From: mloftus955 <mloftus955@...
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 5:23 PMTo: revelation-
Subject: Re: The importance of the date of Revelation
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ian Paul <editor@g...> wrote:
> (a) is there really no surplus of meaning in the text if this datum
>is not agreed on? and
There is plenty of meaning and application for all time from the
Revelation, but that misses the point, in my view. John makes direct
time statements, see below, of events to be fulfilled "shortly" (from
when he wrote) which are left hanging if the late date is true,
especially since this book is being addressed to the seven churches
(v11) which no longer exist. It must have had some relevance to the
original audience, those seven literal churches. What would be the
immediate fulfillment if the date were in the 90's?
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to
shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
Rev 1:3 ... for the time [is] at hand.
Rev 22:6 ... and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to
shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly...
Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy
of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be.
> (b) how can you avoid pressing all the evidence pressed
> artificially in your support because so much hinges on it? Can we
> be confident that a fair interpretation of the evidence is leading
> to the hermeneutical strategy rather than the other way around?
It is entirely possible that the "pressing" of evidence has already
taken place with some of the traditions of early christian writers
such as Eusebius and Irenaeus, and more recent ones trying to fit the
Revelation into the AD90's and Domitian's reign. Men with their own
presuppositions can lose their objectivity, so this argument can be
used for both sides.
In any case, the eschatological view ought to be based on scripture,
not so much on what is supposed christian history where there is so
much uncertainty. This is like the cart pulling the horse. I think
the internal evidence points to an early date which is more important.
Mark P. Loftus
> Ian Paul