Preterism and the problem of evil

[Raphael]

My apologies for the title....its getting late..


I have a question for the preterists here that I would be most appreciative if you could answer.

If Satan is bound, how do we explain what appears to be Satan having an influence on people?

If Satan is bound are demons still loose?

I don't really have an eschatological position, but at the moment, this would be the main stumbling block I would have with accepting preterism.

The other question I have is how do you interpret what Irenaeus meant when he says "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies Book V, Chap XXX, para 3)
That is the other stumbling block I have as have always seen that as to mean that John had the revelation around 95AD.

placing the Irenaeus quote in context:
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

[Geek Eclectic]

If Satan is bound, how do we explain what appears to be Satan having an influence on people?If you read the whole passage, you will see that Satan is bound in that he cannot deceive the nations. Many Preterists take this passage as saying that Christianity(previously Judaism) will no longer be primarily limited to the Middle East, but will now be free to spread far and wide. I think that is a fair interpretation considering how Christianity spread, and continues to spread, since then.If Satan is bound are demons still loose?Possibly. I don't really know, and don't particularly care. We witness to all people the same, I believe, regardless of whether their evil stems from themself or from demonic possession(or other influence). In both cases, the person needs to be set free by the truth of the Gospel.The other question I have is how do you interpret what Irenaeus meant when he says "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies Book V, Chap XXX, para 3)I have no idea. I'm not familiar with the writings of Irenaeus, and I have no idea what he is speaking of in the passage you quote. As he has been dead for a very long time, his works are a matter of public domain, and you are more than free to present the entire passage so that those ignorant of his writings such as myself can see the sentence in context. I hope you do so.

[John Reece]

The other question I have is how do you interpret what Irenaeus meant when he says "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies Book V, Chap XXX, para 3)
That is the other stumbling block I have as have always seen that as to mean that John had the revelation around 95AD.


See Part II, Chapter 4 (click on page 45) here (http://richardwaynegarganta.com/BeforeJerusalemFell.pdf) and read the entire chapter.

[Raphael]

If you read the whole passage, you will see that Satan is bound in that he cannot deceive the nations. Many Preterists take this passage as saying that Christianity(previously Judaism) will no longer be primarily limited to the Middle East, but will now be free to spread far and wide. I think that is a fair interpretation considering how Christianity spread, and continues to spread, since then. Okay. I'm happy with that as an explanation.

Possibly. I don't really know, and don't particularly care. We witness to all people the same, I believe, regardless of whether their evil stems from themself or from demonic possession(or other influence). In both cases, the person needs to be set free by the truth of the Gospel.I have no idea. Again, I see no problem there.

I'm not familiar with the writings of Irenaeus, and I have no idea what he is speaking of in the passage you quote. As he has been dead for a very long time, his works are a matter of public domain, and you are more than free to present the entire passage so that those ignorant of his writings such as myself can see the sentence in context. I hope you do so.As I understand it that passage in Against Heresies is the main reason for a late dating of the Revelation of John.

The logic being as follows: Irenaeus being Polycarp's student would know when John had the revelation and what is was referring to. The text seems to indicate that Irenaus thought that the revelation happened towards the end of Domitian's reign, which would mean John only had it in 95AD.

Here is the full text of the chapter from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxi.html
Chapter XXX.—Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names. Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit. Antichrist’s reign and death.

1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies 4700 [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end),—I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.]4701 Others then received this reading 559 without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture,4702 under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.

2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them.”4703 And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fulness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein.”4704 This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved.4705

3. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule:4706 I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed “Titan” by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed.4707 And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.” We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time 560 since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as “he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition,”4708 as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”4709

4700 ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις This passage is interesting, as showing how very soon the autographs of the New Testament must have perished, and various readings crept into the mss. of the canonical books.

4701 That is, Ξ into ΕΙ, according to Harvey, who considers the whole of this clause as an evident interpolation. It does not occur in the Greek here preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., v. 8).

4702 Rev. xxii. 19.

4703 1 Thess. v. 3.

