70 AD is not any magical date around which anything is supposed to have happened. So first of all we are to look at Revelation simply as a book speaking about events surrounding the cross. The purpose of the book of Revelation is simply to show the changeover from the Law to Grace through the work of the cross, and show wrath upon Israel for rejecting Christ and blessings upon those who accepted Him. It surrounds the changeover! Its not about 70 AD. Its not about whether all events would occur before 70 AD or not. Its about the changeover which was accomplished by Christ's appearance, and unveiling - revelation. It could have been 51 AD! The date is not the point. The only thing that WAS the point, was that all things Jesus said in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled with the time period of one generation from the moment He spoke those words to Jerusalem in that day. And that time period is 40 years. Let's face it. The most of Revelation shows wrath against ungodliness, and the contrast of those who are blessed. And the worst ungodliness accomplished by God's own bride who crucified her own bridegroom! Since some of us have seen this light on the book of Revelation, many critics have arisen to attempt to refute it. Bro. William Chalfant has written a new article in which he indicated that he once wrote, telling people to not make partial preterism an point of fellowship, since he felt it was not a serious threat to the church. But he said he modified that statement, and has now retracted his tolerance of partial preterism. He feels it is indeed a dangerous heresy. However, the reason he states it is dangerous is more or less that the nature of its tenets is an untenable compromise between full preterism and premillennialism. And after reading his remarks, I find that he is insisting partial preterism denies a future resurrection hope of the church and stresses a localized target of the wrath of God rather than a global one. The first point of there being no future resurrection is absolute error. Partial preterism strongly opposes full preterism on just that point. There is going to be a future resurrection of the saints, according to partial preterism. He also refuses to acknowledge our claims that the use of figurative language in the prophecies of the Bible concerning the sun, moon and stars being objects of cataclysmic effects are clearly derived from usage as being figurative throughout the Old Testament writings, and are proven so by history. How does history prove it? Never in history when specific kingdoms fell, as are indicated by the Old Testament prophecies concerning those kingdoms, did the sun literally stop shining, etc. Those prophecies said the sun would stop shining when the fall of those kingdoms would occur. But we realize this is figurative speech for the downfall of a kingdom. Bro. Chalfant mockingly states our use of figurative interpretation is ridiculous. I will show his error as I respond to his article point by point. In summary, Bro. Chalfant is making the same error that most futurists make. He disregards our claims of the use of figurative speech, and fails to research our claims and discover whether or not we are correct. He relegates our claims to mere haphazard concoction of figures of speech, and ignores our claims that we are concocting nothing, but using biblically established examples of such figurative speech and metaphor. And he seems to fall back on the tempting stance of having believed a certain interpretation for so long that he resorts to appealing to others like him in comments upon the sheer basis of how weird partial preterism appears to futurists. That is what I noticed the most about our good brother's article. Any different method of the interpretation of scriptures would naturally sound strange and absurd in one’s mind in contrast to the familiar manners of interpretation to which one has forever adhered. AMILLENNIALISM’S FUTURE RESURRECTION IS DANGEROUS
DUE TO IT’S LACK OF A FUTURE RESURRECTION? In his writing, the first argument he makes is that partial preterism is akin to the error of Hymenaeus due to it’s amillennial stance. As a partial preterist, I cannot understand how he comes to such a conclusion. Hymenaeus proposed that the resurrection was already past. There is no inkling of such an idea in partial preterism. The great difference between partial preterism and full preterism is that it proposes there is yet a future bodily resurrection. How can that agree with Hymenaeus’ doctrine? 2Ti 2:17-18 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; (18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. But Bro. Chalfant does not explain how amillennialism is akin to denying a future resurrection when it indeed proposes a future resurrection. Bro Chalfant makes a statement at the start of his article and said, “I cannot help but condemn this false notion that the majority of New Testament prophecy has already been fulfilled in the first century, when common historical knowledge and Scripture shows that it has not. This is ignorance compounded with deception. Moreover, the witness of the Holy Ghost shows us that this is simply deception.” The witness of the Holy Ghost is a purely subjective experience. And there most certainly is a genuine witness of the Spirit when it comes to truth. However, this was just precisely my argument about partial preterism. I was doing some personal studies concerning the work of the cross. The fact that the Bible surrounds the work of the cross goes without saying. But I made special studies along those lines for about five years now. Partial Preterism came to the light almost four years ago. I noted how more statements pointed to the cross than I had been previously made aware of. For example, Christ said that if he was lifted up, He would draw all men to Himself. And that was speaking of His death! Christ died in the place of every man, woman and child., It was a vicarious death. In that manner, He drew all men to Himself. Then I noted how He spoke of His cross experience when Greeks wanted to see Him. He spoke of Himself as a seed, and how it remains alone unless it falls into the ground in death. Then it rises to be one of many like Himself. This was His death, burial and resurrection. Anyway, I was making my way through the book of Matthew and without intentions to do do, I preached every chapter in our church in one week following the other. When I came to