Question for Partial-Preterists

[CalvinandHodges]

Hello:

As I read the material of both the Partial and Full Preterists on the web there is a nagging question that comes to mind concerning this unique eschatology. (Just for the record I am an Historicist of the WCF and Calvin type).

In reading the Preterist arguments for the internal evidences for an early date of the Book of Revelation they point out in Revelation 1:3 this:

...for the time is at hand.

They argue that the Book of Revelation must be referring to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because the language requires an immediate fulfillment.

The Partial-Preterist, I understand, argues that the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth will not occur until Judgment Day - the end of the world. This has led me to believe that the Partial Preterist is logically inconsistent with his own hermeneutic.

In Revelation 22:6 we are told:

the things which must shortly be done

This passage encompasses eveything that was said before - including the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.

Revelation 22:10 says:

for the time is at hand

Again, including the resurrection, etc...

In Revelation 22:20, Jesus says:

Surely I come quickly

I think the problem has become evident. If the Apostle is talking about an immediate fulfillment in Revelation 1:3, then the same interpretive principle should reign in Revelation 22:6,10,20 where the same language is used. If we interpret Revelation 22 as a long period of time, then there is no bar to interpreting Revelation 1:3 in the same fashion.

I would then argue that Full Preterism is the logical outcome of Partial Preterism.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Everyone is a partial preterist to some degree I supose. The question is how far they go with it. You made a good observation about Revelation though brother. I once thought that Demar and Gentry and it figured out a few years ago but the more I study the more I'm not so sure. Full preterism, whish is rank heresey in my opinion, is just a step away from some of the "partial preterist" postions that I have read.

 

[unlearnedlearner]

calvinandhodges,

As a partial preterist I disagree. There are several reasons for this. First, and trying to keep the discussion to Revelation, I see the "millennium" just as much as a "time statement" as "soon" and "near". With that said, I believe the resurrection, including Satan being caste into the Lake of Fire & the New Heavens and New Earth, is all still in the future. Second, read through Revelation, especially chapter 20, a couple of times and consider the "timing statements". For example, at the end of chapter 19.20 - "And the beast was a captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence ha done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those ho worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh." Assume preterism and ask, "Who are these two? O.k., when did they exist? So, when did this event have to take place?"

I see 19.11+ w/ respect to Jesus going forth and making war as our present age, the millennium, and all these events tied into and around ad 70, and now Satan is bound as Jesus subdues the nations, and the destruction of the beast and false prophet as the beginning of this effort. Part and parcel with this is the fact that Satan was to be bound, which Rev. 20 has occurring after 19, and I see no reason to see it as a "recapitulation", causing Rev. 20 to occur prior to the events described in 19. In 20.4 John sees thrones, which the Gospels and the the Apostles all have occurring in the future, and on the throne includes those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the Word of God and we cannot have this occurring in ad 30 or 33 (or wherever you want to place it). These are the ones that have not "worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reined with Christ for a thousand years." All of these events - receiving the mark, martyrdom, etc. - all occurred well after 30 and just prior to ad 70, so it only makes sense to place these events late in 60 or w/ ad 70. Unless one is willing to take the "millennium" as 3 years, then I see no reason to force it to fit into a full-preterist scheme, although some will try. Then, at the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed and then caste in the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

So, exegetically speaking, I think there is plenty of reason to see the resurrection, Great White Throne, & the New Heavens and the New Earth as future. Note: this does not negate the fact that the New Heavens and New Earth broke in with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but Christ's redemption has not gone as far as the "curse is found", but it will.

Aside from holding our hand and saying, "This isn't part of the 'soon', etc.," How can the vision be more clear than a "millennium" occurring outside the "short" and "soon"?

So, that's how I see it. The resurrection and final judgment, the Great White Throne, is still future and, I believe, this is completely consistent with partial-preterism and does not lead to hyper-preterism.

ul

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Still Puzzled

Hi:

Revelation 22:6 reads fully:

And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

It seems to me that what is said here is that the sayings that are faithful and true - in other words the whole of the Book of Revelation - are those things which must shortly be done.