4704 Jer. viii. 16.

4705 Rev. vii. 5–7. [The Danites (though not all) corrupted the Hebrew church and the Levitical priesthood, by image-worship, (Judg. xviii.), and forfeited the blessings of the old covenant.]

4706 [A very pregnant passage, as has often been noted. But let us imitate the pious reticence with which this section concludes.]

4707 Massuet here quotes Cicero and Ovid in proof of the sun being termed Titan. The Titans waged war against the gods, to avenge themselves upon Saturn.

4708 Rev. xvii. 8.

4709 Matt. viii. 11.

[Armor of God]

My apologies for the title....its getting late..


I have a question for the preterists here that I would be most appreciative if you could answer.

If Satan is bound, how do we explain what appears to be Satan having an influence on people?

If Satan is bound are demons still loose?

I don't really have an eschatological position, but at the moment, this would be the main stumbling block I would have with accepting preterism.

The other question I have is how do you interpret what Irenaeus meant when he says "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies Book V, Chap XXX, para 3)
That is the other stumbling block I have as have always seen that as to mean that John had the revelation around 95AD.

Ken Gentry's explanation makes sense to me:
Another problem with the commonly received translation is with
Irenaeus’s statement at 5:30:1. He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work,In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: “As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies. “53 Irenaeus’s mention of ancient copies of Revelation indicates his awareness of its circulating “at a much earlier time. “54 Irenaeus’s statement may be suggestive as to the date of Revelation. Lee comments that such a statement tends to suggest “an early date for the inscripturation of the original master document itself. Clearly, the original autograph must have been still more ancient than even any of the ‘most ancient copies.’ For even the ‘most anchmt copies’ could only have been made after the original auto~aph. . . . And to the 185 A.D. Irenaeus, the ‘most ancient’ copies of all of the various ‘am”ent copies’ had apparently all been made, well before ‘the end of Domitian’s
rule.’ “55 Is it not remarkable that in the same breath Irenaeus can mention “those who have seen John face to face” and “all the good and ancient copies [of Revelation]”? It would seem that the “ancient” character of the “copies” would suggest
something more ancient than the “end of Domitian’s reign,” which
Irenaeus speaks of as “almost in our own generation.”
It is difficult to see why the A.D. 130ff Irenaeus would have referred
(as he did) to “ancient copies” (rather than simply to “copies”) – tithe
original autograph had itself been written on~ “towards the end of
Domitian’s rule.” . . . For then, the first “ancient copies” would and
could only have been made after A.D. 96 — whereas Irenaeus implies
that those ancient copies were made before that date! Moreover, even
if the copies comemed were made only after A.D. 96 – they could
hardly have been called “ancient” by the time of Irenaeus (born 130
A.D.). Still less could such first copies then (at a date only after 96
A. D.) appropriately have been described by Irenaeus as “the most
approved and ancient copies.” Surely the compilation of many copies
would thereafter require even further time. And the further determination
of such of those approved and ancient copies as Irenaeus refers
to as the “most approved and ancient copies” of the original, would
need a further long time to take place.56
If Revelation were written pre-A.D. 70, then its date would be about
three decades older still.

[Armor of God]

Sorry for the formatting. I hit "submit" on accident before I was ready to. :blush:

But in any case, Gentry explains it to my satisfaction.

[Raphael]

See Part II, Chapter 4 (click on page 45) here (http://richardwaynegarganta.com/BeforeJerusalemFell.pdf) and read the entire chapter.I've skimmed over, it, I'll print out the chapter tomorrow and read it a bit more carefully.

Looks very interresting

Ken Gentry's explanation makes sense to me:
From the skimming I did of the above, Gentry is quoted a bit in the other article.

Thank-you for the homework, I'll be getting onto it and asking any other questions that may arise wfen I've finished

[Hitch]

My apologies for the title....its getting late..


I have a question for the preterists here that I would be most appreciative if you could answer.

If Satan is bound, how do we explain what appears to be Satan having an influence on people?

