Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
If you believe that he came back in AD 70, then unless you are going to deny that Jesus is going to come back bodily, you are stuck with a third coming.
My pretribulation rapture position really only has him touching his feet down on the Mount of Olives one time and that is when he returns with his church to set up his Millenial Kingdom.
Did Jesus set his resurrected foot upon the soil at the Mount of Olives in 70AD?
Did he have to dodge the Roman swords to do it?
Here is another take on Nicolaitanism by F.W. Grant:
There is something, however, which is preliminary to this, and mentioned in the very first address; but there it is evidently incidental, and does not characterize the state of things. In the first address, to the Ephesians, the Lord says, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (2:6). Here it is more than the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes. There are now not merely "deeds," but "doctrine." And the Church, instead of repudiating it, was holding with it. In the Ephesian days, they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes; but in Pergamos, they "had," and did not reprobate, those who held the doctrine.The question now before us is, How shall we interpret this? and we shall find that the word "Nicolaitanes" is the only thing really which we have to interpret it by. People have tried very hard to show that there was a sect of the Nicolaitanes, but it is owned by writers now almost on all sides to be very doubtful. Nor can we conceive why, in epistles of the character which we have seen these to have, there should be such repeated and emphatic mention of a mere obscure sect, about which people can tell us little or nothing, and that seems manufactured to suit the passage before us. The Lord solemnly denounces it: "Which thing I hate." It must have a special importance with Him, and be of moment in the Church’s history, little apprehended as it may have been. And another thing which we have to remember is, that it is not the way of Scripture to send us to church histories, or to any history at all, in order to interpret its sayings. God’s Word is its own interpreter, and we have not to go elsewhere in order to find out what is there; otherwise it becomes a question of learned men searching and finding out for those who have not the same means or abilities, applications which must be taken on their authority alone. This He would not leave His people to. Besides, it is the ordinary way in Scripture, and especially in passages of a symbolical character, such as is the part before us, for the names to be significant. I need not remind you how abundantly in the Old Testament this is the case; and in the New Testament, although less noticed, I cannot doubt but that there is the same significance throughout.
Here, if we are left simply to the name, it is one sufficiently startling and instructive. Of course, to those who spoke the language used, the meaning would be no hidden or recondite thing, but as apparent as those of Bunyan’s allegories. It means, then, "Conquering the people." The last part of the word ("Laos") is the word used in Greek for "the people," and it is the word from which the commonly used term "Laity" is derived. The Nicolaitanes were just those "subjecting - putting down the laity" the mass of Christian people, in order unduly to lord it over them.
What makes this clearer is, that, - side by side with the Nicolaitanes in the epistle to Pergamos, - we have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, a name whose similarity in meaning has been observed by many. "Balaam" is a Hebrew word, as the other is a Greek; but its meaning is, "Destoryer of the people," a very significant one in view of his history; and as we read of the "doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," so we read of a "doctrine of Balaam."
That's simply not rational.
I watched a show on TV once called the "The Scarecrow." It was a Disney Production. The drama included the secret identity of the Scarecrow. Everyone wondered who he was.
Let me tell you. It was the Vicar.
I know because it's past. Not a lot of folks are running around saying, "Who's the Scarecrow? When's the Scarecrow gonna be revealed."
We already know. No speculation needed.
The same with the identity of the antichrist. John would've said. He would have told others. It would have gotten around the churches in that ante-nicene area.
Mystery solved.
But it didn't happen that way. Irenaeus, in Christian lineage from Polycarp who was directly from John himself, was still wondering who it would be and when he would be revealed. And many others.
They were still talking about it as future to them!
Preterism is at odds with history. It's a wish hung on a whim supported by a wisp.
Nope. I haven't.
I suppose semi-preterists believe everything in prophecy has happened prior to 70 AD except the return of Christ.
I wonder how a great falling away happened. There hadn't even been a "great coming to" yet.
Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the UTTERMOST parts of the world.
Last I checked, Christianity came to N. America in the 16th century. Little contradictions like that, and then the convoluted logic that gets used to explain them away, make me wonder how anyone can get caught up in that system.
Well, as I see it, it goes like this:
If you try to apply consistently the hermeneutics that produced the Reformation, you end up SOME kind of a Calvinist Dispensationalist.
