Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
|
|
PFRS Home > Doctrinal Studies > Preterism Preterism
The date of the writing of Revelation has been hotly disputed by preterists. Until the last century, Christian tradition has placed John's exile to Patmos during the reign of the emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). The dispute over the date of the composition of Revelation is a crucial one. If it was composed by John after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem preterism is at once refuted. Revelation is a prophetic book, predicting the coming of Christ in the future. A post-AD70 date makes equating the coming of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem utterly impossible. There is no question that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of the Roman state, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. That much can be gathered from the first chapter of Revelation. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."[1] There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors were either indifferent to Christianity, or did not consider it a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the decade of the 60s, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in AD67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded. There is no record of Nero's banishing Christians to Patmos, only his brutality against the Christians of Rome. It was Nero who made a sport of throwing Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance. After Nero's death Rome left the Christians alone until the rise of Domitian to power in AD81. Although not as cruel and insane as Nero, Domitian had some Christians killed, the property of Christians confiscated, Scriptures and other Christian books burned, houses destroyed, and many of the most prominent Christians banished to the prison island of Patmos. All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John's banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero's reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John. Eusebius the Christian historian, living only two hundred years after Domitian's reign, gathered evidence from both Christian and secular sources that were still extant at the time (some of which are no longer extant today). All of the sources at Eusebius' disposal placed the date of John's Patmos exile during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius' earliest source was Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John. But he also used other unnamed sources both Christian and secular to place the date of the Patmos exile of Christians during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). "It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: 'If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ." [2] While Eusebius quoted Irenaeus' statement, notice that he also indicated that other secular histories at his disposal accurately indicated the banishment of Christians to Patmos occurred during Domitian's reign. Eusebius continues: "Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: 'Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.' But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition." [3] Here again Eusebius mentioned an ancient Christian tradition, but did not quote his sources, that placed John's return from exile on Patmos after Domitian's fifteen year reign, and Nerva's rise to power (AD96). There is more early evidence, both explicit and implicit, from other early writers prior to Eusebius, as follows: Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus. "'And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.' He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God." [4] A little farther, Victorinus again made the same claim. "The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba."[5] Clement of Alexandria (AD150-220) recounted a story about John shortly after his return from exile, while a very old man. "And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." [6] The expression "the tyrant's death" can only refer to the death of either Nero or Domitian, the only two "tyrants" that ruled in the first century. Eusebius related that upon the death of Domitian, the Roman senate voted to release those exiled by Domitian. This seems to parallel Clement's statement above. However, the above statement COULD refer to Nero, except for one fact. In the story that Clement related, he clearly stated that John was a very old and feeble man. The story is about a young new convert whom John entrusted to a certain elder to disciple in the Faith. The man had formerly been a thief and robber. Upon John's return from exile on Patmos, he heard that this young man had returned to his old life of crime. Upon hearing this, he sharply rebuked the elder in whose custody he had left him. John immediately set out for the place where this robber and his band were known to lurk. Upon reaching the place, he was assaulted by the band of robbers. He demanded of them to take him to their leader. They brought John to the very man whom John had formerly won to Christ, and left in the custody of the elder. When the young man saw John approaching, he began to run away. John began to run after him, calling, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.” John then explained to him that forgiveness and restoration was still possible. Clement then stated, "And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church." [7] From this account we see that upon John's release from exile on Patmos, he was a feeble old man. John could have been in his teens or twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD96. If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the "tyrant" referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties, fifties, or early sixties. He would hardly be spoken of as a feeble old man by Clement. That John lived until after the reign of Domitian is also shown by Irenaeus' repeated references to his own mentor, Polycarp, being John's disciple.