If Satan is bound are demons still loose?

I don't really have an eschatological position, but at the moment, this would be the main stumbling block I would have with accepting preterism.
Its realy not too complicated. . Theenemy is bound, or hindered, but its annihilation comes at the end of history. Jesus opned his ministry saying the evi and the good would grow side by side throigh history, so we should be surprized if there is no action on its part. Further the riegn described in Ps 110 requires the presence of enemies rather than their absence.
The other question I have is how do you interpret what Irenaeus meant when he says "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Against Heresies Book V, Chap XXX, para 3)
That is the other stumbling block I have as have always seen that as to mean that John had the revelation around 95AD.If you're serious about looking into this matter I strongly urge you to read Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell It addresses most early date ojections and speaks directly to the Ira quote.

take care

Hitch

[Raphael]

Its realy not too complicated. . Theenemy is bound, or hindered, but its annihilation comes at the end of history.Ok. by being bound, is he bound from affecting anything, or does the enemy still have an influence on things?
Jesus opned his ministry saying the evi and the good would grow side by side throigh history,Can you provide the reference for that?
so we should be surprized if there is no action on its part. Further the riegn described in Ps 110 requires the presence of enemies rather than their absence.
ok
If you're serious about looking into this matter I strongly urge you to read Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell It addresses most early date ojections and speaks directly to the Ira quote.

take care

HitchI have grabbed the copy linked to above....I still have to read through it (haven't had a chance this week).

[dizzle]

Irenaues also said that Jesus was fifty years old.

[Hitch]

Ok. by being bound, is he bound from affecting anything, or does the enemy still have an influence on things? Of cource. The point of our battle is that God will realize historicly the victory Christ won through the Cross by the method Jesus described in John. That is, Christ t enthroned and the Holy Spirit ministering on earth,,, not by might nor by power but by My Spirit,,, There is no force or reason other than His own thoughts that could hinder God from utterly destroying the enemy long ago or at any given moment. Obviously He does not wish to realize His victory in such a manner. But rather r He sends His own through the historical process,,, we are to live and die and pass on the knowledge of God through the generations. And thus through history, slowly as a tree grows, the kingdom gains aganst the enemy.
Can you provide the reference for that? Within the frame work that God personally controls history its is easy to grasp;

1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.


Notice that this rule require that His enemies be present,


With that for backgroungd on to M13


27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

There can be no question that God id able to extract the tare with no harm done to the wheat. If this is true if follows that in His wisdom and through His revelation here, that it is better for us that we pass through the historical process. His victory realized over the millenia by the same frail creatures lost in the Garden and redeemed through His Blood. More important ly it is for His greater glory.


ok
I have grabbed the copy linked to above....I still have to read through it (haven't had a chance this week). Its a bigfooted monster with no pictures,,,, Let me know wheterh you enjoyed it or not.

Take care

Hitch

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Not only is LilShep's explanation a valid understanding of the text itself (IMO), it is also consistent with clearer passages that talk about fallen angels being bound in chains:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Jude 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

Both Peter and Jude speak of fallen angels being chained and bound. Yet it is clear that fallen angels (demons) were active and had influence in NT times. So what ever these chains are, they are not preventing demonic influence in the world.

IMO, the preterist interpretation is not only a valid understanding of the text of Revelation as written, but it is also consistent with other NT writings.

[Secretary of Defense Crow]

My apologies for the title....its getting late..


I have a question for the preterists here that I would be most appreciative if you could answer.

If Satan is bound, how do we explain what appears to be Satan having an influence on people?

If Satan is bound are demons still loose?

I don't really have an eschatological position, but at the moment, this would be the main stumbling block I would have with accepting preterism.



Satan bound or not bound aside, since mankind has a fallen sinful nature, I think that we're capable of being quite wicked without the benefit of muse, mentor, or cheerleader. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see this as a problem for Preterists. (not one myself, so hopefully they'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding their position)

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Satan bound or not bound aside, since mankind has a sinful nature, I think that we're capable of being quite wicked without the benefit of muse, mentor, or cheerleader. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see this as a problem for Preterists. (not one myself, so hopefully they'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding their position)

I agree. However, (as I stated above) I don't think the text itself demonds a comprehensive binding of Satan (though I think JPH disagrees with me on this).