If you try to apply consistently the Roman Catholic hermeneutics that produced amillennialism, you end up a preterist -- because the grammatico-historical sense of the text no longer controls.
Dan
I think I'm now a Cal/Minion Dispensationalist.
What do you think of the following (Warner - the author of this piece? Didn't Ryrie and/or Walvoord both head in a progressive dispensational direction?)
PFRS' Solution - A Return to "Chiliasm" / Progressive Dispensationalism:
In keeping with the whole purpose of the Pristine Faith Restoration Society, which is to discover and restore the earliest Christian tradition, we naturally must promote and defend the earliest Christian view of the destiny of the redeemed. Our "system," if one must call it that, is a radical modification of Darby's Dispensationalism, called "Progressive Dispensationalism." Don't let the name scare you. It is simply a return to the "Chiliasm" of the early Church before the Greek influence overturned the ancient hope of a restored creation.
Darby took the first major step, that of taking a literal approach to Old Testament prophecy. We are simply taking the next step that puts our theology in line with that of the early Church (and the Bible). Progressive Dispensationalism holds to a single progressive plan of redemption that includes Israel and the Gentiles, as well as the whole creation. It includes a single destiny for the redeemed — Christ's eschatological Kingdom and a restored creation. And it interprets the Old Testament promises to Israel literally, being fully realized in that coming physical Kingdom.
Progressive Dispensationalism is able to use a consistent hermeneutic in both Testaments, and explain the differences between God's dealings with Israel as a nation and the whole Church as a redeemed body. Progressive Dispensationalism does these things exactly the same way Irenaeus did in the second century when he refuted Marcion and other Gnostics. It is by illustrating that the present "Church" was prophesied in the Old Testament, albeit in a kind of enigma (mystery). This mystery was explained to the Apostles by Jesus from the Old Testament Scriptures. Progressive Dispensationalism relies heavily on the actual interpretations of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers.
The volume of witnesses saying that John wrote the Revelation in the reign of Domitian is overwhelming. These are various ANTE-Nicene fathers with scholarly credentials and access to the libraries of their day. The earliest was Irenaeus who received an eyewitness account from Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself.
Then there is the issue of those who continued to query the identity of the FUTURE antiChrist.
If this was all settled in Jerusalem in 70 AD and John knew it, then why did everyone continue to wonder about such things as the identity of the antiChrist. It would have been common knowledge. John would have shared it. Any remaining apostle would have shared it. Any Christian of the area would have shared it.
They would have said, "Whew...glad we survived the AntiChrist's reign. Who'd a thunk it woulda been ole So & So."
So far as the Nicolaitans are concerned, there is no record of any nicolaitanism in the churches or regions of Paul. (There is some indication that a greek gnosticism goes back before the Christian era. There is even some evidence that gnostic ideas influenced early Christians....but that doesn't mean it was nicolaitanism.)
There is a lot of speculation over what a Nicolaitan is. There are those who look to the meaning of the name (conquer the laity/people) and there are those who speculate some kind of connection to Nicolas, one of the original 7 deacons, although later writings suggest that any connection was not with Nicolas himself but by those who progressively perverted his devotional lifestyle.
In short, there is nothing clear about the Nicolaitans. There were no Pauline or Petrine era Nicolaitans. Any progressive perversion would have taken time....again getting us to the end of the century.
Gnosticism was developing for some time before Christianity, it existed in the Mediterranean basin, and the likelihood that it and Christianity crossed each other's paths is simply a matter of history....mostly late 1st through 2nd century stuff.
They did write about it b-d, in numerous places. That’s the point.
I think the discussion of the Nicolaitans is an important and interesting one if not for dating the book of Revelations certainly for the early church. To summarize post 123:
If you’ll recall once Balaam discovered that he could not curse the Israelites for profit, he decided to subvert them. (Num 31:16) After all, he was getting paid big bucks by Balak. Because of Balaam, the Israelites not only ate food and worshipped idols but engaged in sexual immorality. (Num 25) Doesn't this sound the least bit familiar with what John is saying? This sin was grievous and continued within the tribe of Israel. (Jos 22:17) Deceived, Israel paid a steep price for their idolatry and liciviousness. I find it extremely interesting that the exact same thing happened to the early church under the Nicolaitans. Mr. Preston points all this out in a number of scriptures that runs through the New Testament. You can look up his references just as well as I can and did.
