Why I believe Revelation was written in AD 68-69
Earlier today I had a very edifying discussion with my friends Zane Hodges and Bob Vacendak about the date of Revelation. We all hold to the view that it was written during the reign of the sixth Caesar, Galba, who reigned from June AD 68 until Jan AD 69. Revelation 17:10 says “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen [Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero] one is [Galba], and the other [Otho] has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time (he reigned only 3 months). For a listing of the dates of the emperors, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Emperors
Why is this important? First, it is the only view that takes Rev 17:10-11 literally. The text indicates that John is talking about kings, men, not kingdoms. The early date position shows that John is speaking with absolute precision about the first 7 Roman emperors.
Second, it shows that the entire NT was written during the generation alive at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. A Biblical generation was 40 years. That the entire NT was completed before AD 73 shows it was all written at the time when a large percentage of the eye witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus we still alive.
Third, it shows that John didn’t leave out something vital, like the destruction of the temple. Surely if the temple had been destroyed, he would have mentioned it.
The futurist view of Revelation, which I hold, does not demand a pre-70 date for the book. The full-preterist position does. However, the futurist interpretation certainly is not in any way compromised by an early date. In fact, I’d argue that it is enhanced.
Pastor Bob Vacendak has written our commentary on Revelation and both Zane and I feel that he did a fantastic job on the commentary. It is a grand slam. I believe all of you who end up reading it will be blessed, as I’ve been as I’ve edited it.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »
NT Commentary Project Progressing Well
We are really making a push to complete the 1000+ page one-volume NT commentary this year. Thus far we have completed 3 separate edits of Matthew, Mark, Romans, and Hebrews. We expect to have the 3rd level edits done for Philippians and Revelation in the next week or two. Initial edits are nearly done for Luke and John. We hope to begin editing Acts soon.
I am extremely pleased with the quality of the work. I am convinced that this commentary will be on par with The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is probably the leading conservative one-volume NT commentary today.
We began this project in 1990. Initially we expected to have it in print by late 1994 or early 1995. So we are about 14 years overdue. While I regret it has taken this line, I sure am thrilled with the commentary that is emerging.
At this point it looks possible that we could have 3 levels of editing done for all books by the end of July. If so, then we will spend August proofing everything (getting a number of volunteers to help with this major task). Then hopefully we can do typesetting in September or October and the printing in November. This is such a big project that it could take a lot longer. But we are hopeful.
We’d appreciate your prayers for the final stages of this massive undertaking.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | 1 Comment »
I heard MacArthur in Dallas last Friday on Luke 15
Pastor
In my dissertation I argued that the younger son coming to his senses represented faith in Christ. About 10 years later I became convinced of the view of
Dr. John MacArthur’s position is hard to explain. There are two main components. First, the younger son’s turning from his sins was what led to him be born again. Thus he was arguing that repentance is a condition of eternal life. Second, the older son represents the unbelieving Pharisees. The Pharisees legalistic attitude toward tax collectors and sinners keeps them from being born again. So, too, the older brother’s legalistic attitude toward his repentant younger brother keeps him from being born again. Only the person who accepts the grace of God is able to have eternal life.
How these two seemingly contradictory points coalesced was not explained. If we must turn from our sins to be born again, is that not what the Pharisees believed? Did not the Pharisees believe that a tax collector could get into the kingdom if he gave restitution to all he wronged and ceased to be a tax collector? Wasn’t their objection that Jesus ate with people who were still active tax collectors who had not given any indication of prior repentance? Didn’t the younger son actually give up his sinful ways?
I was struck by the dogmatic assertions he made on points not at all clear in the text, and some not even crucial to his Lordship Salvation interpretation of the text. Here are some examples of his dogmatic assertions:
1. The Father in the parable is Jesus. He didn’t discuss the possibility that God the Father is in view. Why would Jesus present Himself as the Father in the story? Wouldn’t He be more likely to present Himself as a shepherd (15:3-7)?
2. The key elements in the story are honor and shame. He never explained how he arrived at this conclusion since the text itself never mentions either honor or shame.
3. The older brother hated his father and hated his brother. This assertion was made without the word hate appearing in the text and with only the scantiest of evidence (verses 29-30).
4. The story lacks an explicit ending, but has an implicit one. The implicit ending is that the older brother picked up a plank of wood and repeatedly struck his father, that is, Jesus, on the head until he killed Him. This is clear since the Pharisees later had Jesus crucified on a tree.
5. The younger son is the absolutely worst sinner that Jesus could possibly conceive of. This would seem to mean that he was worse than Judas or Jeroboam or Jezebel. Evidence for this young man being the worst conceivable sinner was not well developed.
6. A first century Pharisee would not eat a meal with anyone other than another Pharisee, according to MacArthur. How this could be so when according to Luke 14 a leading Pharisee had a meal with Jesus and His disciples (Luke 14:1ff.), none of whom were Pharisees, was not explained.
