What's the difference between preterism and DF?

[eschaton]

I ask the question because of the poll in the other thread.

Both believe the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a fulfillment of scripture prophecy. Scofield says about Luke 21:20 -

... Here the reference is to the siege by Titus, A.D. 70, when the city was taken and vv. 20 - 24 literally fulfilled. These horrors illustrate the conditions in Palestine at the time of the end, but neither v. 20 nor v. 24 is included in the accounts of the Olivet Discourse given by Matthew and Mark.

They both interpret the Bible using the same rules:

The interpreter should ask:
1) Who was the writer and to whom was he writing?
2) What was the cultural-historical setting of the writer?
3) What was the meaning of the words in the writer's day?
4) What was the intended meaning of the author and why was he saying it?
5) What should this mean to me in my situation today?

Both of them don't believe Christians will have to go through a future tribulation. Dispys will zoom up to heaven. Preterists are already there or soon will be. No sweat.

So if they have the same historical perspective on the scriptures and interpret it the same way what does one gain by converting from one belief to the other? The only difference I see it that DF's wear "tin foil hats."

What I mean by that is that DF's are goofier. Preterism is a little less goofy. If it is also an erroneous belief that makes it more dangerous because it is more subtle. If there is a future antichrist who will persecute Christian neither will see it coming because both don't expect to be around.

[eschaton]

I thought of one other thing. They both were both born at about the same time. That would be in the late 18th or 19th century. They're practically twin sisters.

[Hitch]

I thought of one other thing. They both were both born at about the same time. That would be in the late 18th or 19th century. They're practically twin sisters.
LOL. You're trying way too hard E.

[eschaton]

I think this would make a good featured debate on Dee Dee's page.

[gooner]

Preterism is the view that the Great Tribulation is past.DF believes it is future and does not impact the Church.Preterism is a view of Eschatology whereas DF is a whole theological system.That I think is the essential difference.

[eschaton]

Preterism is the view that the Great Tribulation is past.DF believes it is future and does not impact the Church.Preterism is a view of Eschatology whereas DF is a whole theological system.That I think is the essential difference.

I can accept that view of the difference between the two. But the dispensational view of the tribulation is the accepted view of virtually all of christianity until the 19th century. That is, the tribulation has always been viewed as a future eschatological event by the church. Some saw a similarity with events in the first century, but all expected a future tribulation. I've seen preterists critisize DF's because it is a relativly new doctrine, but they don't realize it is probably a little older than preterism, although the two originated at about the same time.

[furay]

What I mean by that is that DF's are goofier. Preterism is a little less goofy. If it is also an erroneous belief that makes it more dangerous because it is more subtle. If there is a future antichrist who will persecute Christian neither will see it coming because both don't expect to be around.
Good point.

[Hitch]

Quote: Originally posted by eschaton

What I mean by that is that DF's are goofier. Preterism is a little less goofy. If it is also an erroneous belief that makes it more dangerous because it is more subtle. If there is a future antichrist who will persecute Christian neither will see it coming because both don't expect to be around.

Good point.

In reality the Preterist expects persecution by antichrist and is actively battling the same every day. So yet another strawman turns to ashes.

[eschaton]

[I]Quote: Originally posted by eschaton

In reality the Preterist expects persecution by antichrist and is actively battling the same every day. So yet another strawman turns to ashes.

In reality I mean a real man and not a straw man. Christianity expected an antichrist that embodied all the attributes of that character in scripture in a singular person until preterists came along. Preterists believe the antichrist is only defined as anybody that fits 1 John 2:22. While that is true it excludes all the other biblical passages that refer to the man of sin that have been used to describe that person since the first century.

[Hitch]

In reality I mean a real man and not a straw man. Christianity expected an antichrist that embodied all the attributes of that character in scripture in a singular person until preterists came along. Preterists believe the antichrist is only defined as anybody that fits 1 John 2:22. While that is true it excludes all the other biblical passages that refer to the man of sin that have been used to describe that person since the first century. Well if you can find a definition somehwhere else in Scripture post it.

