Sproul: Early vs Late date for Revelation?

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I recently finished the Ligonier Connect series on eschatology. In the series of lectures, Dr. Sproul appeared to strongly assert a partial preterist position, and argued for the "earlier" date for the Book of Revelation (pre AD 70). However, when I went to check the notes in Dr. Sprout's Reformation Study Bible, I was quite surprised. The introduction to Revelation gave a discussion of both the early and "late" date theories. However, the introduction stated the notes in the Reformation Study Bible would take the position of the "late" date. Has Dr. Sproul changed his view on the "early" verses "late" date, or as general editor of this set of study Bible notes, was he perhaps accommodating the views of his commentators for the book of Revelation as to the date? The notes in the study Bible appear to be inconsistent with the position that he asserts in the Ligonier video lectures.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Having read Dr. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus, it is clear that he leans towards preterism, which of course also requires one to hold that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. As far as his study Bible, although he is the general editor, the notes and introductions were written by a committee of scholars and it is likely that they simply went with the consensus view regarding the dating of Revelation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I know of some people who are sympathetic to the early dating of the book of Revelation, but who also hold that it is a non-sequitur to assume that this view necessarily supports a preterist interpretation of the book.

 

[Peairtach]

There's a lot to be said for the early date (search for threads) but just because you hold to it doesn't mean you need be a prererist on sticks like Gentry (Revelation 6-19, first century) or even Bahnsen (Revelation 6-19, before the Fall of Rome)

Maybe Revelation 6-19 covers the period from the first century to well into our future.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I know of some people who are sympathetic to the early dating of the book of Revelation, but who also hold that it is a non-sequitur to assume that this view necessarily supports a preterist interpretation of the book.

Indeed you do not have to be a preterist to hold to an early date for Revelation, however holding to preterism requires an early dating.