Lectures available at TheNarrowPath.com
Steve Gregg’s Eschatology Series (.mp3 files)
1. Introduction and definitions (ESC-01)
2. Methods of Interpretation(ESC-02)
3. The millennium as the fulfillment of Israel’s Hope (ESC-03)
4. The Millennium in Revelation (ESC-04)
5. Revelation 20:4 and the historyof millennial thinking (ESC- 05)
6. When will the rapture be? (ESC-06)
7. The pretribulational rapture defended (ESC-07)
8. The pretribulational rapture refuted (ESC-08)
9. Is the future tribulation taught in scripture? Part 1 (ESC-09)
10. Is the future tribulation taught in scripture? Part 2 (ESC-10)
11. The Olivet Discourse Part 1 (ESC-11)
12. The Olivet Discourse Part 2 (ESC-12)
13. The future of the Church, Part1(ESC-13)
14. The future of the Church, Part2(ESC-14)
(On Matthew 24:14)
“Likewise “the world” normally speaks to us of the planet earth. But to biblical writers it often was limited in scope to the Mediterranean world or the Roman Empire (see Luke 2:1; Col. 1:6). Thus in Revelation, a statement about “the time of trial which shall come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth (Rev. 3:10) may refer to an empire-wide crisis, which will especially place stress upon those who dwell in Israel.” (Revelation: Four Views, p,22,23)
(On Matthew 24:30)
“In the Old Testament (and, arguably, the New as well) the gentile nations are symbolically called “the sea” in contrast to “the land” (i.e., Israel). Thus, phrases like “those who inhabit the earth (or land)” and “kings of the earth (or land)” might be references to the people of Israel and their rulers, respectively.” (Revelation: Four Views, p,22)
(On the Subject of Revelation)
“The time frame is that of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70.” (Revelation : Four Views; p. 248)
(On Early Date of Revelation)
“In favor of the earlier date of writing (during Nero’s persecution), several internal evidences are adduced. Among them would be the apparent existence of the temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing (11:1-2), and the tension between the church and its Jewish detractors (e.g. 2:9;3:9), both of which, it is argued, changed when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70).” (Revelation, p.15)
“One of the most important arguments for a Neronean date is based upon the cryptic passage in Revelation 17:10, which speaks of the king currently reigning at the time of writing: “There are also seven kings. Five are fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.” Unless the term “kings” here is taken as “kingdoms” (i.e., Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome), the natural understanding of this statement would be that five Roman emperors had fallen, and the sixth was reigning at the time of writing. Since Nero was the sixth man to be recognized as emperor of the Roman Empire, this would place the date of writing sometime within his reign.” (Revelation, p.15)
“It may also be pointed out that many scholars, including those supportive of the late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domition’s reign” (Revelation, p.16)
“The loss of love in Ephesus is a condition which can happen to a church in a very short time, as the experience of many modern congregations can demonstrate. Paul marveled at how the Galatian church had so severely regressed almost immediately after he had left them as infant congregations” (Revelation, p.16)
“Notably, Polycarp does not state that the church in Smyrna did not exist in Paul’s lifetime, but that the Syrman had not known the Lord at the time when Paul wrote his epistle to the Philippians, which was probably no later than A.D. 63, which allows sufficient time for the church to come into existence in Smyrna before or during the Neronean persecution.” (Revelation, p.17)
“The foregoing internal evidence we have considered for the late date of Revelation has been ambiguous at best.” (Revelation, p.17)
“Several church fathers indicate that Domition was emperor when John wrote Revelation. All of them, however, seem to base their information on the testimony of Irenaeus” (Revelation, p.17)
“The meaning of Irenaeus’ statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domition’s reign? Was it the vision which John “beheld”? or was it the apostle himself, who was “seen… face to face” by those who testify? The phrase “that was seen…” may be a corruption of an original that read, “He was seen…” If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domition, though he may have written the Apocalypse much earlier.” (Revelation, p.17)
“Those who originally translated Irenaeus’ work into English complained of the poor condition of the manuscript evidence for his work. They wrote:
‘The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of a greater portion of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of the copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, in both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain.” (Revelation, p.17-18)
“Since the text is admittedly “uncertain” in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus.” (Revelation, p.18)
“Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to “all the.. ancient copies” of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were “ancient copies,” was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus estimation, the time of Domition’s reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as “almost in our day.” How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies” of a work the original of which has been written “almost” in his own time?” (Revelation, p.18)
