Preterism and Revelation

[Amazing Rando]

You preterist minions may be close to adding another to your ranks. :whip: NT Wright's books are pushing me further in that direction than I ever imagined I'd go. But before I can take the plunge, a few questions must still be answered.

We'll start with this one: Preterists believe that much of the prophecy of the book of Revelation is in regards to the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem during the Jewish revolt of AD 66-70, is that correct?

If it is, it would obviously necessitate that Revelation have been written prior to AD 70. This date is about 20-25 years before most modern scholars (including the majority of orthodox Christian scholars) would date John's writing it.

So, my fine feathered preterists, the 37 cent question is: are these scholars dating the book incorrectly? If so, what are your reasons for believing this is so?

[dizzle]

Rando, there is a wide and growing group of nonpreterist scholars dating the book before 70AD. Even Norman Geisler in a seminar given at my church stated that there is a good possibility that no NT book was written before AD70.

But no one here is giong to be able to answer this question better then the book length treatment of this given by Kenneth Gentry in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation

it is worth it to buy the most updated edition and not relying on the library as the current edition has a lengthy updated preface

[Pate]

If you accept the following premises:

1) The book of Revelation is part of the divinely inspired word of God
2) It contains predictions of events that were yet to happen at the time when it was written
3) It seems to speak of events related to the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in AD 66-70

Then you have a strong argument that the book must be written before AD 66-70.

Because the first two premises should be uncontroversial to any Christian, the real issue in a debate between christians should be whether we have more support for the 3rd premise than its negation. I think that a very strong case can be made that Revelation does speak of those events, and given those two other premises, we should conclude that it was written before 66-70.

When the issue is an in-house debate among christians, we can pretty much ignore the option that these would be "prophecies after the event". It may even be that many of the scholars date the book late exactly on the same grounds that they date the Gospels late, namely because they presuppose that prophecy is impossible and that presupposition, together with the apparent prophecy of the events related to the Jewish war, is a sufficient reason for a late date for the book. But of course the christian in-house debate begins from a contrary presupposition and thus it turns the whole argument on its head and those same grounds that are used to justify a late date, become a strong argument for an early date.

[GhostontheNet]

An Online copy of Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry is available at http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

[John Reece]

Rando, there is a wide and growing group of nonpreterist scholars dating the book before 70AD. Even Norman Geisler in a seminar given at my church stated that there is a good possibility that no NT book was written before AD70.

But no one here is giong to be able to answer this question better then the book length treatment of this given by Kenneth Gentry in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation

it is worth it to buy the most updated edition and not relying on the library as the current edition has a lengthy updated preface

Dee Dee,

Would you care to amend the phrase in bold above.

[dizzle]

hahahah

I wrote the entire NT yesterday, didn't you know that?

[Amazing Rando]

Rando, there is a wide and growing group of nonpreterist scholars dating the book before 70AD. Even Norman Geisler in a seminar given at my church stated that there is a good possibility that no NT book was written before AD70.

But no one here is giong to be able to answer this question better then the book length treatment of this given by Kenneth Gentry in Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation

it is worth it to buy the most updated edition and not relying on the library as the current edition has a lengthy updated preface

Cool, thanks for the recommendation, Dee Dee! I was just wondering about this the other night, since both my Bible (NIV) and my wife's Bible (NASB Ryrie Study Bible) seem to put its date at 90-95 AD. Ryrie is obviously not a preterist- seems more like a premillenial kinda guy to me. Do you find Tom Wright's books to lend support to your position? That's what he seems to be suggesting to me anyhow- that the NT prophecies generally referred to concrete space/time events and served to infuse them with theological significance.

[Amazing Rando]

If you accept the following premises:

1) The book of Revelation is part of the divinely inspired word of God
2) It contains predictions of events that were yet to happen at the time when it was written

Absolutely accept the above. :deal:

3) It seems to speak of events related to the Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Temple in AD 66-70

I guess that's the one I'm not so sure of yet. I certainly agree that much of the prophecies contained in the gospels are referring to the Jewish revolt, but I guess I haven't really studied Revelation enough to know yet. That's the key then. Get reading, Rando! :rock:

Then you have a strong argument that the book must be written before AD 66-70.

Because the first two premises should be uncontroversial to any Christian, the real issue in a debate between christians should be whether we have more support for the 3rd premise than its negation. I think that a very strong case can be made that Revelation does speak of those events, and given those two other premises, we should conclude that it was written before 66-70.

