30.05.2014 Views

Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A Response to Howe and Ice 343<br />

What are the “supetilcially argued” points Chilton attempts to make<br />

for his position? . . . First, “St. John’s intimate acquaintance with<br />

the minute details of Temple worship suggests that the Book of<br />

Revelation and the Fourth Gospel must have been written before the<br />

Temple services had actually ceased.” This argument proves nothing<br />

as to whether or not the temple was standing at the time of writing.<br />

. . .12<br />

Anyone reading their statement, which includes a quotation from<br />

Chilton, would surmise that Chilton is guilty of creating strained<br />

evidence without historical precedent or warrant. However, Chilton’s<br />

point was preceded by a lengthy supporting quotation from the<br />

highly respected nineteenth-century Jewish-Christian scholar, Alfred<br />

Edersheim. In fact, more than half of the statement quoted by House<br />

and Ice as Chilton’s was actually a quotation from Edersheim. 13<br />

Since House and Ice are prone to do some name-dropping in support<br />

of their arguments, 14 they should allow Chilton the privilege by<br />

accurately representing his argument and its sources.<br />

But now to my major concern.<br />

“The” Voice of Traditwn?<br />

The Matter of Revelation’s Date<br />

As is common among late date advocates, House and Ice speak<br />

as if there were a unified Church tradition regarding the date of<br />

Revelation: “Chilton questions the voice of church tradition concerning<br />

the date of Revelation, since it strongly negates his early date<br />

viewpoint.”15 The book by House and Ice is aimed at a general<br />

audience; the effect on the general audience doubtless will be: “Ancient<br />

Christianity harmoniously held that Revelation was written<br />

later than A.D. 70.” Let us cite Chilton’s actual statement and notice<br />

the different impression left:<br />

(St Irenaeus, incidentally, is the on~ source for this late dating of<br />

Revelation; all other “sources” are simply quoting from him. It is thus<br />

rather disingenuous for commentators to claim, as Swete does, that<br />

12. House and Ice, Dominion Ttwologv, p. 250.<br />

13. David Chilton, The Days of V%ngeame (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), p.<br />

3, and Alfred Edersheim, Tlu Tm,ble: Its Minis&y and Semicss as TbJy W~e at th Tvm @“<br />

Chrrit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 141.<br />

14. House and Ice, Dominion T/uology, pp. 252ff.<br />

15. Ibid., p. 251.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!