“With reference to his mention of Domition’s reign, there are grounds for believing that Irenaeus was speaking of the time of John’s last being seen by the brethren, rather than the time of John’s having seen the apocalyptic vision.” (Revelation, p.18)
“The word used in the Greek text for “earth” is ge, which can be translated as “earth” or as “land” with equal legitimacy, depending on the context.” In any place where the intended meaning is “land,” it opens the possibility that reference is being made to the land of Israel, which is often denoted in Scripture by no more elaborate designation than the expression “the land.” (Revelation, p.22)
(On Significance of A.D.70; Nature of Christ’s Return)
“The language of prophecy often expresses a perspective different from that of ordinary historical narrative or prosaic literature. The prophets recognized in the great political upheavals of history the acts of the sovereign God (Amos 3:6) exercising his prerogative of “removing” and “raising up” rulers and empires (Dan 2:21). The conquest of one nation by another through invasion and war were little more than God’s means of judging the former – a nation that had been “:weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Dan. 5:27). The use of one nation’s military machine for the punishment of another sinful nation did not require that the nation so used be aware of its being an instrument in the hands of God (Isa. 10:5-15). God is working invisibly behind the affairs of men, unperceived except by the prophetic vision. A consequence of this prophetic perspective is the frequent occurrence in Scripture of the language of God’s “coming” to a nation to judge it, even though what is envisaged is not a visible appearance of God, but a military conquest. Thus Isaiah, predicting the wasting of Egypt by the forces of Assyria, can write, “Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt” (19:1). Similar language, when applied to Christ (Matt 24:30) is apt to be applied by the reader to his Second Coming, though the language, when used in Isaiah, clearly does not allow this identification.” (Revelation, p.24)
(On the “Generation Means Race Theory”)
“Some evangelicals – being made unnecessarily uncomfortable by these statements and wishing to salvage their status as true predictions of the Second Coming – have interpreted the expression “this generation” in various ways. The phrase has been made out to mean ” this race,” or “the generation that sees the signs of the Second Coming,” etc. – despite the fact that Jesus spoke of “this generation” in at least four other verses in Matthew in which no meaning can be ascribed to the expression but “those living at this time.” In any case, the similar phrase, “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till…” is not so easy to reinterpet. Both passages seem to tell us that something called the coming of the Son of man was to occur within the generation of Jesus’ followers.” (Revelation, p.24)
“Origen (c. 185-254) repudiated the literal interpretation of the Chialists as “Jewish.” (Revelation, p.30)
“Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) interpreted the 24 elders as a symbol of the equality of Jew and Gentile in the church; locusts’ tails as the mischievous influence of immoral teachers; and the many-colored foundation stoned of the New Jerusalem as the manifold grace of apostolic teaching.” (Revelation, p.30)
“Those who hold to the classical preterism of centuries past take a high view of the inspiration of the Scripture and date the Book of Revelation prior to A.D.70.” (Revelation, p.30)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
- 25 Jan 2005
I heard you on the Boble answer man show and have purchased your book which I look forward to reading. I read your posted Biography and can’t help but know that doing the work of the Lord is not for the faint of heart. You’ve suffered some tough tragedies but that comes with the territory. Bless you for this work, it will be a great help to us who need sound teaching in a world of muddled theology.
Date: 21 Apr 2005
Just finished Revelation Four Views. Wow!! I learned so much…made me more of a preterist. I did enjoy the info on all views…some a bit of comedy but most quite interesting and enlightening.It was good to know that my hero, Matthew Henry, had some preterist leanings.
Date: 07 Jan 2006
Dear Brother Steve,
I wonder how someone so learned and humble as you can be so wrong when it comes to God’s Word (The Bible -Hebraic scriptures AND New Testament, the “Law”, His Commandments (Not just the “ten” but His entire “word”)
Over the years, I have enjoyed your program. Your heart for Jesus, and your self-sacrifice is so apparent and enobling. Yet, your increasing dogmatic repudiation, of what Jesus commands us to do out of his Covential love for us, smack of “blasphemy” (Deuteronomy 13 – False prophets), and, excuse me, Anti-semitism. (More on this later).
Jesus confirms the Torah. Do not think for a moment He has abandoned her (Metaphor for you and me). Recall Jerimiah and go beyond the initial several verses towards 31:1 “At that time,” declares the LORD, “I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they will be my people.” The book of Hosea clearly repudiates any Hellinistic apostasy of “Replacement Theology” (Gomer/Israel/You and I) – Hosea (Jesus)restoring His Covenant people.