[8] Polycarp was born in AD65, and died in AD155. He was five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was two years old when Nero died. His being tutored by John therefore must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward. More than one early writer mentioned the persecution of the Apostles under Nero. They spoke of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but made no mention of John's exile during this persecution. As is obvious to the unbiased reader, the early external evidence that Revelation was written under the reign of Domitian is indisputable. No evidence exists, from the first three centuries of Christian tradition, placing the composition of Revelation during the reign of Nero. Nor is there any evidence (Christian or secular) that Nero exiled any Christians to Patmos. Preterist argument from internal evidence. However, this argument is flawed at its very foundation. The Old Testament is full of the same Temple imagery. Any Gentile Christian familiar with the Old Testament (LXX) would be sufficiently familiar with the Temple imagery. Furthermore, familiarity with the New Testament book of Hebrews would also be sufficient. Even a cursory reading of Revelation reveals that John's visions and comments reference Old Testament prophecy on every page. Ezekiel saw a future Temple in his prophetic visions. [9] Yet, his visions occurred during the Babylonian captivity years after Solomon's Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of those who returned after the seventy year captivity to rebuild the Temple had never seen Solomon's Temple, or observed its rituals. [10] Their familiarity with the Temple was based solely on the Torah and scrolls like Ezekiel's and Daniel's. The Temple destroyed by the Romans has been gone for nearly 2000 years. If preterists' claim is correct, we should not be able to understand Revelation or write about Temple worship today because we have no personal first-hand knowledge of the Temple and its rituals. Such a position is absurd, since our knowledge of the Temple comes from the Scriptures. Neither the writing nor understanding of Revelation requires or implies first hand knowledge of the Temple. The Old Testament is sufficient. John certainly was himself familiar with the Temple, having been there with Jesus on several occasions. And his readers were well trained in the Old Testament Scriptures. That John was told in his vision to "measure the Temple and them that worship therein,"[11] is likewise no indication that the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. This prophetic vision clearly parallels Ezekiel's vision. [12] Ezekiel saw his vision during the Babylonian captivity, fourteen years after Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.[13] Yet, in his vision, Ezekiel was taken to Jerusalem, shown a glorious Temple far larger than Solomon's Temple, and proceeded to record all the measurements of the Temple in great detail. John saw his prophetic Temple vision during Domitian's reign (AD81-96). We don't know exactly when during his reign he was exiled, nor how long prior to his release he wrote Revelation. But, the possible timespan covers anywhere from eleven to twenty six years after the destruction of the Temple by Titus. It certainly COULD have also been fourteen years following the Temple's destruction, just like Ezekiel's Temple vision. It is obvious that the command given John to "measure the Temple" was meant to parallel Ezekiel's vision. Since Ezekiel saw his Temple vision fourteen years after the first Temple had been destroyed and lay in ruins, there is every reason to conclude that the same situation existed when John wrote Revelation. Ezekiel's Temple vision and prophecy was clearly intended to indicate a future rebuilt Temple. Ezekiel did not see the former (Solomon's) Temple that had been destroyed, or a Temple that was currently standing. Therefore, John's vision of the Temple in Jerusalem should be seen in the same way, being an indication and prophecy that the Temple will indeed be rebuilt. Contrary to the claim that John's Temple vision indicates that Herod's Temple was still standing, when compared to the parallel account in Ezekiel, it seems obvious that both prophecies of measuring the Temple were given shortly after the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The former in Ezekiel's day by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, and the latter in John's day by Titus and the Romans. That this is how the early Christians understood Revelation, even after the destruction of the Temple, is clear from their statements to the effect that the Temple in Jerusalem will be the seat of the Antichrist in the last days. [14] The preterist's attempts to date Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem fail on both internal and external evidence. This failure is indicative of their whole system, which is forced upon the Scriptures, and in this case, upon history as well. Preterist scholarship on this question is clearly agenda driven. Notes: < |
I'm not sure what a commentary on Ephesians is suppose to do for me. Let's pare this down: After we have put on the whole armour of God, what is the one thing we are commanded to do?
Is it: run off and engage in an epic battle against Satan's dominion and strongholds?
Or is it, as Ephesians 6:14 says "Stand."
For those of us doing as we are commanded, it is actually often knee slapping funny to watch everyone else get all frothy running here and there fighting Satan.
As Dr. Eckleburg so aptly noted: It does give them something to do. Hey, sister, pass the tea. I'm working up a sweat just watching them.
BTW, this nutty thought just hit me: If it is called prayer to God (I'm thinking of that other command found in 6:18) how come so many Christians spend their time speaking TO Satan and binding him?
***Christ Himself tells you to "be of good cheer" and you would rather be nervous about the outcome?***
Like I noted before, to be nervous about the outcome seems to belie a shaky faith.
If Calvinism wasn't born until the Reformation, then what, using this analogy, would Arminianism be?
No, the gospel has not always had the nickname Calvinism, but the gospel has always been the gospel, given to man in the Garden. I note that God did not tell Adam to go and shed blood and provide an acceptable representative covering for himself (Arminian man centered theology). Even while the man was hiding and blaming his wife, the first tokens of the gospel were presented by God to the man in the form of the covering for his sin (Calvinistic God centered theology). Salvation is of the Lord.
Our theology is at least 6000 years old.
12. "For we wrestle not. To impress them still more deeply with their danger, he points out the nature of the enemy, which he illustrates by a comparative statement, Not against flesh and blood. The meaning is, that our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight with men. There we resist human strength, sword is opposed to sword, man contends with man, force is met by force, and skill by skill; but here the case is widely different. All amounts to this, that our enemies are such as no human power can withstand. By flesh and blood the apostle denotes men, who are so denominated in order to contrast them with spiritual assailants. This is no bodily struggle.