[Geek Eclectic]

And I agree with Faramir! Who agrees with me! Who agrees with Faramir! Who, more importantly, agrees with me! :thumb:

[jwarrend]

Satan bound or not bound aside, since mankind has a fallen sinful nature, I think that we're capable of being quite wicked without the benefit of muse, mentor, or cheerleader. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see this as a problem for Preterists. (not one myself, so hopefully they'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding their position)

I think the issue is more that Rev 20 implies, at the least, some manner of discontinuity once Satan is thrown into the bottomless pit. Prior to Rev 20:2, Satan is able to "deceive the nations (whatever that means)", and subsequent to it, he is unable to "deceive the nations". If this took place in AD 70, then we should be able to look at history and see that something changed at that point. But if we are claiming the verse refers to "demonic activity" or "wholesale national wickedness", I think that would be a tough sell. There is present day anecdotal evidence of demonic possessions and the like from believers, and the last century certainly provides ample evidence of wickedness on a scale that, to say the least, would rival anything that took place pre AD70. Perhaps preterists could say that Satan has been "loosed" again, although I don't know that any do.

The more defensible position is to claim that the binding of Satan permitted the mass conversion of Gentiles. Certainly, there is a historical discontinuity we can really and truly point to, as there was a time when the "community of believers" consisted primarily of Jews, and at the present time consists primarily of Gentiles.

However, I personally think that even this interpretation makes a few mistakes. For one thing, it's not clear that the historical discontinuity can properly be located at AD 70, since vigorous missionary efforts to the Gentiles were already well underway well before that time (this, by the way, is also why I find the preterist reading of the "gathering of the elect" in Matt 24:31 to be unconvincing). Additionally, I think that trying to draw analogies between Rev 20:2 and other passages that speak of someone being "bound" ignores the strong language of Rev 20:3.

-Jeff

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I think the issue is more that Rev 20 implies, at the least, some manner of discontinuity once Satan is thrown into the bottomless pit. Prior to Rev 20:2, Satan is able to "deceive the nations (whatever that means)", and subsequent to it, he is unable to "deceive the nations". If this took place in AD 70, then we should be able to look at history and see that something changed at that point. But if we are claiming the verse refers to "demonic activity" or "wholesale national wickedness", I think that would be a tough sell. There is present day anecdotal evidence of demonic possessions and the like from believers, and the last century certainly provides ample evidence of wickedness on a scale that, to say the least, would rival anything that took place pre AD70. Perhaps preterists could say that Satan has been "loosed" again, although I don't know that any do.

The more defensible position is to claim that the binding of Satan permitted the mass conversion of Gentiles. Certainly, there is a historical discontinuity we can really and truly point to, as there was a time when the "community of believers" consisted primarily of Jews, and at the present time consists primarily of Gentiles.

However, I personally think that even this interpretation makes a few mistakes. For one thing, it's not clear that the historical discontinuity can properly be located at AD 70, since vigorous missionary efforts to the Gentiles were already well underway well before that time (this, by the way, is also why I find the preterist reading of the "gathering of the elect" in Matt 24:31 to be unconvincing). Additionally, I think that trying to draw analogies between Rev 20:2 and other passages that speak of someone being "bound" ignores the strong language of Rev 20:3.

-Jeff
Unless of course you realize that the term "the nations" is a Jewish colloquialism for "Gentiles". In which case, you look at redemptive history (which is what scripture is all about) and see that the number of Gentiles that were in the covenant went from virtually 0% to nearly 100%, then problem solved.

[jwarrend]

Unless of course you realize that the term "the nations" is a Jewish colloquialism for "Gentiles". In which case, you look at redemptive history (which is what scripture is all about) and see that the number of Gentiles that were in the covenant went from virtually 0% to nearly 100%, then problem solved.

