http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm
Can you, as a partial-pret, post up a point-by-point to this post by Norm Geisler's comments on Hank's Last Disciple?
I have enjoyed your downloads on this subject and I am also a partial-pret/amill as well.
I think that a point-by-point would REALLY be helpful to this forum's viewers.
THANKS a MILLION, my friend.
Steve, can you post a point-by-point to Norm Giesler's...
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve, can you post a point-by-point to Norm Giesler's...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Geisler's piece is here posted in boldface type. My comments are in brackets. --Steve
A Friendly Response to Hank Hanegraaff's Book, The Last Disciple
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Introduction
There are many reasons I am writing this congenial response to Hank's recent views expressed in The Last Disciple. First of all, Hank and I are long time friends and have discussed this topic many times. Second, we both agree that the issue here is not one of orthodoxy vs. unorthodoxy since no great fundamental of the Faith is being denied on either side. We are both fighting in the same orthodox trench against the same unorthodox enemies of the Faith. Third, I have been a faithful defender of Hank against the many false charges leveled against him and have thereby earned the right to offer some friendly criticism of his view. Fourth, Hank knows I have a strong commitment to the premillennial futurist view opposed in The Last Disciple. Indeed, the imminent premillennial view has been a treasured part of Southern Evangelical Seminary's doctrinal statement from the very beginning. As president, I have been asked by numerous constituents whether I agree with Hank's position. In brief, my answer is that we agree on all the essentials of the Faith, but on the question of the last days Hank knows I do not agree with his opposition to the futurist view. Hence, as long-time friends, we just agree to disagree agreeably. It is in this spirit that I offer a friendly response to his book The Last Disciple (hereafter "LD") and statements on it taken primarily from the interview (hereafter designated "I") printed on the CRI web site (http://www.equip.org/abouthank/tyndale.pdf accessed on 1/20/05). In all fairness, Hank promises a fuller expression of his position in a forthcoming book. But based on what he has written, my comments will be listed after the citations from Hank Hanegraaff's statements.
A. LD claims to be "an alternative to the Left Behind view of Tim LaHaye" (LD, 393).
Comments: It is that, but it is also much more. It is in fact a strong rejection of the futurist view of the Tribulation as well as premillennialism. And like the preterist view, LD holds that the texts in the Mt. Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25) and in the Book of Revelation refer to Nero and the 1st century (see point "I" below) and not to any future seven year period dominated by the Antichrist and preceding the literal Second Coming of Christ to earth to reign. In short, LD is a critique of the basic futurist view held by Dallas Seminary, Grace Seminary, the Master's Seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia Biblical University, most Bible Colleges in the country, and numerous Christian leaders who support the ministry of CRI. These include Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Ron Rhodes, Dr. J. P. Moreland, Dr. Barry Leventhal, Dr. Thomas Howe, and many of the faculty of the above institutions. In view of this, it is understandable that we offered here a brief response in support of the widely held futurist view.
B. LD claims not to be committed to "any particular model of eschatology" (LD, 393).
Comments: This statement can easily be misinterpreted. Everyone has an eschatology, formal or informal, including the authors of LD. The question is whether or not it is Bible-based, fits all the data consistently, and corresponds to the facts. Further, everyone is committed to their view in varying degrees. The authors of The Last Disciple claim to be "deeply committed to a proper method of biblical interpretation" (303). But methodology determines theology. Indeed, they speak of "remarkable evidence" for their view (I, #3) and of "no biblical warrant" for the opposing view (I, #6). They speak also of their interpretation of certain disputed terms which allegedly "demonstrate conclusively" that their view is right (I, #7). Clearly, they are committed to the view which opposes the standard futurist interpretation to which a great number of evangelical scholars, including myself, are firmly committed.
[ I have to agree with Geisler on this point. I have spoken to Hank about this very thing. He does not accept any label for his eschatological position (probably because, as soon as he has a label, those of other positions may distance themselves and their support from him). I can understand his not wanting to alienate listeners on such a relatively unimportant subject as eschatology, but it would be more helpful for him to say that he does not wish to discuss eschatology than to say that there is no name for the views he holds, when there actually is a name for it. Hank's eschatology appears to be amillennial (like mine), and his approach to Revelation (like mine) is partial-preterist, though he does not admit this label. He calls his view (about which he is ready to publish a new book) "exegetical eschatology." However, this label does not in itself reveal anything about the specific content of his eschatological ideas. ]
C. LD does not "call into question the orthodoxy of the Left Behind authors"(395) and, thereby, the futurist view.
Comment: This is an important point. There is no charge of heresy here on either side, and there should not be (see "F" below). Certainly, the traditional futurist view has a strong basis in the early Church (see "P" below) and the above listed faculty and schools have provided biblical support for it. Indeed, the classic, exhaustive, and seldom read three volume set of George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, offers biblical support for the imminent premillennial view. The common orthodox belief of all premillennial and amillennial views is a literal return of Christ and a physical resurrection of the dead. On this part of the future, there is basic agreement.
D. The authors of LD wish to "demonstrate the dangers inherent in the interpretive method . . . dispensationalists employ" (LD, 395).
Comments: We agree that the method of interpretation is crucial to one's conclusions on last things. We also agree that the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation is the correct one. We do not agree, however, as to who is more consistent in their use of this method. Dispensationalists see an inconsistency in the anti-futurist method since many predictions in Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 6-18 were not fulfilled in A.D. 70 - at least not literally. For example, the stars did not fall from heaven (Mt. 24:29), nor were one-third of humans killed (Rev. 9:18), and neither did all the creatures in the sea die (Rev. 16:3) in A.D. 70.
[Geisler makes the mistake (commonly made by dispensationalists) of assuming that the "historical-grammarical" method of interpretation means the same thing as the "literal" interpretation. The former methodology attempts to draw from a passage the meaning that would have been understood by the original readers in their historical situation, understanding their own language. This by no means would necessitate a "literal" interpretation--especially if a work appeared in a genre which the original readers immediately recognized as symbolic--as would be so in the case of Revelation.
Although the Olivet Discourse is often given as an example of apocalyptic prophecy, only a few verses actually reflect this style. Most of Matthew 24 can be taken quite literally and applied to AD 70. The apocalyptic verses (vv.27-31) would be understood (like all apocalyptic literature) as symbolic. The rest of Matthew 24, and all of Matthew 25, are occupied with ordinary parables (yet another genre which can not be taken "literally").
The recognition of the genre of a piece of literature is the first step toward grasping the meaning that the original readers would have drawn from it. This is what dispensationalists consistently fail to acknowledge. They think that loyalty to the historical-grammarical method requires taking everything literally, though (ironically) they do not take everything literally any more than do others. ]
E. LD opposes "Placing the Beast [of Rev. 13] in the twenty-first instead of the first century" (LD, 395).
Comments: Although LD disavows the label of "partial preterism" as well as "post-millennialism," this conclusion is in agreement with preterism. And if LD is right, then the rest of the Tribulation (Rev. 6-18) must be placed there too. But if it is taken literally, then it cannot be placed there since Jesus did not visibly return to earth in A.D. 70 (Mt. 24:30 cf. Rev. 1:7 and Acts 1:10-11). Nor did Christ literally execute all the judgments listed in Revelation 9 and 16 at that time. And since LD claims to hold a literal method of interpretation, then its consistency can be seriously challenged at this point.
[ Again, Geisler is right. Hank's view is indeed that of a partial preterist, and (I think) Hank gets himself into trouble by claiming to adhere to the "literal" method of interpretation, when there is no need to make such a claim. The average, unreflective, modern Christian assumes that the literal interpretation of all scripture is invariably the most faithful interpretation, and Hank, apparently, does not wish to get into trouble with such people by admitting that he does not, in fact, take everything in the Bible literally. Instead of claiming to follow the literal interpretation, I think he would have fewer woes given to him by critics if he would instead say, "Of course I don't woodenly adhere to some arbitrary rule of consistent literalism! How could the imposition of such a silly and unwarranted rule not prejudice the results of the inquiry? I much prefer to take a responsible approach, allowing the material to speak to me as it most likely would have been understood by the original readers--whether that turns out to be literal or figurative."]
F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).
Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ. And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming, as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).
[ So says Geisler. But he demonstrates a limited awareness of the exegetical options.
There are some who believe that the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, but who are not "full preterists." The latter do not believe that there are any predictions in the Bible that look beyond AD 70; the former would only say that there are no prophecies in the Book of Revelation that look beyond AD 70. There is nothing in one's seeing all of Revelation as fulfilled in the first century that would preclude the same interpreter seeing the future second coming, the resurrection and judgment in other parts of scripture (e.g. John 5:28-29; 6: 39, 40, 44, 54/1 Thess.4:14-18/ 1 Cor.15).]
I personally do not see all of Revelation fulfilled in AD 70, and I believe there are sections that look to the future coming of Christ. This is not as inconsistent as Geisler imagines, however, and is based on contextual and exegetical considerations in each passage. Nor does the prediction of a near fulfillment of the prophecies in the book necessarily have to apply to every prediction of the book. If a book was, say, 90% concerned with near events, and 10% occupied with distant events, one might justly say that tha book should be heeded by the present generation because of the nearness of the fulfillment of its predictions (that is, the vast majority of them).]
G. LD asserts that "John's repeated use of such words and phrases as soon and the time is near demonstrate conclusively that John could not have had the twenty-first century in mind" (LD, 395; I, #3).
Comments: If so, then on this premise the whole book of Revelation (including the Second Coming and Resurrection - Chapters 19-20) must refer to the first century since the word "soon" applies to the whole book of Revelation (1:1; 22:10). In this case, full preterism follows which is heretical. So, while the conclusions of LD are not unorthodox, if this understanding is applied consistently to other texts, then the logical implications will lead to unorthodox conclusions. Hence, while doctrinally this is an intramural orthodox discussion, nevertheless, methodologically this is a very important issue.