Sound thinking! :yes: Right now, I'll get back to reading Revelation, and see if I agree with you that it's mainly referring to AD 66-70. If so, you'll likely have another preterist collegue on your side! :wink:

When the issue is an in-house debate among christians, we can pretty much ignore the option that these would be "prophecies after the event". It may even be that many of the scholars date the book late exactly on the same grounds that they date the Gospels late, namely because they presuppose that prophecy is impossible and that presupposition, together with the apparent prophecy of the events related to the Jewish war, is a sufficient reason for a late date for the book.But of course the christian in-house debate begins from a contrary presupposition and thus it turns the whole argument on its head and those same grounds that are used to justify a late date, become a strong argument for an early date.

That may be. Though in all honesty, a late date for Revelation or even John's gospel would not nessesarily imply that they were not by the apostle. There's strong Christian tradition that John wrote his gospel (and by correlation, Revelation), when he was a very old man living in the city of Ephesus. AD 90 would still put it well within his lifespan, considering he was the last apostle to die.

Thanks a lot for the thoughts, Pate! :cheers:

[studyhound]

Do you find Tom Wright's books to lend support to your position? That's what he seems to be suggesting to me anyhow- that the NT prophecies generally referred to concrete space/time events and served to infuse them with theological significance.
I have Just started reading N. T. Wright and thought I have not found a direct link to him and the dating of The Revelation I personally have see many indirect indcators that point me to a early date. Mostly because of the historical data and cultural data Wright provides, going hand in hand with the info I already have bouncing around in side my head is giving me a better and better picture of what John was talking about and what the timing was.

:studyhound:

[Amazing Rando]

Cool! While I'm mulling all that over, the New Jerusalem described in the last chapters of Revelation- am I correct in assuming preterists think this refers to a future heavenly kingdom, not some pre AD 70 event?

[John Reece]

Cool! While I'm mulling all that over, the New Jerusalem described in the last chapters of Revelation- am I correct in assuming preterists think this refers to a future heavenly kingdom, not some pre AD 70 event?

Speaking only for myself, you are not correct in assuming that I (a preterist) think that the New Jerusalem described in the last chapters of Revelation refers to a future heavenly kingdom.

I agree with the comment by Milton Terry in Biblical Apocalyptics:


This new Jerusalem is the same as that which Paul in Galatians 4:26 calls "the upper Jerusalem, our mother." Compare Hebrews 12:22. It is a symbol of the new covenant and those embraced therein, including all which the redeeming work of Christ secures to them that believe in his name, and by implication stands for "the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Hebrew 12:23). For the bride is indeed the Church of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-32).

[Ted]

Rando,

As one who does not fall for the Preterist idea that Revelation deals with the fall of Jerusalem, I am agnostic on the date of the book. There is evidence for both positions. I have wavered both ways at various times.

The key in my mind is the issue of the subject matter of the book. A complete discussion of it is far too long for this board, but at the risk of sounding my own horn, may I suggest some reading materials?

First, "A Brief Review of the Macrostructure of the Book of Revelation." http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/rev/macro.html This will shake the foundations of any other view, since it shows the eternal covenant is the foundation of the book. Next, "The Conclusion of the Whole Matter: A Primer on the Book of Revelation." http://www.bibleonly.org/press/Conclusion/index.html. This is a book in process, and all of the draft chapters are on the site. BTW, anyone is welcome to comment on the work. You may find an oops.

In essence, there are a host of images within the book that simply cannot fit for the Jews and the city of Jerusalem. Just to pick one, the beast is repeatedly said to have seven heads and ten horns. The rest of the description is bear, lion, leopard, and so on. Added together, this is an amalgam of Daniel's four beasts in Dan 7. Thus, this image represents civil government from Babylon through the breakup of Rome. Since that happened in 476AD, there is no way the book is complete in AD70.

Have fun. Feel free to ask questions. Maybe we can confuse you more.

Ted

[John Reece]

Rando,

As one who does not fall for the Preterist idea that Revelation deals with the fall of Jerusalem, I am agnostic on the date of the book. There is evidence for both positions. I have wavered both ways at various times.

The key in my mind is the issue of the subject matter of the book. A complete discussion of it is far too long for this board, but at the risk of sounding my own horn, may I suggest some reading materials?

