Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Questions about Preterism
My understanding:1. Yes, it's common among preterists to date Revelation before any of the events it describes. That means that everything is expected to be future fulfillment. However, other preterists disagree, noting that Revelation specifically refers to events that have already happened and that John of Patmos claims to be already sharing in the tribulation of the times at the time he writes. So it's arguable how much of Revelation had happened and how much had not yet happened at the time of the vision.
2. Preterists generally admit that they don't know for certain who the two witnesses were. James and Peter are commonly thought to be the two (I personally lean toward Peter and Paul). But there is no scriptural basis for believing they were revived in this fashion...just various traditions. Others read the passage spiritually, noting the witnesses's resemblance to Moses and Elijah, and compare their stories to the law and the prophets.
3. Well, these signs are done by the false prophet--the "beast of the land"--not the beast of sea. There are lots of theories about who the false prophet was. We do note from historians, however, that various magicians were performing these sorts of tricks.
Good answers Lee. Happy New Year!If Revelations was written before the fall: I'm curious how many (if any?) got the prophetic message in time? And is there mention ANYWHERE of anyone benefiting from John's book?
Of course if John was writing about something that is JUST about to happen: why all the visionary and ambiguous writings? Did this actually help anyone? It sure didn't stop the event.
Although God occasionally does interesting things in a somewhat similar fashion.
Lee wrote: "1. Yes, it's common among preterists to date Revelation before any of the events it describes. That means that everything is expected to be future fulfillment. However, other preterists disagree, noting that Revelation specifically refers to events that have already happened and that John of Patmos claims to be already sharing in the tribulation of the times at the time he writes. So it's arguable how much of Revelation had happened and how much had not yet happened at the time of the vision."Thanks for your response, Lee. Whether they were already occurring or not, would it have had time to circulate?
2. Preterists generally admit that they don't know for certain who the two witnesses were. James and Peter are commonly thought to be the two (I personally lean toward Peter and Paul). But there is no scriptural basis for believing they were revived in this fashion...just various traditions. Others read the passage spiritually, noting the witnesses's resemblance to Moses and Elijah, and compare their stories to the law and the prophets.
Hmmm...so far my impression is that preterists interpret Revelation pretty literally, especially in finding exact correlations between the imagery of the book and fulfillments of the imagery in the Jewish War. Would it not be inconsistent to began interpreting spiritually at the two witnesses?
3. Well, these signs are done by the false prophet--the "beast of the land"--not the beast of sea. There are lots of theories about who the false prophet was. We do note from historians, however, that various magicians were performing these sorts of tricks.
Thanks for this, Lee. I just finished reading about the role of magic in 2nd century. For some reason, I didn't/don't associate magic with the first century. Something I will definitely look into now!
Lee, is John a candidate for one of the witnesses? I mean, tradition has him being boiled in a hot pot of oil, surviving, and being exiled to Patmos. Was just curious. Also curious why you think it's Peter and Paul? Thanks, Lee!
Lee, is John a candidate for one of the witnesses? I mean, tradition has him being boiled in a hot pot of oil, surviving, and being exiled to Patmos. Was just curious. Also curious why you think it's Peter and Paul? Thanks, Lee!
Time to circulate: it was addressed to the elders of the seven churches of Asia, and I would assume it was hand-delivered to each of them when written.Spiritual interpretation of the two witnesses: Yes, I agree, a literal understanding is more consistent! I've actually written about 20 pages about the two witnesses in my book! It's a favorite topic of mine, with lots of ideas swirling about their identification.
Regarding Peter and Paul, I feel their near-simultaneous deaths at the hands of the Beast (Nero) would have had quite an influence on the early church. Legends of their ascension to heaven, and their wonder-working abilities, also support this idea. Whoever John of Patmos meant his two witnesses to be, I think the church would have thought first of Peter and Paul. However, this contains a major weakness: they did not die in Jerusalem.
I don't recall any commentary that considers John.
Lee wrote: "Time to circulate: it was addressed to the elders of the seven churches of Asia, and I would assume it was hand-delivered to each of them when written.Spiritual interpretation of the two witnesse..."
I see you have written several books. Is the one you are referring to Revelation: The Way it Happened?
Lee, how does a preterist view the modern state of Israel? If I understand dispensationalism, they view it as a prophecy fulfilled that had to occur before the second return, right? Does the preterist just view it as happenstance?
Yes Genni, preterists find it a bit amusing that 2000 years later people are still trying to fit events into the prophecies when both Jesus and John of Patmos promised immediate fulfillment. They see the first century as a perfect match already.
So a preterist would see the Vatican as the new Jerusalem?
omg no!!! Preterists don't have any love for the Vatican.A full preterist believes the New Jerusalem arrived in the first century. a partial preterist believes it is yet to come, believing that the last couple chapters of Revelation haven't arrived.
haha wow, ok so it's really all about trying to figure out why Revelation doesn't make sense.