But verse 10 is even more clear:

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

I do not see how one can get around the fact that the angel is telling the Apostle that the time is at hand for the sayings of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. The language is explicitly clear: the whole book - not part of it.

As an Historicist I see no problem with these texts. However, it seems to me that Partial Preterism is inconsistent.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[puritan lad]

Hello CH,

It's me again

It seems to me that what is said here is that the sayings that are faithful and true - in other words the whole of the Book of Revelation - are those things which must shortly be done.

But verse 10 is even more clear:

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

I do not see how one can get around the fact that the angel is telling the Apostle that the time is at hand for the sayings of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. The language is explicitly clear: the whole book - not part of it.

The prophecies of the book, as a whole, were to happen shortly, quickly, near, about to take place, etc. The millennium and further events do not have to be included in the time frame. In fact, the events after the millennium, by definition, cannot be. Obviously, if the beginning of the 1,000 years is to begin shortly, then the end of the 1,000 years cannot also begin shortly.

The Book of Revelation was written to 7 literal First Century Churches to comfort them from Roman and Jewish Persecution. The main message of the book was to comfort these saints, as God was about to avange them. Including a short passage on the eventual victory of the church at a later time does not change the message of the book as a whiole.

As an Historicist I see no problem with these texts. However, it seems to me that Partial Preterism is inconsistent.

I would hold than Historicism is inconsistent with the Scriptures themselves. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Revelation itself that would allow for a Historicist interpretation. Historicism makes these time texts false. Historicism holds that the events didn't happen "shortly", "Near", etc.

I don't want to presume anything, but doesn't historicism begin with the presumption that the 7 churches represent 7 Spiritual ages in Church History? Interesting theory, but it is totally made up of whole cloth, without one shred of Scriptural Support.

It can also be easily shown that Revelation and Matthew 24 refer to the same events, the end of the Old Covenant, commensing with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD 70. Despite Hal Lindsey's best efforts, there in no getting around Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34.

God Bless,

PL

 

[unlearnedlearner]

Hodge,

It seems to me that what is said here is that the sayings that are faithful and true - in other words the whole of the Book of Revelation - are those things which must shortly be done.

The bold=really, really bad interpretation. As my kids would say, "Hey, that's not what the Bible says."

I do not see how one can get around the fact that the angel is telling the Apostle that the time is at hand for the sayings of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. The language is explicitly clear: the whole book - not part of it.

Hmm, he says one thing - "I do not see how one can get around..." - but concludes another - "I am an historicist". I'll take talking out of both sides of my mouth for 2000, Alex. You may want to ask, With respect to what? before you start throwing this stuff around.

O'well.

ul

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Ungracious response

Hodge,



The bold=really, really bad interpretation. As my kids would say, "Hey, that's not what the Bible says."

I do not see how one can get around the fact that the angel is telling the Apostle that the time is at hand for the sayings of the prophecy of the book of Revelation. The language is explicitly clear: the whole book - not part of it.

Hmm, he says one thing - "I do not see how one can get around..." - but concludes another - "I am an historicist". I'll take talking out of both sides of my mouth for 2000, Alex. You may want to ask, With respect to what? before you start throwing this stuff around.

O'well.

ul

Hay:

unlearnedlearner:

I have found this response to be most ungracious. When I wrote "I do not see how one can get around" I am referring to the Preterist interpretation of things. When I say that I am an Historicist I am giving context for my position.

Learn some manners, sir.

-CH

 

[BJClark]

I'm curious, how do so many people get 70 AD? I'm sorry but those dates don't make sense to me...

Do we overlook what Christ said in Matthew 24, was he only talking about only the disciples here, or is this intended for ALL Christians and followers of Christ as a whole?

If Christ was ONLY refering to the disciples life time, then what good is it for ANY who believe after them?

Why must we try and limit God's time frame to a limited understanding of time?

I mean, if we look at the facts...Genesis (10:25) tells us that the earth was divided, and split into various nations, Genesis 11 tells us when all the various Nations were created..at the tower of Babel, so even though John may have assumed every nation had heard the Gospel...we know looking back over our own life time this was not so. Because those Nations of People in the America's and many other countries had not heard the Gospel...