As we see from Iraeneus’ comment, the apostles appointed caretakers in the church probably for the same purpose as they brought in Stephen-so they could devote their time to preaching the gospel (Acts 6). One of these caretakers according to Iraeneus was Nicolas who started preaching the very same thing that Balaam taught-sexual immorality and food offered to idols. Coincidence? I doubt it. Paul, Peter, John and Jude all devote significant text to this problem in the early church (Peter and Jude both rightfully called it the error of Balaam). Mr. Preston highlights these sections in post 123 so I’m not going to reiterate them here.
The Jerusalem Council was formed to deal with several controversies (Acts 15). However James specifically addresses the council about this particular matter – the idea that “they should abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication…” (vs 20). This is the exact same error of Balaam.
Over and over and over again...
I think the circumstantial evidence of the relationship of all this scripture is over-whelming. It is consistent with the spiritual attack on the fledging nation of Israel, it is discussed as a spiritual attack in all the epistles (including little Jude), and it is documented as history by the early church fathers. While inconclusive, I think this argument gives strong evidence to Revelation being written around the late 60AD. It could be argued that this problem could have festered in the church for another 30 years and was brought up again in Revelation. But it seems to me with the writings of Paul, Peter, Jude, and Luke’s documentation of the Jerusalem Council, I would think the issue would have been settled.
As far as F.F.Grant comments goes, he states:
Well, if you don’t wish to believe Iraeneus about this then why should we bother to believe any of Iraeneus’ quotes? Please remember in the above article the case is being that John was “an old man” based upon Iraeneus account. You can’t have it both ways.
Mr. Grant also states:
To be perfectly honest one of my problems with this article is that it is based solely upon sources OUTSIDE of scripture. Mr. Grant would like us not to go outside of scripture at all for confirmation-a fact that this article ignores and is impossible to do in dating the material. Mr. Preston’s article, OTOH, tries to use scriptures to show what was happening in the church and to date Revelation accordingly. I don’t understand why Mr. Grant would disagree with Mr. Preston’s interpretation.
I don't have a final opinion about it, frankly. One of my favorite profs at Talbot was Dr. Robert Saucy, sort of the father/grandfather of PD. The joke at the time was, "When is a Dispensationalist not a Dispensationalist? When he's Bob Saucy."
I don't have nearly all the details of prophecy worked out, nor do I feel obliged to -- even though I have studied and studied, and read and read and read. I have what I think are fundamental framework (i.e. hermeneutics) and fundamental results (i.e. Israel is Israel, the Church is the Church [should-be "duh"], promises are promises and not bait-and-switch tricks, etc.).
Dan
bump
To be perfectly honest Harley, you are not being perfectly honest:
Notes:
[1] Rev. 1:9
[2] Eusebius, Bk. III, ch. xviii
[3] ibid. ch. xx
[4] Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, XI
[5] ibid. ch. XVII
[6] Clement, Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved, XLII
[7] ibid.
[8] Irenaeus, frag. ii
[9] Ezek. 40-44
[10] cf. Hag. 2:3
[11] Rev. 11:1-2
[12] cf. Ezek. 40:3ff & Rev. 13:1-2
[13] Ezek. 40:1
[14] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk V, XXV, i-ii, Bk. V, XXX, iv, Hippolytus, On Daniel, II, xxxix, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, vi, Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV
Out of 13 references, 6 of them are to scripture. That's hardly an appeal to sources "solely" OUTSIDE of scripture. Neither side can prove their positions by scripture, but the strongest argument is the fact that Ezekiel's temple is yet future. Herod's temple was always a temporary structure. It was not built to Ezekiel's specifications and hence either Ezekiel was a false prophet or the Temple is yet to be built.
I believe there was a secondary meaning to Christ's statement when he looked at the Temple and said, "tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it up." While he was talking about the Temple of his body and three literal 24 hour days, I also believe he was talking about the physical structure of the Temple itself and that he would raise it again in 3 days (On God's clock).
A couple of things makes that incorrect.
1. No one can nail down what or who the Nicolaitans were.
2. Irenaeus opposed the Nicolaitans and suggested a possible connection to Nicolas, the deacon.
3. Eusebius expands on that possible identification and disagrees with it to the extent that it implicates Nicolas personally. He says Nicolas was a godly, devotionally turned man.