[ The assertion that these time limiting verses must necessarily apply to the whole book of Revelation is by no means obvious or indisputable. Also, Geisler is wrong again in asserting that applying the whole prophecy of Revelation necessarily leads to "full preterism" or any other heresy. This paragraph, then, is simply not factually correct. ]
Further, these words do not refer to a soon event but a swift event. This is borne out by the Greek lexicons and dictionaries. The Greek word for "quickly" is tachu which occurs thirteen times in the New Testament (Mt. 5:25; 28:7, 8; Mk. 9:39; 16:8; Jn. 11:29; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20). Arndt and Gingrich (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 814) say it means "quick, swift, speedy." It is what happens "quickly, at a rapid rate." Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 616) agrees, saying, it means "quickly, speedily." Likewise, Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 913) concurs that it means "swift, quick . . . , quickly." Hence, this term need not, as LD argues, refer to a first-century event but to the imminent coming of Christ whenever it occurs.
[ If tachu were the only word that was used in Revelation to suggest immediate fulfillment, then this point would put futurism and preterism upon exactly equal footing, since rapidity could be said to describe events either of the past or of the future. However, in Revelation, this word is only found in 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20. These have never been the primary verses that I would use to prove that the readers were to expect a soon fulfillment. I would appeal to 1:1 --"which must shortly take place;" 1:3--"The time is near;" 1:19 (in the Greek)--"The things which are about to take place after these things;" and 22:10--"the time is at hand." These verses use a variety of Greek words other than tachu, and all convey the idea of a near-future fulfillment.]
H. The LD view affirms that "Unlike the Left Behind authors, we believe that when John in Revelation says ten or more times that the events about which he is writing 'must soon take place,' or for which 'the time is near,' that is precisely what he means" (I, #4).
Comments: First, if this is precisely what he means in the whole book, then, as already noted, the heretical view of full preterism follows. Second, these may be interpreted, as the futurist holds, as indicating the imminence of Christ's coming, namely, that it may happen at any time (see 1 Cor. 4:5; 15:51-52; 16:22; Phil. 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:10; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:28). The great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said that by "quickly" in Revelation "I am coming (imminent) . . . is meant to be understood." He adds, "we do not know how soon 'quickly' is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat" (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6.306). Noted New Testament scholar Leon Morris commented: "The imminence of the coming is repeated" (Morris, The Revelation of St. John, 258). In his classic commentary on Revelation, J. A. Seiss affirmed: "Everywhere the promised Apocalypse of the Lord Jesus is represented as close at hand, liable to occur at any moment" (Seiss, The Apocalypse, 523, emphasis added). The word translated "shortly"(Rev. 1:1; 22:6) is tachei which is from the same root as tachu (see above) and, like it, means swiftly or speedily. As such it does not necessarily refer to a soon but a sudden event. Further, as hermeneutical expert, Dr. Thomas Howe, has pointed out, John was not told to "unseal the revelation he received." Rather, he was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." This does not mean the prophecy was fulfilled in John's day but that the words of the prophecy could be understood by those who read them in his day.
[It is not surprising that scholars who do not acknowledge the historical fulfillment of Revelation, and who look for fulfillment in the future, would come up with the idea that these Greek words might possibly only be affirming that the prophecies could be fulfilled at any time--even thousands of years removed from the statements, but I find it unconvincing. Though scholars may find this meaning possible, it is another question whether the original readers would have naturally understood the words in this awkward and vague way.
The command not to seal the words of the prophecy (22:10) are an unmistakable contrast to Daniel's being told to seal up the words of his prophecy (Dan.12:4, 9). Daniel was told to seal it because the fulfillment was distant from his day; John is told NOT to seal his book, because (as he is plainly told) the fulfillment was not distant at all.]]
The word "near" (Rev. 1:3) is the Greek word eggus which means "near" or "at hand." But this is a relative term like "short" and "long," of which one can ask how near? And as measured by whom? What is long to us is short for God. Peter said, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Pet. 3:8). Further, there are clear biblical examples where a "short" time was really a long time for us. Hebrews 10:37 says Jesus would come in just "a little while" and it is nearly 2000 years since then, and He has not come yet. Haggai 2:6-7 says the time from his day (c. 500 B.C.) to the glorious temple to be rebuilt at Christ's coming was only a "little while." Even to Christ's first coming this was 500 years, and the prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until His second coming which is over 2500 years already.
[To say that a thing is "near" is certainly a relative term. When Haggai predicted that Jesus would come to the temple (2:6-7), that coming was actually about 500 years off. Compared to the whole history of the Old Covenant (1500 years) an event occurring in the last third of that period might be considered "relatively near." Hebrews 10:37, in my opinion, is about AD 70, not the second coming. That event was truly near at the time of the writing of Hebrews. But let us suppose the events predicted in Revelation were actually 2000 years removed from the original readers' time. Would this seem "relatively near?" Relative to what?
To say that it was "near" from God's perspective (to whom "a thousand years is like a day") is to say that the words mean absolutely nothing at all, since an event a million years away might be said to be "near" from God's point of view! It would have been far less misleading if God had just said nothing at all about the time of fulfillment, rather than giving His suffering people the impression that this was a message of soon vindication. While Geisler's point is barely admissible, it makes God out to be quite the tease!]
I. LD contends that "The Great Tribulation instigated by Nero is the antitype for every type and tribulation that follows before we experience the reality of our own resurrection at the Second Coming" (LD, 395).
Comments: It is understandable how a literal first century Tribulation could be an encouragement to later sufferers, but where in Scripture does it say it is an antitype for all future tribulations? Further, if LD takes this to refer to Nero and the first century, as it says repeatedly, then that is the meaning of the text. And that is what partial preterism means. So, in spite of any disavowal of the term, this is an anti-futurist view of these texts common to preterism.
[True enough.]
J. "The Last Disciple series places the Great Tribulation precisely where it belongs, in a first-century milieu in which 'the last disciple' comforts believers in the throes of the mother of all persecutions" (LD, 395).
Comments: If the "Great Tribulation" meant by John in Revelation was "precisely" a first century event, then this is indistinguishable from preterism, no matter how many later applications are made of the text for future sufferers. If this is so, then there is no future "Great Tribulation" as futurists claim and the LD view is a form of preterism, despite any protests by LD authors to the contrary.
[I personally do not equate the "great tribulation" (Matt.24:21) with the Neronean persecutions, but rather with the troubles that befell the Jews beginning with the Jewish war, in 66 AD. Matthew's words, "great tribulation," are paralleled in Luke by the words "distress in the land" [i.e., of Israel], and "wrath upon this people" [the Jews]" (Luke 21:23). Thus the "tribulation" predicted is upon Judean Israel, not the Roman Christians. ]
K. "The Last Disciple, then, will develop the necessary skills for reading Scripture - particularly the book of Revelation-for all its worth" (I, # 1).
Comments: In all candor, this is a bit of an over claim. I wish it were that simple, and given that the method used in LD deviates from the literal interpretation of many events in Revelation mentioned above, I don't think the book accomplishes this goal. This is so especially in view of the fact that the authors admit the Old Testament background for the language and images of these New testament predictions. But if Revelation is patterned after the deliverance of His people through tribulation in the Old Testament, then why reject the view that the plagues of Revelation are as literal as those executed on Pharaoh in the Exodus after which Revelation is modeled? Further, if other parts of the prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24-25 are taken literally by LD and fulfilled literally, then how can it consistently deny a literal fulfillment of the others in the same text?
[The reason one can take the plagues of Egypt literally and those in Revelation figuratively is that these are two very different kinds of literature. Exodus is a historical narrative, whereas Revelation is an apocalyptic prophecy. The former genre is expected to use literal language to describe historical events; the latter uses symbolism, which echo significant historical events (like the plagues of Egypt) in order to get across its message.
As for the question of how one can be consistent in taking part of the Olivet Discourse literally, and part non-literally, I think I addressed that above: part of the discourse is literal language, part is apocalyptic language, and part is parabolic. Each of these genres call for a different hermeneutic, but it is not really confusing, but actually more or less intuitive, once the separate genres are identified. ]
L. "There is also remarkable evidence for Nero as the Beast and his persecutions as the great tribulation" (I, #3).
Comments: Actually, the opposite is true. There is strong evidence that Revelation was written in the 90s well after Nero was dead during Domitian's reign. If so, this would make the LD false. Briefly stated the evidence for dating Revelation in the 90s A.D. is as follows: First, this futurist view of the Tribulation, Antichrist, and/or even Millennium was held by many of the earliest Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd century) who said "It was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian" (Against Heresies 5.30.3). This was confirmed by Victorinus (3rd century) who wrote: "When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian" (Commentary of Revelation 10:11). Likewise, Eusebius (4th century) confirmed the Domitian date (Ecclesiastical History 3.18). [There is very good reason to believe that both Victorinus and Eusebius (the latter did not even believe in the canonicity of Revelation) were dependant upon the quote from Irenaeus for their information, and that we therefore have this entire testimony rooted in the statement of one man. Any good preterist commentary will deal with this statement by Irenaeus (mine has a section dealing with it and with most of Geisler's arguments in this paragraph). For a detailed response to this argument, see Kenneth Gentry's, Before Jerusalem Fell, or the introduction to my book, Revelation: Four Views. ]
Second, other early Fathers after A.D. 70 refer to the Tribulation or Antichrist spoken of in Revelation as yet future (see Commondianus [3rd century], Instructions 44, and Ephraem of Syria [4th century], On the Last Times, 2). [I would have no interest in denying this historical fact. What Christians believed in the third and fourth centuries, however, does not carry as much weight in my reckonning as what the scriptures actually say. ]
Third, the conditions of the seven churches (Rev. 2-3) fit this later period rather than that reflected in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Timothy which were written in the 60s. For example, the church at Ephesus in Revelation had lost its first love (Rev. 2:4) and others like Laodicea (Rev. 3:14f.) had fallen from the Faith. [How long does it take for a church to go wrong? Paul wrote to Timothy no later than AD 67. Could not a church cool in its ardor under persecution, or even become lukewarm, under a year or two of persecution? The Galatian churches apostasized within months of their founding, even without persecution (see Galatians 1:6-7/ 5:4).]