WRT your second point. You're mistaken ,it does not exclude anyone who denies the NT description of Christ.

[eschaton]

Well if you can find a definition somehwhere else in Scripture post it.

WRT your second point. You're mistaken ,it does not exclude anyone who denies the NT description of Christ.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

John confirms that a person know as the antichrist is coming, and that already there are many. If the ones he was writing to had heard there were many antichrists he wouldn't contrast the point with the fact that there were already many. He doesn't deny that an individual known as antichrist is coming. If there was not he would say so. He is obviously familiar with what the people had heard, and he is saying it is true, and there are already many with the spirit of rebellion.

The entirety of Christianity understood this up until about a couple of hundred years ago. Don't take my word for it. Read how Christianity has always understood the antichrist until recently.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

You may wonder how earlier Christians differed in understanding from some moderns. The difference is that the church fathers were thoroughly familiar with the scriptures and cautiously compared scripture to scripture as commanded in the Bible. They recognized all those scriptures that related to the antichrist through spiritual understanding that comes from that method of study.

What does WRT mean?

[Hitch]

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

John confirms that a person know as the antichrist is coming, and that already there are many. If the ones he was writing to had heard there were many antichrists he wouldn't contrast the point with the fact that there were already many. He doesn't deny that an individual known as antichrist is coming. If there was not he would say so. He is obviously familiar with what the people had heard, and he is saying it is true, and there are already many with the spirit of rebellion.

The entirety of Christianity understood this up until about a couple of hundred years ago. Don't take my word for it. Read how Christianity has always understood the antichrist until recently.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

You may wonder how earlier Christians differed in understanding from some moderns. The difference is that the church fathers were thoroughly familiar with the scriptures and cautiously compared scripture to scripture as commanded in the Bible. They recognized all those scriptures that related to the antichrist through spiritual understanding that comes from that method of study.

What does WRT mean? So Joihn was right an antichrist came . What is your point?

[John Reece]

[. . .]

What does WRT mean?

I notice Hitch overlooked your question.

My guess is that it means ‘with regard to’.

If my guess is incorrect, Hitch will correct me.

[eschaton]

I notice Hitch overlooked your question.

My guess is that it means ‘with regard to’.

If my guess is incorrect, Hitch will correct me.

Hitch overlooked everything I said.

[gooner]

I can accept that view of the difference between the two. But the dispensational view of the tribulation is the accepted view of virtually all of christianity until the 19th century. That is, the tribulation has always been viewed as a future eschatological event by the church.

The Dispensational view forces the GT into Daniels so called 70th week.That is certainly not the view of traditional Christianity.The idea of a gap in the 70 weeks is a modern notion.The impression I have of post Reformation eschatology up until the 19th cent is that Matt 24 is interpreted as refering to 1st cent events.

[eschaton]

I was speaking specifically of the tribulation as a future event. I didn't mean to imply anything other than that. I wasn't meaning to include other specific scriptures.

I'll retract the statement and say the futurist view. Only preterists believe the tribulation is past

[Hitch]

Hitch overlooked everything I said.The demands of Christian charity...

[eschaton]

Preterism is the view that the Great Tribulation is past.DF believes it is future and does not impact the Church.Preterism is a view of Eschatology whereas DF is a whole theological system.That I think is the essential difference.

You are right about one being a system, but it is my understanding that preterism started out as an interpretation of Revelation. The point of my thread was more about the similarities between the two than about the differences, even though I said what's the difference. I wasn't really trying to find a single identifying, fundamental difference between the two, but I guess I didn't make that clear. I listed similarities.

Similarities:
1)They're view of 70 AD as a prophecy fulfillment (that's not saying their views are exactly the same about this)
2)Methods of interpretation
3)Neither expect to go through the tribulation

The result of not expecting to go through the tribulation could be that they are deceived by the antichrist if they are wrong.