I've already stipulated to that discontinuity. The point I was making was that it seems problematic to try to locate the discontinuity at the destruction of Jerusalem. When do you think that the binding of Satan happened?

-Jeff

[Geek Eclectic]

I've already stipulated to that discontinuity. The point I was making was that it seems problematic to try to locate the discontinuity at the destruction of Jerusalem. When do you think that the binding of Satan happened?Why does pinning down an exact year even matter? In Preterism, the events of AD 70 were the sign that Israel's suzerainty treaty was over. The destruction of the Temple and the other signs actually happened after the treaty had already been declared null and void -- they were simply a clear and present sign that things had changed, and that Jesus was Who He said He was. If you had to pinpoint a specific year, though, I'd probably say it was the year(quite possibly the day) that Jesus was crucified, or the day He rose from the dead. After which the Jews were given a grace period in which the majority of the Apostles were ordered to preach almost exclusively to them and give them(the remnant of Revelation) a chance to enter into the New Covenant before the big judgment Jesus promised came. But I'd posit that even during this short period between His Resurrection and His judgment the suzerainty treaty was already officially over, and Satan was already possibly bound from deceiving the nations.

[jwarrend]

Why does pinning down an exact year even matter? In Preterism, the events of AD 70 were the sign that Israel's suzerainty treaty was over. The destruction of the Temple and the other signs actually happened after the treaty had already been declared null and void -- they were simply a clear and present sign that things had changed, and that Jesus was Who He said He was. If you had to pinpoint a specific year, though, I'd probably say it was the year(quite possibly the day) that Jesus was crucified, or the day He rose from the dead. After which the Jews were given a grace period in which the majority of the Apostles were ordered to preach almost exclusively to them and give them(the remnant of Revelation) a chance to enter into the New Covenant before the big judgment Jesus promised came. But I'd posit that even during this short period between His Resurrection and His judgment the suzerainty treaty was already officially over, and Satan was already possibly bound from deceiving the nations.

I would agree that it would make more sense to claim that Satan was bound sometime between the Resurrection and 70 AD. The problem with that interpretation is that Revelation 20 appears to be describing something that the writer believes will take place in the future. It would therefore be necessary to locate that occurence, if you had to pin it down to a date, at 70 AD, but as you've noted, it seems to make much more sense that Satan's "binding" would have taken place well before then.

I disagree with some of the other points that you make but I'm trying to stay on topic so I'll leave them lie for now.

-Jeff

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I've already stipulated to that discontinuity.

-Jeff
Yes, you did, my bad. I was responding to you first paragraph and did not read further (I was pressed for time, my apologies)

The point I was making was that it seems problematic to try to locate the discontinuity at the destruction of Jerusalem. When do you think that the binding of Satan happened?

Meh...at the cross...at the stoning of Stephen....with the destruction of the temple....all of the above?

As LilShep said (and I said), history shows a dramatic shift in redemptive history, why is there a need to pin point it? Especially since much of the NT is "now not yet". Why coulnd't the binding have started at the cross (or during the ministry of Jesus, as he did interact with some gentiles) and continued to greater manifestation?

[Raphael]

I'm still working my way through Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell. As Hitch said, "it's a bigfooted monster with no pictures".

Irenaues also said that Jesus was fifty years old.I don't know how I missed your post hiding in there Dee Dee, my apologies for not noticing it.

That is a point. But that does beg the question of how much of what Irenaeus can we dismiss?

Of cource. The point of our battle is that God will realize historicly the victory Christ won through the Cross by the method Jesus described in John. That is, Christ t enthroned and the Holy Spirit ministering on earth,,, not by might nor by power but by My Spirit,,, There is no force or reason other than His own thoughts that could hinder God from utterly destroying the enemy long ago or at any given moment. Obviously He does not wish to realize His victory in such a manner. But rather r He sends His own through the historical process,,, we are to live and die and pass on the knowledge of God through the generations. And thus through history, slowly as a tree grows, the kingdom gains aganst the enemy.fair enough.