Fourth, it was not until the reign of Domitian that emperor worship as reflected in Revelation was instituted. [There is nothing in Revelation that tells us that emperor worship was being enforced at the time of writing. The worship of the Beast may or may not refer to the worship of the Roman emperors as gods. It may simply refer to the veneration of the state and the attributing to the state god-like power or dignity. In any case, even if emperor worship is in view, John does not tell us that it was happening at the time of writing. Revelation is a prophecy of "the things that are about to take place"(1:19 Gr). It is a low view of prophecy that suggests that the prophet cannot discuss future developments before they arise. ]
Fifth, Laodicea appears as a prosperous city in Revelation 3:17, yet it was destroyed by an earthquake in c. A.D. 61, during Nero's reign, and would not have recovered so quickly in a couple of years. [How do we know that it could not have recovered so quickly? And how do we know that, at the time of writing, Laodicea had fully recovered from the earthquake? This argument professes to know too much. ]
Sixth, John's exile on the island of Patmos implies a later date when persecution was more rampant (1:9). [This is not self-evident. The apostles James, Peter and Paul had succumbed to persecution and martyrdom before AD 70. Why could not such persecution have reach John also at that early date? ]
Seventh, the references to persecution and Martyrdom in the churches reflect a later date (cf. Rev. 2:10, 13 cf.). [ This is as subjective as the previous point. Churches were persecuted as early as the martyrdom of Stephen (32 AD?), and were persecuted in the lifetimes of Paul (1 Thess.2:14; 3:4) and Peter (1 Peter 1:7; 4:12ff). Both of these apostles died during the reign of Nero, so we know that persecution of churches existed long before AD 70. ]
Eighth, Polycarp's reference to the church at Smyrna (to the Philippians 11.3) reveals that it did not exist in Paul's day (by A.D. 64) as it did when John wrote Revelation 2:8. [This is not true. Gentry's book (Before Jerusalem Fell) and my own book (Revelation: Four Views) both deal with this fallacious claim. What Polycarp wrote was simply that the Smyrnians did not know the Lord at the time when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians. This letter could have been written anytime after AD 60. Why could not the church in Smyrna have come into existence between, say, 62 and 68 AD? This would agree with Polycarp's statement, and still allow the church of Smyrna to have existed before AD 69. There is no problem at all here for the early date preterist. ]
Ninth, the Nicolaitans (of Rev. 2:6, 11) were not firmly established until nearer the end of the century. [There is no mention in Revelation of Nicolaitanism being "firmly established" at the time of writing. We are only told that there were "some" who held the doctrines and "some" who practiced the deeds of the Nicolaitans. There is no indication of how widespread the heresy was at the time. Besides, no one knows how early this heresy arose. The church fathers traced the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to Nicolas, the deacon (Acts 6:5), who became a Gnostic heretic, and may well have had a significant number of followers well before AD 70. ]
Tenth, there is not sufficient time on the early date for John's arrival in Asia (late 60s) and replacement of Paul as the respected leader of the Asian Church (see discussion in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, vol. 2, chapter 7). [ The Book of Revelation does not suggest that John had "replaced Paul" as the respected leader of the Asian churches. John writes only as John, not as Paul's "replacement." Could not the churches respect two apostles at the same time? The Jerusalem church respected 12 at the same time! The churches of Asia actually had turned away from Paul (2 Tim.1:15) before his death (AD 67). Why would not John, who later lived in Ephesus, immediately fill that vacuum after Paul's death? Geisler's (and Guthrie's) argument here is very weak. ]
M. LD objects to "The pretribulational rapture model featured in the Left Behind series [that] interprets Revelation 13, for example, in a strictly literal fashion" (I, #3).
Comments: It all depends on what is meant by "strictly literal." If "strictly literal" means the unique interpretation of Tim LaHaye that the Antichrist resurrects himself, then we agree with LD that this is wrong. However, we must be careful not to paint all futurists with the same broad brush. There are a lot of them who do not agree with LaHaye here, including the commentary produced by the Dallas Seminary faculty (see Walvoord and Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 960). And it would not be fair to leave the impression that LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation 13 is essential to, or even characteristic of, the futurist view of Revelation. After all, if we take the text literally, it does not say the Beast was "resurrected" from the dead. It says that his deadly "wound" was "healed" (Rev. 13:12).
[This shows that the ambiguity that attends taking a non-literal view of Revelation is also a problem for those who profess to take a literal view! They often say, "If you don't take it literally, you can have endless possible interpretations!" However, anyone who reads enough dispensational literature will soon find that even those who profess to follow a literal hermeneutic are capable of reaching many different conclusions. Geisler admits this and gives a good example right here. ]
N. LD affirms that "As the characters in the novel deal with tribulation, they are sustained by the hope of resurrection that Jesus gives all of us, not with a belief that they are meant to be taken away from trouble by a rapture" (I, #4 cf. I, #5).
Comments: This is a false either/or when it is a both/and situation. The resurrection and the rapture take place at the same time, whenever that time is (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Even those who are raptured will receive their permanent glorified body at that time (1 Cor. 15:50-56). Of course, they are distinct events in the sense that the dead are raised "first" and those alive are "caught up" with them to "meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:17). But these events happen at the same time, and they both receive their permanent immortal, imperishable body at that moment (1 Cor. 15:50-56). So, the two hopes cannot be separated.
[ I agree with Geisler on this point.]
O. LD declares that "Prior to the nineteenth century all Christians-including all premillennialists-believed the rapture or the resurrection of believers and the second coming of Christ were simultaneous events and not two distinct happenings separated by at least seven years" (I, #6).
Comments: This is plainly and simply false. The early Ephraem manuscript (see Thomas Ice, When the Trumpet Sounds, 110-111) reveals the pretrib view was held as early as the 300s A.D. And even if the first known reference is later, truth is not determined by time. This is the fallacy of "Chronological Snobbery." The amillennial view itself (with which this point in LD accords) is "late" since most of the early Fathers were premillennial including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the early Augustine. Other futurists (whose view is opposed by LD) include even earlier subapostolic writings like Irenaeus, Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, Methodius, Epiphanius, and others (see George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1, pp. 304, 324, 451) .
[ It is amusing that Geisler speaks of amillennialism (which was taught by Origen in the third century) as "late," but then admits the earliest belief in a pre-trib rapture was with Ephraim (third century). This would suggest that amillennialism and pre-tribulationalism both appeared equally "late" or equally "early" (depending on how one views the third century).
Actually, most of the beliefs common to amillennialists, and rejected by dispensationalists, were held even by the earlier premillennial fathers. Though (unlike amillennialists) they believed in a future millennialism, yet (like the amillennialists) they did not interpret prophecy literally, did not make a consistent distinction between Israel and the church, did not believe in the restoration of the nation Israel in the last days, and did not believe in a pretribulational rapture (they expected the church to be persecuted by the antichrist). Even on the one disputed matter of the future millennialism, Justin Martyr ( a premillennialist) mentioned, in writing to Trypho, that he knew of many true Christians in his day who did not share his view. Almost everything about amillennialism is found in all of these early premillennial fathers, and other fathers, who left nothing in writing, may have been amillennial, for all anyone can say.
There is dispute, on the other hand, about the meaning and the date of Ephraim's statement, which Geisler and Ice cite to prove an early belief in the pre-trib rapture. If Ephraim actually did believe in this, he stood against all of the reputable church fathers before and after him who wrote on the subject. Ephraim may have been as out-of-step with the orthodox thinking of his day as the "Word of Faith" teachers are today. ]
P. "First, there is not a single passage in Scripture that teaches a pretribulational rapture" (I, #6).
Comment: In one sense this is true, but it is very misleading. For in the strict sense, there is not a single passage of Scripture that teaches the Trinity either, but that does not mean it is not biblically based. And in this broader sense of biblically based, which must be allowed for the doctrines of the Trinity and inerrancy, the pretrib view is biblical as well (see Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord Comes). For in the broader sense, these doctrines are not based on a single text but on all the data of Scripture on the topic put in a consistent systematic whole that best explains them with whatever varying degree of certitude (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, chap. 12).
[ Hank's statement is correct, and so is Geisler when he says that this can not be the final determiner of whether the scriptures teach a doctrine or not. The trinity is not taught in any one passage, but it is the unmistakable conclusion that comes from taking every relevant passage seriously and harmoniously. This is not true of the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture. The rapture is said to occur at "the coming of the Lord" (1 Thess.4:15, 17/ 2 Thess.1:7-8; 2:1). Geisler admitted (in point "N" above) that the rapture and the resurrection occur simultaneously. Since the resurrection is unambiguously declared to occur on "the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54) and to take place at the same time as the resurrection and judgment of the lost (John 12:48/ Matt.25:31ff/ John 5:28-29/ Acts 24:15), it would seem disingenuous to say that the scripture even leaves room for a belief in a pretribulational rapture.]
Q. "There is no biblical warrant for LaHaye's hypothesis that believers will be resurrected some one thousand seven years before the resurrection of unbelievers" (I, #6).