Looking at Matthew 24:14--Christ said "And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in ALL The World for a witness unto ALL Nations; AND THEN Shall the end come."

In looking at verse 34 "Verily I say to you this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fullfilled"

Is Christ refering to the Generation of the Disciples, or is he refering to the generation of Christians after ALL Nations of people have heard the Gospel?? It would appear as Christ starts out refering to the entire world hearing the Gospel, then it would also mean that is the generation He was refering to...and not the generation in which the disciples actually lived.

Based on history, we can certainly read about concerning the History of the World, I have never read of a time when the saints Ruled with Christ, where did they rule? Who did they rule over? (per Rev. 20)

But even more importantly, if Nero was the anti-Christ as so many seem to believe, how then can they also hold that the Pope is also the anti-Christ, or is the RCC the resurrected anti-Christ Nero?

Did Christ at his death bind satan for 1000 years? (and the rise and death of Nero/and the Church of Rome) signify the loosing of the Anti-Christ upon the earth?

I'm just trying to understand why many believe Nero was the anti-Christ, and why some assume Christ was only refering to that specific generation when the scriptures are supposed to be for every nation on earth, and not every nation on earth at that time had even HEARD the Gospel.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Puritanlad

Hay:

As a Historicist I have no problem interpreting the passages to indicate long periods of time:

For a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day...

The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness...

G&P,

-CH

 

[BJClark]

Paul manata;

It's the date of the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy on Matt. 24. Virtually *all* scholars agree that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple when he asked the disciples if they saw the temple, and that not one stone would be left unturned. Some may find double fulfillment here, etc, but it's pretty undeniable that Jesus was referring to the destruction of the temple, if you allow for predictive prophecy, that is.


Intended for all Christians how? Of course what he sais was intended for us all to read about. To wonder at. To praise God for. But Matt 24:1-35 is past, In my humble opinion. But it was *the disciples* who asked about the signs of Jesus' coming, and Jesus answered *them* by saying, "do *you* see these things."


God limited it. Jesus tells us the time frame: "this generation shall not pass."

No, God did not limit it, it appears our understanding limits it.

And some believe Christ was refering to Himself when refering to the temple...(John 2:19) "Destroy this temple and three days I will raise it up" (was He not resurrected after 3 days??)

Even in looking at Matthew..."Jesus went out and departed from the temple; and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of temple."

It appears (to me) the disciples were refering to the earthly temple but Christ was refering to His own Body..

And, why does "all" the nations here mean all universally? Many times it refers to the known world. Indeed, it appears that Paul thought this verse had been fulfilled:

Why wouldn't they? I mean, Jesus was GOD, He knew the world consisted of many other nations, even if the disciples didn't.

Do we really look to what 'they' assumed to be true and not what Christ Himself KNEW to be true? That the world consisted of more than what they knew existed? Isn't that relying on man's understanding more than on God's knowledge of truth?

Jesus being God, would have known the WHOLE world didn't know...even if the disciples didn't understand this..

Well, the Bible allows for many antichrists. "Whoever denies Jesus has come in the flesh, that man is an antichrist." So it's fine to believe in more than one.

Besides, I think Nero was *the beast* that comes out of the sea, not "the anti-Christ." And I don't agree with the confession on the point about the Pope.

The anti-Christ isn't satan. Revelation ch. 20 doesn't talk about the anti-Christ. It talks about the satan. And Satan is the one loosed at the end of the millennium. he goes forth and deceives the nations, after the great comission has been fulfilled.

And who was the false prophet that was also cast into the lake of fire with the beast, as refered to in Rev 20? Or has this one not been identified as of yet?

Well it seems you've never so much as attempted to read the works and arguments by partial preterists (or eschatologicians in general), and so I'd start there.

Actually, I have read some, and I still come up with the same questions...

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi BJClark:

There is no doubt that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24. Preterism has tunnel vision at this point, and, consequently interprets all (or most) New Testament prophecy as being fulfilled at 70 AD.