A difference that I listed, although there are many, is that preterists aren't as likely to see nearly any current event as a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy. They aren't expecting the implant of silicone chips into people's heads or hands, or they don't see an imminent invasion of Israel by Russia, they don't see Henry Kissinger as a possible candidate for the antichrist, etc. That's what I mean by goofier, although some preterists have some goofy ideas as well. Even orthodox preterists would agree that full-preterists have some goofy ideas. But probably nobody is immune from goofy ideas.

[eschaton]

Good morning Hitch. Glad to see you up and about this morning.

[gooner]

I was speaking specifically of the tribulation as a future event. I didn't mean to imply anything other than that. I wasn't meaning to include other specific scriptures.

I'll retract the statement and say the futurist view. Only preterists believe the tribulation is past

And the tribulation being past is IMO all there is to Preterism.That the GT is past is the simplest approach to Matt 24 1-35;it allows the text to speak directly to the concerns of Jesus' disciples.I don't think that logically rules out a future ,personal anti-christ but it certainly rules out the beast of Revelation.
It is assumed that a certain Robin of Loxley is the actual Robin Hood but there is no historical proof........as far as I know :wink:

[gooner]

You are right about one being a system, but it is my understanding that preterism started out as an interpretation of Revelation. The point of my thread was more about the similarities between the two than about the differences, even though I said what's the difference. I wasn't really trying to find a single identifying, fundamental difference between the two, but I guess I didn't make that clear. I listed similarities.

Similarities:
1)They're view of 70 AD as a prophecy fulfillment (that's not saying their views are exactly the same about this)
2)Methods of interpretation
3)Neither expect to go through the tribulation

The result of not expecting to go through the tribulation could be that they are deceived by the antichrist if they are wrong.

LOL I was recently thrown off a message board with people using this form of "argument".The idea is that the AC will fool Christians into thinking he's JC.
But non futurist Christians believe in the RAPTURE.Christ isn't coming to rule on this earth so the appearance of Christ coming to rule on this earth isn't a possibility;so how could they be deceived?


A difference that I listed, although there are many, is that preterists aren't as likely to see nearly any current event as a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

true....not direct


They aren't expecting the implant of silicone chips into people's heads or hands, or they don't see an imminent invasion of Israel by Russia, they don't see Henry Kissinger as a possible candidate for the antichrist, etc

maybe JFK will resurrect from that mortal head wound;but that would rule out Prince William :lol:


That's what I mean by goofier, although some preterists have some goofy ideas as well. Even orthodox preterists would agree that full-preterists have some goofy ideas. But probably nobody is immune from goofy ideas.

IMO Preterism is the least goofy.Idealism is I think a close second.Historicism needs to fit the seals,bowls,trumpets etc into Church history and in this way it suffers in a similar way to Futurism.Historical Grammatical hermaneutics force us to account for the text's meaning with regard to it's original readers;ie the 7 churches.Did they have the wisdom to discern the number of the beast?or was that for a future generation.eg some Historicists see Napoleon as a predicted figure in Revelation but logically all Christians pre Napoleon lacked the correct understanding of God's Word.That's how the system logically breaks up;it is against the stated purpose of the text ie to comfort the 1st cent Christians.

[eschaton]

But non futurist Christians believe in the RAPTURE. Christ isn't coming to rule on this earth so the appearance of Christ coming to rule on this earth isn't a possibility;so how could they be deceived?


I think you make some good points. I consider myself a futurist, but I don't really believe in a rapture. That word isn't in my Bible. I believe in a resurrection.

About the deception, I don't think it has to be that the Antichrist is Christ returned, although it may be a similar deception. I wouldn't be more specific than what it says in 2nd Thessalonians, and I think some interpretation is needed that is consistent with other scriptures. I feel like the church fathers understood it fairly well.