First, "A Brief Review of the Macrostructure of the Book of Revelation." http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/rev/macro.html This will shake the foundations of any other view, since it shows the eternal covenant is the foundation of the book. Next, "The Conclusion of the Whole Matter: A Primer on the Book of Revelation." http://www.bibleonly.org/press/Conclusion/index.html. This is a book in process, and all of the draft chapters are on the site. BTW, anyone is welcome to comment on the work. You may find an oops.

In essence, there are a host of images within the book that simply cannot fit for the Jews and the city of Jerusalem. Just to pick one, the beast is repeatedly said to have seven heads and ten horns. The rest of the description is bear, lion, leopard, and so on. Added together, this is an amalgam of Daniel's four beasts in Dan 7. Thus, this image represents civil government from Babylon through the breakup of Rome. Since that happened in 476AD, there is no way the book is complete in AD70.

Have fun. Feel free to ask questions. Maybe we can confuse you more.

Ted

One only needs to study the OT references in Revelation to come to the conclusion that the prophecy is about God's covenant with Israel, both old (in which the curses of the covenant are fulfilled) and new (in which the blessings of the covenant are fulfilled).

However, the theory that the four beasts in Daniel 7 represent civil government from Babylon through the breakup of Rome is based upon the dubious assumption that the fourth beast represents Rome rather than the Greco-Macedonian kingdom founded by Alexander.

[Amazing Rando]

Speaking only for myself, you are not correct in assuming that I (a preterist) think that the New Jerusalem described in the last chapters of Revelation refers to a future heavenly kingdom.

I agree with the comment by Milton Terry in Biblical Apocalyptics:


This new Jerusalem is the same as that which Paul in Galatians 4:26 calls "the upper Jerusalem, our mother." Compare Hebrews 12:22. It is a symbol of the new covenant and those embraced therein, including all which the redeeming work of Christ secures to them that believe in his name, and by implication stands for "the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Hebrew 12:23). For the bride is indeed the Church of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-32).

Aaaah. So you think it's not a place at all, but rather a state of being? :smile: A metaphor then? Revelation is definitely the book of the NT that I am the least familiar with. Must read! Thanks for the insight into your position!

[Amazing Rando]

Rando,

As one who does not fall for the Preterist idea that Revelation deals with the fall of Jerusalem, I am agnostic on the date of the book. There is evidence for both positions. I have wavered both ways at various times.

In essence, there are a host of images within the book that simply cannot fit for the Jews and the city of Jerusalem. Just to pick one, the beast is repeatedly said to have seven heads and ten horns. The rest of the description is bear, lion, leopard, and so on. Added together, this is an amalgam of Daniel's four beasts in Dan 7. Thus, this image represents civil government from Babylon through the breakup of Rome. Since that happened in 476AD, there is no way the book is complete in AD70.

Have fun. Feel free to ask questions. Maybe we can confuse you more.

Ted

Hi Ted! Good to see you again. Thanks a lot for the links, I think they'll be helpful. Based on what I know now, I agree with you that much of the imagery from Revelation can't be so easily fit into the pre AD 70 timeframe. That may be the thorn in the preterists' side. I do, however, find their arguments regarding the apocalyptic discourses in the gospels compelling- i.e. that they mostly pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem. I wonder if it's possible that the prophetic material in the gospels and the epistles be relating to the expectation of the destruction of the temple, while Revelation deals with later, future events?

On another subject, one argument I find convincing for a post AD 70 date for John's gospel (and by inference, Revelation as well), is his seeming awareness that Peter has been martyred (John 21:19). He doesn't just record Jesus' prophecy, like Mark does about the destruction of the temple, without commentary or mention of its fulfillment, he mentions how he is aware that Peter had already died a martyr's death by crucifixion. Peter was killed sometime between AD 64 and AD 68, or so I've heard, so this would make a pre AD 70 date unlikely unless John's gospel underwent editorial work after its completion. And clearly, if Revelation was written after AD 70, the preterists' position becomes rather tenuous I'd think.

I wonder what Tweb's most ubiquitous preterist (:ddw:) thinks? :egad:

[John Reece]

Aaaah. So you think it's not a place at all, but rather a state of being? :smile: A metaphor then? Revelation is definitely the book of the NT that I am the least familiar with. Must read! Thanks for the insight into your position!

:yes:

Criteria for evaluating interpretive assertions, from Biblical Hermeneutics (Hunt and Eason, 1890; page 346), by Milton S. Terry:


A critical study of the current English literature if Daniel’s prophesies begets the conviction that three serious errors have had much to do in vitiating the process pursued by a large number of expositors.