chapter 21 I almost fell off my chair and saw how everything changed in Christ's ministry and preaching, for that is the chapter when He rode into Jerusalem and was rejected by Israel. I then noticed how that parable after parable actually contrasted how the Jews would lose the Kingdom, and it would be given to another, the church. And this goes on throughout Chapters 21, 22, 23, 24 and even 25! Futurism, I noticed throws in a huge changeover from that theme to a futuristic apocalypse between chapters 23 and 24. But I noted how the theme had not changed whatsoever concerning the issue of Jerusalem's rejection and subsequent destruction. If futurists would read throughout 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 with that in mind, and give it a chance, without looking for error in our thinking, they would see what I am saying! However, it's so much like people who are talking to you and not listening to your thoughts, while they are instead only conjuring up more arguments against what you are saying. Such is the result of a closed mind. How can you discuss something with a person who is not really listening to you? And my studies went from there to an overwhelming witness of the Spirit about how the issue of Jerusalem's rejection was foremost in Christ's mind after chapter 21. All the following parables speak of that rejection: A parable in action, the cursing of the fig tree, is the first example. Jerusalem was the fig tree, and the temple ritual and empty worship, while rejecting the true object of their worship, was the leaves without fruit on the tree. Christ said no man would ever eat fruit of the tree again. This was speaking in type about Jerusalem. No man would ever see Jerusalem give glory to God again! Ever! (In light of this, how can futurists say Jerusalem shall come back to God again in our future?) Then verse 28 begins giving a parable of the man with the two sons, who requested them to work in his field.. One affirmed they would and the other refused. Jews versus Gentiles. The one who agreed, later refused, while the one who refused later did work. Gentiles never said they would serve God as the Jews affirmed they would. But in the end, the gentiles accepted Christ, with a few remnant Jews, while Jerusalem crucified the Lord and never did serve Him. Verse 33 speaks of the householder of the vineyard and the servants and Son whom he sent, who were all rejected. Christ said the Jews would lose the Kingdom and it would be given to another nation, the church. Matthew 22 begins with the bid to the King's son's marriage. Israel was first invited, but refused to come. So the king said he would destroy their city and have another wedding feast. This was Jerusalem's destruction in clear and explicit terms, while the church became the wedding guests! Is such a corollary out of reason? I think not, in the strongest of terms! The issue of the wedding garment brings in another angle of the scenario. Christ, here, begins speaking of the Church, and how they must continue ot serve Him, as time would lapse, because it would be tempting to begin to follow Christ in the church, and then backslide. This part of the teachings of Christ comes up again in Matthew 24. So while Christ is speaking about Jerusalem's rejection and subsequent destruction, as a result of that rejection, He throws in words to the church as well, to continue to serve Him faithfully. He continues appealing to Israel by speaking of the inscription of the coin, bearing Caesar's image. Israel must serve Christ, since mankind has been made into God's image. One must render to God the things that are God's on the principle of rendering to Caesar that which bears Caesar's image. We then see the stress of Israel's rejection when the Sadducees, who doubted the resurrection, attempt to trip Christ up in His teachings concerning a woman who marries each time her husband died. Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection? Christ speaks sharply to the Jews for their hypocrisy, obviously due to their rejection of Him, in chapter 23. And this leads to outright and direct words about their rejection, as Christ accuses them of the guilt of all innocent and righteous blood ever shed in murder upon the earth. By the way, this innocent blood is found in the great whore in the last verse of Rev 18, when she is slain! Jerusalem was accused of "all" this blood. How can the harlot have the same guilt upon her if Jerusalem has "all" the guilt for this? And Christ speaks of the Jews' house being left desolate. Chapter 24 comes into play, next. And while the Spirit is overwhelming me with how much stress is put upon Christ's concern and words about the rejection of Jerusalem, I cannot help but realize how far offbase futurists are in throwing Matthew 24 out of that context! For I begin reading how the disciples begin to ask Christ some questions, obviously after being stunned by His plain words concerning Jerusalem's impending destruction for their rejection of Christ. And when I noted how the term "world" in the phrase, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? " does not mean "planet", but "age", it truly hit me in witness of the Spirit that these disciples were asking Jesus when that end would come! It was relevant to their own lives! They lived there! They used a synonymous thought of Christ's words concerning the end of Jerusalem, but speaking of His coming in wrath at the end of that present age of Jerusalem's thriving temple life and hypocritical religion! They were not asking about the end of the church age! In all that Christ was overheard to speak to the Jews about, what part would make them desire to know about the end of the church age, as futurists contend they were asking? It suddenly became so clear to me that futurism need only read the preceding chapters and discover a theme remaining in place throughout them all since Matthew 21 and even through 24! And observing their concern, Christ looks into their eyes and speaks of the events they would face and experience, themselves! Futurists, faithfully throw a wrench into this clear point by saying Christ was speaking generally about the church, whereas the reality is clearly that they were concerned for themselves in all the words of the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ made them quite aware what they, personally, and not the church in general for all ages, must watch out for. His care for them was great, and