The important thing about preterism, to me anyway, is that there isn't much support through the first seventeen centuries of Christianity. Eusebius was perhaps the most preteristic, and yet he never contradicted the idea that there was a future tribulation and antichrist. He simply pointed out how first century Christians suffered some of the things in Matthew 24. The church fathers unanimously saw the fulfillment of Luke 21:20 in 70 AD, but were just as unanimously futurists. It doesn't make sense to me believe that the truth was finally discovered by James Russell in 1870.

[solafide]

I ask the question because of the poll in the other thread.

Both believe the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a fulfillment of scripture prophecy. Scofield says about Luke 21:20 -

... Here the reference is to the siege by Titus, A.D. 70, when the city was taken and vv. 20 - 24 literally fulfilled. These horrors illustrate the conditions in Palestine at the time of the end, but neither v. 20 nor v. 24 is included in the accounts of the Olivet Discourse given by Matthew and Mark.

They both interpret the Bible using the same rules:

The interpreter should ask:
1) Who was the writer and to whom was he writing?
2) What was the cultural-historical setting of the writer?
3) What was the meaning of the words in the writer's day?
4) What was the intended meaning of the author and why was he saying it?
5) What should this mean to me in my situation today?

Both of them don't believe Christians will have to go through a future tribulation. Dispys will zoom up to heaven. Preterists are already there or soon will be. No sweat.

So if they have the same historical perspective on the scriptures and interpret it the same way what does one gain by converting from one belief to the other? The only difference I see it that DF's wear "tin foil hats."

What I mean by that is that DF's are goofier. Preterism is a little less goofy. If it is also an erroneous belief that makes it more dangerous because it is more subtle. If there is a future antichrist who will persecute Christian neither will see it coming because both don't expect to be around.

Hello:

I first embraced a basic understanding of orthodox preterism in conjunction with a covenant theological view of God's relationship with His people, about 2 years ago, after about a 2 year period of serious study of both perspectives. I look at my timely exposure to both of these perspectives, as water mark blessings regarding my road to sanctification. I see the Old and New Testaments as much more of a continuum of God's Word. Before this time, I had only been exposed to the premil dispensational perspective of understanding Bible prophecy. Clearly, I'm still learning, questioning, testing and fine-tuning and to that end, I am really thankful that I found this forum!

All that being said (thanks for your indulgence), I think a person's theological perspective is very much connected to how they will understand eschatology. If you view the grafting in of the Gentile believers with the faithful remnant of Israel, as the New Covenant community of Christ, then you’re going to struggle with a dispensational view of the end times, with regard to natural Israel. I don’t think an orthodox preterist perspective of prophecy befalls the same conflicts when considered as part of an overall Covenant theological view.

[eschaton]

Thank you for your testimony solafide. I think I understand what you're saying.

I feel that one thing to consider is how the early church understood these things. While they looked towards a future fulfillment of prophecies, they didn't seem to take the OT promises to Israel in a literal manner. They believed the church was the inheritor of spiritual blessings. They did however, expect that Jews would be converted to Christ.

[David_A_Reed]

... But the dispensational view of the tribulation is the accepted view of virtually all of christianity until the 19th century. That is, the tribulation has always been viewed as a future eschatological event by the church. Some saw a similarity with events in the first century, but all expected a future tribulation. ...

You will find Reformation teachers who understood the tribulation as relating to the sufferings of the Jews beginning in 70 AD.

For example, according to Martin Luther:

"...Luke expresses it clearly in these words, 21, 20f: 'But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that our desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.' And further, "'Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight may be not in the winter, neither on a Sabbath: for then shall be great tribulation, such as had not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.'