7. Jewish first century tax collectors, according to MacArthur, did not go to the temple, did not go to synagogue, and were totally irreligious. In addition, they hired goons to protect them and to get money out of people. That neither the text nor anywhere else in the NT says anything to this effect was not mentioned. Also not explained was the fact that neither Matthew nor Zacchaeus appear to fit his description. Nor does he explain the fact that tax collectors came to John the Baptist.
I’d estimate there were about 5,000 present to hear MacArthur that night. The audience was very favorable towards him and towards what he had to say. Yet what he said didn’t make sense. I think this shows the danger of being a powerful speaker with a strong following. Whatever a famous gifted communicator says is accepted as true in spite of it not matching up with what the text says.
Of course, we in the grace movement must take care of this same problem. Fortunately for us, no Free Grace speaker has anywhere near the fame or the charisma of John MacArthur. Still, we must be on guard to preach God’s Word only and not our own ideas.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | 3 Comments »
It was great to be in Winker, MB, Canada last weekend
Last weekend I was privileged to speak at Faith Evangelical Bible Church in Winkler, Manitoba. I’ve know Mike Comtois, the Pastor, and his wife, Renee, for many years. This is my second time at their church.
This church is really growing in part because of all the immigrants from Germany who are flocking to this church. Each time I spoke (Friday night, Saturday afternoon, Saturday night, Sunday morning), a translator (actually two, Julie and Helene, who took turns) would simultaneously translate what I said. I slowed down a bit. But the German listeners wore receivers with ear phones and the translator had a mic and a transmitter. So about half the audience was listening to the translator (and to me to some extent).
I really enjoyed visiting with everyone. I even learned some German while there. Sie sind wunderbar means “You are wonderful.” I said that on Sunday morning and I don’t think I butchered it too badly.
I gave 5 messages on the Book of Acts, as well as a devotional at a men’s breakfast Saturday morning on 2 Cor 5:1-11 (What’s the purpose that drives your life?).
It was hard to leave. I really enjoyed my time, Ay? (Is that how you spell, A? You know the Canadians often put A? at the end of their sentences. It’s a great life, ay?)
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »
The Sinlessless of the Lord Jesus Christ
Today I received an email from a Grace in Focus reader who asked me to comment on the sinlessness of Christ. Evidently someone suggested to her that I either I didn’t believe in it, or that I didn’t think it is important.
Let me be clear. The Lord Jesus never sinned and He never will. In fact, He never was and never will be able to sin.
Some people wrongly think that since Jesus was tempted, then He must have been able to give in to temptation. In their view we are just plain lucky that the Lord Jesus failed to sin. If He had, then there would have been no hope for mankind.
Frankly, that is terribly wrong. The Lord Jesus not only didn’t sin, He was incapable of sinning. He was legitimately tempted even though He was unable to sin. That the Lord Jesus found what was offered tempting is clear. That He would not meet Satan’s bogus demands to receive the tempting items is equally clear both in terms of what He said in each of the temptations and in terms of His deity. God cannot sin and cannot give in to temptation.
Only a sinless Man could take away the sin of the world (John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:21). Of course, this is not to say that we must proclaim this to unbelievers in order for them to be born again. Some people are loading up the amount of doctrine that an unbeliever must understand and believer. The Lord Jesus didn’t do that. He called people to believe in Him for everlasting life (John 3:16; 4:1-14; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-27).
Our Savior is the unblemished Lamb of God. Because of that, He is indeed able to give everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for that life.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | 5 Comments »
Big Bear Lake California Retreat March 28-30
Sharon and I just got back from a super retreat in the mountains of Southern California. Coast Bible Church had a couples retreat there. I gave 4 messages from First John. We had a wonderful time of fellowship with the young couples there. They made excellent observations and asked great questions.
You can see pictures of the group at our website. We’ve started a new feature called GES Picture Gallery. You can click on that on the home page and then click on Big Bear. Or, you can just click on this link: http://www.faithalone.org/galleries/big%20bear.htm
Thank you for your prayers and support. It is a joy to be able to share the Free Grace message with people.
BTW, we are making good progress on the New Testament Commentary. We’ve now completed a third edit on Matthew and Mark and are beginning a third edit on Romans. Soon to come will be third edit on Hebrews. We are hopeful of having it in print by Christmas, but we have a lot of work yet to do. We’d appreciate your prayers.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »
John 8:30-32 True believers or false professors?
A few hours ago I received a call from someone asking about this passage. He suggested that the people who are said to “believe in Him” actually did not truly believe since Jesus says of these people that they are of the their father the devil (John 8:44).
I explained that whatever John 8:30-32 means, it can’t contradict John 3:16, which says that all who believe in Him have eternal life. Thus even if we couldn’t explain what is going on in John 8:30-32 and the following verses, we know it isn’t saying that a person can believe in Jesus and yet still be lost.
The specific answer if that there is a change in referent. In all of John 8 Jesus is speaking to a large group of unbelieving Jews. This fits John 1:11. Jesus came to His own and His own did not receive Him (His teachings).
However, in this sea of unbelievers is a small group that comes to faith in Him (John 8:30). Jesus then addresses them directly in verses 31-32. He tells them that freedom from sin comes from abiding in His word and being His disciples. Faith in Christ alone will not result in freedom from sin. Discipleship is needed.