Preterists tend to take the Bible seriously when it says Jesus will be returning pronto, Joshua. I mean, they have other arguments for a first-century fulfillment, but the important ones are in the Gospels and Revelation, yeah.Full preterism makes a lot of sense to me, but I suppose that's natural for someone interested in first-century history. If I considered Revelation inerrant, full preterism is the only way I could make sense of it.
Well that makes sense to me too. (Not that I consider Revelation inerrant) So what does the new Jerusalem mean to a full Preterist? Obviously they assume Revelation is in no way literal.
Very few people read all of Revelation literally, Joshua. Who do you know who believes a golden city will float down from heaven and land on earth?The point is this city's arrival commemorates the beginning of the age of Christ's rule on earth, and that began on schedule.
Revelation describes the New Jerusalem as the bride of Christ. Think of it the way Paul does, that the bride is the church.
I've been reading a few NDE's lately, you know the early church bought into the apocalypse of Peter, and apocalypse of Paul, the Sheperd, Esdras etc. I don't see how Revelation is any different, in fact Athanasius endorsed 2 Esdras.Can anyone tell me how Revelation is any different to these writings? Probably not. Full Preterism is interesting, but it doesn't sit well with me. It seems to amount to Revelation not actually meaning what it actually says. A healthier point of view than literalism though, by a long shot.
Revelation is traditionally thought to have been authored by one of the Twelve, Joshua...that's the difference.
Revelation as a pre-70 work seems to stretch the limits of credibility, doesn't it? Everything I've seen from scholars "in the know" indicates it's a later work, maybe around 90, and the persecution it's reflecting is Domitian's, not Nero's (which was localized to Rome and so would not have affected the churches in Asia Minor). Does a later date do damage to the preterist argument since Jerusalem is already destroyed at this point?
hmm. that tradition is a fourth century one.
Paul, I just finished reading Before Jerusalem Fell . It is entirely devoted to proving that Revelation was written pre-70 AD. It's worth checking out anyway.And yes, a late date would give preterism little credence.
Did a pre-70 A.D. book of Revelation really save anyone from disaster? Or was it just a prophetic bit of eternal Hope?I'm still not convinced it wasn't written around 95 A.D.. But I often look for prophecies to hit two birds with one stone. And God is amazing enough he can occasionally get three bounces with one prophecy.
From my historical-critical standpoint, I split the two and date Revelation to about 80 CE. The trend now is to realize that Domitian's reign was not nearly as traumatic as once believed. He certainly was not hated in Asia Minor, so all of the Preterist clues pointing to Nero Caesar remain more plausible.The dating of Domitian's time leans heavily on the testimony of Irenaeus.
Rod wrote: "Did a pre-70 A.D. book of Revelation really save anyone from disaster? Or was it just a prophetic bit of eternal Hope?"Revelation 22:11 seems to say that it is too late to save anyone from disaster.
I'm not so sure we can trust Irenaeus as a 100% reliable source. But what he says may have value.
Good verse Lee. Interesting point. Revelation 22:
11"Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." 12"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.…
So has that reward been shared already?
According to full preterists, yes, it has. We are sharing in the reward today.
And what exactly is that reward? Especially considering that every person in history is now DEAD!And how many Christians died horrible nasty deaths right about the time Jesus promised HIS REWARD? Definitely a few - even Peter and Paul.
I'm not arguing with you Lee, just curious - some of preterism is still NEW to me. You might have come across answers to some of my thoughts and concerns.
Most preterists believe we are living in the kingdom of God now. It is a spiritual kingdom over which Jesus reigns. Those that do not look forward to eternity consider "heaven" to be where God dwells...and God now dwells with us.
Drat! Woke up today and didn't get Raptured, again. This is getting old - preterists must be right, Lee.
Yeah, I guess they do have 2,000 years of daily futurist failure on their side.
Ha! Ha! Yep, but you only have to be right once!
I was thinking about this recently, since there are apparently some Christians who don't worry so much about the environment because they believe God wouldn't let us destroy the world without him.I happened to be reading Tacitus' writings at the time, in the place where he describes the fall of Jerusalem.
What was interesting, I thought, was the parallel between what he had to say on the matter and what Jesus and Josephus had to say about the fall of the Jerusalem.
---
Jesus said:
- then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory
- he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet
- they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
---
Tacitus, recording the fall of Jerusalem wrote, among other prodigious things:
- "There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds."
- a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing."
- "At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure."
---
And finally, Josephus wrote these things about the end of that city:
- before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
- Moreover ... as the priests were going ... into the inner [court of the temple,] ... they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."
---
Granted, one must perhaps wiggle a bit to take these as fulfillments of the prophecy. But on the side of Preterism there is at least the fact that, in some shape or form, it happened. Whereas the other perspectives seem only to have in common the fact that they are always getting it wrong.
Anyway, I don't necessarily consider myself a preterist, but these things struck me as VERY fascinating. I still have a lot to sort out as far as eschatology goes.
In the meanwhile, though, I'm going to recycle.
