Before Jerusalem Fell

342 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Clearing Upa A4i3corzeption
It maybe that the following statement by House and Ice is poorly
phrased, but as it stands, it definitely leaves an erroneous impression
that needs correction:
The preterist, postmillennial viewpoint of the Christian Reconstruction
movement, as expounded by David Chilton in Th Days of tingeance,
stands or falls on whether or not the final book of the Bible was
written before A.D. 70. Fellow postmillennialist and pre-A.D. 70
preterist Kenneth L. Gentry notes this major weakness when he says,
“if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years
after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in
smoke. ”g
When they state that the particular pretenstic approach of Chilton
(with which I agree) stands or falls on the early date of Revelation,
I concur. But when they add that I note “this major weakness,”
the impression that clearly remains is that I am suggesting that the
major weakness of this Preterist via of Revelation is that it has to depend
on an early date – as if I deemed the evidence for an early date as
being weak!l” Such was not the intention of my statement at all. I
was reviewing Chilton’s book, and I merely pointed out that I believe
that a major weakness of his book – not the preterist view as such – is
that it does not deal in more depth with the dating question. However,
I did note that Chilton’s book is subtitled: “An ~xposition of the
Book of Revelation.” 11 It is an expository, not a critical, commentary.
The “major weakness” statement was regarding what Chilton left
out of his book (a thorough inquiry into the question of Revelation’s
date), not preteristic postmillennialism or early date advocacy.
The Problem of Partial Citation
In defense of Chilton, it should be noted that an imprecise
statement by House and Ice leaves the impression that Chilton has
created de novo a faulty argument for the early date of Revelation.
Their statement reads:
9. Ibid., p. 249, citing Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “The Days of Vengeance: A Review
Article,” Ths Counsel of Chalcedon (June 1987): 11.
10. I clearly state my convictions regarding the early date in the article they cite:
“Days of Vengeance,” p. 11.
11. Ibid., p. 11.