He would see to it that they not perish in that final destruction, though persecution beforehand would indeed cause some to lose their lives. Since His destruction was against Jerusalem, and the persecution was not by His hand, we still see His concern and care, for He would never bring His church through His wrath! I then recalled previous studies I personally made concerning how the seals of Revelation 6 were listed in the same order and thought in Matthew 24, right up to the sun becoming black and the moon blood! When I therefore noted that Matthew 24 was speaking of Jerusalem's demise, and not the end of the church age, and that Revelation 6 mirrored Matthew 24, I began seeing how Revelation may not be about global apocalypse whatsoever! It, too, was about Jerusalem's great rejection of Christ. And I noted the the focus that so strongly is upon the cross throughout the entire bible. Then I noted that prophecy regarded these events, since the changeover from Law to Grace was, in itself, monumental. And finally the rejection of the Groom by His BRIDE, Jerusalem, in crucifying her groom, caused the cross to occur to begin with! Suddenly it hit me! I was smitten with how much concern Christ had over the issue of His bride, Jerusalem, rejecting Him. The tears that must have been in His eyes when He spoke of often being willing to cover her with his wings to be safe from destruction slammed so hard into my spirit! Futurists might relegate concern over the loss of His longtime Bride since the early days of the Old Testament, but Christ's concern was deep! He had to destroy her, but did not wish to. He had so hoped she would have repented and clung to Him as His Bride! Over and again, during Old Testament times, Christ took her back after her sin, through the means of a remnant of her people. But the words of Matthew 23 shows us that in His mind, she would cross the line when she would crucify Him in rejection. And with words of betrayal and spiritual adultery, He heard her cry "We have no king but Caesar, crucify Him!", He knew she must simply be destroyed once and for all. A new bride would be His own. And, really, it was what was actually foreshadowed by jerusalem, anyway! Jesus sought the church! True flesh of His flesh a nd bones of His bones. He will not return to the former bride, Jerusalem after having the church! Though Jerusalem was a shadow, and He so hurt to see her reject Him, she was a shadow of the church, the true target of His concern from eternity past. We know the church was His concern from the creation point and before, because the very manner in which Adam foreshadowed God as being allone, and having obtained a bride through the laying down of His life in a deep sleep, foreshadows the work of the cross. From Christ's side, where the spear pierced Him to indicate His death, came His church. Bone of His bones! All of that, I witnessed, was neglected by furturism! Witness of the Spirit? I had much! CHALFANT’S “ROSETTA STONE” OF THE SIXTH SEAL
Under the subtitle “The Rosetta Stone Prophecy Of The Sixth Seal”, Bro Chalfant says, “The 'sixth seal' of Revelation 6 is a 'key' to coordinating and assimilating certain endtime prophecies (in both testaments) associated with one particular event in prophecy.” Then he speaks of the heavenly occurrences of signs in the sun, moon and stars. These are connected with the sixth seal of Revelation chapter 6, along with the heavens departing as a scroll. Chalfant proposes that this is said to occur before the wrath of God. We agree. However, he derides the thought that this particular note of the wrath of God is referring solely to the destruction upon Jerusalem in 70 AD. And he temporarily puts words in our mouths, saying we must therefore conclude that the wrath of God fell on the entire world in 70 AD. He quickly reiterates this and states that we interpret wrath upon nations to mean wrath upon Israel. Then he coins a principle by which he interprets Revelation. “We take the literal view unless the literal view is shown to be an utter impossibility.” This principle is unbiblical. It is a rule that man has placed upon scriptural interpretation. And it is specifically inapplicable to the book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation, itself, begins by stating the contents in the Book are symbolic, or are “signified.” The term “signified” is defined as “betokened” or symbolized. Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: In other words, the opposite of Bro Chalfant’s principle must hold to the book of Revelation. Take the words symbolically and figurative unless otherwise stated to be literal. All biblically recorded visions were meant to be taken figuratively. Revelation is full of visions. Show us one that is not. We are given interpretations of certain aspects of the visions in Revelation’s symbolism as follows. Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. The seven heads are interpreted as seven mountains. Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. The ten horns are ten kings. There is more. Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:9-10 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Here we read that the City is the Bride of Christ. And we all know who the bride of Christ is! The Church! For that reason, Paul wrote: Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. It’s not enough to simply say that “we must take these visions literally unless it is impossible to do so.” That is a rule that cannot apply to Revelation. The book was introduced as being a symbolic representation of the Revelation God gave to John. And it is a Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not end-of-the-planet events, anyway. I propose that this thought of it being a revelation of Jesus narrows the visions’ meanings down to the time of the Lord’s first advent and the history surrounding the work of the cross, including Jerusalem’s rejection and subsequent destruction in God’s wrath due to that rejection. Chalfant says his method is the method of the apostles. “God says what he means, and means what He says. Of course God means what He says.” But he does not prove his method is the method of the Apostles. And, again, please show us one single vision in the rest of the Bible that was meant to be taken literally, and not symbolically of literal events. Revelation is a set of visions interspersed with explanations at times. LOCALIZED FULFILLMENT OR GLOBAL FULFILLMENT?