I, too, was struck by the similar language in these and other references Jake. Some are probably figures of speech, but some are hard to explain away. Take this verse:Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”
Josephus reports that many there were indeed who sold what they had for one quart; it was of wheat, if they were of the richer sort, but of barley, if they were poorer. This *might* just be a figure of speech. But the command in Revelation not to damage the oil and wine, and how it matches the command of the Roman General to preserve the oil and wine before destroying the temple? How can that be coincidence? It has to have been written after the fall of the temple, and written about the temple.
still it says "He will wipe away every tear". So preterism is really just a cop out. (that's aussie slang for a poor reason to avoid accountability)
is not futurism also a cop out? futurists ignore all the sayings that it will happen immediately.
Don't most people settle on a middle ground, in which Revelation reflects first-century concerns while also reflecting ultimate eschatological hope?Well, I say "most people," but I really mean "most scholars."
It completely destroys the preterist case that the second coming never transpired and that Satan was NOT put in chains for a thousand years so we could begin afresh. Does any historian here seriously see any noticeable change in human behavior between 1 AD and 1100 AD?
The question I am trying to sort out is how to understand the language Jesus uses in the context of the rest of the Bible.If David, looking back at his life, could say things like 'he sent out arrows, and scattered them,' 'he sent lightning, and discomfited them,' and 'the channels of the sea appeared' and 'the foundations of the world were discovered,' when talking about his deliverance from his enemies, then is it possible that Jesus' description of the future may likewise not be meant to be taken as physically exact descriptions of events?
I am not intending to argue that this is the case. It is just something I am trying to figure out.
yep futurism is also a cop out. You know I wrote a book about that.. hahaJohn the "brother" should really not have been elevated to a position of apostolic authority
Joshua has a point. since both the preterist and futurist interpretations are "destroyed", the remaining conclusion is that John guessed wrong
Ok. Another question. The book of Revelation is set up in scenes and visions. It is not necessarily chronological. So could it be that the millennial reign was not necessarily expected to follow immediately after the tribulation? In other words, if the proohecies were all fulfilled in the first century, then the second coming is the only thing left that we are waiting for and the millennial reign could begin after that?
The language of Revelation being so full of scenes and visions is unique in scripture, however it is not unusual. It is spirit talk. The language of the spirit realm is not "English". Words can be used but in mysticism scenes and pictures are the order of the day.Most of the time they are just describing things and aren't real places or events. The question of some experiences being actual places is open but certainly in my experience it is mostly descriptive with no reference to a real place.
If you read the Shepherd or the apocalypse of Peter you will see what I mean and find that it is a distinctive style of the apocalyptic genre.
The real question is not the chronology but whether the figure of Christ in the apocalypse is our Jesus. Hence John's warning about many anti-Christs, and Pauls warning of myths.
Does the message promote repentance, love, grace, forgiveness? Does the message teach that Jesus Christ is a human incarnation of God? Does the message point to the saving work of the cross?
The gospel is a call to repentance, faith, mercy, forgiveness and peace.
The apocalypse says "let him who is unclean be unclean still" Jesus is not a man but a spirit, and there is no mercy or a call to repent. The marriage supper is not the Patriachs sitting at a table but a mass slaughter. It also rejects Jerusalem which God cherishes and promises to restore.
As I touched on in my book the doctrines are the opposite of the message of Christ.
I'm drawing a blank on most of the content at the moment, but has anyone else here read the Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation? It interpreted John's visions as largely astrological. But more interestingly it interprets some portions as relating events that took place even before the flood! For instance, they interpret the passage about the men who weren't defiled with women to be speaking, not of future persons, but of the angels who didn't fall with Azazel and his ilk as it is recorded in the Book of Enoch.I'm definitely going to have to read it again, but I was just curious to see if anyone else had read it.
Definitely not how I interpret Revelation, Jake!And Joshua, I agree with most of what you say.
Genni, there is a surprising order that has been discovered in Revelation. The presentation isn't chronological by a long shot, but rather it follows the order of sacrifice in the Temple. This will make more sense when you get to my book.
Jake wrote: "The question I am trying to sort out is how to understand the language Jesus uses in the context of the rest of the Bible.If David, looking back at his life, could say things like 'he sent out ar..."
Jake, your questions are similar to mine, please let me know if you figure it out! :-)
Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation (other topics)Ulysses (other topics)
Revelation: The Way it Happened (other topics)
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (other topics)
1) If The Revelation was written pre-70 AD and the persecution of Christians by Nero began in earnest 64AD, the Rev. Would had to have been written before even 64AD then, correct? The book I am currently reading, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation advocates a mid-60 to late-60's date. In either case, would there have been enough time for the book to have been written and circulated to the churches written to, as well as circulated to the other Christians who would need the encouragement the book had to offer?
2) So far, Preterism finds a fulfillment in the Jewish war for almost evey prophecy in Revelation. However, I haven't been able to find anything on the two witnesses that proohecy, are killed, and then rise from the dead. Does anyone know what the preterist explanation for these guys is?
3) I can see many ways that Nero fits the description of the beast, except for the signs. Rev. 13:13 says the beast will perform great signs and deceive many pelple. As far as I know, people who worshipped Nero did so out of fear rather than because of signs that he performed that deceived them. So in this sense, how does Nero fit the description of the beast?