Comments: If this means there is no biblical warrant for believing in the pretrib view, then one must beg to disagree. Detailed reasons are listed in the forthcoming volume four of our Systematic Theology: The Church and Last Things (chapter 17). Or, if this means there is no biblical basis for believing there are two resurrections, one before and one after "the thousand years," then one must strongly disagree. Even non-dispensationalists, like George Ladd, agree that a literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a premillennial conclusion of a first physical resurrection before the thousand years and a second physical resurrection after it (see Ladd, The Blessed Hope). Just the phrase, "and the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev. 20:5) makes this view clear. The alternative interpretations must spiritualize (allegorize) this text. Indeed, to deny the premillennial view one must take the first resurrection as spiritual and the second one as literal. Ironically, only the first one is actually called a "resurrection" (Rev. 20:5-6), though "live again"(Gk. ezasan) is used of both (vv. 4-5). Nowhere in Scripture is the word "resurrection" ever used in a spiritual sense. So, to spiritualize the "first resurrection" is a gross violation of the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation.
[To spiritualize the first resurrection may indeed be a violation of some arbitrary, humanly devised "literal...method of interpretation," but what of it? Many of the beliefs of the dispensationalists themselves violate a strictly "literal" method (e.g., recognizing that Jesus is not really a literal lamb, having seven eyes and seven horns--Rev.5:6).
That the first resurrection is indeed spiritual, and the second is physical is affirmed in John's other major work (John 5:24, 28f/ cf. Eph.2:1-2). The fact that the word "resurrection" is not elsewhere (other than Revelation 20:5-6) used to speak of spiritual rebirth is no more significant than is the fact that the name "Jezebel" was never elsewhere (apart from Revelation 2:20) used to designate anyone other than Ahab's wife. Revelation has many original features, vis-a-vis the rest of scripture.]
R. "The plain and proper reading of a biblical passage must always take precedence over a particular eschatological presupposition or paradigm" (I, #7).
Comments: We agree. But if this is so, then the plain and proper reading of Revelation 20 will yield a futurist premillennial view contrary to LD. Yet LD opposes this futurist view in favor of a kind of amillennial view. (1) This conclusion is inconsistent with its alleged literal method of interpreting the Bible.
[ Yes, it is inconsistent with any "alleged literal method of interpretation," but it is not at odds with a "proper" reading of the text. I will admit that the meaning of Revelation 20, like many other passages in prophetic books, is not as "plain" as we could wish it to be. However, once one has become free from the constraints of an arbitrary, literalistic, dispensational hermeneutic, and is at liberty to let scripture interpret scripture, there is no meaning of Revelation 20 plainer than the amillennial one. I know this, because I was once a knowledgable and convinced dispensationalist and became amillennial very gradually as a result of reluctantly releasing my grip on my dispensational assumptions and by finally allowing the Bible to interpret itself.]
Conclusion
The basic goals of LD are admirable, and its basic doctrines are within orthodoxy. Nonetheless, the dialogue on methodology is important since orthodoxy is dependant on a proper literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation of the Bible. However, LD does not appear to measure up to the standards of its own alleged literal method. In rejecting a futurist (2) interpretation of Revelation, LD must reject a literal interpretation of many passages in Revelation and in Matthew 24-25 which they claim were fulfilled in the first century. And if this same non-literal method were applied to other passages like the Gospels, then it would undermine historical Christianity. Hence, the issue is of great importance. So, on this matter we must respectfully disagree agreeably with our good friend Hank Hanegraaff.
[ Here Geisler becomes dislodged from all reality. He suggests that "orthodoxy is dependant on a proper literal...interpretation of the Bible." Yet this is far from evident, and literalism is not practiced consistently by any biblical student or scholar, including Geisler. Even Matthew 24 and 25 are not taken (and can not be taken) with a consistent literalism. Does Geisler believe that those who get into heaven will be those who have more literal oil in their literal lamps than do others (Matt. 25:1ff)? Does he not consider that oil in this parable represents something that is actually not literal oil? If so, what objection can be raised to believing that, in Revelation, a "beast" can represent something other than a literal animal; that a "lamb" can represent something other than a literal sheep; that a dragon can represent something other than a literal reptile; that a "chain" can represent something other than a literal chain; or that a thousand years can represent something other than a literal thousand years? Where does Geisler draw the line on "literal"?]
Geisler's statement, "if this same non-literal method were applied to other passages like the Gospels, then it would undermine historical Christianity," pushes the limits of absurdity! Who ever suggested that the Gospels, which are historical narratives, should be interpreted with the same hermeneutic as the Book of Revelation, which is apocalyptic prophecy? Who, that is, besides the dispensationalists, who are apparently so naive as to require a one-size-fits-all approach to biblical interpretation, regardless of genre. It scares me to see men who actually teach biblical apologetics in our institutions of higher learning, but who can be so clueless about the most basic rules of biblical interpretation [namely, that one must identify genre before interpreting individual passages]! What kind of graduates can we expect these schools to produce, if the professors have no better ability to think logically than this?]
Yet I would suggest a more excellent way. LD rightly criticizes excesses in some futurists' interpretation of some texts. But the same could be done for preterists' interpretations which claim these predictions were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Would it not be better for LD to be content to show the inconsistencies of some futurists' interpretations, rather than attacking the whole premillennial futurist scheme which is firmly rooted in the historical-grammatical interpretation of all of Scripture, including prophecy, and amply exhibited in the majority of writers in the earliest centuries of Christianity? [ Geisler should actually read "the majority of writers in the earliest centuries of Christianity" before he tries to pretend that they employed the literalistic method of interpretation that he advocates! ]
For when the literal method is applied to the unconditional Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, it yields a futurist interpretation of Scripture... [ Not so. I employ a very literalistic method to my interpretation of Matt.3:9/John 8:37-40/ Rom.2:28-29; 11:16-17/ Galatians 3:7-9, 16, 29/ Phil.3:3/ 1 Thess.2:15-16/ 1 Pet.2:9-10, and many other passages, which tell me that the Abrahamic covenant does not apply to an ethnically-defined race of people, but to the community of faith (the church) regardless of race.]
...which affirms that Christ will not only physically return to earth but He will also establish a literal kingdom (Mt. 19:28)... [ This is not the only way in which Matt.19:28 can be interpreted. There is a good biblical case for the suggestion that the present age is "the regeneration," and that Christ is already sitting on the "throne of His glory" (Matt.28:18/Eph.1:20-22/1 Pet.3:22/ Rev.3:21). There are direct statements, however, that unambiguously tell us that Jesus established His kingdom at His first coming, and that it is a present reality (Matt.5:3, 10; 12:28/ Luke 17:21/ Rom.14:17/ Col.1:13/ Rev.5:10). ]
...and reign for a literal thousand years (Rev. 20)...[ This is begging the question. The passage says "a thousand years." It does not say, "a literal thousand years." The question of whether the thousand years is literal, or whether it is a symbol, is precisely what is here in dispute. ]
...restoring the literal Land of Promise to the literal descendants of Abraham from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, the territory of the Palestinians, and all the way to Egypt (Gen. 13:15-17; 15:7-21) "forever" (Gen 13:15). [ I don't find the word "literal" in any of the passages cited. I do, however, find clear teaching in the New Testament that "the Land" and "the descendants of Abraham" have their fulfillments in a spiritual ("heavenly") country (Heb.4:8-10; 11:16) and that the real descendents of Abraham to whom the promises apply are the Christians, not the Jews (see the verses listed four paragraphs above). This is the plain meaning of Galatians 4:21-31).
Many things were said to be "forever," including the curses and reproach that Yahweh said would come upon Israel and their descendents "forever" if they broke His covenant, which they did (Deut.28:45-46). God fulfilled His promise in giving the descendents of Abraham all the land He had promised, in the days of Joshua. Dispensationalists apparently think God is a liar, because they say that God never kept this promise and that the Jews have never possessed all the land God promised them. In this, they flatly contradict the Bible (Josh.21:43-45).
The children of Israel were not given an unconditional, permanent grant to the land of Palestine, but were told that they could lose it by disobedience (Lev.18:26-28; 25:23/ Deut.28:21, 63).
In the Old Testament, the duty of circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, Solomon's temple, and many other institutions that no longer exist in their original form were said to be "forever." All of them continue today in their spiritual forms, of which the Old Testament forms were types. This is true of the land promises as well. ]
Likewise, the literal method of interpretation demands that there will be a literal throne of David on which the Messiah will actually reign on a throne in Jerusalem over the restored literal descendants of Abraham "forever" (2 Sam. 7:12-16). [ Yes, the "literal method" would indeed require this. This is an example of why the strictly literal method is flawed. The apostles believed that God had fulfilled the promise that David's seed would sit upon his throne when Jesus arose and ascended to the right hand of God (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-34).]
But these unconditional promises have never been fulfilled, even though God made them with an "immutable" oath (Heb. 6:17-18 cf. Ps. 89:20-37). [ Sorry, but the New Testament writers simply disagree with Geisler's claim that these promises "have never been fulfilled." See Luke 1:70-75 and 2 Corinthians 1:20.]
However, if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the basic premillennial futurist view which LD critiques must be right. Indeed, if LD wished to take all of Scripture literally and consistently, then it would be better to affirm these unconditional promises which are at the heart of the premillennial futurist view, rather than occupy its time with criticizing excesses in some popular presentations of these views.
Footnotes
1. In personal conversation with Hank, he disavows both the premillennial and the postmillennial views by name, which in terms of the three basic views leaves him in the amillennial camp, though he is reluctant to use this word for his view.
2. Of course even partial preterists are "futurists" regarding the Second Coming and Resurrection. But they reject the futurist understanding of the bulk of Book of Revelation.