Bro Chalfant says partial preterists force the bible to surround the events of 70 AD, “by playing upon words such as 'earth', 'world', and attempting to 'provincialize' prophecies that concern the world to isolated areas in the Middle East.” We do not play with words. I contend that Bro Chalfant proposes plain error. For example… Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. How can Bro Chalfant believe that this was not fulfilled, if the ones who would see Christ’s coming were the very ones who crucified the Lord? These folks have died about 2000 years ago! If this coming is future, then how can these people who crucified the Lord see that coming? The term "EARTH" is clearly defined in Greek as: ghay Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world. This is easily seen to be localized and not global. It is speaking about the “land”. The following verse uses the very same Greek term, translated here as “land”, and clearly does not depict the entire planet. Act 27:39 And when it was day, they knew not the land: but they discovered a certain creek with a shore, into the which they were minded, if it were possible, to thrust in the ship. Does this mean they did not know the planet? He continues with his circular argument, and actually puts words into our mouths, saying “History Does Not Record The Fulfillment Of Endtime Prophecies That Are Worldwide In Scope.” Who said it did? The question, as he temporarily admitted, was whether or not these prophecies of the “world” are actually prophecies of the localized land and region of Israel. He should be proving that the terms “world” and “nations” in significant verses are not restricted to the local region of Israel, rather than try to prove that history does not say God judged the entire planet. It is not as he claims when he says, “The reason why the preterist must reduce prophecies in scope, and, in many cases, attempt to show that they have already come to pass centuries ago, is because he cannot maintain his preterist scheme without doing this.” Say what one will, the Greek definitions of such words are still the same definitions whether one denies that or not. The fact is that the Greek rendering of the resultant translated English words distinctly refer to the region. I came to personally see partial preterism by discovering the Greek meanings of these words, when they were pointed out to me. I cannot speak for all others, but I did not first conceive a localized fulfillment, and then seek to force those words to fit that scenario. However, one might feel a localized fulfillment of the interpretation of such prophecies did exist. And after such a realization one might then seek to ascertain whether or not the Greek words translated as “world”, “earth”, etc., might indeed be limited to a localized sense of definition. And if one finds that the Greek definitions include both a global and a local sense of thought, then context would demand one of the options to be the correct option. So nothing is wrong with choosing the localized slant of the definition! And this is the case with these Greek words. Some of them could mean a global point, but the same words also include a localizing definition. There is no planetary scope of wrath in the verses Bro Chalfant cites. One must assume that there is a global sense first, and then read these verses through a perceptual grid of such preconceived notions, or else not even consider, not make some research to prove it out, that the Greek translation of the word in question may also include a localized sense of the region. And since all that Apostolics have ever heard all their lives, for the most part, was a futurist rendition of these verses, it is quite easy to gloss over the details of what the Greek definitions are. One could easily rhyme with Bro. Chalfant and laugh at a paradigm they simply have never considered before. First impressions of contradictory doctrines always sound absolutely absurd, due to our paradigmal tendencies. First one must prove that the prophecies are planetarily scoped out in prophecy, and not simply say partial preterism denies the endtime scope of prophecies by localizing them. Bro. Chalfant seems to make the same error that most premillennialists make. And that is, they fail to note how that Old Testament figures of speech used similar statements as we find Jesus making in the New Testament. And these figurative statements, clearly as to their context, refer to events that were not literally fulfilled as were spoken. For example, the following instances all speak of heavenly bodies being affected in God’s wrath. But yet none of these events literally occurred, but were symbolic of the downfall of kingdoms. LIGHTS OUT FOR EDOM. Isaiah 34:4-5 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. LIGHTS OUT FOR EGYPT. Ezekiel 32:7-8 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD. LIGHTS OUT FOR BABYLON: Isaiah 13:9-10 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. All of this happened in the past and nothing literal about the sun and stars darkening occurred. The sun and moon are said to be rulers of the day and night, respectively, in Genesis' first mention of them. (Genesis 1:16). They are used as symbols for rulership in the Bible That is the same reason why kingdoms' flags used them. Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also And LIGHTS OUT FOR ISRAEL: Amos 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day: METAPHORS like this were used all throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus continued use of them, for He authored their use like this in the Old Testament! You have to almost know the Bible backwards and forwards to connect all the metaphors used in the New Testament with those used in the Old to understand the thoughts proposed in the New. Was all the world without light of the sun and moon when Babylon, Egypt and Edom fell centuries ago? Of course not! Then why think Jesus’ use of the same metaphors refer to the planet and the actual sun, moon and stars. God indeed means what He says. But in these cases he spoke figuratively, and that is proven by history! Where in history did the entire earth go without sunlight and moonlight? Chalfant says these events are “associated with the coming judgment of this world, and with the Blessed Hope of the Christian for the return of Jesus Christ. Herein is where the preterist and the amillennialist do great damage.” These prophecies fulfilled in 70 AD do not refer to the Blessed Hope of the Christian in the future resurrection. Chalfant’s interpretation makes them so. But we should never make the mistake of assuming our interpretation of Scriptures is what God intended us to understand by default. Chalfant insists that the words about the stars and moon and sun are not figurative, but literal. If they are literal here, then they must be literal everywhere else the same words are noted. And they clearly are not literal everywhere else. He contends that the thought that supports his worldwide scope of fulfillment in a literal fashion are the words “...the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, (will hide) themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. -Revelation 6.15,16 KJV” Jesus restricted those very words to Jerusalem and its inhabitants as we read: Luke 23:26-30 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children . For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. He said those women in Jerusalem and their children in Jerusalem would experience this. And lo and behold, this is the sixth seal which refers to His coming with His wrath, which connects to Matthew 24's parallel with the sixth seal, and the coming in wrath that I propose has already occurred. So we have Jesus making a direct statement to women of Jerusalem who were going to experience the events of the sixth seal. THE LATE DATE OF 96 A.D. FOR REVELATION’S
WRITING?
Bro. Chalfant pauses in a statement made in parentheses, and notes that Revelation was written in 96 AD. His implication is that partial preterism falls flat on it’s face in that light alone. As he picks up on this later, he notes that many scholars and historians date Revelation to this late date. However, it is widely know that Irenaeus is the sole source of all the historians’ accounts of the late date. The only grounds anyone has for purporting this date are a single statement, quite obscure, written by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea . He quoted Irenaeus, who lived from 130 AD to 202 AD. Here is what Eusebius quoted: "In this persecution of Christians under Domitian, it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim the name of the Anti-Christ, ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII) Irenaeus did not speak from firsthand experience, but heard this thought from Polycarp. Polycarp allegedly knew John personally. Notice the statement: "it is not long since it was seen." The problem here is that the word "it" in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself. He could have meant, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." And even if he was talking about the book of Revelation being seen at that time, this does not demand the book to have been written then. John did live until the time of Domitian. At any rate, it is absolutely inconclusive to say the book was written then. We cannot tell if he meant that he saw John then, or saw the book at the time. And we cannot tell if he meant the book was written at the time. Why grasp for this straw to propose that Revelation was written in 96 AD? Its to ambiguous. It's certainly not something to put your interpretive stocks in. Even if tradition has ascertained that this is what Irenaeus meant, we still have no grounds for anything solid along those lines. Irenaeus is infamous, anyhow, for error in dates and times. He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years. From: Irenaeus Against Heresies Chapter 22 is headed as follows: "Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died." "...but they mentioned a period near His real age , whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old ..." If Irenaeus did imply the book was written in 96 A.D., how reliable is his dating anyway? Saying Jesus died at fifty years of age is a similar type of dating error that Irenaeus proposed. The bible is it's own best reference for interpretation. Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-70 AD in dating. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (Rev. 3:14). Laodicaea was destroyed by a mighty earthquake in 60 B.C. It was hit again in 65 AD. (See http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/html_files/turkey/destructive.html). One source says: " It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. " Aurelius was not even born until 121 AD, and died in 161 A.D. So how could there have been a church there if it was destroyed by an earthquake in the mid 60's and not rebuilt until decades later? Also, we see the precise time of Jerusalem's destruction (3.5 years) noted in this book: But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Revelation 11:2). Here are some reasons that Revelation was written from an early date, before 70 AD, as opposed to Bro. Chalfant’s late date of 96 AD. Evidence for the early date: 70 A.D. * The many "coming soon" and "at hand" passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. - there was nothing left of the Jewish state. * A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.). * There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - impossible after 70A.D. * The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11. * If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere in the book of Revelation, seeing that would be a monumental event to the church. * Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around - yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D. * Irenaeus' statement regarding Domitian's reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source (which I noted earlier in this letter). In the same passage he also mentions "ancient copies" of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old. * Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking. * The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60's. * John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man. THE PROPHETS’ CONCERN FOR MORE THAN LOCAL
JERUSALEM?
