought I would introduce you to the debate. Continue reading
PMW 2018-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This year is the twentieth anniversary of my last edition of Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. In that work I listed eight full pages of notable advocates for the early dating of Revelation, i.e., a date prior to AD 70. Before too long I hope to update the book altogether. But for now I would like to list some additional early date advocates beyond those found in the book.
More often than not, when a preterist mentions the early date of Revelation he is dismissed with the wave of a hand and the utterance: “the early date of Revelation is held only by a minority of scholars.” That may be true today, but the tide is slowly shifting. Thus, I thought it might be good to put some more scholars’ names in the mix. Of course, counting noses is not the answer to the problem. But it will be helpful in countering a common objection that attempts to cut discussion short. Continue reading
PMT 2015-048 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Preteristic postmillennialists hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. We argue this on historical and exegetical grounds. We do not argue for an early date for Revelation on purely theological grounds in order to defend our long-range hope against John’s enormous judgment scenes.. I have argued the case of the early date of Revelation in several places, most especially in my doctoral dissertation published as Before Jerusalem Fell. In this brief series of articles I will respond to four leading arguments against the early date.
The modern case for the late date of Revelation concentrates upon four basic arguments. These have been ably and succinctly summarized by noted evangelical scholar and late-date advocate Leon Morris in his commentary, The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). I choose to investigate Morris’s approach for three basic reasons. Continue reading
PMT 2015-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Many scholars argue that Jesus’ rebuke of Laodicea in Rev 3:17 is evidence for a late-date for Revelation. But the postmillennial preterist sees Revelation as being written in the mid-AD 60s, well before the mid-90s (late date). Let’s consider this alleged problem for the early-date.
Revelation 3:17 reads:
Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.
Leon Morris notes that in the Laodicean letter “we are told that the church in Laodicea was ‘rich, and increased with goods’ (iii. 17). But as the city was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60/61 this must have been considerably later” (Morris, Revelation, 37). Mounce and Kummel also endorse this observation, a major component of the complex of evidence derived from the Seven Letters (Robert Mounce, Revelation, 35 and W. G. Kummel, New Testament Introduction, 469). Continue reading