A Friendly Response to Hank Hanegraaff's Book, The Last Disciple
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Introduction
There are many reasons I am writing this congenial response to Hank's recent views expressed in The Last Disciple. First of all, Hank and I are long time friends and have discussed this topic many times. Second, we both agree that the issue here is not one of orthodoxy vs. unorthodoxy since no great fundamental of the Faith is being denied on either side. We are both fighting in the same orthodox trench against the same unorthodox enemies of the Faith. Third, I have been a faithful defender of Hank against the many false charges leveled against him and have thereby earned the right to offer some friendly criticism of his view. Fourth, Hank knows I have a strong commitment to the premillennial futurist view opposed in The Last Disciple. Indeed, the imminent premillennial view has been a treasured part of Southern Evangelical Seminary's doctrinal statement from the very beginning. As president, I have been asked by numerous constituents whether I agree with Hank's position. In brief, my answer is that we agree on all the essentials of the Faith, but on the question of the last days Hank knows I do not agree with his opposition to the futurist view. Hence, as long-time friends, we just agree to disagree agreeably. It is in this spirit that I offer a friendly response to his book The Last Disciple (hereafter "LD") and statements on it taken primarily from the interview (hereafter designated "I") printed on the CRI web site (http://www.equip.org/abouthank/tyndale.pdf accessed on 1/20/05). In all fairness, Hank promises a fuller expression of his position in a forthcoming book. But based on what he has written, my comments will be listed after the citations from Hank Hanegraaff's statements.
A. LD claims to be "an alternative to the Left Behind view of Tim LaHaye" (LD, 393).
Comments: It is that, but it is also much more. It is in fact a strong rejection of the futurist view of the Tribulation as well as premillennialism. And like the preterist view, LD holds that the texts in the Mt. Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25) and in the Book of Revelation refer to Nero and the 1st century (see point "I" below) and not to any future seven year period dominated by the Antichrist and preceding the literal Second Coming of Christ to earth to reign. In short, LD is a critique of the basic futurist view held by Dallas Seminary, Grace Seminary, the Master's Seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia Biblical University, most Bible Colleges in the country, and numerous Christian leaders who support the ministry of CRI. These include Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Ron Rhodes, Dr. J. P. Moreland, Dr. Barry Leventhal, Dr. Thomas Howe, and many of the faculty of the above institutions. In view of this, it is understandable that we offered here a brief response in support of the widely held futurist view.
B. LD claims not to be committed to "any particular model of eschatology" (LD, 393).
Comments: This statement can easily be misinterpreted. Everyone has an eschatology, formal or informal, including the authors of LD. The question is whether or not it is Bible-based, fits all the data consistently, and corresponds to the facts. Further, everyone is committed to their view in varying degrees. The authors of The Last Disciple claim to be "deeply committed to a proper method of biblical interpretation" (303). But methodology determines theology. Indeed, they speak of "remarkable evidence" for their view (I, #3) and of "no biblical warrant" for the opposing view (I, #6). They speak also of their interpretation of certain disputed terms which allegedly "demonstrate conclusively" that their view is right (I, #7). Clearly, they are committed to the view which opposes the standard futurist interpretation to which a great number of evangelical scholars, including myself, are firmly committed.
[ I have to agree with Geisler on this point. I have spoken to Hank about this very thing. He does not accept any label for his eschatological position (probably because, as soon as he has a label, those of other positions may distance themselves and their support from him). I can understand his not wanting to alienate listeners on such a relatively unimportant subject as eschatology, but it would be more helpful for him to say that he does not wish to discuss eschatology than to say that there is no name for the views he holds, when there actually is a name for it. Hank's eschatology appears to be amillennial (like mine), and his approach to Revelation (like mine) is partial-preterist, though he does not admit this label. He calls his view (about which he is ready to publish a new book) "exegetical eschatology." However, this label does not in itself reveal anything about the specific content of his eschatological ideas. ]
C. LD does not "call into question the orthodoxy of the Left Behind authors"(395) and, thereby, the futurist view.
Comment: This is an important point. There is no charge of heresy here on either side, and there should not be (see "F" below). Certainly, the traditional futurist view has a strong basis in the early Church (see "P" below) and the above listed faculty and schools have provided biblical support for it. Indeed, the classic, exhaustive, and seldom read three volume set of George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, offers biblical support for the imminent premillennial view. The common orthodox belief of all premillennial and amillennial views is a literal return of Christ and a physical resurrection of the dead. On this part of the future, there is basic agreement.
D. The authors of LD wish to "demonstrate the dangers inherent in the interpretive method . . . dispensationalists employ" (LD, 395).
Comments: We agree that the method of interpretation is crucial to one's conclusions on last things. We also agree that the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation is the correct one. We do not agree, however, as to who is more consistent in their use of this method. Dispensationalists see an inconsistency in the anti-futurist method since many predictions in Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 6-18 were not fulfilled in A.D. 70 - at least not literally. For example, the stars did not fall from heaven (Mt. 24:29), nor were one-third of humans killed (Rev. 9:18), and neither did all the creatures in the sea die (Rev. 16:3) in A.D. 70.
[Geisler makes the mistake (commonly made by dispensationalists) of assuming that the "historical-grammarical" method of interpretation means the same thing as the "literal" interpretation. The former methodology attempts to draw from a passage the meaning that would have been understood by the original readers in their historical situation, understanding their own language. This by no means would necessitate a "literal" interpretation--especially if a work appeared in a genre which the original readers immediately recognized as symbolic--as would be so in the case of Revelation.
Although the Olivet Discourse is often given as an example of apocalyptic prophecy, only a few verses actually reflect this style. Most of Matthew 24 can be taken quite literally and applied to AD 70. The apocalyptic verses (vv.27-31) would be understood (like all apocalyptic literature) as symbolic. The rest of Matthew 24, and all of Matthew 25, are occupied with ordinary parables (yet another genre which can not be taken "literally").
The recognition of the genre of a piece of literature is the first step toward grasping the meaning that the original readers would have drawn from it. This is what dispensationalists consistently fail to acknowledge. They think that loyalty to the historical-grammarical method requires taking everything literally, though (ironically) they do not take everything literally any more than do others. ]
E. LD opposes "Placing the Beast [of Rev. 13] in the twenty-first instead of the first century" (LD, 395).
Comments: Although LD disavows the label of "partial preterism" as well as "post-millennialism," this conclusion is in agreement with preterism. And if LD is right, then the rest of the Tribulation (Rev. 6-18) must be placed there too. But if it is taken literally, then it cannot be placed there since Jesus did not visibly return to earth in A.D. 70 (Mt. 24:30 cf. Rev. 1:7 and Acts 1:10-11). Nor did Christ literally execute all the judgments listed in Revelation 9 and 16 at that time. And since LD claims to hold a literal method of interpretation, then its consistency can be seriously challenged at this point.
[ Again, Geisler is right. Hank's view is indeed that of a partial preterist, and (I think) Hank gets himself into trouble by claiming to adhere to the "literal" method of interpretation, when there is no need to make such a claim. The average, unreflective, modern Christian assumes that the literal interpretation of all scripture is invariably the most faithful interpretation, and Hank, apparently, does not wish to get into trouble with such people by admitting that he does not, in fact, take everything in the Bible literally. Instead of claiming to follow the literal interpretation, I think he would have fewer woes given to him by critics if he would instead say, "Of course I don't woodenly adhere to some arbitrary rule of consistent literalism! How could the imposition of such a silly and unwarranted rule not prejudice the results of the inquiry? I much prefer to take a responsible approach, allowing the material to speak to me as it most likely would have been understood by the original readers--whether that turns out to be literal or figurative."]
F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).
Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ. And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming, as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).
[ So says Geisler. But he demonstrates a limited awareness of the exegetical options.
There are some who believe that the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, but who are not "full preterists." The latter do not believe that there are any predictions in the Bible that look beyond AD 70; the former would only say that there are no prophecies in the Book of Revelation that look beyond AD 70. There is nothing in one's seeing all of Revelation as fulfilled in the first century that would preclude the same interpreter seeing the future second coming, the resurrection and judgment in other parts of scripture (e.g. John 5:28-29; 6: 39, 40, 44, 54/1 Thess.4:14-18/ 1 Cor.15).]
I personally do not see all of Revelation fulfilled in AD 70, and I believe there are sections that look to the future coming of Christ. This is not as inconsistent as Geisler imagines, however, and is based on contextual and exegetical considerations in each passage. Nor does the prediction of a near fulfillment of the prophecies in the book necessarily have to apply to every prediction of the book. If a book was, say, 90% concerned with near events, and 10% occupied with distant events, one might justly say that tha book should be heeded by the present generation because of the nearness of the fulfillment of its predictions (that is, the vast majority of them).]
G. LD asserts that "John's repeated use of such words and phrases as soon and the time is near demonstrate conclusively that John could not have had the twenty-first century in mind" (LD, 395; I, #3).
Comments: If so, then on this premise the whole book of Revelation (including the Second Coming and Resurrection - Chapters 19-20) must refer to the first century since the word "soon" applies to the whole book of Revelation (1:1; 22:10). In this case, full preterism follows which is heretical. So, while the conclusions of LD are not unorthodox, if this understanding is applied consistently to other texts, then the logical implications will lead to unorthodox conclusions. Hence, while doctrinally this is an intramural orthodox discussion, nevertheless, methodologically this is a very important issue.
[ The assertion that these time limiting verses must necessarily apply to the whole book of Revelation is by no means obvious or indisputable. Also, Geisler is wrong again in asserting that applying the whole prophecy of Revelation necessarily leads to "full preterism" or any other heresy. This paragraph, then, is simply not factually correct. ]
Further, these words do not refer to a soon event but a swift event. This is borne out by the Greek lexicons and dictionaries. The Greek word for "quickly" is tachu which occurs thirteen times in the New Testament (Mt. 5:25; 28:7, 8; Mk. 9:39; 16:8; Jn. 11:29; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20). Arndt and Gingrich (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 814) say it means "quick, swift, speedy." It is what happens "quickly, at a rapid rate." Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 616) agrees, saying, it means "quickly, speedily." Likewise, Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 913) concurs that it means "swift, quick . . . , quickly." Hence, this term need not, as LD argues, refer to a first-century event but to the imminent coming of Christ whenever it occurs.