Bro Chalfant then commences to criticize use of Josephus’ writings for the history of Jerusalem’s demise. And he says, “Even the questionable reporting of the first century Jewish historian Josephus does not present a view of such a worldwide, unusual astronomical event as is described in Revelation 6…” I already noted the fallacy of this argument earlier. Nobody said it was a worldwide catastrophe. He repeats the same note about allegory, and says, “the preterist must tenaciously cling to his allegorical "biblical imagery" method of prophetic interpretation. Without the extreme allegorism of his method of interpretation, his scheme will not stand at all.” This makes it sound as though partial preterists make up allegories, rather than glean the use of the same pictures in what are found to be clear allegories from the rest of the Bible, primarily the Old Testament. From here our brother moves on to note that Old Testament prophets were concerned about more than 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. I might add at this point, that all prophecy points to the first coming of Jesus Christ and the salvation with which He came. And the changeover from Law to Grace would render it a very important aspect of prophecy to speak of the huge issue of Jerusalem’s rejection of Christ, after being His bride since her beginnings in ancient times when Israel occupied her territory. It may not be a huge issue in futurists’ minds, but the change from law to grace and the issue of Jerusalem, His bride, rejecting and crucifying her groom, was a huge issue in God’s mind. Just a cursory reading of the Old Testament references to Jerusalem’s position in God’s mind and Kingdom would tell you that her demise in destruction due to her rejection of Christ would be a monumental issue God would spend much time and prophecy on. Chalfant cites Isaiah 13 to correspond to the sixth seal in order to indicate that prophets like Isaiah were concerned about worldwide, endtime events. I cited Isaiah 13 earlier to show that it was speaking of the downfall of Babylon, not the end of the planet. Had our brother read the context of the chapter, and noticed it was restricted to Babylon’s demise, he might have realized the aspect of allegory is indeed involved in this picture of the celestial bodies affected in cataclysmic proportions. He quotes Isaiah 13:9-13, but misses the words of verse 1 that restrict the picture to the fall of Babylon. Did these events literally occur when Babylon fell? Of course not. But neither did many other figurative manners of speech that God used, as in 2 Samuel 22, when David spoke of God coming in wrath upon his enemies riding the wings of the wind in a cherubimic chariot. These are not convenient claims we make, but are rather carefully referenced citing from the same figurative language used elsewhere in the Bible. Our brother would make it appear that we haphazardly concoct these allegories without biblical foundation and basis to do so. Chalfant figures this sort of “allegorizing” began with German methods of Higher Criticism in efforts to remove the supernatural element away from prophecies like these. But when one realizes that these are indeed allegories common to Old Testament references concerning the demise of a kingdom, one realizes that mockery of such an interpretation is similar to the mockery of saying the lamb in Revelation is Jesus Christ. Imagine someone claiming the lamb is literally in existence with seven literal horns and eyes. Propose to such a person that this is symbolic of Jesus Christ and that person would laugh and accuse you of limiting God’s abilities to make such a lamb! If Chalfant would be consistent, and say that all prophecies must be interpreted literally unless they are simply impossible to interpret as such, he might realize that stars falling down to earth would in reality mean entire fiery balls of gaseous “suns”, some perhaps larger than our entire solar system, falling on little old planet Earth! Talk about impossibility! Stars are not simply stone-sized rocks! They are gigantic and monstrous suns! How can many stars fall to earth, let alone one? Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Would not Bro. Chalfant say that is impossible? The sun alone is how many times larger than the planet Earth! And he is talking about all the stars of heavens, from Rev. 6:13 in the sixth seal, falling to Earth! WHAT ABOUT JOEL?