"All this pertains still to the Jewish nation. For if this should come upon us at the end of the world, then would we, according to the text, have to be in the land of Judea, because he really points to that country. It is also true, when he says that no greater calamity has been or can be upon the earth than was at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; as we see in history, how unmercifully they were slaughtered and even killed one another, cast themselves into the fire, and permitted themselves to kill one another. Yea, the famine was so great that they ate the strings of cross-bows and even their own children. It was so shameful and abominable that like pity and distress shall never be heard again. ...Thus far Jesus speaks concerning the Jews."

—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525, (bolded for emphasis)
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

If you compare Matthew and Luke in context, it is obvious that the Great Tribulation was the tribulation upon the Jews that began in the first century.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved"
Matthew 24:21-22 KJV

"...in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Luke 21:23-24 KJV

Luke amplifies that "Great Tribulation" = "wrath upon this people [the Jews]" and gives reason to believe that it applies to the sufferings of the Jewish people from 70 AD through perhaps 1948 when Israel was restored, or through perhaps 1967 when Jerusalem was taken back from the Gentiles.

The modern tendency to expect it to be a tribulation upon the Church results from an egocentric reading of Scripture rather than a grammatical historical approach.

David

[eschaton]

You will find Reformation teachers who understood the tribulation as relating to the sufferings of the Jews beginning in 70 AD.

For example, according to Martin Luther:

"...Luke expresses it clearly in these words, 21, 20f: 'But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that our desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.' And further, "'Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight may be not in the winter, neither on a Sabbath: for then shall be great tribulation, such as had not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.'

"All this pertains still to the Jewish nation. For if this should come upon us at the end of the world, then would we, according to the text, have to be in the land of Judea, because he really points to that country. It is also true, when he says that no greater calamity has been or can be upon the earth than was at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; as we see in history, how unmercifully they were slaughtered and even killed one another, cast themselves into the fire, and permitted themselves to kill one another. Yea, the famine was so great that they ate the strings of cross-bows and even their own children. It was so shameful and abominable that like pity and distress shall never be heard again. ...Thus far Jesus speaks concerning the Jews."

—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525, (bolded for emphasis)
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

If you compare Matthew and Luke in context, it is obvious that the Great Tribulation was the tribulation upon the Jews that began in the first century.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved"
Matthew 24:21-22 KJV

"...in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
Luke 21:23-24 KJV

Luke amplifies that "Great Tribulation" = "wrath upon this people [the Jews]" and gives reason to believe that it applies to the sufferings of the Jewish people from 70 AD through perhaps 1948 when Israel was restored, or through perhaps 1967 when Jerusalem was taken back from the Gentiles.

The modern tendency to expect it to be a tribulation upon the Church results from an egocentric reading of Scripture rather than a grammatical historical approach.

David


Thank you so much for the link David. I hadn't read these excerpts from Martin Luther before. I had thought that Luther's beliefs about eschatology were pretty traditional with the exception that he saw the pope as the antichrist. I think you contrast Luther with modern interpreters, but I see Luther as more of a modern himself. After reading his remarks I can see his influence on later interpreters such as Sir Issac Newton. It seems he did a lot of thinking about eschatology between 1522 and 1530, as this link suggests.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH34/ehlers34.html

One remark I took note of was this.

8. But the abomination of which Daniel writes is that the Emperor Cajus, as history tells, had put his image in the
Page 367 ---------------------------
temple at Jerusalem as an idol, for the people to worship, after everything there had been destroyed. For the Scriptures call idolatry really an abomination, because God abhors and abominates it, inasmuch as he is the enemy of no sin so much as of this

I tried to check this out with history on the Web, but haven't been successful. Wikipedia gives this information about the time:

Nero (54–69) Initially, Nero left the rule of Rome to his mother and his tutors, particularly Lucius Annaeus Seneca. However, as he grew older, his desire for power and paranoia increased and he had his mother and tutors executed. During Nero's reign, there were a series of major riots and rebellions throughout the Empire: in Britain, Armenia, Parthia, and Judaea. Nero's inability to manage the rebellions and his basic incompetence became evident quickly and in 68, even the Imperial guard renounced him. Nero is best remembered by the rumour that he played the lyre and sang during the Great Fire of Rome, and hence "fiddled while Rome burned" (though the fiddle had yet to be invented). Nero is also remembered for his immense rebuilding of Rome following the fires. Nero committed suicide, and the year 69 was a year of civil war and is known as the Year of the Four Emperors, with Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian ruling as Emperors in quick and violent succession. By the end of the year, Vespasian was able to solidify his power as emperor of Rome.