[ If tachu were the only word that was used in Revelation to suggest immediate fulfillment, then this point would put futurism and preterism upon exactly equal footing, since rapidity could be said to describe events either of the past or of the future. However, in Revelation, this word is only found in 2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20. These have never been the primary verses that I would use to prove that the readers were to expect a soon fulfillment. I would appeal to 1:1 --"which must shortly take place;" 1:3--"The time is near;" 1:19 (in the Greek)--"The things which are about to take place after these things;" and 22:10--"the time is at hand." These verses use a variety of Greek words other than tachu, and all convey the idea of a near-future fulfillment.]
H. The LD view affirms that "Unlike the Left Behind authors, we believe that when John in Revelation says ten or more times that the events about which he is writing 'must soon take place,' or for which 'the time is near,' that is precisely what he means" (I, #4).
Comments: First, if this is precisely what he means in the whole book, then, as already noted, the heretical view of full preterism follows. Second, these may be interpreted, as the futurist holds, as indicating the imminence of Christ's coming, namely, that it may happen at any time (see 1 Cor. 4:5; 15:51-52; 16:22; Phil. 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:10; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:28). The great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said that by "quickly" in Revelation "I am coming (imminent) . . . is meant to be understood." He adds, "we do not know how soon 'quickly' is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat" (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6.306). Noted New Testament scholar Leon Morris commented: "The imminence of the coming is repeated" (Morris, The Revelation of St. John, 258). In his classic commentary on Revelation, J. A. Seiss affirmed: "Everywhere the promised Apocalypse of the Lord Jesus is represented as close at hand, liable to occur at any moment" (Seiss, The Apocalypse, 523, emphasis added). The word translated "shortly"(Rev. 1:1; 22:6) is tachei which is from the same root as tachu (see above) and, like it, means swiftly or speedily. As such it does not necessarily refer to a soon but a sudden event. Further, as hermeneutical expert, Dr. Thomas Howe, has pointed out, John was not told to "unseal the revelation he received." Rather, he was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." This does not mean the prophecy was fulfilled in John's day but that the words of the prophecy could be understood by those who read them in his day.
[It is not surprising that scholars who do not acknowledge the historical fulfillment of Revelation, and who look for fulfillment in the future, would come up with the idea that these Greek words might possibly only be affirming that the prophecies could be fulfilled at any time--even thousands of years removed from the statements, but I find it unconvincing. Though scholars may find this meaning possible, it is another question whether the original readers would have naturally understood the words in this awkward and vague way.
The command not to seal the words of the prophecy (22:10) are an unmistakable contrast to Daniel's being told to seal up the words of his prophecy (Dan.12:4, 9). Daniel was told to seal it because the fulfillment was distant from his day; John is told NOT to seal his book, because (as he is plainly told) the fulfillment was not distant at all.]]
The word "near" (Rev. 1:3) is the Greek word eggus which means "near" or "at hand." But this is a relative term like "short" and "long," of which one can ask how near? And as measured by whom? What is long to us is short for God. Peter said, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Pet. 3:8). Further, there are clear biblical examples where a "short" time was really a long time for us. Hebrews 10:37 says Jesus would come in just "a little while" and it is nearly 2000 years since then, and He has not come yet. Haggai 2:6-7 says the time from his day (c. 500 B.C.) to the glorious temple to be rebuilt at Christ's coming was only a "little while." Even to Christ's first coming this was 500 years, and the prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until His second coming which is over 2500 years already.
[To say that a thing is "near" is certainly a relative term. When Haggai predicted that Jesus would come to the temple (2:6-7), that coming was actually about 500 years off. Compared to the whole history of the Old Covenant (1500 years) an event occurring in the last third of that period might be considered "relatively near." Hebrews 10:37, in my opinion, is about AD 70, not the second coming. That event was truly near at the time of the writing of Hebrews. But let us suppose the events predicted in Revelation were actually 2000 years removed from the original readers' time. Would this seem "relatively near?" Relative to what?
To say that it was "near" from God's perspective (to whom "a thousand years is like a day") is to say that the words mean absolutely nothing at all, since an event a million years away might be said to be "near" from God's point of view! It would have been far less misleading if God had just said nothing at all about the time of fulfillment, rather than giving His suffering people the impression that this was a message of soon vindication. While Geisler's point is barely admissible, it makes God out to be quite the tease!]
I. LD contends that "The Great Tribulation instigated by Nero is the antitype for every type and tribulation that follows before we experience the reality of our own resurrection at the Second Coming" (LD, 395).
Comments: It is understandable how a literal first century Tribulation could be an encouragement to later sufferers, but where in Scripture does it say it is an antitype for all future tribulations? Further, if LD takes this to refer to Nero and the first century, as it says repeatedly, then that is the meaning of the text. And that is what partial preterism means. So, in spite of any disavowal of the term, this is an anti-futurist view of these texts common to preterism.
[True enough.]
J. "The Last Disciple series places the Great Tribulation precisely where it belongs, in a first-century milieu in which 'the last disciple' comforts believers in the throes of the mother of all persecutions" (LD, 395).
Comments: If the "Great Tribulation" meant by John in Revelation was "precisely" a first century event, then this is indistinguishable from preterism, no matter how many later applications are made of the text for future sufferers. If this is so, then there is no future "Great Tribulation" as futurists claim and the LD view is a form of preterism, despite any protests by LD authors to the contrary.
[I personally do not equate the "great tribulation" (Matt.24:21) with the Neronean persecutions, but rather with the troubles that befell the Jews beginning with the Jewish war, in 66 AD. Matthew's words, "great tribulation," are paralleled in Luke by the words "distress in the land" [i.e., of Israel], and "wrath upon this people" [the Jews]" (Luke 21:23). Thus the "tribulation" predicted is upon Judean Israel, not the Roman Christians. ]
K. "The Last Disciple, then, will develop the necessary skills for reading Scripture - particularly the book of Revelation-for all its worth" (I, # 1).
Comments: In all candor, this is a bit of an over claim. I wish it were that simple, and given that the method used in LD deviates from the literal interpretation of many events in Revelation mentioned above, I don't think the book accomplishes this goal. This is so especially in view of the fact that the authors admit the Old Testament background for the language and images of these New testament predictions. But if Revelation is patterned after the deliverance of His people through tribulation in the Old Testament, then why reject the view that the plagues of Revelation are as literal as those executed on Pharaoh in the Exodus after which Revelation is modeled? Further, if other parts of the prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24-25 are taken literally by LD and fulfilled literally, then how can it consistently deny a literal fulfillment of the others in the same text?
[The reason one can take the plagues of Egypt literally and those in Revelation figuratively is that these are two very different kinds of literature. Exodus is a historical narrative, whereas Revelation is an apocalyptic prophecy. The former genre is expected to use literal language to describe historical events; the latter uses symbolism, which echo significant historical events (like the plagues of Egypt) in order to get across its message.
As for the question of how one can be consistent in taking part of the Olivet Discourse literally, and part non-literally, I think I addressed that above: part of the discourse is literal language, part is apocalyptic language, and part is parabolic. Each of these genres call for a different hermeneutic, but it is not really confusing, but actually more or less intuitive, once the separate genres are identified. ]
L. "There is also remarkable evidence for Nero as the Beast and his persecutions as the great tribulation" (I, #3).
Comments: Actually, the opposite is true. There is strong evidence that Revelation was written in the 90s well after Nero was dead during Domitian's reign. If so, this would make the LD false. Briefly stated the evidence for dating Revelation in the 90s A.D. is as follows: First, this futurist view of the Tribulation, Antichrist, and/or even Millennium was held by many of the earliest Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd century) who said "It was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian" (Against Heresies 5.30.3). This was confirmed by Victorinus (3rd century) who wrote: "When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian" (Commentary of Revelation 10:11). Likewise, Eusebius (4th century) confirmed the Domitian date (Ecclesiastical History 3.18). [There is very good reason to believe that both Victorinus and Eusebius (the latter did not even believe in the canonicity of Revelation) were dependant upon the quote from Irenaeus for their information, and that we therefore have this entire testimony rooted in the statement of one man. Any good preterist commentary will deal with this statement by Irenaeus (mine has a section dealing with it and with most of Geisler's arguments in this paragraph). For a detailed response to this argument, see Kenneth Gentry's, Before Jerusalem Fell, or the introduction to my book, Revelation: Four Views. ]
Second, other early Fathers after A.D. 70 refer to the Tribulation or Antichrist spoken of in Revelation as yet future (see Commondianus [3rd century], Instructions 44, and Ephraem of Syria [4th century], On the Last Times, 2). [I would have no interest in denying this historical fact. What Christians believed in the third and fourth centuries, however, does not carry as much weight in my reckonning as what the scriptures actually say. ]
Third, the conditions of the seven churches (Rev. 2-3) fit this later period rather than that reflected in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Timothy which were written in the 60s. For example, the church at Ephesus in Revelation had lost its first love (Rev. 2:4) and others like Laodicea (Rev. 3:14f.) had fallen from the Faith. [How long does it take for a church to go wrong? Paul wrote to Timothy no later than AD 67. Could not a church cool in its ardor under persecution, or even become lukewarm, under a year or two of persecution? The Galatian churches apostasized within months of their founding, even without persecution (see Galatians 1:6-7/ 5:4).]