Then in verse 33 the unbelieving larger crowd reacts strongly against what Jesus said to the new believers in verses 31-32. We know there is a change in whom Jesus is addressing since in vv 45-46 Jesus specifically says “You do not believe Me.” Yet John and the Holy Spirit specifically say in verse 30 that “many believed in Him.” Since Scripture can’t contradict itself, and since John wasn’t so foolish as to contradict himself a few verses later, we know a different group is involved.
Are there people who profess to believe in Jesus and yet who are not born again? Absolutely. There are two type of false professors. First, there are those who believe some form of works salvation and who, when you ask them, make it clear that simple faith won’t get anyone into the kingdom, that you must have “true faith,” which they will tell you is working faith, committed faith, and persevering faith. So these people profess to believe in Jesus, but what they believe in Him is not the message of John 3:16.
Second, there are those who profess to believe that Jesus guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him, and yet they don’t really believe what that. How can that be? People can lie, either to get something from you (a handout, for example), or to please you (children may do this and adults from many cultures highly value pleasing people), or maybe just to get you to leave (we saw this at times in college ministry).
I have met very few of the second type of false professor. But I’ve met a lot of the first kind. These are well intentioned people who either don’t understand the Free Grace message, or else they understand it, but believe that it is not what the Bible teaches.
Actually John 8:30-32, properly understood, is a great passage on the power of God’s Word to change us, to transform us (see Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18). If we wish to be set free, then the truth will do that for us. Thank God it does.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »
2008 Conference Pictures
The 2008 Grace Conference pictures are now online. Go to our homepage www.faithalone.org and click on the link.
Increasing in Him,
Kyle_K
Topics: Soteriology | No Comments »
March 30-April 2, 2009 Dates Set for Next Grace Conf
A new venue proved to be an excellent choice for our 2008 national conference. Nearly every conferee raved about the guest rooms, meeting rooms, common areas, etc. The Riley Center is a first rate facility with outstanding staff. We are very thankful to them.
We’ve already signed a contract for next year. We will be going back to Monday 1:00 till Thursday noon for our conference dates. Again we will be at the Riley Center at SWBTS.
MP3s ($48) and DVDs ($65) of the conference should be available in 1-2 weeks.
Some of the most talked about messages were two by Zane Hodges on John 13-17 and the structure of the Fourth Gospel, one by Jody Dillow on “Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works,” a one by Bob Bryant on the search for the saving message outside of John’s Gospel. There was a buzz about all the plenary sessions and the workshops as well.
Thank you for your prayers and support that made this possible.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Conferences, Soteriology | No Comments »
Why Did Jesus Point Out Her Sinful State? John 4:16-18
David Jeremiah has been going through Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well. I have enjoyed his exposition. However, this morning, as I was listening, he said something that jarred me a bit. When he came to verses 16-18, I found myself in disagreement with an inference he took.
Jesus told the woman, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” She said, “I have no husband.” Then the Lord said, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Dr. Jeremiah inferred from this that we must confess our sins in order to receive the gift of eternal life by believing in Jesus.
In the first place it is not at all clear that she was confessing her sins. She didn’t say that she was living in sin with a man that wasn’t her husband. Now it is true that after Jesus says this she doesn’t deny it and indeed says, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.” So maybe that could be called confession.
However, the bigger question is why the Lord Jesus brought this up. Was it really to get her to confess her sins? The text suggests that He did so to prove to her that He is the Messiah. This is seen by comparing verse 25, “The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things” (italics added), with verse 29, “Come, see a man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?”
The reason the Lord pointed out her past and her present was to prove to her that He is the Messiah. It is almost certain that this woman was already very aware of her sinful condition before she met Jesus. She was a Samaritan and they followed the Law of Moses which forbid sleeping with a man who was not your husband. She is alone at the well, possibly suggesting that the other women were not friendly with her. When she goes back to the town, she talks with the men, not the women, again suggesting she may well have had a low reputation in town.
All she had to do to be born again was to believe in Jesus for eternal life, as verses 10-14 make clear. However, for her to believe that Jesus indeed is the source of eternal life, He showed her that He is omniscient. While what He said might not convince a total skeptic (who might be inclined to figure this as some sort of trick), she was convinced. Surely the power of His presence, combined with his amazing words concerning living water and eternal life, His revealing something that only a resident of Sychar would know, her knowledge of the Torah, and the work of the Holy Spirit, convinced her.
Confessing our sins is a condition not of eternal life, but of fellowship with God (1 John 1:9). We as believers must confess the sins we are aware of if we wish to remain in fellowship with God.
The condition of eternal life is drinking the living water. One drink forever quenches one’s thirst (John 4:14). Drinking is a figure of speech for believing in Jesus. Never thirsting is a figure of speech for eternal life (compare John 6:35). So whoever simply believes in Jesus has everlasting life that can never be lost.
Increasing in Him,
Bob_Wilkin
Topics: Soteriology | 9 Comments »