The abundant evidence that the Book of Revelation was written after 70 AD throws their system off considerably. Here are a few examples:

The Nicolaitans mentioned in Rev. 2:6 was a late 1st Century heresy. We know this because the Early Church Fathers said that they took much of their material from Ebion (80-85AD). Scholars also argue that such a strong heresy could not grow up when the Apostles were alive to refute it. Once most of them were dead, and another stricken by old age the vigor of these heresies would increase.

The Church at Smyrna understood the persecution they were about to go under was fulfilled in 156 AD - the martyrdom of Polycarp.

The Church of Laodicea: Scholars argue that Spiritual lethargy does not creep into a church until the 2nd generation. First generation Christians tend to be robust and zealous in their Christianity. It is only when the 2nd generation comes around who had it easy and stand on a prosperous ministry (especially in Laodicea which was very wealthy) does Spiritual lukewarmness enter into it.

Not to mention that just about all of the Early Church Fathers understood that the Apostle John was sentenced to Patmos under the reign of Domitian. And these Church Fathers do not quote Irenaeus as their source.

G&P,

-CH

 

[puritan lad]

Hay:

As a Historicist I have no problem interpreting the passages to indicate long periods of time:

For a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day...

The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness...

G&P,

-CH

In otherwords, these time frame references are meaningless. John told the churches that these things were to happen shortly, but what he actually meant was that none of the people in the churches he was writing to would ever live to see any of them. When Jesus promised those first Century Christians in Philadelphia that He would "keep thee from the hour of the trial that is about to come upon all the world" (Rev. 3:10), he was actually referring to Huns, Goths, and the Spanish Inquisition. I'm sure these poor souls took great comfort in that.

Make you wonder how Jesus expected these Christians to read, hear, and keep the words of the prophecy, since it was not relevant to them, even though He plainly says that "the time is near". (Rev. 1:3)

 

[Ezekiel3626]

BJClark, when you say: It appears (to me) the disciples were refering to the earthly temple but Christ was refering to His own Body..
can you explain your conclusion based on the text and context in Mt. 24, including but not limited to other texts which may support this theory? I was wondering also, what would the implications be of understanding the text in this manner? In other words, why would you attribute the words of Christ in Mt. 24:2 to his own body, and not the temple? What would be the significance?

 

[puritan lad]

There is no doubt that Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24. Preterism has tunnel vision at this point, and, consequently interprets all (or most) New Testament prophecy as being fulfilled at 70 AD.

Of course, if it can be shown that Both Revelation and the Olivet Discourse refer to the same prophecy, then you will have to become a preterist, correct? (It can be.)

The abundant evidence that the Book of Revelation was written after 70 AD throws their system off considerably. Here are a few examples:

There is actually more evidence that it was written before 70 AD, but you and I have been down that road before.

See Dating the Book of Revelation

The Nicolaitans mentioned in Rev. 2:6 was a late 1st Century heresy. We know this because the Early Church Fathers said that they took much of their material from Ebion (80-85AD).

Not so. Irenaeus linked the Nicolaitans Heresy to Nicolaus of Antioch. (Acts 6:5). Since it is referred to as the deeds of the Nicolaitans, and not the Ebionites, I'll go with Irenaeus on this one.

Scholars also argue that such a strong heresy could not grow up when the Apostles were alive to refute it. Once most of them were dead, and another stricken by old age the vigor of these heresies would increase....The Church of Laodicea: Scholars argue that Spiritual lethargy does not creep into a church until the 2nd generation. First generation Christians tend to be robust and zealous in their Christianity. It is only when the 2nd generation comes around who had it easy and stand on a prosperous ministry (especially in Laodicea which was very wealthy) does Spiritual lukewarmness enter into it.

Say what? Have you read the New Testament lately? What did Paul marvel at in his letter to the Galatian church (Galatians 1:6)? In fact, Paul's letter to the Ephesians was the only one that did not deal with some sort of Doctrinal heresy, just like John's letters.

The Church at Smyrna understood the persecution they were about to go under was fulfilled in 156 AD - the martyrdom of Polycarp.

Says Who? The persecution of Smyrna was being carried out by Judiazers in the church (Rev. 2:9). This was a huge problem before AD 70, as can be shown by a multitude of Scripture. After AD 70, this wasn't as much of a problem.

