PMW 2020-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second in a short series that is presenting the various views of commentators in their understanding of the opening verses of Revelation, specifically Revelation 1:1, 3. These verses introduce the book and are therefore crucial for its understanding. However, commentators disagree on how these verses are to be interpreted.
So now I will be presenting two more view of these verses.
2. John was ambiguous
The events were prophesied to be soon, but as was customary with Israel’s prophets, the special prophetic language is intentionally “ambiguous.” Prophetic ambiguity is intentional and designed to heighten the hearers’ expectations for moral purposes of readiness. Though not applying his discussion to Revelation, we may easily see how Scot McKnight’s understanding of Hebrew prophecy would explain John’s nearness imagery. Continue reading
PMW 2020-060 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
All agree that Revelation is a difficult book. Except for televangelist Hal Lindsey. In this regard, one theologian has noted that for every five commentaries on Revelation you can find six different views.
How is this problem to be solved if we are ever to understand Revelation? The answer: exegetically. We must read what John says he expects at the very beginning of his mysterious work. And what does he say in his opening?
In Revelation 1:1and 3 we read:
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, . . . 3 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.
Unfortunately, we will learn that most commentators do not see these words as meaning what they seem to mean. For if they did accept them at face value, they would all be redemptive-historical preterists. In this short series I will be presenting several of the leading interpretations of these verses. I will here present some of the leading options for interpreting John’s declaration. Some of these concepts can be and are blended in some of the writers highlighted. Continue reading
PMT 2015-070 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this two-article series, I will briefly present the basic evidence for Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition. A preteristic understanding of Revelation is strongly (though not absolutely) linked with its early dating. And the dating of Revelation is not a theoretical assumption, but is based on exegetical evidence.
There are two basic positions on the dating of Revelation, although each has several slight variations. The current majority position is the late-date view. This view holds that the Apostle John wrote Revelation toward the close of the reign of Domitian Caesar — about A.D. 95 or 96. The minority view-point today is the early-date position. Early-date advocates hold that Revelation was written by John prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70. Continue reading