Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[xzins]

PFRS Home > Doctrinal Studies > Preterism Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse Copyright © Tim Warner - 010/2003 The date of the writing of Revelation has been hotly disputed by preterists. Until the last century, Christian tradition has placed John's exile to Patmos during the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). The dispute over the date of the composition of Revelation is a crucial one. If it was composed by John after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem preterism is at once refuted. Revelation is a prophetic book, predicting the coming of Christ in the future. A post-AD70 date makes equating the coming of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem utterly impossible. There is no question that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of the Roman state, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. That much can be gathered from the first chapter of Revelation. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1] There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors were either indifferent to Christianity, or did not consider it a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the decade of the 60s, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in AD67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded. There is no record of Nero's banishing Christians to Patmos, only his brutality against the Christians of Rome. It was Nero who made a sport of throwing Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance. After Nero's death Rome left the Christians alone until the rise of Domitian to power in AD81. Although not as cruel and insane as Nero, Domitian had some Christians killed, the property of Christians confiscated, Scriptures and other Christian books burned, houses destroyed, and many of the most prominent Christians banished to the prison island of Patmos. All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John's banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero's reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John. Eusebius the Christian historian, living only two hundred years after Domitian's reign, gathered evidence from both Christian and secular sources that were still extant at the time (some of which are no longer extant today). All of the sources at Eusebius' disposal placed the date of John's Patmos exile during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius' earliest source was Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John. But he also used other unnamed sources both Christian and secular to place the date of the Patmos exile of Christians during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). "It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: 'If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ." [2]  While Eusebius quoted Irenaeus' statement, notice that he also indicated that other secular histories at his disposal accurately indicated the banishment of Christians to Patmos occurred during Domitian's reign. Eusebius continues: "Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: 'Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.' But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition." [3] Here again Eusebius mentioned an ancient Christian tradition, but did not quote his sources, that placed John's return from exile on Patmos after Domitian's fifteen year reign, and Nerva's rise to power (AD96). There is more early evidence, both explicit and implicit, from other early writers prior to Eusebius, as follows: Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus. "'And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.' He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God." [4] A little farther, Victorinus again made the same claim. "The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba."[5] Clement of Alexandria (AD150-220) recounted a story about John shortly after his return from exile, while a very old man. "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." [6] The expression "the tyrant's death" can only refer to the death of either Nero or Domitian, the only two "tyrants" that ruled in the first century. Eusebius related that upon the death of Domitian, the Roman senate voted to release those exiled by Domitian. This seems to parallel Clement's statement above. However, the above statement COULD refer to Nero, except for one fact. In the story that Clement related, he clearly stated that John was a very old and feeble man. The story is about a young new convert whom John entrusted to a certain elder to disciple in the Faith. The man had formerly been a thief and robber. Upon John's return from exile on Patmos, he heard that this young man had returned to his old life of crime. Upon hearing this, he sharply rebuked the elder in whose custody he had left him. John immediately set out for the place where this robber and his band were known to lurk. Upon reaching the place, he was assaulted by the band of robbers. He demanded of them to take him to their leader. They brought John to the very man whom John had formerly won to Christ, and left in the custody of the elder. When the young man saw John approaching, he began to run away. John began to run after him, calling, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.” John then explained to him that forgiveness and restoration was still possible. Clement then stated, "And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church." [7] From this account we see that upon John's release from exile on Patmos, he was a feeble old man. John could have been in his teens or twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD96. If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the "tyrant" referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties, fifties, or early sixties. He would hardly be spoken of as a feeble old man by Clement. That John lived until after the reign of Domitian is also shown by Irenaeus' repeated references to his own mentor, Polycarp, being John's disciple.