(1) There appears with many on obvious desire to make the book itself a contribution to apologetics. When the interpretation of any writing is made subservient to such an ulterior polemical purpose, there is usually more than a probability that the interpreter will be too much governed by considerations outside the purpose of pure exegesis.

(2) Some writers, observing a remarkable resemblance between the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse of John, rush to the conclusion that the similar symbols of both books must refer to the same great events in the history of the world. This fact of similarity has been construed as if it were in itself a proof that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is identical with the first beast of Revelation 13:1-10, and the little horn of Daniel 7, and the second beast of Revelation 13:11-18 are both alike symbols of the papacy of Rome.

(3) There is, further, a singularly persistent presumption that the Book of Daniel, and also the Apocalypse of John, may reasonably be expected to contain an outline history of European politics, and the chronicles of ancient, medieval, and modern times have been ransacked, and even tortured, to find the ten kings referred to by the prophet. One is amazed at the amount of imperious dogmatism which often appears in the works of some who follow these methods.

[GhostontheNet]

Rando: Its best to at least know what you don't believe then. One treatment on a Preterist side of Revelation is Days of Vengeance by David Chilton http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htm. Other commentaries include Gentry's work in Four Views on the Book of Revelation by C. Marvin Pate and Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Comentary by Steven Gregg. Also, how does your reasoning work that Revelation follows the Gospel of John? It is at least possible that Revelation was written before the Gospel of John, I think it best to let Gentry make his case. I had, after all, given a link earlier to the book in full (though not the new edition).

[Starkman]

Didn't Dee Dee say something about Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, that it has been updated and the update has much more information? It might not, therefore, be best to only consult the online version (1989, I think).

Starkman

[Amazing Rando]

Rando: Its best to at least know what you don't believe then. One treatment on a Preterist side of Revelation is Days of Vengeance by David Chilton http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htm. Other commentaries include Gentry's work in Four Views on the Book of Revelation by C. Marvin Pate and Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Comentary by Steven Gregg. Also, how does your reasoning work that Revelation follows the Gospel of John? It is at least possible that Revelation was written before the Gospel of John, I think it best to let Gentry make his case. I had, after all, given a link earlier to the book in full (though not the new edition).

You know, I'm not sure why I never thought of that possibility myself! :eek: I guess there's really no reason why John could not have written Revelation 10, 20, or even 30 years prior to his gospel.

Thanks for the books and links, Ghost! :teeth:

Well, methinks I have my work cut out for me. I'll go study Revelation and read some recommended reading and see what I can find. Thanks all!

[GhostontheNet]

Didn't Dee Dee say something about Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, that it has been updated and the update has much more information? It might not, therefore, be best to only consult the online version (1989, I think).

Starkman
Yes, what you say is true. I suppose its a matter of whether one is willing to buy the updated version or not. If not, better to read the online version which was also of high quality.

[Hiswhiterose]

Hi all:

I'm Sharon. I'm new. Glad to be here....:smile: Thanks for having me. Some comments, if I may....

"Re 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"

1)- Is it not possible, based on this statement, that even if Revelation was written in the 90's, and parts of it do describe the fall of Jeruslaem, that this is consistent since John was commisioned to write about what he had already seen? This makes sense to me.
He was, afterall, in the Spirit, and going where the Spirit took Him, which could be past, present, and future events.

"Re 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth."

2)- I am aware that very little verifiable information is available about Antipas the Martyr, and some of it is downright suspect because it came from Eastern Orthodox tradition around the year AD1000, but one thing I found in my research to be consistent was the placing of Antipas in Pergamos under Domition in AD83. If that is correct, than the Revelation had to have been written after AD70.

3)- Can someone please tell me where to find the basics about the view commonly called post-millenialism?

Thanks.

[dizzle]

You may want to check out www.postmillennialism.com

[Hiswhiterose]

Thanks, Dee Dee....:smile:

[Starkman]

[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]On another subject, one argument I find convincing for a post AD 70 date for John's gospel (and by inference, Revelation as well), is his seeming awareness that Peter has been martyred (John 21:19). He doesn't just record Jesus' prophecy, like Mark does about the destruction of the temple, without commentary or mention of its fulfillment, he mentions how he is aware that Peter had already died a martyr's death by crucifixion.

Rando, the passage doesn't say that John knew when Peter died, and it doesn't even say that it happened. It only says that John--recording the conversation between Jesus and Peter--knew that Peter would die.

Starkman