Not to mention that just about all of the Early Church Fathers understood that the Apostle John was sentenced to Patmos under the reign of Domitian. And these Church Fathers do not quote Irenaeus as their source.

Try again. See Dating the Book of Revelation

Also, there is nothing in the Book of Revelation itself to suggest a late date. The external evidence is, at best, a wash. But according to the Book of Revelation itself, we can see that the 6th Roman Emperor was on the throne (Rev. 17:10), which would be Nero (54-68 AD). We can also see that the temple had not yet been destroyed by the Romans (Rev. 11:1-2,8).

Now you will try to spiritualize these evidences, but what internal evidence will you provide in support for the late date?

God Bless,

PL

 

[BJClark]

Paul manata;

So let me get this straight, Jesus said, "do you see all these," and you take that to mean, "do you guys see my body?" And, there's nothing about rebuilding the temple in 3 days here, so what does "not one stone left upon another mean?" Jesus wasn't dismembered.

Forgive me, I was refering to other passages and misspoke on this one...


But I do have another question..

Per Romans 11:25b

It speaks of Isreal being blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in..

Has the fullness of the Gentiles been completed? Or is that still a future event? I guess of the hyper-preterist that would have already been completed as well.

But then, what does it mean, that Isreal is blinded until?

I realize not all Isreal will be saved, and that not all Isreal is of Abraham, but it appears, and I may be reading it wrong..that Isreal in this context is not the same as the Church...so if it's different, then have all the descendents of Isreal died? Or are they still blinded? And how does one determine if the fullness of the Gentiles been complete or not?


I'm just trying to understand...looking at all the various scriptures..

 

[CalvinandHodges]

puritanlad?

In otherwords, these time frame references are meaningless. John told the churches that these things were to happen shortly, but what he actually meant was that none of the people in the churches he was writing to would ever live to see any of them. When Jesus promised those first Century Christians in Philadelphia that He would "keep thee from the hour of the trial that is about to come upon all the world" (Rev. 3:10), he was actually referring to Huns, Goths, and the Spanish Inquisition. I'm sure these poor souls took great comfort in that.

Make you wonder how Jesus expected these Christians to read, hear, and keep the words of the prophecy, since it was not relevant to them, even though He plainly says that "the time is near". (Rev. 1:3)

Hay:

The time-frame references are pregnant with meaning for all of us today:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall aldo the coming of the Son of man be ... Watch therefore: for ye not not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh, Matthew 24:36ff

This famous Matthew 24 passage tells us that the Judgment of God will come "as a thief in the night." How can this be applied to the destruction of Jerusalem? It cannot. The destruction of Jerusalem was a very public and obvious event. It did not come "as a thief in the night." The Fifty-thousand man Roman Army rampaged all through Israel making its way straight towards Jerusalem. The Jews were well prepared for the Roman seige, and it was not at all unexpected.

But Jesus says it will be "unexpected" - how then does this relate to 70 AD? Jesus is referring to the second question of the Apostles - the "end of the age" when Satan shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, the Second Resurrection takes place, the separating of the Sheep and the Goats, the end of time, and the establishment of the Heavens and the Earth eternally.

What does this have to do with the time signatures? The answer to this is twofold:

1) Jesus tells us that we should "watch for you know not the hour or day." If one does not know the time when an event will happen, then one must consider it happening "soon" in order to keep watch.

2) James Ramsey, in his commentary on Revelation, describes the Historicist position on this quite nicely:

It cannot be meant by these words, "the time is at hand." that the whole of the prophecies of this book were to be accomplished immediately; for by the consent of all it embraces the whole course of time, and reaches beyond the end of all things earthly. It can only mean that the conflicts and triumphs which were to end only when death and hell were to be cast into the lake of fire, were even then about commencing; and that very soon the whole of the principles of the long and fearful strife would be developed in events of stirring intrerest and importance to the church ... These things must shortly come to pass; the mystery of iniquity was already at work; already had the malice of Satan been stimulated to stir up false brethren within, and excite violence without the church,

pg. 32.

Even your partial-preterism holds that not everything in the Book of Revelation is happening "soon" because, at least to those who hold to PP, the thousand-year millennium of Rev. 20 did not happen at 70 AD.