Checking in the Holman Bible Dictionary I found this under the abomination of desolation.

Later literature picks up this same type of violation of proper worship in Jerusalem when Caligula (A.D. 40) sought to erect his own statue in the Jerusalem Temple. Josephus even identified the abomination of the desolator in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Titus in A.D. 69-70.

I think Cajus and Caius are the same name I found this at Newadvent.org

About A.D. 40, Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at the cost of a war against the rebellious Jews. Whereupon the Jews in tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who than lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his decree. It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the concession, and that but for his untimely death (A.D. 41) he would have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95-105; tr.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046a.htm

Caius Caligula ruled from 37 to 41 AD, and modern history doesn't record the successful erection of his statue in the temple as Martin Luther said.

Luther said:

10. All this pertains still to the Jewish nation. For if this should come upon us at the end of the world, then would we, according to the text, have to be in the land of Judea, because he really points to that country.

However, he appears to contradict himself. Luther saw more than one fulfillment.

18. Therefore this passage in Daniel concerning the abomination applies also to us. For we also have indeed a real abomination or desolation sitting in a holy place, namely: in Christendom and in the consciences of men, where God alone should sit and reign, of which Daniel speaks in very clear words in the 8th and 9th chapters. For this is the real pure doctrine, if we preach that we are redeemed by Christ from sin, death, satan and all misfortune, and are planted in the kingdom of God through the Word and faith and thereby are made free from all law, and that no man, whoever he be, can enter into the kingdom of God through the works of the law nor be made free from sin. Where this is preached and believed, there Christ reigns spiritually in the heart without a medium; there is the Holy Spirit with all the treasures and fullness of the riches of God.

20. Thus you see whether the Pope is not the greatest arch-abomination of all abominations, to whom Christ and Daniel refer; and the true Antichrist, of whom it is written that he sitteth in the temple of God, among the people, where Christ is named and where his kingdom, spirit, baptism, Word and faith should be: because he interferes with the office and kingdom of Christ by his fanaticism of the spiritual rites of Christ, wants to rule over the consciences and govern with his propositions and works. And he can in truth be called an "abomination of desolation," who is only destroying and laying waste everything, for as has been said: Christ and my works cannot abide together; if the one stands, the other must go down and be destroyed; wherefore the Pope has made desolate the kingdom of Christ, as far as his diocese reaches, and all who join him have denied Christ.

This sounds more like the Martin Luther that I've heard of. I also found this very interesting.

21. St. Paul prophesied all this, when in 2 Thess. 2, 3-4, he calls him: "The man of sin and the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." But that the Papists want to turn this passage from themselves and say: Christ and Paul are speaking of the temple of Jerusalem, that Antichrist shall sit and rule there, amounts to nothing. For Christ says here, that Jerusalem together with the temple shall have an end, and after its destruction it shall never be rebuilt. Therefore since Paul is pointing to the time after the Jewish kingdom, and the destruction of the material temple, it cannot be understood otherwise than of the new spiritual temple, which as he says himself, we are. There, Paul says, the Pope shall sit and be honored, not above God, but above everything that is called God, for the name of God does indeed remain the highest honor, therefore he cannot exalt himself above the true God, but above that which is called God and is worshipped; that is, he is exalted against...