John 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it… All scripture is God breathed. Do not think of Him as a liar or hypoctite. His coming made nothing obsolete. The Law, (Not that of the Pharisees: The Law of the Elders) most certainly has never been trashed. Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Jesus was a Jew. From the line of Abraham, and of JUDAH. He was a Rabbi, and taught only from the Torah, the prophets, and the writings. John 20 informs us Jesus the Word is not his, but of the Father. Jesus is the light, but not free on his own. Certainly not to make the Law, Commandments obsolete.
In Psalm 19:11, it is reaffirmed, the Law is “perfect”, and “His Word is sweet”. It is His instructions to protect us from falling into sin. It warns us from evil.It is His “will” and is perfectly expressed in the Tenach. Lest we think this is “Jewish” stuff, John 5:46 tells us: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
How important is the Law and Commandments to God? Deuteronomy tells us first what the N.T. clarifies later. From His love us us “all”, He has circumcised it on our heart. Circumcision is the sign of the Covenant. Without the Spirit, we are complete sinners, with the Spirit as believers, we know His will and can abandon ourselves in Him, leading us towards the character of Christ – Walk in His ways.
and observe his Laws.
Joshua 22:5-6, Luke 11, and John 14:19-24 reiterate we are commanded to observe the Commandments: Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
Now the part so many of the Replacement Theology school covet: in Heb 8:8, 12:24, 8:13 and Jer 31:31:
“The time is coming,” declares the LORD,”when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Please understand the derivation of this word in the languages of the time is “renew”. (Do read it in context of Matthew 5:17). The Law of the Father, is hardly obsolete, it is so important to God, and knowing man cannot get to first base with it by himself, sinners and weak as we sons of Adam are we, that He fullfulls it for us, through the Holy Spirit and the circumcision of our heart – if we accept Him voluntarily.
Since the days of Alexander, and the imposition of the Hellenistic first “Holocoast”, antisemitism was rooted. The Greek attempt was, as I understand it, to exterminate all vestiges of Jewishness. This persecution has flourished forevermore. Can you imagine how any non-Jew can relish the notion of having to be grafted in to a Jew for his salvation?
The best sign of Yeshua to me is how this impotent, insignificant and sinful people have survived over 6000 years in this Satan dominated universe. God’s outstretched arms will always protect His covenant people.
Too many of us mere mortals get horribly confused. The Bible is not about Jews, religions, denominations and we bit characters, it’s about His master plan for all His children and the subsequent Spiritual warfare between God and Satan
Date: 01 Feb 2006
I believe the preterist view is a modern day heresy. I am dumbfounded that its even remotely considered plausible. I still cant beleive Steve Gregg believes this stuff. Maybe Ive missed something? Maybe he could share his own views on the subject. Maybe these are just what he wrote in the partial preterist commentaries as to what the position teaches? I cant really believe that he believes the 2nd coming happened in 70 A.D.????
Date: 17 May 2006
I have never said or insinuated that I believe Jesus came back in AD 70. If someone would like to know what I actually believe about eschatology, it costs nothing to listen to my lectures on the subject (downloadable at www.thenarrowpath.com. They are in the “Topical Lectures” link and the series is called “When Shall These Things Be?” There is also verse-by-verse teaching through Revelation and all the prophets, also available at my website. Before someone decides what they think of my beliefs, I would encourage them to find out what those beliefs are.
No one has ever been able to find a hint of antisemitism in my teaching, since there is none in either my heart nor in my teaching. Nor do I discourage people from obeying all the commands of Christ, but rather, it has been the leading feature of my ministry for over 35 years to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever [Christ] has commanded.”
Just thought I would clarify those points for the sake of those who visit here and have no familiarity with what I teach. Some of these criticisms could give a wrong impression.
[Thanks for writing, Steve. I have you listed as a “Historical Preterist” (i.e. Partial Pret) based upon what I’ve read of your (fantastic) works, and observed elsewhere. If you are not comfortable with that label, I’ll happily switch you to “Futurist”. // Steve replied with support for current classification – TDD]
Date: 10 Jul 2007
As someone who had just finished studying a harmony of the Gosepels, I decided to study Revelations again. I feel that God lead me to your book, Revelations: Four Views. The research behind this book is fantastic, and the information is presented in a straightforward manner without your own beliefs coloring the information. That is a welcome relief from virtually all other commentaries. When all is said and done, I am left with the conclusion that God’s will will be done, regardless of whether my understanding of Reveleations is correct or not. Thanks be to God.