Let us remember this when the injurious treatment of others provokes us to revenge. Our natural disposition would lead us to direct all our exertions against the men themselves; but this foolish desire will be restrained by the consideration that the men who annoy us are nothing more than darts thrown by the hand of Satan. While we are employed in destroying those darts, we lay ourselves open to be wounded on all sides.
To wrestle with flesh and blood will not only be useless, but highly pernicious. We must go straight to the enemy, who attacks and wounds us from his concealment, — who slays before he appears. But to return to Paul. He describes our enemy as formidable, not to overwhelm us with fear, but to quicken our diligence and earnestness; for there is a middle course to be observed. When the enemy is neglected, he does his utmost to oppress us with sloth, and afterwards disarms us by terror; so that, ere the engagement has commenced, we are vanquished.
By speaking of the power of the enemy, Paul labors to keep us more on the alert. He had already called him the devil, but now employs a variety of epithets, to make the reader understand that this is not an enemy who may be safely despised. Against principalities, against powers. Still, his object in producing alarm is not to fill us with dismay, but to excite us to caution. He calls them princes of the world; but he explains himself more fully by adding — of the darkness of the world. The devil reigns in the world, because the world is nothing else than darkness. Hence it follows, that the corruption of the world gives way to the kingdom of the devil; for he could not reside in a pure and upright creature of God, but all arises from the sinfulness of men."
This excerpt from the commentary post should at least cause you to question your "triumphalism". Satan is not bound now according to the writer , but is a real and potent enemy now. You make fun of those who take him seriously, "binding" him as you say, but at least they have not sold him short during these times he is prowling around seeking those whom he may devour. I assume their "binding" is from the same understanding that you have that Christ defeated the enemy and they are standing on that victory and reminding the enemy of it.
I wish that I wasn't nervous, but I just can't help it. The future is bright as we look to the resurrection, but there are bumps along the way, and I don't have much faith in myself.
Christ seemed a little nervous as the cross drew near, so I feel I am in good company.
How is there any difference in 1 and 2?
2) God is in control of His creation but He has allowed Satan to blind the eyes of those very people who He [God] is trying to save. God give prevenient grace so that He can open those eyes again so they may make a decision. (Buggman/neener’s view #499)
There is a distinct difference between 1 and 2 in a) who blinds the people; b) the purpose of their blindness; and c) how they are rescued. In #1 God does it all. In #2 others are involved.
And if we could be vanquished (which earlier you have agreed is ultimately impossible), perhaps this would be true.
But with the Holy Ghost as our inerrant guide, it is not possible for believers in the Triune God to be defeated. Christ has promised us that very thing. "Believe and you shall be saved."
In your heart, b-d, I don't think you are fearful for your salvation. Fearful of Almighty God, yes. But truly fearful of Satan, not you. Not me. Not any Christian who understands the battle has already been won by His resurrection. BC/AD. The whole world was transformed by His birth.
We need to be strong, confident, wary of Satan and incorruptible to his lies, ashamed of our weaknesses and diligent in our faith, all by the grace of God.
And from an evangelical standpoint, how much more productive is it to declare "Fight on because we win," rather than "Stumble on because we might lose?"
If Christ has "overcome the world," and He is in us, what do we really fear?
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -- Galatians 2:20-21"I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Woe is me! I am a man of unclean lips! :O)
Which historic creeds?
Sure, but where would that leave the Messianic Jews?
The times when I am most nervous or worried are the times I am most certain of my faith because it is the only thing left to sustain me. During the darkness of night His promise not to lose me shines most brightly.
"When you go through a trial, the sovereignty of God is the pillow upon which you rest your head." -- Charles Spurgeon
Nervous??
nervous(adj): In a state of anxiety or uneasiness.
If the Bible says to be anxious for nothing, how could Christ be nervious (anxious)?
Uhh...no. What you're basically saying is that the Nicene Council decided what was orthodoxy rather than affirming what was already accepted as orthodoxy in the church.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
There is no implication of any gap. Final judgement for everybody happens at His coming.
And it isn't whether or not I say so; it's what the scripture itself says.
If they want to come along there is room in the Gospel Blimp.
Have you ever blown up a balloon? The balloon is completely filled with air, and yet it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger...
Look, Sunday is coming and I have to finish preparing for two classes I have to teach and quite frankly, I don't want us to leave tonight still debating something we all agree on, except we interpret it in different terms because of our experiences and teachings. The quote from the commentary is from Calvin's "Sermons on Ephesians". As you can see he takes the warfare seriously as I'm sure all of us here do or we would not be so serious about the weapons of our warfare and the security of knowing that no matter how intense the fight with the enemy, our Captain will never leave us on the field defenseless, or unsure of the ultimate victory.
Be sure to thank Him in the morning for keeping us safe during the night when we are most vulnerable.
I figured it was either Calvin or Luther. We know you too well. 8~)
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.