Fourth, it was not until the reign of Domitian that emperor worship as reflected in Revelation was instituted. [There is nothing in Revelation that tells us that emperor worship was being enforced at the time of writing. The worship of the Beast may or may not refer to the worship of the Roman emperors as gods. It may simply refer to the veneration of the state and the attributing to the state god-like power or dignity. In any case, even if emperor worship is in view, John does not tell us that it was happening at the time of writing. Revelation is a prophecy of "the things that are about to take place"(1:19 Gr). It is a low view of prophecy that suggests that the prophet cannot discuss future developments before they arise. ]
Fifth, Laodicea appears as a prosperous city in Revelation 3:17, yet it was destroyed by an earthquake in c. A.D. 61, during Nero's reign, and would not have recovered so quickly in a couple of years. [How do we know that it could not have recovered so quickly? And how do we know that, at the time of writing, Laodicea had fully recovered from the earthquake? This argument professes to know too much. ]
Sixth, John's exile on the island of Patmos implies a later date when persecution was more rampant (1:9). [This is not self-evident. The apostles James, Peter and Paul had succumbed to persecution and martyrdom before AD 70. Why could not such persecution have reach John also at that early date? ]
Seventh, the references to persecution and Martyrdom in the churches reflect a later date (cf. Rev. 2:10, 13 cf.). [ This is as subjective as the previous point. Churches were persecuted as early as the martyrdom of Stephen (32 AD?), and were persecuted in the lifetimes of Paul (1 Thess.2:14; 3:4) and Peter (1 Peter 1:7; 4:12ff). Both of these apostles died during the reign of Nero, so we know that persecution of churches existed long before AD 70. ]
Eighth, Polycarp's reference to the church at Smyrna (to the Philippians 11.3) reveals that it did not exist in Paul's day (by A.D. 64) as it did when John wrote Revelation 2:8. [This is not true. Gentry's book (Before Jerusalem Fell) and my own book (Revelation: Four Views) both deal with this fallacious claim. What Polycarp wrote was simply that the Smyrnians did not know the Lord at the time when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians. This letter could have been written anytime after AD 60. Why could not the church in Smyrna have come into existence between, say, 62 and 68 AD? This would agree with Polycarp's statement, and still allow the church of Smyrna to have existed before AD 69. There is no problem at all here for the early date preterist. ]
Ninth, the Nicolaitans (of Rev. 2:6, 11) were not firmly established until nearer the end of the century. [There is no mention in Revelation of Nicolaitanism being "firmly established" at the time of writing. We are only told that there were "some" who held the doctrines and "some" who practiced the deeds of the Nicolaitans. There is no indication of how widespread the heresy was at the time. Besides, no one knows how early this heresy arose. The church fathers traced the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to Nicolas, the deacon (Acts 6:5), who became a Gnostic heretic, and may well have had a significant number of followers well before AD 70. ]
Tenth, there is not sufficient time on the early date for John's arrival in Asia (late 60s) and replacement of Paul as the respected leader of the Asian Church (see discussion in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, vol. 2, chapter 7). [ The Book of Revelation does not suggest that John had "replaced Paul" as the respected leader of the Asian churches. John writes only as John, not as Paul's "replacement." Could not the churches respect two apostles at the same time? The Jerusalem church respected 12 at the same time! The churches of Asia actually had turned away from Paul (2 Tim.1:15) before his death (AD 67). Why would not John, who later lived in Ephesus, immediately fill that vacuum after Paul's death? Geisler's (and Guthrie's) argument here is very weak. ]
M. LD objects to "The pretribulational rapture model featured in the Left Behind series [that] interprets Revelation 13, for example, in a strictly literal fashion" (I, #3).
Comments: It all depends on what is meant by "strictly literal." If "strictly literal" means the unique interpretation of Tim LaHaye that the Antichrist resurrects himself, then we agree with LD that this is wrong. However, we must be careful not to paint all futurists with the same broad brush. There are a lot of them who do not agree with LaHaye here, including the commentary produced by the Dallas Seminary faculty (see Walvoord and Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 960). And it would not be fair to leave the impression that LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation 13 is essential to, or even characteristic of, the futurist view of Revelation. After all, if we take the text literally, it does not say the Beast was "resurrected" from the dead. It says that his deadly "wound" was "healed" (Rev. 13:12).
[This shows that the ambiguity that attends taking a non-literal view of Revelation is also a problem for those who profess to take a literal view! They often say, "If you don't take it literally, you can have endless possible interpretations!" However, anyone who reads enough dispensational literature will soon find that even those who profess to follow a literal hermeneutic are capable of reaching many different conclusions. Geisler admits this and gives a good example right here. ]
N. LD affirms that "As the characters in the novel deal with tribulation, they are sustained by the hope of resurrection that Jesus gives all of us, not with a belief that they are meant to be taken away from trouble by a rapture" (I, #4 cf. I, #5).
Comments: This is a false either/or when it is a both/and situation. The resurrection and the rapture take place at the same time, whenever that time is (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Even those who are raptured will receive their permanent glorified body at that time (1 Cor. 15:50-56). Of course, they are distinct events in the sense that the dead are raised "first" and those alive are "caught up" with them to "meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:17). But these events happen at the same time, and they both receive their permanent immortal, imperishable body at that moment (1 Cor. 15:50-56). So, the two hopes cannot be separated.
[ I agree with Geisler on this point.]
O. LD declares that "Prior to the nineteenth century all Christians-including all premillennialists-believed the rapture or the resurrection of believers and the second coming of Christ were simultaneous events and not two distinct happenings separated by at least seven years" (I, #6).
Comments: This is plainly and simply false. The early Ephraem manuscript (see Thomas Ice, When the Trumpet Sounds, 110-111) reveals the pretrib view was held as early as the 300s A.D. And even if the first known reference is later, truth is not determined by time. This is the fallacy of "Chronological Snobbery." The amillennial view itself (with which this point in LD accords) is "late" since most of the early Fathers were premillennial including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the early Augustine. Other futurists (whose view is opposed by LD) include even earlier subapostolic writings like Irenaeus, Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Clement of Rome, Lactantius, Methodius, Epiphanius, and others (see George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1, pp. 304, 324, 451) .
[ It is amusing that Geisler speaks of amillennialism (which was taught by Origen in the third century) as "late," but then admits the earliest belief in a pre-trib rapture was with Ephraim (third century). This would suggest that amillennialism and pre-tribulationalism both appeared equally "late" or equally "early" (depending on how one views the third century).
Actually, most of the beliefs common to amillennialists, and rejected by dispensationalists, were held even by the earlier premillennial fathers. Though (unlike amillennialists) they believed in a future millennialism, yet (like the amillennialists) they did not interpret prophecy literally, did not make a consistent distinction between Israel and the church, did not believe in the restoration of the nation Israel in the last days, and did not believe in a pretribulational rapture (they expected the church to be persecuted by the antichrist). Even on the one disputed matter of the future millennialism, Justin Martyr ( a premillennialist) mentioned, in writing to Trypho, that he knew of many true Christians in his day who did not share his view. Almost everything about amillennialism is found in all of these early premillennial fathers, and other fathers, who left nothing in writing, may have been amillennial, for all anyone can say.
There is dispute, on the other hand, about the meaning and the date of Ephraim's statement, which Geisler and Ice cite to prove an early belief in the pre-trib rapture. If Ephraim actually did believe in this, he stood against all of the reputable church fathers before and after him who wrote on the subject. Ephraim may have been as out-of-step with the orthodox thinking of his day as the "Word of Faith" teachers are today. ]
P. "First, there is not a single passage in Scripture that teaches a pretribulational rapture" (I, #6).
Comment: In one sense this is true, but it is very misleading. For in the strict sense, there is not a single passage of Scripture that teaches the Trinity either, but that does not mean it is not biblically based. And in this broader sense of biblically based, which must be allowed for the doctrines of the Trinity and inerrancy, the pretrib view is biblical as well (see Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord Comes). For in the broader sense, these doctrines are not based on a single text but on all the data of Scripture on the topic put in a consistent systematic whole that best explains them with whatever varying degree of certitude (see Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, chap. 12).
[ Hank's statement is correct, and so is Geisler when he says that this can not be the final determiner of whether the scriptures teach a doctrine or not. The trinity is not taught in any one passage, but it is the unmistakable conclusion that comes from taking every relevant passage seriously and harmoniously. This is not true of the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture. The rapture is said to occur at "the coming of the Lord" (1 Thess.4:15, 17/ 2 Thess.1:7-8; 2:1). Geisler admitted (in point "N" above) that the rapture and the resurrection occur simultaneously. Since the resurrection is unambiguously declared to occur on "the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54) and to take place at the same time as the resurrection and judgment of the lost (John 12:48/ Matt.25:31ff/ John 5:28-29/ Acts 24:15), it would seem disingenuous to say that the scripture even leaves room for a belief in a pretribulational rapture.]
Q. "There is no biblical warrant for LaHaye's hypothesis that believers will be resurrected some one thousand seven years before the resurrection of unbelievers" (I, #6).
Comments: If this means there is no biblical warrant for believing in the pretrib view, then one must beg to disagree. Detailed reasons are listed in the forthcoming volume four of our Systematic Theology: The Church and Last Things (chapter 17). Or, if this means there is no biblical basis for believing there are two resurrections, one before and one after "the thousand years," then one must strongly disagree. Even non-dispensationalists, like George Ladd, agree that a literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a premillennial conclusion of a first physical resurrection before the thousand years and a second physical resurrection after it (see Ladd, The Blessed Hope). Just the phrase, "and the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev. 20:5) makes this view clear. The alternative interpretations must spiritualize (allegorize) this text. Indeed, to deny the premillennial view one must take the first resurrection as spiritual and the second one as literal. Ironically, only the first one is actually called a "resurrection" (Rev. 20:5-6), though "live again"(Gk. ezasan) is used of both (vv. 4-5). Nowhere in Scripture is the word "resurrection" ever used in a spiritual sense. So, to spiritualize the "first resurrection" is a gross violation of the literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpretation.