[8] Polycarp was born in AD65, and died in AD155. He was five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was two years old when Nero died. His being tutored by John therefore must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward. More than one early writer mentioned the persecution of the Apostles under Nero. They spoke of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but made no mention of John's exile during this persecution. As is obvious to the unbiased reader, the early external evidence that Revelation was written under the reign of Domitian is indisputable. No evidence exists, from the first three centuries of Christian tradition, placing the composition of Revelation during the reign of Nero. Nor is there any evidence (Christian or secular) that Nero exiled any Christians to Patmos. Preterist argument from internal evidence. The clear familiarity of John with Temple worship in Revelation is alleged to indicate that both he and his readers relied on personal knowledge of Temple worship in Jerusalem. According to preterists, this implies that the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Revelation was written. However, this argument is flawed at its very foundation. The Old Testament is full of the same Temple imagery. Any Gentile Christian familiar with the Old Testament (LXX) would be sufficiently familiar with the Temple imagery. Furthermore, familiarity with the New Testament book of Hebrews would also be sufficient. Even a cursory reading of Revelation reveals that John's visions and comments reference Old Testament prophecy on every page. Ezekiel saw a future Temple in his prophetic visions. [9] Yet, his visions occurred during the Babylonian captivity years after Solomon's Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of those who returned after the seventy year captivity to rebuild the Temple had never seen Solomon's Temple, or observed its rituals. [10] Their familiarity with the Temple was based solely on the Torah and scrolls like Ezekiel's and Daniel's. The Temple destroyed by the Romans has been gone for nearly 2000 years. If preterists' claim is correct, we should not be able to understand Revelation or write about Temple worship today because we have no personal first-hand knowledge of the Temple and its rituals. Such a position is absurd, since our knowledge of the Temple comes from the Scriptures. Neither the writing nor understanding of Revelation requires or implies first hand knowledge of the Temple. The Old Testament is sufficient. John certainly was himself familiar with the Temple, having been there with Jesus on several occasions. And his readers were well trained in the Old Testament Scriptures. That John was told in his vision to "measure the Temple and them that worship therein,"[11] is likewise no indication that the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. This prophetic vision clearly parallels Ezekiel's vision. [12] Ezekiel saw his vision during the Babylonian captivity, fourteen years after Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.[13] Yet, in his vision, Ezekiel was taken to Jerusalem, shown a glorious Temple far larger than Solomon's Temple, and proceeded to record all the measurements of the Temple in great detail. John saw his prophetic Temple vision during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). We don't know exactly when during his reign he was exiled, nor how long prior to his release he wrote Revelation. But, the possible timespan covers anywhere from eleven to twenty six years after the destruction of the Temple by Titus. It certainly COULD have also been fourteen years following the Temple's destruction, just like Ezekiel's Temple vision. It is obvious that the command given John to "measure the Temple" was meant to parallel Ezekiel's vision. Since Ezekiel saw his Temple vision fourteen years after the first Temple had been destroyed and lay in ruins, there is every reason to conclude that the same situation existed when John wrote Revelation. Ezekiel's Temple vision and prophecy was clearly intended to indicate a future rebuilt Temple. Ezekiel did not see the former (Solomon's) Temple that had been destroyed, or a Temple that was currently standing. Therefore,  John's vision of the Temple in Jerusalem should be seen in the same way, being an indication and prophecy that the Temple will indeed be rebuilt. Contrary to the claim that John's Temple vision indicates that Herod's Temple was still standing, when compared to the parallel account in Ezekiel, it seems obvious that both prophecies of measuring the Temple were given shortly after the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The former in Ezekiel's day by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and the latter in John's day by Titus and the Romans. That this is how the early Christians understood Revelation, even after the destruction of the Temple, is clear from their statements to the effect that the Temple in Jerusalem will be the seat of the Antichrist in the last days. [14] The preterist's attempts to date Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem fail on both internal and external evidence. This failure is indicative of their whole system, which is forced upon the Scriptures, and in this case, upon history as well. Preterist scholarship on this question is clearly agenda driven. Notes: [1] Rev. 1:9 [2] Eusebius, Bk. III, ch. xviii [3] ibid. ch. xx [4] Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, XI [5] ibid. ch. XVII [6] Clement, Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved, XLII [7] ibid. [8] Irenaeus, frag. ii [9] Ezek. 40-44 [10] cf. Hag. 2:3 [11] Rev. 11:1-2 [12] cf. Ezek. 40:3ff & Rev. 13:1-2 [13] Ezek. 40:1 [14] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk V, XXV, i-ii, Bk. V, XXX, iv, Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, xxxix, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, vi, Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV <

[Frumanchu]

It basically comes down to this: Was Christ resurrected or recreated?

False dilemma: exclusion of any notion of change.

[HarleyD]

"I'll entertain it except in terms of the date of the Book of Revelation. The external and internal evidence for the dating of revelation is unassailable, in my view, by a fair-minded person."

IOW, anyone who holds an earlier date is not "fair minded"? Rather bias don't you think given the disagreements over the past two centuries. You appear to be reasonable but your words states otherwise.

[topcat54]

This I can accept. I get confused however about the Preterist view on a visible 2nd coming. I have read a few books, and it just isn't discussed.

Which books have you been reading? A good starting point would be:

When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism by Keith Mathison

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison

Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism Greg Bahnsen

[topcat54]

Well, setting aside for a moment your (mis)understanding of covenant theology, "covenant eschatology" is the technical name chosen by the hyper-preterists (those who teach that Christ's second coming was in AD70) to represent their views. It is not the view of virtually every person who is identified with covenant theology. In fact most folks who are in the covenant theology camp regard "covenant eschatology" (aka hyper-preterism) as a heresy.

See A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism

[topcat54]

Assuming that "1000 years" means "a really long time," how does that change the substance of the events that are predicted?

It generally doesn't, but there are things that go along with it.

Some things are just a result of our presuppositions as we approach Rev. 20. One presupposition is the question where is Christ during this "thousand years"? Contra the premil view Rev. 20 does not teach that Christ is physically located on tbe earth during the time represented by the phrase "a thousand years".

That is one substantive difference.

[P-Marlowe]

I'll be gone for a while, possibly until monday. Why don't you take a little time and scripturally refute each of my points. These areas are open to introspection. I do not claim that my position is the only position, but then not once has anyone scripturally refuted what I am being ridiculed for suggesting.

Why don't you provide scriptural evidence that Adam was mortal before the fall, that Christ's bones were even capable of being broken, in light of the fact that driving nails through his hands and feet did not accomplish the task, that a person who does not feel physical pain is not suffering from that condition because of a defect in his physical make up, or that Christ (before he laid down his own life) was even capable of being killed by any man or by some accident of nature.

I'll be back by monday to see whether or not you can scripturally refute any of those points.

[Frumanchu]

Another good read is R.C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus.

[Alex Murphy]

Unlike Buggman, you have yet to offer any scriptural refutation for anything I have proposed. For you, ridicule appears to be your only weapon. It seems to be the weapon of choice for my detractors on this thread.

See post #393, which you conveniently avoided responding to. If I sound like I'm ridiculing you, it's because I'm questioning whether I heard you right. I summarized your position, using descriptive word-pictures. Let's go over what you said, and what I said, okay?

If Jesus' visage was marred beyond recognition (a position I agree with), and that "marring" included a skin-rending scourging (no argument from me there), AND no one "sewed him up" at the resurrection, then we are forced to take your testimony to mean that when Jesus appeared to the disciples, every single wound He received was still open. That includes His skin being flayed open and missing whole sections from the scourging, and His visage still being "marred beyond recognition" from being struck in the face and his beard being pulled out (Isaiah 50:6).

Or I could summarize/harmonize all of your positions, and conclude that you think He looked like a zombie. That's not ridicule, that's brevity.And you're telling us that you never articulate a position that you can't defend with scripture.

Trust me, this is not ridicule. Ridiculing you isn't my intent--clarifying your position is, so that I'll know where my own detractor stands. Believe me, you'll know when I'm ridiculing you. Posters will go up, scale models and hand puppets will be constructed, and you'll receive a complimentary one-way ticket to Opening Night. No popcorn will be served, but free gyros and pizza and Vanilla Coke will be available at the concession stand.

I believe I backed up all my positions with scripture.

You're free to believe whatever you what, but it doesn't mean it's true. Frankly, it's your lack of a familiarity with scripture that gets you into trouble. Otherwise, you'd have remembered Buggman's "blood" verse and my "ghost" verse in advance, and never asserted that Jesus rose to appear as a bloodless walking mass of rended flesh. Your constant backpedaling, when we confront you with the rest of scripture, is clear evidence that you can't withstand scriptural cross-examination without changing your testimony.

[ksen]

It is clear that our bodies will necessarily be changed...... to be like His.

Sure, to be like His is now.

Are you claiming that Jesus needed to have his body changed?

I'm not claiming that Jesus needed anything.

Why? Was there some flaw in his physical make up which made Him unfit for Glory?

• For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: - Rom 8:3(KJV)

Looks like Scripture clearly states that Christ was sent in the form of sinful flesh so the flesh He had during the Incarnation was the same as the flesh we have now.

And don't try to claim that I am saying that Jesus had sin, because I'm not.

Are you claiming that the body that Jesus laid on the cross is not the same body that he caused to rise from the dead?

I'm claiming it is not the same body He had during the Incarnation.

I had always understood (and I believe that scripture teaches) that the body that Christ took to the cross was the same body he took up to heaven.

Then you wouldn't mind posting the Scripture?

Do you have any scriptural evidence that it wasn't? If so please provide it.

See Roamns 8:3 above.

It basically comes down to this: Was Christ resurrected or recreated?

Huh? We will be resurrected with the same kind of resurrection had, after all He is the firstfruits from the dead, and I Cor 15 clearly says that what will rise from our graves is not what will go in it.

• And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: - I Cor 15:37ff (KJV)

[Alex Murphy]

The first to plead his case seems just,
until another comes and examines him.

Proverbs 18:17

[Buggman]

Ah, my apologies then. I didn't mean to group you in with the hyper-preterists. I suppose they took the term as a part of pushing the "consistant" preterist (as opposed to "hyper"-preterist) label.

[57chevypreterist]

After you read topcat's articles, you may want to check out the articles here:

http://www.preterist.org/articlesmedia.asp

There are articles that deal with many of misconceptions/misrepresentations about preterism.

Blessings to you in your studies!

[57chevypreterist]

I suppose they took the term as a part of pushing the "consistant" preterist (as opposed to "hyper"-preterist) label.

Actually, preterist means "past" in fulfillment, so anyone who adheres to some sort of futurist eschatology cannot be considered "preterist". "Partial preterists", so called, are really "partial futurists"!

Or as Rush says, "words mean things"!

;o)

Blessings in Messiah!

[topcat54]

Actually, preterist means "past" in fulfillment, so anyone who adheres to some sort of futurist eschatology cannot be considered "preterist". "Partial preterists", so called, are really "partial futurists"!

But even futurists believe some things happened in the past, so then by your thinking they can be called "partial preterists".

[topcat54]

Here's a good article that outlines the discussion and confusion even within the hyper-preterist camp: Five Views of the AD 70 Rapture and After. It's not clear which of the five views is most "consistent".

[Buggman]

lol I'll let you two work that one out.

[57chevypreterist]

But even futurists believe some things happened in the past, so then by your thinking they can be called "partial preterists".

Yes, I know. And I do call them "partial preterists", except when they call me "hyper-preterist" instead of "full preterist"! LOL ;o)

[xzins]

Amen.

I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe....even if only on a respirator.

[Frumanchu]

Why don't you provide scriptural evidence that Adam was mortal before the fall

Because that's not the position you espoused, Marlowe. You said that Adam was "incorruptible." Had you said "uncorrupted" I would have no disagreement with you, but "incorruptible" is entirely different. On the one hand you say Adam's body was incorruptible, then turn right around and say it was corruptible by his own sin. Either his body is incorruptible or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

that Christ's bones were even capable of being broken,in light of the fact that driving nails through his hands and feet did not accomplish the task

Are you saying that it is impossible under normal circumstances to drive a nail through one's hand or foot without breaking the bones? Are you saying that the fact that not a bone in His body was broken must necessarily be because they couldn't be broken, to the exclusion of God's bringing this prophesy about by virtue of normal secondary causes?

Normal humans have breakable bones. Unless you can make a case from Scripture that the breakability of bones is exclusively an effect of the corruption of sin in the body (and yet somehow the destruction of flesh is not), then I don't need to prove something that common sense dictates.

that a person who does not feel physical pain is not suffering from that condition because of a defect in his physical make up

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." - Rev 21:4

So will we no longer feel physical pain because we no longer have physical bodies, or because we were raised incorruptible but given defects in our physical makeup?

or that Christ (before he laid down his own life) was even capable of being killed by any man

OK, I'll play it your way. Luke 4:29-30 "29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. 30 But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way."

Why bother escaping? It's not like the fall would have killed him, right?

"1After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews[a] were seeking to kill him." - John 7:1

Why did He avoid the Jews simply because they were seeking to do something He knew they couldn't do?

"59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." -John 8:59

Why did He hide Himself if He could not be killed?

Is He not the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world?

or by some accident of nature.

Oh come on, Marlowe. You're asking a Calvinist to look for Scriptural proof of an "accident of nature."

There are no accidents, Marlowe :)

[57chevypreterist]

I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe....even if only on a respirator.

And I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside "scripture is to interpret scripture" just so they can interpret the scriptures using extra-biblical sources such as written historical accounts, church traditions/creeds, and personal observations.

Personally, I'm extremely glad that folks such as Martin Luther and other Reformers were willing to "wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe." ;o)