Don’t Be Afraid to Put Your Prophetic Views to the Test

American Vision ^ | February 8, 2011 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

E. Earle Ellis writes that “the present existence of the Jerusalem temple (11:1) and its future desolation (11:2) are fairly strong indicators of a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation.”[8] In order for a post-A.D. 70 composition and futurist interpretation of Revelation to work, a rebuilt temple must be assumed, but it cannot be proved by anyone who claims to interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that says anything about a rebuilt temple, something that even dispensationalists acknowledge. Here’s what temple rebuilding advocates Tommy Ice and Randall Price admit: “There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.’”[9]

[Boogieman]

It seems to me that that line of argument is still very tenuous, since it rests entirely on the supposition that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, when Herod’s temple was still standing. The text itself still doesn’t say the temple in the vision is Herod’s temple, you are just assuming that based on other assumptions which are convenient for the preterist view, aren’t you?

I think your argument that there is only one “Temple of God” in 70 AD is pretty weak also. The Christian church already existed in 70 AD, and the church is a “Temple of God” as well. In fact, one could argue that the temple in Jerusalem no longer served any special purpose for God at that time.

[topcat54]

I think your argument that there is only one “Temple of God” in 70 AD is pretty weak also. The Christian church already existed in 70 AD, and the church is a “Temple of God” as well. In fact, one could argue that the temple in Jerusalem no longer served any special purpose for God at that time.

But the purpose of Revelation was to outline prophetically the imminent judgment upon Jerusalem. Thus “the temple of God” makes most sense if understood to be the literal temple that was about to be destroyed so that “not one stone shall be left here upon another” when Jerusalem was trampled underfoot by the gentiles. (Matt. 24:2; Luke 21:24)

There is only one temple that was to be the object of judgment, that the physical temple. You’re correct that the new spiritual temple is the people of God.

This points out a similar contrast in Revelation, that of the “great harlot/great city” and the “bride/new Jerusalem.” The harlot is old Jerusalem and the bride is the new Jerusalem.

[Sans-Culotte]

One thing that confuses me about the dispensationalists who hold to the Pre-trib/Futurist/New Temple, etc. view is why so many of those people think "we are living in the end times". If by "end times", they mean The Great Tribulation, then we cannot be living in the end times now.

For this new temple to be erected, the Dome of the Rock will have to be destroyed so that the Temple can take its rightful place on the Temple Mount. We are living in a time in which the entire Islamic World seems poised for a world war against the non-Muslim world. So, basically, the west has to completely defeat the Muslims and destroy the Dome of the Rock before the "Great Tribulation" can even begin. How long is it going to take to brush aside the entire Islamic World and build that Temple?

[topcat54]

The text itself still doesn’t say the temple in the vision is Herod’s temple, you are just assuming that based on other assumptions which are convenient for the preterist view, aren’t you?

True. And neither does it say it is the temple of futurism. So, I have to make a decision. Which view best fits the facts? Do I adopt a preterist view and see Revelation (and the Olivet Discourse) as pertaining to events in the first century, or do I adopt a futurist view and say it's all about some unknown future, some non existent temple. (I realize there are other options.)

Now, I could flip a coin. That would be easy.

Or I could turn to tradition and accept by faith that Eusebius' copy of Irenaeus' statement is accurate. And then when I read it I take by faith that it must be talking about John seeing the vision of Revelation in the mid 90s. And so then by faith I believe it cannot be about the events of AD70. (Although I still have not established that it is about events in our future.)

Or I could do some hard exegetical work and try to make sense of all the statements, especially considering the important time texts (“things which must shortly take place,” “for the time is near,” “for the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:1; 1:3; 22:10). I apply the analog of faith, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

I've become convinced by personal study of Scripture over decades that the best fit solution is AD70.

[topcat54]

So how did the people in North America in 70 AD hear the gospel?

How do you know there were people in NA in AD70? Besides the Lamanites and Nephites.

But seriously, we get our definition of Bible words primarily from the Bible. If the Bible uses a particular word in a particular way, then that is the way it should be understood. We don’t need the Oxford Dictionary definition. In fact sometimes that not helpful at all.

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (Luke 2:1)

Were the folks living in NA registered?

3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints;
5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,
6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth (Col. 1)

According to Paul’s testimony, using the Bible definition of world, this is precisely what had happened even in that day.

The problem with futurists is that they refuse to let the Bible speak for itself, preferring their human devices and imaginations.

[dartuser]

I do not have time now ... but your conjecture is easily refuted with a lexicon. I shall post later tonight.

[topcat54]

I do not have time now ... but your conjecture is easily refuted with a lexicon. I shall post later tonight.

A lexicon is not the Holy Scriptures, our only infallible rule of faith and practice. But, if a lexicon is your best weapon, have at it. Not much of an arsenal. I prefer the lexicon of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Paul.

[topcat54]

I do not have time now ... but your conjecture is easily refuted with a lexicon. I shall post later tonight.

Did you ever figure out the biblical definition of “world?”