Bro Chalfant then cites Joel’s prophecies. The mistake he makes here is that he quotes the very words that Peter absolutely interpreted as being fulfilled in the first generation of the church! Peter said that what occurred in his day on the day of Pentecost was what Joel wrote about! Act 2:16-17 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days… And Bro. Chalfant knows this, but forces the “last days” to be a period of time that began on the day of Pentecost. However, if the last days began then, and are yet the concern of ourselves today in 2003, why would Bro. Chalfant rhyme with other futurists and contrast our day with the early church by the designation of these present “last days”? “Last days” is synonymous with “endtime” in that context. Yet Bro. Chalfant repeatedly contrasts our day with the early church as being the endtimes. In fact, it’s part and parcel with this present argument! If the last days began on the day of Pentecost and continue on to 2003 +, why are the last days a period of time longer than the entire period Israel was beneath Mosaic Law? It makes no sense. He then notes that the term “last days” is in the plural as if to imply it could mean two thousand years. Why, then, does he and other futurists use the same plural term in distinguishing our day from the early church? Are we not in the “last days” only until recently, in contrast to the early church. Or is it the “last day” (singular)? Our brother then says, “Where, for example, in the first century during the siege of Jerusalem does one see 'kings of the earth', 'great men, rich men, chief captains, might men, and every bondman and every free man' hiding themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains, crying out, 'hide us...from the wrath of the Lamb' (Rev. 6.16)?” I think Jesus Christ’s own identical words to the women of Jerusalem, in speaking of them and their children, would be enough to validate our claims that the sixth seal was limited to Jerusalem and her inhabitants. However, let me add this biblical statement from the book of Acts that states quite plainly who are considered to be the kings of the earth in scripture: Acts 4:26-27 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. (27) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, By kings of the earth, the Bible is intending us to think of the leaders of Rome who were in Jerusalem, for Rome was the ruler of the then-known world! And if our brother uses the age-old argument that Rome did not literally control the whole world, let me respond by saying that statements are found everywhere in the Bible that give the unlearned reader the impression that the entire planet earth is in consideration, when it is in reality only speaking of the then-known world. Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Genesis 41:56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. Colossians 1:5-6 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; (6) Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: These references all seem to be saying the entire planet earth was affected by the events mentioned. However, we all know the context demands they be speaking of the then-known world. So it is not uncommon for the biblical text to state such. At any rate, Acts 4 is sufficient to say that the “kings of the earth” refer to local Roman leaders. Is the Bible wrong, and Bro. Chalfant correct? Yes, a day from God’s perspective God might actually be a thousand years from our’s. However, who are we to say what days are to be considered as such in the Bible, and what are not? I know of not a single reference where one day is supposed to mean a thousand years in the Bible. Psalm 90:4 is not a standard by which we are to assess time when reading of God’s reference to days. NEXT IS DANIEL
Daniel chapter 2 is Bro Chalfant’s next reference to note that the modern era of history is involved in prophecy. He claims that this reference proves that “last days”, “latter days” and “latter times” refer to the period of the church until modern times. I strongly disagree. He jumps to conclude a very common dispensationalistic interpretation of the ten-toes of Daniel’s image. He claims that we are living in the "feet part of iron and part of clay" (Daniel 2.33) time period. Daniel did not distinguish the time of the feet to be a separate time apart from the legs of iron. In fact, if you read throughout Daniel, the same truth and prophecy is repeated in various forms using different symbols, showing only four kingdoms would arise from Babylon onward to the days of Rome. Daniel only saw four beasts, for example, in chapter 7, and not five, as though a world power will arise long since Rome’s time in our day. There were no gaps of time between the previous four kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Why state that a fifth kingdom will arise thousands of years after the demise of Rome? This reminds me of the imaginary gap of thousands of years between Daniel’s 69th and 70th Weeks. Daniel stated no such thing! He states quite “of coursely” that the period of the feet extend into our time. He does not prove this, but repeats dispensationalistic interpretations of what the legs mean. And then He states that the future return of Jesus is the coming of the stone made without hands. What Bro. Chalfant surmises is that the legs of iron refer to Rome in itself, that fell centuries after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, are not delineated as actually being Rome per se. I agree that Rome is involved. However, Roman territories in Israel’s surrounding area numbered ten, in agreement with the thought of the ten horns of Revelation 17. Who is to say the legs depict Rome in Italy? We already noted that the “kings of the earth” were referred in Acts 4 to Roman leaders in Jerusalem. Some might argue that the corresponding reference in Revelation 17, where the woman sits on seven hills, refers to the seven hills of Rome. But the fact is that three cities in the world have seven hills! Rome, Constantinople and…. Jerusalem! Jesus Christ came in wrath and smashed the nation of Israel in 70 AD, and the kingdom of God, which cometh not with observation, was vindicated and was launched forth throughout the world after Jerusalem’s demise. And this mountain still grows today! The church was free of it’s number one persecutor, Jerusalem, and was loosed on the world surrounding them. Daniel does not say the feet represent a different age than the legs. That is derived interpretation, and not explicit biblical teaching. One interpretation is as good as the next! AN ENDTIME REGATHERING TO THE MIDDLE EAST?
