Before Jerusalem Fell - EntreWave

352 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
As a matter of fact, several of the early fathers held a distinctly
preteristic interpretation of Daniel 9!W
In Cyprian we have clear reference to Matthew 24 as referring
to Jerusalem’s A.D. 70 fall.G5 In the entirety of Treatise 12 he is
dealing with testimonies against the Jews, including Christ’s prophecies.
Surely it may not be stated, as do House and Ice: “Why is it that
all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and Matthew
24, see these as future events?”GG
Nero and Revelation
House and Ice write: “If Chilton could show that Nero is the ruler
spoken of in Revelation, then he would have a major victory for his
view. But he cannot. “67 As I have shown in great detail many lines
of evidence converge upon Nero‘8: (1) His place as the sixth among
the Roman emperors, (2) his being followed by a seventh, brief
reigning emperor (Galba), (3) his name’s numerical value of 666, (4)
his living while the temple still stood, (5) the prominence of his
persecution in first century Christianity, and more. There is an old
adage: If the shoe fits, wear it. Nero’s footprints are all over Revelation.
64. For a discussion of early interpretive approaches to Daniel 9, see Louis E.
Knowles j
“The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,”
Westmimter Theologtial JouraQl 7:2 (May, 1945), 137-138. Actual references include: Ttw
Epistle of Barnabas 16:6; Tertullian, AgawA t/u Jews 8 (despite being a Montanist and
therefore premillennial!); Ongen, Matthew 24:15; Julius Africanus, Chronography (relevant
portions preserved in Eusebius, Preparation fw tb Gospel 10:10 and Demonstratwm of the
Gospel 8); Eusebius (Dermmutratiom 8); and Augustine in his 199th epistle.
65. Cypnan, Treatises, 12:1:6, 15. See especially Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene
Fathm, 5:507-511.
66. House and Ice, Dominion T/uolo~, p. 258 (emphasis mine). In the final analysis,
however, one must wonder how their argument carries weight in light of the Plymouth
Brethren roots of dispensatfonalism. After all, it is the chief proponent of dispensationalism,
Charles C. Ryrie, who defends dispensationalism fmm “the charge of recency” by
labeling such a charge a “straw man” and arguing from history as a “fallacy.” In addition
he writes: “The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right
(unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught
until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong . . .“ (Dirpensationah.mz Today
[Chicago: Moody, 1965], p. 66).
67. Ibid., p. 2.59.
68. See above, chapters 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18.