Keep trying, Puritanlad,

G&P,

-CH

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Of course, if it can be shown that Both Revelation and the Olivet Discourse refer to the same prophecy, then you will have to become a preterist, correct? (It can be.)


There is actually more evidence that it was written before 70 AD, but you and I have been down that road before.

See Dating the Book of Revelation

Not so. Irenaeus linked the Nicolaitans Heresy to Nicolaus of Antioch. (Acts 6:5). Since it is referred to as the deeds of the Nicolaitans, and not the Ebionites, I'll go with Irenaeus on this one.


Say what? Have you read the New Testament lately? What did Paul marvel at in his letter to the Galatian church (Galatians 1:6)? In fact, Paul's letter to the Ephesians was the only one that did not deal with some sort of Doctrinal heresy, just like John's letters.

Says Who? The persecution of Smyrna was being carried out by Judiazers in the church (Rev. 2:9). This was a huge problem before AD 70, as can be shown by a multitude of Scripture. After AD 70, this wasn't as much of a problem.



Try again. See Dating the Book of Revelation

Also, there is nothing in the Book of Revelation itself to suggest a late date. The external evidence is, at best, a wash. But according to the Book of Revelation itself, we can see that the 6th Roman Emperor was on the throne (Rev. 17:10), which would be Nero (54-68 AD). We can also see that the temple had not yet been destroyed by the Romans (Rev. 11:1-2,8).

Now you will try to spiritualize these evidences, but what internal evidence will you provide in support for the late date?

God Bless,

PL

So?

Irenaeus is correct here, but he is not correct elsewhere? Should I requote you concerning all of his errors, and then say that he is in error here as well? When you say, "I'll go with Irenaeus on this one," you show the desperation of your position - as you well know.

Irenaeus, by the way, states that the sect claims to have been started by Nicolas. Thus, they take a good name and use it for an evil purpose. Kind of like one taking the name "Puritanlad" yet denying the Puritan eschatology!

Your own Clement of Alexandra was of a different opinion:

Whether the sect really claimed Nicolas as their founder, or whether the combination was made by Irenaeus in consequence of the identity of his name with the name of a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor have we any idea, in the latter case, where the sect got the name which they bore. Clement of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just below, gives us quite a different account of the character of Nicolas; and as he is a more reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as his statement explains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas' authority, without impeaching his character, which certainly his position among the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good enough to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as the true one, and denying that Nicolas himself bore the character which marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as Clement says, have arisen from abusing a saying of Nicolas which had been uttered with a good motive. (http://westover.searchgodsword.org/...gi?file=npnf2-01-08.htm&number=4#P2021_950017 note 280.

The "Nicolaitans" would have to wait until Nicolas was dead before they could so abuse his name.

"puritanlad" writes:

There is actually more evidence that it was written before 70 AD, but you and I have been down that road before.

Yes we have, and I am still waiting for your explanation on how we should understand a reference to the literal Temple of Herod in Rev. 11:1ff? When, in 70 AD, both the outer and inner courts were destroyed. Yet, Rev. 11 tells us that the inner court was to be spared?

To this day, 2000 years later, the Dome of the Rock still sits on the Temple mount. The "gentiles" have been trampling all over the City and Temple for 2000 years - how does that relate to the 3 1/2 years mentioned in Rev. 11ff?

Next,

Say what? Have you read the New Testament lately? What did Paul marvel at in his letter to the Galatian church (Galatians 1:6)? In fact, Paul's letter to the Ephesians was the only one that did not deal with some sort of Doctrinal heresy, just like John's letters.

That is a rather abusive statement to make. I did not say that heresies did not exist - what I said was:

Scholars also argue that such a strong heresy could not grow up when the Apostles were alive to refute it. Once most of them were dead, and another stricken by old age, the vigor of these heresies would increase.

Not only did the Apostles combat heresies, but they also warned that heresies would come, 1 Cor. 11:9, 2 Peter 2:1.

Next,

Says Who? The persecution of Smyrna was being carried out by Judiazers in the church (Rev. 2:9). This was a huge problem before AD 70, as can be shown by a multitude of Scripture. After AD 70, this wasn't as much of a problem.