[To spiritualize the first resurrection may indeed be a violation of some arbitrary, humanly devised "literal...method of interpretation," but what of it? Many of the beliefs of the dispensationalists themselves violate a strictly "literal" method (e.g., recognizing that Jesus is not really a literal lamb, having seven eyes and seven horns--Rev.5:6).
That the first resurrection is indeed spiritual, and the second is physical is affirmed in John's other major work (John 5:24, 28f/ cf. Eph.2:1-2). The fact that the word "resurrection" is not elsewhere (other than Revelation 20:5-6) used to speak of spiritual rebirth is no more significant than is the fact that the name "Jezebel" was never elsewhere (apart from Revelation 2:20) used to designate anyone other than Ahab's wife. Revelation has many original features, vis-a-vis the rest of scripture.]
R. "The plain and proper reading of a biblical passage must always take precedence over a particular eschatological presupposition or paradigm" (I, #7).
Comments: We agree. But if this is so, then the plain and proper reading of Revelation 20 will yield a futurist premillennial view contrary to LD. Yet LD opposes this futurist view in favor of a kind of amillennial view. (1) This conclusion is inconsistent with its alleged literal method of interpreting the Bible.
[ Yes, it is inconsistent with any "alleged literal method of interpretation," but it is not at odds with a "proper" reading of the text. I will admit that the meaning of Revelation 20, like many other passages in prophetic books, is not as "plain" as we could wish it to be. However, once one has become free from the constraints of an arbitrary, literalistic, dispensational hermeneutic, and is at liberty to let scripture interpret scripture, there is no meaning of Revelation 20 plainer than the amillennial one. I know this, because I was once a knowledgable and convinced dispensationalist and became amillennial very gradually as a result of reluctantly releasing my grip on my dispensational assumptions and by finally allowing the Bible to interpret itself.]
Conclusion
The basic goals of LD are admirable, and its basic doctrines are within orthodoxy. Nonetheless, the dialogue on methodology is important since orthodoxy is dependant on a proper literal (historical-grammatical) interpretation of the Bible. However, LD does not appear to measure up to the standards of its own alleged literal method. In rejecting a futurist (2) interpretation of Revelation, LD must reject a literal interpretation of many passages in Revelation and in Matthew 24-25 which they claim were fulfilled in the first century. And if this same non-literal method were applied to other passages like the Gospels, then it would undermine historical Christianity. Hence, the issue is of great importance. So, on this matter we must respectfully disagree agreeably with our good friend Hank Hanegraaff.
[ Here Geisler becomes dislodged from all reality. He suggests that "orthodoxy is dependant on a proper literal...interpretation of the Bible." Yet this is far from evident, and literalism is not practiced consistently by any biblical student or scholar, including Geisler. Even Matthew 24 and 25 are not taken (and can not be taken) with a consistent literalism. Does Geisler believe that those who get into heaven will be those who have more literal oil in their literal lamps than do others (Matt. 25:1ff)? Does he not consider that oil in this parable represents something that is actually not literal oil? If so, what objection can be raised to believing that, in Revelation, a "beast" can represent something other than a literal animal; that a "lamb" can represent something other than a literal sheep; that a dragon can represent something other than a literal reptile; that a "chain" can represent something other than a literal chain; or that a thousand years can represent something other than a literal thousand years? Where does Geisler draw the line on "literal"?]
Geisler's statement, "if this same non-literal method were applied to other passages like the Gospels, then it would undermine historical Christianity," pushes the limits of absurdity! Who ever suggested that the Gospels, which are historical narratives, should be interpreted with the same hermeneutic as the Book of Revelation, which is apocalyptic prophecy? Who, that is, besides the dispensationalists, who are apparently so naive as to require a one-size-fits-all approach to biblical interpretation, regardless of genre. It scares me to see men who actually teach biblical apologetics in our institutions of higher learning, but who can be so clueless about the most basic rules of biblical interpretation [namely, that one must identify genre before interpreting individual passages]! What kind of graduates can we expect these schools to produce, if the professors have no better ability to think logically than this?]
Yet I would suggest a more excellent way. LD rightly criticizes excesses in some futurists' interpretation of some texts. But the same could be done for preterists' interpretations which claim these predictions were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Would it not be better for LD to be content to show the inconsistencies of some futurists' interpretations, rather than attacking the whole premillennial futurist scheme which is firmly rooted in the historical-grammatical interpretation of all of Scripture, including prophecy, and amply exhibited in the majority of writers in the earliest centuries of Christianity? [ Geisler should actually read "the majority of writers in the earliest centuries of Christianity" before he tries to pretend that they employed the literalistic method of interpretation that he advocates! ]
For when the literal method is applied to the unconditional Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, it yields a futurist interpretation of Scripture... [ Not so. I employ a very literalistic method to my interpretation of Matt.3:9/John 8:37-40/ Rom.2:28-29; 11:16-17/ Galatians 3:7-9, 16, 29/ Phil.3:3/ 1 Thess.2:15-16/ 1 Pet.2:9-10, and many other passages, which tell me that the Abrahamic covenant does not apply to an ethnically-defined race of people, but to the community of faith (the church) regardless of race.]
...which affirms that Christ will not only physically return to earth but He will also establish a literal kingdom (Mt. 19:28)... [ This is not the only way in which Matt.19:28 can be interpreted. There is a good biblical case for the suggestion that the present age is "the regeneration," and that Christ is already sitting on the "throne of His glory" (Matt.28:18/Eph.1:20-22/1 Pet.3:22/ Rev.3:21). There are direct statements, however, that unambiguously tell us that Jesus established His kingdom at His first coming, and that it is a present reality (Matt.5:3, 10; 12:28/ Luke 17:21/ Rom.14:17/ Col.1:13/ Rev.5:10). ]
...and reign for a literal thousand years (Rev. 20)...[ This is begging the question. The passage says "a thousand years." It does not say, "a literal thousand years." The question of whether the thousand years is literal, or whether it is a symbol, is precisely what is here in dispute. ]
...restoring the literal Land of Promise to the literal descendants of Abraham from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, the territory of the Palestinians, and all the way to Egypt (Gen. 13:15-17; 15:7-21) "forever" (Gen 13:15). [ I don't find the word "literal" in any of the passages cited. I do, however, find clear teaching in the New Testament that "the Land" and "the descendants of Abraham" have their fulfillments in a spiritual ("heavenly") country (Heb.4:8-10; 11:16) and that the real descendents of Abraham to whom the promises apply are the Christians, not the Jews (see the verses listed four paragraphs above). This is the plain meaning of Galatians 4:21-31).
Many things were said to be "forever," including the curses and reproach that Yahweh said would come upon Israel and their descendents "forever" if they broke His covenant, which they did (Deut.28:45-46). God fulfilled His promise in giving the descendents of Abraham all the land He had promised, in the days of Joshua. Dispensationalists apparently think God is a liar, because they say that God never kept this promise and that the Jews have never possessed all the land God promised them. In this, they flatly contradict the Bible (Josh.21:43-45).
The children of Israel were not given an unconditional, permanent grant to the land of Palestine, but were told that they could lose it by disobedience (Lev.18:26-28; 25:23/ Deut.28:21, 63).
In the Old Testament, the duty of circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the Levitical priesthood, Solomon's temple, and many other institutions that no longer exist in their original form were said to be "forever." All of them continue today in their spiritual forms, of which the Old Testament forms were types. This is true of the land promises as well. ]
Likewise, the literal method of interpretation demands that there will be a literal throne of David on which the Messiah will actually reign on a throne in Jerusalem over the restored literal descendants of Abraham "forever" (2 Sam. 7:12-16). [ Yes, the "literal method" would indeed require this. This is an example of why the strictly literal method is flawed. The apostles believed that God had fulfilled the promise that David's seed would sit upon his throne when Jesus arose and ascended to the right hand of God (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-34).]
But these unconditional promises have never been fulfilled, even though God made them with an "immutable" oath (Heb. 6:17-18 cf. Ps. 89:20-37). [ Sorry, but the New Testament writers simply disagree with Geisler's claim that these promises "have never been fulfilled." See Luke 1:70-75 and 2 Corinthians 1:20.]
However, if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the basic premillennial futurist view which LD critiques must be right. Indeed, if LD wished to take all of Scripture literally and consistently, then it would be better to affirm these unconditional promises which are at the heart of the premillennial futurist view, rather than occupy its time with criticizing excesses in some popular presentations of these views.
Footnotes
1. In personal conversation with Hank, he disavows both the premillennial and the postmillennial views by name, which in terms of the three basic views leaves him in the amillennial camp, though he is reluctant to use this word for his view.
2. Of course even partial preterists are "futurists" regarding the Second Coming and Resurrection. But they reject the futurist understanding of the bulk of Book of Revelation.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:25 pm, edited 12 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve, I enjoyed your response to Geisler's response to Hanegraaff's book. Thanks 
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
-
_Stephen Patrick
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:16 am
Fascinating study. Only one problem...try getting a dispensationalist to listen or read anything similar to it. I know what it is like to not want anything to do with a viewpoint that throws a wrench into my end times thinking. You just don't go there. While I am not preterist, I do agree with Steve on his view concerning Israel, ethnic and spiritual. Thanks.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Some Partial-Pret guy
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:35 pm
This thread is continued here, with updated response(s) from both parties:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468
***This is a must read***
Thanks guys.
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468
***This is a must read***
Thanks guys.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: