I could give a litany of reasons preterism is wrong and dangerous, but my chosen argument this day shall be the martyrdom of Antipas.
The circumstances of Antipas' martyrdom are not the only awkward facts for preterists in this verse. What does the Lord mean when He says that Satan's throne exists in a certain locality (Pergamum)? The obvious suggestion is the Pergamon Altar, associated with the Temple of Zeus.
So "Mystery Babylon", the pagan (Satanic) religion founded by Nimrod at Babel migrated from Babylon to Pergamum (and from thence to Imperial and finally Papal Rome, but that's another post), which is why the Lord Jesus called it "Satan's throne." This is all unintelligible if Revelation was written in the 60's AD and Christ knew Satan was to be bound within a few years. What would it matter where his throne was? Throne over what? A disintegrating kingdom? No, the Lord was speaking of that system which caused John astonishment when he saw its integration with the so-called "church" over the millennia before the Lord's return.
But back to Antipas. Preterists try very hard to push back his martyrdom to the 60's under Nero, but there is no evidence that the persecution under Nero extended beyond the city of Rome itself: “There is no mention of any persecution outside the city of Rome, and therefore it is quite likely that this persecution, although exceedingly cruel, was limited to the capital of the Empire.” Gonzalez, Justo L. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 35.
Much more plausible is that Antipas was martyred as a result of his refusal to pay homage to the imperial cult of Rome, which portrayed the emperors as divine. While all of the emperors since Augustus had claimed divinity (and he had posthumously honored his patron uncle Julius with godhood), Domitian was far more grandiose with his airs and demanded to be addressed as Lord and God, titles which of course Christians would have refused to use.
Unfortunately, the earliest, clearest account we have of Antipas' martyrdom is from Simeon Metaphrastes in the 10th century, but he appears to be quoting from a long, established tradition of Antipas' fate (assigning his death to the time of Domitian), referenced also by Andreas of Caesarea (6th century) and Tertullian (2nd century)!
From Scorpiace, Chapter 12:
It is said that Tertullian's allusion does not contain "independent information", but the claim that Antipas was "delivered from the last trial" indicates a clear knowledge of the circumstances cited by Metaphrastes, that Antipas was delivered from the pains of his execution (being roasted to death in a metal bull) so much that he was able to pray and give thanksgiving to the last, finally simply going to sleep...hardly the case if he were suffering from the unimaginable pain of such an execution!
So since Antipas was clearly martyred in an empire wide persecution under Domitian, and the Lord Jesus provided this time text so we'd know that Revelation was written after 70 AD, why is anyone a preterist?
The circumstances of Antipas' martyrdom are not the only awkward facts for preterists in this verse. What does the Lord mean when He says that Satan's throne exists in a certain locality (Pergamum)? The obvious suggestion is the Pergamon Altar, associated with the Temple of Zeus.
Though the Persians did not initially interfere in Babylon’s religious practices, the political power of the Babylonian priesthood (who were Chaldean magi) eventually became a problem. The temple had always been central to Babylonian life, with an entire culture and economy surrounding the Ziggurat of Marduk. As a result, the Chaldean priests were a powerful elite. They were often more powerful than the Babylonian king himself: the monarch had to acknowledge the priests’ intermediary role and “take the hands of Marduk” before assuming the throne. The king thus became the son of the god and was obliged to protect the religious hierarchy.
The priests frustrated the Persians’ tolerance when, in an attempt to retain their behind-the-scenes political power, they installed one of their own, a priest posing as the king’s brother Smerdis, as ruler of Babylon. The imposter was discovered and killed by the Persians. Following a subsequent revolt when the priests again set up their own Babylonian ruler, the Persian king Xerxes came and destroyed Babylon in 487 BCE. In the process, he tore down the temples and removed the statue of Marduk.
At this point, around 480 BCE, the Babylonian priests are thought to have left the city and reestablished their base elsewhere. According to one source, “the defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor, and fixed their central college at Pergamos, and took the palladium of Babylon, the cubic stone, with them. Here, independent of state control, they carried on the rites of their religion” (William B. Barker, Lares and Penates: or, Cilicia and Its Governors, Ingram, Cooke and Co., London, 1853, pp. 232–233).
The priests frustrated the Persians’ tolerance when, in an attempt to retain their behind-the-scenes political power, they installed one of their own, a priest posing as the king’s brother Smerdis, as ruler of Babylon. The imposter was discovered and killed by the Persians. Following a subsequent revolt when the priests again set up their own Babylonian ruler, the Persian king Xerxes came and destroyed Babylon in 487 BCE. In the process, he tore down the temples and removed the statue of Marduk.
At this point, around 480 BCE, the Babylonian priests are thought to have left the city and reestablished their base elsewhere. According to one source, “the defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor, and fixed their central college at Pergamos, and took the palladium of Babylon, the cubic stone, with them. Here, independent of state control, they carried on the rites of their religion” (William B. Barker, Lares and Penates: or, Cilicia and Its Governors, Ingram, Cooke and Co., London, 1853, pp. 232–233).
So "Mystery Babylon", the pagan (Satanic) religion founded by Nimrod at Babel migrated from Babylon to Pergamum (and from thence to Imperial and finally Papal Rome, but that's another post), which is why the Lord Jesus called it "Satan's throne." This is all unintelligible if Revelation was written in the 60's AD and Christ knew Satan was to be bound within a few years. What would it matter where his throne was? Throne over what? A disintegrating kingdom? No, the Lord was speaking of that system which caused John astonishment when he saw its integration with the so-called "church" over the millennia before the Lord's return.
But back to Antipas. Preterists try very hard to push back his martyrdom to the 60's under Nero, but there is no evidence that the persecution under Nero extended beyond the city of Rome itself: “There is no mention of any persecution outside the city of Rome, and therefore it is quite likely that this persecution, although exceedingly cruel, was limited to the capital of the Empire.” Gonzalez, Justo L. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 35.
Much more plausible is that Antipas was martyred as a result of his refusal to pay homage to the imperial cult of Rome, which portrayed the emperors as divine. While all of the emperors since Augustus had claimed divinity (and he had posthumously honored his patron uncle Julius with godhood), Domitian was far more grandiose with his airs and demanded to be addressed as Lord and God, titles which of course Christians would have refused to use.
Unfortunately, the earliest, clearest account we have of Antipas' martyrdom is from Simeon Metaphrastes in the 10th century, but he appears to be quoting from a long, established tradition of Antipas' fate (assigning his death to the time of Domitian), referenced also by Andreas of Caesarea (6th century) and Tertullian (2nd century)!
From Scorpiace, Chapter 12:
Also to the angel of the church in Pergamus (mention was made) of Antipas, Revelation 2:13 the very faithful martyr, who was slain where Satan dwells. Also to the angel of the church in Philadelphia Revelation 3:10 (it was signified) that he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial.
It is said that Tertullian's allusion does not contain "independent information", but the claim that Antipas was "delivered from the last trial" indicates a clear knowledge of the circumstances cited by Metaphrastes, that Antipas was delivered from the pains of his execution (being roasted to death in a metal bull) so much that he was able to pray and give thanksgiving to the last, finally simply going to sleep...hardly the case if he were suffering from the unimaginable pain of such an execution!
So since Antipas was clearly martyred in an empire wide persecution under Domitian, and the Lord Jesus provided this time text so we'd know that Revelation was written after 70 AD, why is anyone a preterist?
Comment