Triumph of the Lamb A Commentary on Revelation: by Dennis E. Johnson
Verdict: Deceptive yet Elegantly written obfuscation of the Word of God as it pertains to end times prophecy.
Therefore what the reader should get out of reading the Book of Revelation is a higher love, trust and fear of Jesus. Dennis Johnson is an ordained Presbyterian minister and therefore I would expect this to be his commentary on the Book of Revelation.
He then goes on to tell the reader that there are many views of how to look at the Book of Revelation. But he states that he is not going to reveal what he believes until the end of the book. He is going to present an argument for his view and refute the counter points made by those that interpret the Bible literally and leave out all the parts that support the argument that dispensationalists have. Also, I noticed that he refers to dispensationlists as "Futurists". That is a term that is likely one used to help the reader feel that people that believe what he calls a futurists beliefs are out there. Why didn't he just explain what a dispensationalist is and call them that?
Page 5 of this book and second paragraph there is an example of how the author of this book is attempting to shape the thought process:
The author seems to be saying that if what the reader believes is a literal translation of Revelation and if that is what we are being led to believe by the Holy Spirit when we read this book then the reader must try harder to change their paradigm so that it doesn't conflict with his doctrine.
Another thought on ammillenialist beliefs is that there is a problem in that the Book of Revelation could not be prophecy if it were written in 95AD and most of the things that ammillenialists believe the book predicted to come true came true in the first century after Jesus. If Jerusalem was at war with Rome and the temple was
destroyed in 70AD I believe then how can the Book of Revelation be revealing that in 95AD? Also, in the book on page 359 when explaining the preterist views he Johnson states that there is an issue with when the Book of Revelation was written. Johnson states that he isn't going into that argument in this book and that some argue that the Book of Revelation was written in the 60s and others say 90s AD.
R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 203
Regarding the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation, ammillenialist R. C. Sproul leans toward postmillennialist Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.’s research and conclusions and say that looks like he respects this guy's view in that he states that Gentry does “excellent work.” Sproul speculates that “if he [Gentry] is correct in arguing for a date prior to ad 70, then sweeping revisions must be made in our understanding of this book’s content and focus.”
So this would be a good area to study.
Also Dennis Johnson is a preterist. A preterist cannot give accurate commentary on the Book of Revelation simply because they believe that because Israel and the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah that the church took over their place in the Bible wherever Israel is mentioned. That is not the case for the following reasons:
The church does not replace Israel in the New Testament. This is a dangerous doctrine and I believe from Satan because it changes end times prophecy interpretation from something that can be viewed as many things to come and feeds a likely great deception of Christian believers during the end times.
The issue I have with this book is that it starts off with a lot of subjective commentary on how difficult it is for anyone to understand the Book of Revelation casting doubt that the believer can understand this by himself and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of this commentary is to present the preterist ammillenialists viewpoint before revealing that is the thesis of the book. Of course the reader should be able to ascertain that from the reading of the jacket cover due to the fact that Dennis Johnson is an ordained Presbyterian minister.
When I was in sales I would use a similar technique that the author uses in this book. He frames the argument but does not unveil what he is trying to prove in an attempt to sway the reader into believing his doctrine. when we talk about what the Bible means there cannot be deception or manipulation. That is of Satan. His technique is deceitful and biased. Even if I agreed with him on the doctrine I'd see that.
If I were to give this book a name so that I would know what I was getting into it would be:
How to Write a Book About End Times Prophecy In An Attempt To Make The Reader Believe What I Believe By Telling The Reader They Cannot Understand Scripture On Their Own And Discount Those That Do Believe In A Biblical Interpretation
Before reading a commentary on the Book of Revelation I think it is important to establish a few things:
1. When was the Book of Revelation written? Can we really know that for sure?
2. How does the Bible define what Israel is?
3. How does the Bible use the words Chosen and Elect?
4. If the Church replaces Israel then is God breaking a covenant he made with Israel? Would that make God a liar?
And a very important point is that we should simply go to God's word and let the Holy Spirit teach us. The exegesis of these preterists creates a lot of red flags and complicated explanations that neither make sense and play into Satan's favor concerning antisemitism and end times prophecy.
Concerning the Elect and the Chosen
What is election and who is the elect in the Bible. It never means predestined to salvation but refers to Israel. According to Calvin there are going to be those that are going to be saved and those that will be lost and that God elects this based on what God decides beforehand.
If God elected some to eternal life then He also would have to elect some to hell. Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. This is not the God that we see in the Bible.
The elect often refers to scripture in the Bible (examples: Deut 18:5, 1 Sam 10:24, 1 Sam 12:13, 1 Sam 15:19, 22-23,
God chooses and un-chooses people. The outlook in God's choosing doesn't have to do with eternal life.
Chooses examples in the Bible and none are demonstrating God making a choice for anyone's salvation:
Isa 42:1, Isaiah 49:7, Luke 23:35, 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:6
Here are examples in the Bible where people decide to choose:
Josh 25:22, Judges 10:14, Luke 14:8,
The election of Israel in the OT:
1 Chr 16:13 and Psalms 105:6
Election of Israel in the New Testament:
Acts 13: 16, 17
Jesus speaks in Matthew 22:
Many are called but few are chosen. The chosen are Israelite's.
Matthew 8:11, Matthew 22:14, Matthew 20:16
Look at Luke for the parallel story of the chosen not coming to the marriage. The Jews received the invite to the wedding, but they chose not to go.
Elect: refers to person or persons that are chosen for a purpose and has nothing to do with eternal life or Salvation.