He then goes on to say that Joel foretells an “endtime” gathering of Israel to her land. Let me state at this point that futurists have an easy recliner to fall back upon when you disagree with them and ask for proof. They always say, “It just has not yet happened!” And no matter what they propose about the last days, they will always be able to say that such events that they interpret as future have simply not yet happened. That sort of scapegoat is what is actually quite “convenient”! The truth of the matter is that Christ is the Promised Land to which God regathers Israel! Christ cursed the fig tree, representative of Jerusalem, saying that no man would eat fruit of her forever again! And Deuteronomy 30 plainly states that a regathering of Israel who is scattered cannot occur until first Israel obeys a specific commandment that is not too far from her that she must ascend into heaven, or too far below to have to descend into the deep. Paul interpreted this commandment as the word of faith that he preached concerning Jesus, in Romans 10! All such references to a regathering of Israel are found in chapters that, if you keep reading, speak of spiritual terms relative to new birth, indicating it is a spiritual regathering to Christ! For example: Isaiah 11:10-12 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. (11) And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. (12) And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Jesus is called Israel as follows: Isaiah 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Paul interpreted this as being Jesus Christ, and what occurred in the days of the early church! Acts 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. Keep this in mind as we continue. Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; Jesus is not only Israel, but He is also the covenant! And during the days of the church, according to Paul, we read… Isaiah 49:10 They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them. These words are found in Revelation 7. This is all speaking of the days of the church and the living waters of the Holy Ghost! Is God going to revert to the natural and lead people to natural waters of life, after telling the woman at the well, in John 4, that the water He would give is the living water of the Holy Ghost? As we continue… Isaiah 49:18-22 Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the LORD, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on thee, as a bride doeth. (19) For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away. (20) The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell. (21) Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been? (22) Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. The gentiles have come already into the church! The church is neither Jew nor gentile! These are not yet unfulfilled! Christ is gathering all people to Himself! He gathers nobody to the middle east, especially if they do not obey His commandment. Even if Deuteronomy and Joel 3 were speaking about a regathering to the physical middle east, it is still required in Deut. 30 that Israel obey God’s commandment. And they are primarily atheistic in the nation of Israel today. How can God regather atheists, if He demands they first obey His Law? Our brother says, “God will rise up against the nations of the world to deliver Jerusalem. It has to happen because the word of God is true.” Of course the Word of God is true. But what we need to realize is what interpretation God requires us to derive from these verses. I contend that if God reverts back to natural Israel in Bro Chalfant’s seven year tribulation period of his pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, that God will honour animal blood again, in spite of Christ’s sacrifice that caused sacrifices to cease (Heb 10:1-2). In fact this is the absolute danger of Bro Chalfant’s doctrine! The idea of a return of Israel to their land by the hand of God is a dispensationalistic tenet that is based upon the thought that God will honour animal sacrifices again under reinstated Mosaic law. And that is blasphemy! Watered-down forms of raw dispensationalism disagree that God will honour animal blood again. However, consistent and original dispensationalism does indeed propose that animal blood offerings will be reckoned by God once again! Such ideas subvert the power of the blood of Jesus, and contradict Hebrews’ entire 10th chapter that speaks of Christ’s blood making and end of sacrifices due to its perfecting nature (Heb 10:1-2, 10, 14). The apostles never spoke of a regathering of the people of Israel to their land in the middle east. Never did they comment on such thoughts. If this were a tenet of doctrine that we must strictly adhere to, and never lose, then why is it that the Apostles were silent on the entire thought? In fact, if you read their writings they refer several times to the very chapters futurists use to speak of a future regathering to the middle east, and refer to the present church! Dispensationalism’s greatest error is proposing future events that the apostles never remarked about whatsoever. They never spoke of a Millennium. They never spoke of a regathering to the Middle East. Why put stress upon things the Apostles, if they did believe them, never commented upon them? Why say those who disagree are in dangerous territory when such tenets of belief are absent from the Apostles writings? Not even Jesus Christ referred to such an endtime regathering of Israel to the Middle East! REGATHERING CANNOT REFER TO THE APOSTOLIC
CHURCH?
And then Bro Chalfant insists that dispersion and regathering can never refer to the Apostolic Church, but to the Jews alone. I will continue my response with this point in my next study. |