4. Early gnostism was turned in both a licentious AND an acetic way. It might well have grabbed on to the acetic example of a godly man like Nicolas and used it to highlight their doctrine that the flesh counts for nothing, that all that matters is "spirit."
5. In our context, it would be like Reagan conservatism. Strap hangers later on were republicans like DeWine, McCain, etc, who turned it into a rino philosophy. A later writer comes along and connects Reagan with rinoism. There is a connection, but we know that Reagan wasn't connected with such a philosophy at all.
6. In short, one needs to read Irenaeus clearly. He is talking about the "followers" of Nicolas....those who came after him. And who might have seriously perverted his acetic life.
You mean it doesn't fit with your "common sense" approach to Bible prophecy?
In the letters of John we are told:
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour." (1 John 2:18)
Now, not only does John affirm that antichrist is coming, but that some antichrists have already appeared. Interesting that John in his letter does not take the time to identify these antichrists by name. Surely he knew who they were if he could say that had already appeared. And if it were important he no doubt would have mentioned their names. What was important was their characteristics (cf. v 22).
But again, we're back to speculating why or why not.
I believe the same thing is true with Nero as the beast. John offfers enough of a description that believers in that day would know of whom he was speaking.
But doesn't the futurist have the same problem? Surely Jesus through John the Seer could have revealed the name of the futurist antichrist if He wished. He could have spelled out "Nicolae Carpathia" or "Saddam Hussein" or whomever.
On the PBS.org web site there is a quiz on "name the antichrist" and it lists people that have been identified as antichrist in history. It also makes this interesting comment on the person of Nero, "As Robert Fuller writes, John was writing Revelation for persecuted Christians who "could hardly fail to make immediate connections between the imagery surrounding this beast and their feared worldly enemies: Rome, and the despised Roman emperor and merciless persecutor of Christians, Nero." Most scholars believe that "666," the sum of the numerical values of the Greek "Neron Kaisar" translated into Hebrew, is code for Nero." Find the Antichrist(s)
I think PD (for my simple mind) thinks in terms of sets. There's a set of Israel (S,I). There's a set of the Church (S,C). There's a set of the Israelites who are Christians, and therefore in the Church. (S, IXC) There's a set of Gentiles who are Christians and therefore in the Church. (S, GXC).
Set's (S,I) and (S,C) intersect one another. That intersection is (S,IXC). The exact shape of the remain (S,C) is (S, GXC).
In other words, Israel intersects the church only with those who believe in Jesus. They are still Jews, and they are remnant Israel, and they are in the Church. The remainder of the church is believing Gentiles who are never remnant Israel.
The expression "Israel of God" is a metaphor for all believers, but only a metaphor.
or
Well, DUH!!!! They do not support the argument of his interpretation. They only state the obvious.
The extensive gnosticism of 1 John means that this letter was written near the end of the 1st century. There is a huge consensus that this is the date of John's letters for CENTURIES.
Since this letter is written after 70 AD, what in the world is John doing saying "Antichrist IS coming."
According to preterists, John should be saying, "Antichrist DID come and his name WAS _______."
But, in about 90's AD, John is saying that antichrist is STILL AT THAT TIME a future event.
This is why I said earlier in this thread that preterists HAD to have John dead right around 70AD.
This really puts a nail in the preterist coffin!
AS to your commment that John could have named the antichrist.....had he come, he would have. And we wouldn't have John wondering who he would be in the John passage you mentioned, we wouldn't have Irenaeus wondering who he would in the future be, we wouldn't have Tertullian wondering, nor scaths of other early fathers wondering, and we wouldn't be wondering.
Preterism is dead.
I'd agree that everything you said is at least possible, except for the last paragraph. "Israel of God," to my mind, refers to nothing more nor else than the elect remnant within the nation of Israel. That fits the context best, and better fits the fact that "Israel" is NOT ONCE, EVER unambiguously applied to any non-Israelite, though it is constantly applied to Israelites.
Dan
I agree that "Israel" is always genetic Jewish. Always.
The expression "Israel of God" being a metaphor does NOT violate that stricture, SINCE it is a metaphor.
If I call PromiseKeeprs, "The Grown up BoyScouts of the Church" that doesn't make them BoyScouts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.