I don't know if Luther was more accurate on these accounts than he was on history, but if he was talking about the pope of his time, rather than the office of pope, then it seems like it is all in the past. Either way, I think his views on the antichrist and the tribulation are a break with the way these things were understood in the early church. They are well documented in this link. (it is a pdf file)

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

[maudman]

Thank you so much for the link David. I hadn't read these excerpts from Martin Luther before. I had thought that Luther's beliefs about eschatology were pretty traditional with the exception that he saw the pope as the antichrist. I think you contrast Luther with modern interpreters, but I see Luther as more of a modern himself. After reading his remarks I can see his influence on later interpreters such as Sir Issac Newton. It seems he did a lot of thinking about eschatology between 1522 and 1530, as this link suggests.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH34/ehlers34.html

One remark I took note of was this.

8. But the abomination of which Daniel writes is that the Emperor Cajus, as history tells, had put his image in the
Page 367 ---------------------------
temple at Jerusalem as an idol, for the people to worship, after everything there had been destroyed. For the Scriptures call idolatry really an abomination, because God abhors and abominates it, inasmuch as he is the enemy of no sin so much as of this

I tried to check this out with history on the Web, but haven't been successful. Wikipedia gives this information about the time:

Nero (54–69) Initially, Nero left the rule of Rome to his mother and his tutors, particularly Lucius Annaeus Seneca. However, as he grew older, his desire for power and paranoia increased and he had his mother and tutors executed. During Nero's reign, there were a series of major riots and rebellions throughout the Empire: in Britain, Armenia, Parthia, and Judaea. Nero's inability to manage the rebellions and his basic incompetence became evident quickly and in 68, even the Imperial guard renounced him. Nero is best remembered by the rumour that he played the lyre and sang during the Great Fire of Rome, and hence "fiddled while Rome burned" (though the fiddle had yet to be invented). Nero is also remembered for his immense rebuilding of Rome following the fires. Nero committed suicide, and the year 69 was a year of civil war and is known as the Year of the Four Emperors, with Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian ruling as Emperors in quick and violent succession. By the end of the year, Vespasian was able to solidify his power as emperor of Rome.

Checking in the Holman Bible Dictionary I found this under the abomination of desolation.

Later literature picks up this same type of violation of proper worship in Jerusalem when Caligula (A.D. 40) sought to erect his own statue in the Jerusalem Temple. Josephus even identified the abomination of the desolator in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Titus in A.D. 69-70.

I think Cajus and Caius are the same name I found this at Newadvent.org

About A.D. 40, Caius Caligula issued a peremptory decree ordering the erection and worship of his statute in the Temple of God. He also appointed to the government of Syria, bidding him carry out that decree even at the cost of a war against the rebellious Jews. Whereupon the Jews in tens of thousands protested to the governor that they were willing to be slaughtered rather than to be condemned to witness that idolatrous profanation of their holy Temple. Soon afterwards Petronius asked Caligula to revoke his order, and Agrippa I, who than lived at Rome, prevailed upon the Emperor not to enforce his decree. It seems, however, that Caligula soon repented of the concession, and that but for his untimely death (A.D. 41) he would have had his statue set up in Jerusalem (E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I Div. II, 95-105; tr.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046a.htm

Caius Caligula ruled from 37 to 41 AD, and modern history doesn't record the successful erection of his statue in the temple as Martin Luther said.

Luther said:

10. All this pertains still to the Jewish nation. For if this should come upon us at the end of the world, then would we, according to the text, have to be in the land of Judea, because he really points to that country.

However, he appears to contradict himself. Luther saw more than one fulfillment.

18. Therefore this passage in Daniel concerning the abomination applies also to us. For we also have indeed a real abomination or desolation sitting in a holy place, namely: in Christendom and in the consciences of men, where God alone should sit and reign, of which Daniel speaks in very clear words in the 8th and 9th chapters. For this is the real pure doctrine, if we preach that we are redeemed by Christ from sin, death, satan and all misfortune, and are planted in the kingdom of God through the Word and faith and thereby are made free from all law, and that no man, whoever he be, can enter into the kingdom of God through the works of the law nor be made free from sin. Where this is preached and believed, there Christ reigns spiritually in the heart without a medium; there is the Holy Spirit with all the treasures and fullness of the riches of God.

