Mark Hitchchock vs Hank Hannegraf - Debate - Date of the Book of Revelation (Pt 1 of 3) Pre-Trib.org
Hannegraf was way out of his league in this debate.
Posted on 03/03/2014 8:28:34 AM PST by dartuser
Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in A.D. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August A.D. 70, then it had to have been written by A.D. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility. Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early date advocate David Chilton, “if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor would go up in smoke.”1 Actually, all one would have to do is to show that Revelation was written any time after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The futurists interpretation is not dependent upon the date of Revelation since it does not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time. However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains why they are so focused upon defending an early date. There are two lines of evidence:
external (evidence from outside the Revelation)
internal (evidence from inside the Revelation).
For a more scholarly treatment of the data ... you can download Hitchcock's thesis (WARNING: it is very large) Hitchcock hammers the stake through the very heart of Gentry's work.
Download available here:
http://pre-trib.org/
At the above site there is a nice array of articles from the yearly conference. Almost all the contributors are seminary professors and the topics are related to eschatology. Even if you espouse a differing view of eschatology, you will find the site a valuable resource for your personal or academic study from the dispensational perspective.
For a very good treatment of the idealist position on Revelation check out Voddie Baucham’s Revelation series on Sermon Audio. It’s certainly worth checking out as Voddie is such a powerful teacher/preacher. While I am not convinced on a total idealist interpretation I certainly think various aspects of it are spot on. I think I would come down as a hybrid idealist/historicist/futurist.
Revelation — introduction
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.
This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.
This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christ’s universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13–16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1–8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israel’s tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9–10; 18:1–19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.
The lurid descriptions of the punishment of Jezebel (Rev 2:22) and of the destruction of the great harlot, Babylon (Rev 16:9–19:2), are likewise literary devices. The metaphor of Babylon as harlot would be wrongly construed if interpreted literally. On the other hand, the stylized figure of the woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1–6), depicting the New Israel, may seem to be a negative stereotype. It is necessary to look beyond the literal meaning to see that these images mean to convey a sense of God’s wrath at sin in the former case and trust in God’s providential care over the church in the latter.
The Book of Revelation cannot be adequately understood except against the historical background that occasioned its writing. Like Daniel and other apocalypses, it was composed as resistance literature to meet a crisis. The book itself suggests that the crisis was ruthless persecution of the early church by the Roman authorities; the harlot Babylon symbolizes pagan Rome, the city on seven hills (17:9). The book is, then, an exhortation and admonition to Christians of the first century to stand firm in the faith and to avoid compromise with paganism, despite the threat of adversity and martyrdom; they are to await patiently the fulfillment of God’s mighty promises. The triumph of God in the world of men and women remains a mystery, to be accepted in faith and longed for in hope. It is a triumph that unfolded in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and continues to unfold in the history of the individual Christian who follows the way of the cross, even, if necessary, to a martyr’s death.
Though the perspective is eschatological—ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the parousia—the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over. Christ’s overwhelming defeat of the kingdom of Satan ushered in the everlasting reign of God (Rev 11:15; 12:10). Even the forces of evil unwittingly carry out the divine plan (Rev 17:17), for God is the sovereign Lord of history.
The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis, but it remains valid and meaningful for Christians of all time. In the face of apparently insuperable evil, either from within or from without, all Christians are called to trust in Jesus’ promise, “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). Those who remain steadfast in their faith and confidence in the risen Lord need have no fear. Suffering, persecution, even death by martyrdom, though remaining impenetrable mysteries of evil, do not comprise an absurd dead end. No matter what adversity or sacrifice Christians may endure, they will in the end triumph over Satan and his forces because of their fidelity to Christ the victor. This is the enduring message of the book; it is a message of hope and consolation and challenge for all who dare to believe.
The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4–3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.
The Lord's day does not begin until the return of Christ. And as Peter declares IIPeter 3:8 But, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing,
that ONE day with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
John was given a 3-D vision of events leading up to Judgment Day from the beginning, Genesis 1:1. While the 'date' when the Revelation was given is interesting, that is/was not the purpose of this book.
Revelation 13 has not happened yet, getting close but has not been fulfilled.
My take away from Revelation are the beautiful hymns in Chapters 4 and 5.
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
who was, and who is, and who is to come.”
“Worthy are you, Lord our God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things;
because of your will they came to be and were created.”
“Worthy are you to receive the scroll
and to break open its seals,
for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God
those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation.
You made them a kingdom and priests for our God,
and they will reign on earth.”
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain
to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength,
honor and glory and blessing.”
“To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor, glory and might,
forever and ever.”
Mark Hitchchock vs Hank Hannegraf - Debate - Date of the Book of Revelation (Pt 1 of 3) Pre-Trib.org
Hannegraf was way out of his league in this debate.
Toward the end of the debate, HH must have realized he had lost the debate. About all he had left in his bag of tricks was to snarl at Mark Hitchcock for saying he was a Preterist.
Amazingly, he argues for Preterism throughout the debate then turns around and denies that is what he is; acting highly offended when he is asked “If you claim you are not a Preterist, what then are you?” His answer, “I’m an investigative eschatologist” is cowardly... and hilarious. Preterists, I’ve noticed, are like that, very shy about admitting that is what they are.