Says Eusebius, in his Church History book 4 chapter 15, who quotes a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus. The account of the martyrdom of Polycarp fits the Biblical narrative in Rev. 2:

On at least some occasions, Roman persecution of Christians was actively encouraged by Jews. Many Roman governors that were in doubt if they should persecute Christians (most did nothing against Roman law), got complaints of Jews and Jewish priests when Christians were not persecuted. In the burning of Polycarp of Smyrna there was also hesitation on the Roman side, while the Jews of Smyrna asked for Polycarp to be eaten by lions and when this was refused, to burn him at the stake.

I believe Preterists say that the Jewish persecutions of Christians ended at 70 AD? Their history is way off.

Finally,

Also, there is nothing in the Book of Revelation itself to suggest a late date. The external evidence is, at best, a wash. But according to the Book of Revelation itself, we can see that the 6th Roman Emperor was on the throne (Rev. 17:10), which would be Nero (54-68 AD). We can also see that the temple had not yet been destroyed by the Romans (Rev. 11:1-2,8).

There is nothing in the book of Revelation that indicates an early date - saying that "these things will shortly come to pass" does not mean that the author is referring to 70 AD. You have to read "70 AD" in the text - the text does not say it. Your other 'internal evidence" is not a trustworthy exposition of Scripture.

G&P,

-CH

 

[Calvibaptist]

Reading all this makes me long for my dispensational days when we had everything all nicely charted. Maybe we could all just go read a Scofield Bible and call it a day!

 

[Kevin]

Reading all this makes me long for my dispensational days when we had everything all nicely charted. Maybe we could all just go read a Scofield Bible and call it a day!

Those were the days, alright

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Scofield?

Reading all this makes me long for my dispensational days when we had everything all nicely charted. Maybe we could all just go read a Scofield Bible and call it a day!

Hi:

Would that make you a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib?

G&P,

-CH

 

[puritan lad]

That's OK CH. You can just post links to our debates on the other boards and we'll let the readers make up their own minds.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Puritanlad

That's OK CH. You can just post links to our debates on the other boards and we'll let the readers make up their own minds.

You mean they can't make up their minds here? What they will find out is the same thing that you do here - instead of answering the point you attack Historicism:

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they trample under foot forty and two months, Rev. 11:1,2.

If the "outer court" was to be trampled by the Gentiles, but not the inner court, then how does that relate to 70 AD wherein both the outer and inner court were destroyed?

If the Gentiles were only supposed to trample under foot Jerusalem for forty and two months, then why are they still trampling it under foot almost 2000 years later? e.g. The Dome of the Rock.

If the language is figurative, then there is no need for the actual Temple to be actually standing in order for us to make sense of the passage.

Matthew Poole:

This temple was a type of the church under the New Testament, 1 Cor. 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:16, and is so to be interpreted generally in this book: for the material temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans more than twenty years before this prophecy, never to be built more; not one stone was left upon another; so that John here was bid to measure the church, Commentary, vol. 3, pg. 975,976.

Matthew Henry:

This prophetical passage about measuring the temple is a plain reference to what we find in Ezekiel's vision, Eze. 40:3, etc. But how to understand either the one or the other is not so easy. It should seem the design of measuring the temple in the former case was in order to the rebuilding of it, and that with advantage; the design of this measurement seems to be either, 1. For the preservation of it in those times of public danger and clamity that are here foretold; or, 2. For its trial; that it may be seen how far it agrees with the standard, or pattern, in the mount; or, 3. For its reformation; that what is redundant, deficient, or changed, may be regulated according to the true model. Observe, 1. How much was to be measured. 1. The temple, the gospel church in general, whether it be so built, so constituted, as the gospel rule directs, whether it be too narrow or too large, the door too wide or too strait, Commentaries, pg, 2476.

It should be noted that the parallel passage in Eze. 40ff was written at a time when the Temple was destroyed. The Apostle John was given to measure the true Temple of God on Earth which is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church Victorious in Heaven needed no measuring, Rev. 11:19.

The "internal evidences" of the Preterist are not reliable expositions of the Word of God.

Grace and Peace,

-CH