20. Thus you see whether the Pope is not the greatest arch-abomination of all abominations, to whom Christ and Daniel refer; and the true Antichrist, of whom it is written that he sitteth in the temple of God, among the people, where Christ is named and where his kingdom, spirit, baptism, Word and faith should be: because he interferes with the office and kingdom of Christ by his fanaticism of the spiritual rites of Christ, wants to rule over the consciences and govern with his propositions and works. And he can in truth be called an "abomination of desolation," who is only destroying and laying waste everything, for as has been said: Christ and my works cannot abide together; if the one stands, the other must go down and be destroyed; wherefore the Pope has made desolate the kingdom of Christ, as far as his diocese reaches, and all who join him have denied Christ.

This sounds more like the Martin Luther that I've heard of. I also found this very interesting.

21. St. Paul prophesied all this, when in 2 Thess. 2, 3-4, he calls him: "The man of sin and the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." But that the Papists want to turn this passage from themselves and say: Christ and Paul are speaking of the temple of Jerusalem, that Antichrist shall sit and rule there, amounts to nothing. For Christ says here, that Jerusalem together with the temple shall have an end, and after its destruction it shall never be rebuilt. Therefore since Paul is pointing to the time after the Jewish kingdom, and the destruction of the material temple, it cannot be understood otherwise than of the new spiritual temple, which as he says himself, we are. There, Paul says, the Pope shall sit and be honored, not above God, but above everything that is called God, for the name of God does indeed remain the highest honor, therefore he cannot exalt himself above the true God, but above that which is called God and is worshipped; that is, he is exalted against...

I don't know if Luther was more accurate on these accounts than he was on history, but if he was talking about the pope of his time, rather than the office of pope, then it seems like it is all in the past. Either way, I think his views on the antichrist and the tribulation are a break with the way these things were understood in the early church. They are well documented in this link. (it is a pdf file)

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

Hello Eschaton

I think it might be worth mentioning something here that I think will lend some insights into the times of Luther and what isn’t often recognized buy most of the protestant faiths.

When we look at the events that the church of Rome had been involved in doing centuries before the revolution the church had manage to put down the Roman machine as far as its teeth were concerned. But out of necessity the church had to engage in a type of social oppression to keep those powers from springing back up. If we understand that Christianity is becoming a state religion and it is being somewhat mandated. There were many pagan religionists that did this rather reluctantly. Faced with death or exile to a penal colony somewhere many were just going along to keep oppression at a minimum.

The oppressed had now become the oppressor and this was nothing new to history. When Luther comes on the seen he is witnessing the corruption that this kind of oppression can cause in the papacy. Centuries of oppressing ones enemies began to take it toll on the church and the theology of the church had suffer for it. Luther did not intend for there to be a revolution as history records it. He was trying to reform not revolt.

But something happened that was totally out of his control as a result of his reforming efforts. Those die hard Romans that had been socially and economically oppressed saw a window of opportunity and used Luther’s efforts to launch a campaign against the church. These so called Romans weren’t reformist but revolutionaries hijacking the reformist movement and turned into a social revolution. They were wanting back the glorious days of Rome and that was their Goal. So Luther’s efforts were serving other forces. What has become known as the protestant revolution was really a social revolution riding on the back of catholic reformist.

Luther rationalizing the evil he is witnessing probably causes him to have to re-think certain theology. His views of the truth had to have been shaken but not only because of the evil he was witnessing but because he would have his part in producing certain scripture which would have exposed him to documentation he may have never seen before. His experiences in producing translated text wouldn’t be any different than any others who do such things. Their world changes as their vocabulary does.


Peace be with you Eschaton and God Bless you also.