Fallback eschatology with late date of revelation

[darinhouston]

In the excellent oil station forum Steve participated in recently, Steve indicated he would have to jettison his eschatology in the event he was convinced of a late date for revelation. I assume his internal commitments to certain OT fulfillments would still remain, so I'm curious where he might go. Dispensationalism would almost certainly still have the same problems even with a late date.

[steve]

The only thing that I would have to jettison, if the late date were to be proven, would be my view of the Book of Revelation. I would still be compelled exegetically to take the Olivet Discourse and most of the Old Testament prophecies as fulfilled in AD 70. I would simply not be able to include the Book of Revelation in the body of "AD70 literature."

My amillennial views have never been dependent on the date of Revelation, nor even on my general preterism. That is, I became amillennial several years before I knew of preterism's existence, and well before I knew of any evidence for Revelation's early date.

Therefore, my general eschatology would be entirely unaffected by the dating of the Book of Revelation. However, my conviction that Revelation is about AD 70 would have to change. It would be a minor loss. Having considered the evidence, however, I do not think there is much danger of that proof coming up.

Dispensationalism (a system that actually arose in a century when the early date of Revelation was the majority view among scholars) would be exegetically flawed, regardless of when the Book of Revelation was written.

[darinhouston]

I agree. I'm curious though what you would do with revelation.

[steve]

I would have to either go back to the idealist position that I held after I had abandoned dispensationalism, or else look more closely at the historicist position. To my mind, the idealist position is very satisfying. I just think there is stronger evidence that the preterist position is the intended meaning. Of course, if you have heard my lectures on Revelation, you know that I still retain the idealist position on chapters 10-13 and 20-22. My reasons for doing so can be heard in my lecture on Revelation 10.

[mattrose]

I have a friend who takes the late date AND maintains a mostly preterist approach. He doesn't view the book as a predictive prophecy, but as a statement amidst the confusion of late 1st century Christianity.

[darinhouston]

I have a friend who takes the late date AND maintains a mostly preterist approach. He doesn't view the book as a predictive prophecy, but as a statement amidst the confusion of late 1st century Christianity.

Not a particularly high view of scripture, huh?

[steve]

It may rather be a questioning of Revelation's canonicity on his part, rather than a low view of scripture (I don't know him, so I can't say). Remember, Revelation's canonicity remained in dispute for three centuries after it was written. I suppose someone could question its inclusion (as I have wondered about Jude), without having a low view of scripture otherwise.

[darinhouston]

It may rather be a questioning of Revelation's canonicity on his part, rather than a low view of scripture (I don't know him, so I can't say). Remember, Revelation's canonicity remained in dispute for three centuries after it was written. I suppose someone could question its inclusion (as I have wondered about Jude), without having a low view of scripture otherwise.

Good point -- I do always hate it when someone tells me I have a low view of scripture just because I disagree with their position on something. I should probably be more careful with such things.

[Singalphile]

I've been reading Before Jerusalem Fell by Gentry (http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbj.pdf) and The Wars of the Jews by Josephus.

Gentry's position is plausible. However, given what I've read about the Jewish revolt/destruction in Josephus' history, it seems incredible to me that every 1st/2nd century Christian would not have recognized the fulfillment in AD 70 if the book was widespread before then. How would they have have missed that?* Gentry doesn't address that (unless I skimmed past it, which I doubt).

Since they apparently did miss it, it is difficult for me to imagine that the book was written or widely known until after AD 70, though it doesn't prove that it was written after that date, of course.

For me, best positions to take after partial preterism/futurism would be to 1) take no particular position or 2) conclude that the book was not written by an inspired apostle since its prophecies did not "soon" take place. I don't really find the idealist or historicist views very convincing, but maybe.

* Yes, Rome was in quite a bit of chaos at the time, and perhaps the revelation's immediate recipients were not as aware of the Jewish destruction as we are with hindsight.