Replies

>>>Again, since the main achilles heel of preterism is the date of the book of Revelation, a detailed examination is in order. <<<

One thing we should hear more often from dispensationalists, but don't, is the main achilles heel of dispensationalism, and all futurism generally, is the date of the book of Revelation.

LOL!

Critics of Gentry's book have use several "debaters techniques" to mislead the reader. For example, in this post's article, author Robert L. Thomas writes:

"When discussing the 144,000, this author [Gentry] is uncertain at one point whether they represent the saved of Jewish lineage or the church as a whole. 14 Yet just ten pages later they are definitely Christians of Jewish extraction, because he needs evidence to tie the fulfillment of Revelation to the land of Judea.15 This provides another example of his lack of objective hermeneutical principles to guide interpretation."

When Gentry's work is read with a critical eye, the opposite is true. Thomas' footnotes cite pages 223-224, and 233. Let's analyze those pages, and in-between.

On page 223, Gentry was rehashing the debate of "who is the true Jew?" (Rev 2:9; 3:9) But he closes his rehash on p. 224 with this:

"And, of course, the “twelve tribes of Israel” is the longstanding historical configuration of the Jewish race. 12 In light of this, it would seem that two possible interpretations easily lend themselves to consideration: either this number represents the totality of the Christian Church as the fulfillment of the Jewish hope, 13 or it represents the saved of Jewish lineage. 14"

Note there are three footnotes: 12-14. The first is a long list of old testament references. The 2nd and third were by Henry Barclay Swete, and Saint Victorinus of Pettau, both late daters. Gentry continues:

"In either case the interpretation most likely supports the early date of Revelation in that Christian history was at a stage in which either the Church at large was called by Jewish names or in which the bulk of Christians were Jewish."

That was the "uncertainty" that Thomas cited. The problem is, there was no uncertainty. Gentry was simply using a heavily-footnoted, scholarly approach to derive at his conclusion, which was far from over on page 224. Other indicators used are:

1. The Revelation is very Hebraic, and some Hebrew words used (Rev (;11; 16:16)

2. The Church is depicted as a woman with a crown of twelve stars on her head (Rev. 12:1 ff ).

3. Christians are represented as worshiping in the Temple and ministering in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-8).

He continues,

"In light of such evidence, we can safely observe that “the Apocalypse of John plainly belongs to the period in which Jews and Christians still lived together." (p.225)

Then Gentry cites John A.T. Robinson, and comments:

"As noted in Robinson’s quote, Barnabas, soon after the fall of Jerusalem (c. 100), posited a radical “us/them” distinction between Christians and Jews. This is in keeping with later, post-Temple Christian practice. Ignatius (c. 107) writes: “It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.”18"

Afterward he quotes Justin Martyr, Brandon, Torrey, Streeter, and on and on and on, along the way to his conclusion. On page 27, he cited Tacitus in writing:

"Up until the era of the mid-A.D. 60s (but not after A.D. 70) the Remans -were prone to identify Christianity as a sect of Judaism, intimately and necessarily bound up with it.26 This was obviously due to: its object of worship (Christ, a Jew); its origin (Judea) and leadership (Jewish apostles), and the bulk of its membership (predominantly Jewish); its self-designation (“Israel of God” [Gal. 6:15], “seed of Abraham” [Gal. 3:29], “the circumcision” [Phil. 3:3] etc.); and its constant involvement in the religious life of the Jews"

On 229 he writes:

"Many scholars recognize the significance of A.D. 70 in the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps a catena of their authoritative statements will prove helpful in throwing light upon the matter. "

He then cites Schaff, Ewald, Harnack, Henderson, Brandon, Davies, Reicke, Dix, Frend, and Gieseler, before presenting his conclusion to Chapter 13 on page 231:

"The matter seems clear enough: When John wrote Revelation Christianity’s situation was one in which it was still operating within Jewish circles and institutions to a very large extent. Its grammatical peculiarities and cultural allusions are evidently of a strongly Jewish color. Historically we know that this simply was not the case in the post-temple era beyond A.D. 70. The cleavage between Judaism and Christianity was too radical. Hence, this factor of the Sitz im Leben is indicative of a pre-70 date for Revelation."

Now on to Chapter 14, and pages 232-233. Gentry quotes James M Macdonald who argues his reasoning for believing only Jewish Christians were selected as servants. Then, for the first time, after a dozen pages or so of presenting arguments for the role of Jewish Christianity; Gentry presents his own reasoning for an Israel-only 144,000. This is only an excerpt:

"Clearly the reference to the Twelve Tribes is to Christians (as noted previously), for: (1) God intervenes to protect them, and (2) they are called “bond-servants of our God.” Just as certainly may we understand that these are Christians of Jewish extraction, for: (1) they are in “the land” (w. 1, 2), and (2) they are contrasted with the “great multitude” from “every nation” who praise God (v. 9). The designation “Twelve Tribes” is another common means by which to refer to “the tribes of the land” (cp. Rev. 1:7). Here, however, it is not the entirety of the Twelve Tribes that is protected (the whole race of Israel, as such), but only 144,000 of them, i.e., “the cream of the crop,” a perfect number,3 those who have converted to Christ. [Moses] Stuart presents a very logical question: “Why were these 144,000 designated by Jewish tribes?” His answer is most reasonable: it was because the pending destruction was threatened against Judea; “if not, why should Jewish Christians alone be here mentioned and selected?”4"

Where is the uncertainty Thomas claimed? There is none.

Philip