Within the frame work that God personally controls history its is easy to grasp;
1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Notice that this rule require that His enemies be present,
With that for backgroungd on to M13
27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
There can be no question that God id able to extract the tare with no harm done to the wheat. If this is true if follows that in His wisdom and through His revelation here, that it is better for us that we pass through the historical process. His victory realized over the millenia by the same frail creatures lost in the Garden and redeemed through His Blood. More important ly it is for His greater glory.ok. I think.....But does the harvest mean at the end of each person's life? or 70AD? of the final judgement?


Not only is LilShep's explanation a valid understanding of the text itself (IMO), it is also consistent with clearer passages that talk about fallen angels being bound in chains:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Jude 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
Both Peter and Jude speak of fallen angels being chained and bound. Yet it is clear that fallen angels (demons) were active and had influence in NT times. So what ever these chains are, they are not preventing demonic influence in the world. That makes a lot of sense.
IMO, the preterist interpretation is not only a valid understanding of the text of Revelation as written, but it is also consistent with other NT writings.That is what I am trying to find out myself.
My oldest brother is very much a dispensationalist, he has spent many hours mapping out what he thinks will happen in relation to when. (and according to his timeline it has to begin before the last of the generation that saw Isreal get it's land back after WW2 dies off) Apart from when I was in the RCC, the churches I've gone to haven't really taught much about preterism (indeed I've seen sermons using the diagrams that Larkin did), although my pastor at the last church I was in in South Africa, was certainly open to it. (I make is sound like I've been involved in lots of churches. in reality I've only been a member of 4)



Satan bound or not bound aside, since mankind has a fallen sinful nature, I think that we're capable of being quite wicked without the benefit of muse, mentor, or cheerleader. Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see this as a problem for Preterists. (not one myself, so hopefully they'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding their position)When my parents were doing outreach with Hindu's in South Africa (something that had them on the radar with the South African police at the time as this was during the height of apartheid, and they were associating with non-whites), and having prayer meetings with new converts to Christianity, my parents saw some very scary things. Including on guy not remaining on the ground unless they were praying for him, and a lady who though was very small (possibly less than 50kg in weight), suddenly being able to throw her 110kg husband across the room (she had been lying down on the floor and her husband was praying for her).

Things like that I believe cannot be explained simply by human wickedness (although I certainly agree that much of what gets blamed on demonic activity is nothing more than human wickedness)

As I said, the two biggest objection I have to preterism are explaining the Irenaeus quote, and apparent demonic activity. You ladies and gentlemen, however, are showing me that they are answerable.




I do agree that an exact date for the binding of Satan is unnecessary from the text.

[jwarrend]

Yes, you did, my bad. I was responding to you first paragraph and did not read further (I was pressed for time, my apologies)

No worries.


Meh...at the cross...at the stoning of Stephen....with the destruction of the temple....all of the above?

As LilShep said (and I said), history shows a dramatic shift in redemptive history, why is there a need to pin point it? Especially since much of the NT is "now not yet". Why coulnd't the binding have started at the cross (or during the ministry of Jesus, as he did interact with some gentiles) and continued to greater manifestation?

I would actually agree that the "binding of Satan" began well before AD 70; in fact, it began during Jesus' ministry. However, I think that this is not the same thing that Rev 20 is speaking about, and moreover, I think you are conflating "the binding of Satan" with the covenant shift.

Jesus speaks of this binding in Matt 12:29: " Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." But looking at more of the passage, he said:

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

So the binding of Satan that began during Jesus' ministry was not the covenant shift, but rather the forceful advance of the kingdom. Certainly, this would include the conversion of the gentiles but the true emphasis of Jesus' work is much bigger in scope than that. Jesus begins his ministry by quoting Isaiah 61:

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus speaks of setting captives free, but He isn't, I don't think, speaking of the covenant shift here.