Correction:
when HH denied he was a Preterist, he said he was a “Exegetical Eschatologist.” What a cop out.
Right after the debate, HH said that the debate would have destroyed his ministry .... I guees HH has ‘recovered” since, because his show is still on the air....
every time I hear his voice, i turn the dial.
I have never had the time to watch this debate yet. But I have read Hitchcock's PhD thesis in its entirety. It goes through Gentry's thesis in detail and, in my opinion, drives a final stake through the heart of preterism ... the Neronic date of Revelation.
"This passage is providing a landscape of biblical history of those kingdoms, not individual kings, which have persecuted Israel . . . God is saying that He has decreed the time of this final empire will be shorter than the six previous. This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors."
---------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I wonder if Tommy even takes the time to consider what he writes. First, the Revelation does not say seven empires: it says seven kings. A "literalist" should know that. This is the passage:
"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Rev 17:10 KJV)
First, there is no doubt which kingdom was in control of Israel in those days: the Roman Empire. These were the five fallen kings of that kingdom:
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Gaius (Caligula)
Claudius
Nero, the sixth king, reigned from 54AD to June 68AD. He started a major persecution of Christians in 64AD. He was also the one who sent the Roman armies against Israel to destroy their cities and Jerusalem. In other words, he was a major player in the last days of Israel.
Galba, the seven king, reigned only six months, or, as written, "a short space."
If those kings do not represent what the Revelation predicted; it was a remarkable coincidence that they matched the scripture perfectly. It was made even more remarkable by this: the persecutions under Nero began in the latter part of '64 and ended on June 9, '68, upon his suicide, as was prophesied in this passage, and the next:
"And there was given unto him [the beast] a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." (Rev 13:5)
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Rev 13:7)
Nero thought of himself as a god, and the Roman senate recognized him as such. It was risky business not to worship, or pay homage to his image. The extent of his authority was mentioned in the above passage as "world-wide," which in those days meant the Roman Empire. Nero is also credited with killing both Paul and Peter: the Saints of Saints.
There is ample proof that the Roman Empire was considered the whole world, as there is ample proof that the gospel was preached throughout the whole world:
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." (Luke 2:1 KJV)
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mat 24:14 KJV)
"And [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15 KJV)
"And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." (Acts 11:28 KJV)
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Rom 1:8 KJV)
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." (Rom 10:17-18 KJV)
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 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:" (Col 1:5-6 KJV)
"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Col 1:23 KJV)
Note that Paul not only said the gospel was preached in all the world, but to every creature, fulfilling both Matt 24:14 and Mark 16:15. And what did Jesus tell the disciples would happen when the gospel was preached in the whole world?
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mat 24:14 KJV)
The end of what? The end of the Mosiac or Jewish Age, which was the last question the disciples had asked him on mount Olive:
"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"" (Mat 24:3 NKJV)
All the other prophecies listed in Matthew 24 were also fulfilled, including at least one that would seem insignificant today:
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matt 24:6)
That was significant in those days due to a long period of peace that began under Augustus in 17 AD, and lasted until about 60AD when Queen Boudicca revolted in Britain.
Philip
And if you understood the OT background for Revelation (Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah), you would know that there is no distinction between a king ... and his kingdom.
"You oh king are that head of gold ... after you will come another kingdom ..."
>>>And if you understood the OT background for Revelation (Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah), you would know that there is no distinction between a king ... and his kingdom.<<<
That is irrelevant to the argument; but I am glad you admit that the Revelation contains old testament imagery. Many dispensationalists want to take the Revelation literally (except when thay can’t,) and ignore the fact that such imagery as “coming in clouds” (which meant “coming in judgement”) was used in the old testament.
Philip
"Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around A.D. 66–67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date." [THE DATE OF REVELATION, Tom's Perspectives, page 3]
Note that there are no footnotes, or any other reference that would lead us to Polycarp's actual statement. Yet, in the previous paragraph, when Tommy quoted Philip Schaff (an early-dater,) he provided a footnote. Why did Tommy omit any proof of Polycarp's statement? Because there is no proof. He made it up, or someone did.
This is the statement by Polycarp that Dispensationalists use to help "prove" a late date for the Revelation:
"I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him [in the Church]. I exhort you, therefore, that ye abstain from covetousness, and that ye be chaste and truthful. “Abstain from every form of evil.” For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen. But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord? “Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world?” as Paul teaches. But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts of you in all those Churches which alone then knew the Lord; but we [of Smyrna] had not yet known Him. I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance! And be ye then moderate in regard to this matter, and “do not count such as enemies,” but call them back as suffering and straying members, that ye may save your whole body. For by so acting ye shall edify yourselves." [The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter XI]
Be assured that no one knows what that means. But dispensationalists "demand" that Polycarp was claiming that the church at Smyrna did not exist until after the days of Paul. That "proof," of course, is only in their imaginations. Historians are all over the place on what Polycarp actually meant, as should anyone be who can read without the blinders of bias.
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.