More to the point of Rev. 20, I think that the author appears to anticipate a future event that is not identical with the process that begun during Jesus' ministry. Again, as evidence of this I point to the strong language of Rev 20:3. Preterists seem, to me, to see the word "binding" in v2 and go no further. So my point of disagreement is that while I will agree that Satan was "bound" as of Jesus' ministry, and that, phenomenalogically, Gentiles were converted in increasing numbers as time went on, that this does not in and of itself validate the preterist reading of Matt 24:31 and Rev 20:2-3.

-Jeff

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

What exactly is the significant (if any difference) between the covenant shift and the advancement of the kingdom?

[jwarrend]

What exactly is the significant (if any difference) between the covenant shift and the advancement of the kingdom?

Let me first back up and confirming that we are using the same terminology. By "covenant shift", I had in mind the idea that you expressed in this way: "the number of Gentiles that were in the covenant went from virtually 0% to nearly 100%". I'm assuming you're using that term in the same way as I; if not, the following may not answer your question.

Preterists speak as though Jesus' primary mission was to transfer the covenant from ethnic Jews to ethnic Gentiles. But that is false; Jesus' purpose was to change the way that the covenant was mediated, from the OT sacrificial system to the redemption as a result of the cross and Resurrection. As He says in Matthew 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Now, phenomenalogically, as a result of this change in the method of partaking in the covenant, it came to be the case that many Gentiles became part of the covenant and many (most, even) Jews rejected the new covenant. It is also the case that the OT predicts and anticipates these occurences. However, this shift, while noteworthy, is a secondary consequence of Christ's sacrifice. Jesus came to set us free from the consequences of our sin; He did not come simply to break fellowship with one ethnic people-group and to instead bestow His favor on a different people group. Therefore, the advancement of the kingdom and the conversion of Gentiles are not synonomous; the latter is a subset of the former.

-Jeff

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Let me first back up and confirming that we are using the same terminology. By "covenant shift", I had in mind the idea that you expressed in this way: "the number of Gentiles that were in the covenant went from virtually 0% to nearly 100%". I'm assuming you're using that term in the same way as I; if not, the following may not answer your question.

[quote]Preterists speak as though Jesus' primary mission was to transfer the covenant from ethnic Jews to ethnic Gentiles.
Preterism does not have a universal view on the covenant (though most preterst would be called Covenantal as opposed to Dispensational).

However, I do not know of a single preterst who would say that the primary mission was to transfer the Covenant from Jew to Gentile. Where you got that idea I do not know.

As a Commwealth Covenentalist I believe that Jesus came to fulfill the Covenant (not change or replace), that was His primary mission. The "Old Covenant" was based on the promise, the "New Covenant" is based on that promise fulfilled.

...and part of the promise is that the covenant would extend to "all nations" (gentiles).

So while the "shift" of the covenant from Jew to Gentile and the fulfillment of the promise are not "synonymous" they are entertwined with each other in a way that you can not separate them the way you seem to be trying to separate them.

[dizzle]

That is a point. But that does beg the question of how much of what Irenaeus can we dismiss?

As much as anyone else who goes against the Scripture. It isn't a matter of dismissing but of testing. I bring up that example to show that it certainly isn't true that proximity kept him from basic errors, it did not. His views are an interesting historical facet that must be weighed but not venerated. I don't think he dated Revelation late by the way - his quote is highly subject to multi-varied interpretations, but even if he did, I would say that I am no more bound to that simply by virtue of his proximity than I would be bound to believe that Jesus was fifty years old. And the fact is, if we had more information, doubtless we could point to other errors he made - that is simply the pitfalls of human vessels, thus the Scripture is the more excellent way.

[Hitch]

There is also the fact that none of Ira's originals exists. There is nothing but translations and copies by thrid parties nearly 2,000 years old. And if you have ever witnessed an event and read about in the next days paper you were likely surprized upon realizing what you saw and rhe paper reported were the same event.

The more direct answer is that one need'nt dismiss any of Ira, only allow for the realities involved. It has often beed posted that Ira speaks clearly to the issue and clearly statres that John saw the vision at a certain time. . This is wishful thinking.

H

[Zguy28]

Bump for Sir Wilshire.