Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[xzins]

PFRS Home > Doctrinal Studies > Preterism Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse Copyright © Tim Warner - 010/2003 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. The clear familiarity of John with Temple worship in Revelation is alleged to indicate that both he and his readers relied on personal knowledge of Temple worship in Jerusalem. According to preterists, this implies that the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Revelation was written. 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: [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 <

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And you are wrong in saying Calvin does not think Satan is bound. That excerpt in no way implies that Calvin believes we can be vanquished.

[57chevypreterist]

That makes no sense to me. Either there is complete peace, or there is a lack of peace that is being replaced by peace.

Let's look at the physics of your balloon analogy: it is displacing the air outside of the balloon with the air inside of the balloon. So too, the increase of peace is displacing the lack of peace.

Peace! :o)

[jude24]

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.

No. What I am saying is that a lot of questions weren't even asked until the second or third century, let alone was the orthodox answer determined. When the very basics of Christianity are revolutionary - that Jesus is the Messiah, God Incarnate Risen from the Dead. These were where the Ante-Nicene fathers spent their time. Thus, these facts are about the only things that were clear-cut in the Ante-Nicene era. Justin Martyr et al. are better described as apologists, and not theologians, because they were more focused on defending the nascent faith rather than systematizing it.

[blue-duncan]

"The devil reigns in the world, because the world is nothing else than darkness"

That doesn't sound like he's bound except maybe to this world where he was sentenced when he fell.

I don't think I said we could be vanquished as far as salvation is concerned, but like Calvin, I think we can be vanquished from the battle by being compromised by sin or defeat. That's why the writer of Hebrews says "laying aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets us, let's run the race..."

[blue-duncan]

Can you get the one that drops the gospel tracts?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I have lost the analogy entirely (and my initial grasp was tenuous at best.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't think I said we could be vanquished as far as salvation is concerned, but like Calvin, I think we can be vanquished from the battle by being compromised by sin or defeat.

Well, we're either vanquished or we're not vanquished. It's one or the other.

The real difference IMO is that the Calvinist knows even the actions of Satan are part of God's plan for His creation which will ultimately lead to His triumph and our joy.

The Arminian somehow believes that Satan is autonomous and thus we are under a real and present danger of succumbing to him.

Scripture encourages us to presevere for the very reason that we cannot fail because our victory has been secured by Christ Himself.

[HarleyD]

"The earliest eschatological position of the church was premil."

The earliest eschatological position of the church appears to have been "Historical Premillennialism" for the first three centuries. It is of historical significance that many of the very early church fathers did not have all their duck lined up on theology. This was easily to forgive since their primary focus was one of evangelism. However for the first three centuries, while they did offer valuable insight, their theology was often muddled.

Augustine came along in the 350AD and wrote the comprehensive systematic theology of the church which the church readily adopted. Augustine not only taught a Reformed view of scripture but he taught an Amillennialist eschatoloty. This became the official position of the church until the 1800s.

Dispensational Premillennialism which you are pushing and what is being preached here was considered heresy by the very early church fathers and the church up until 1830. It was not considered part of the "early traditions" as you would have many believe. It was pushed by Darby and then by Scofield.

For a brief summary of these positions please see ESCHATOLOGY, END TIMES, AND MILLENNIALISM: COMPETING THEORIES

[Seven_0]

If the Bible says to be anxious for nothing, how could Christ be nervious (anxious)?

Perhaps nervous is not a good word. How about Christ seemed a little fearful?

[blue-duncan]

"The Arminian somehow believes that Satan is autonomous and thus we are under a real and present danger of succumbing to him."

I don't know much about this, what I do know is that we can't be vanquished (separated) from the love of God but we can be vanquished from the field of battle which is a sanctification and conforming problem, not a salvation (in a regeneration sense) problem.

How can you win something when we are both agreed?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Was Christ the Triune God ever really worried that Satan would triumph? And if He who faced the devil eye-to-eye was certain of God's will for His victory, why should we doubt it?

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless 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.

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 really like that verse. "Do not frustrate the grace of God." Persevere. Have courage. Be bold in His name.

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33

[Seven_0]

Was Christ the Triune God ever really worried that Satan would triumph? And if He who faced the devil eye-to-eye was certain of God's will for His victory, why should we doubt it?

Christ was not worried about Satan, not ever. Still it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and Christ did exactly that. So must we.

[xzins]

HD, Augustine was a thorough-going Catholic....Mariology, transubstantiation, Petrine Primacy, etc., all the way through. You consider him something awesome simply because he had a deterministic view of predestination. That's fine. Let's just not call Augustinianism calvinism. It isn't, and I imagine that many (most?) calvinists would reject all those other doctrines which Augustine held.

In any case, there is some evidence that historical premillennialism was the position of the early church. However, there is strong evidence that there was a belief in the rule of the Son of David from Jerusalem for a thousand years. There is strong evidence that they distinguished between the Edenic and post-Edenic periods; that they distinguished the ante-diluvian from the post-deluvian; that they distinguished the Noahic from the Abramhamic; the Abrahamic from the Mosaic. Finally, we are certain they distinguished the Law from the age of Grace.

Seeing these things, we can only ask the nature of the historic premillennialism that they considered. They did not have a fancy term like "dispensationalism" as a form on which to hang some of their contemplation. That was probably good because sometimes we find ourselves adhering to labels and not to bible.

I understand that allegorism became the standard doctrine of the church after 350 or so. That makes sense to me in light of the very nature of historic premillennialism. Time MUST pass for perspective and insight to be gained.

So, I see a natural inclination of historic premillennialism to phase into either a "stages of development" schemata or an allegorical schemata or (to give chevy and TC their due) some kind of "historical reinterpretive" overview.

But, as blue-duncan would say, "eschatology is simply a discussion of probabilities." That's the most profound (and unifying) summary I've heard on the subject in years.

[xzins]

I agree that the Holy Spirit is our inerrant guide.

[57chevypreterist]

I have lost the analogy entirely

Or, could we say, your balloon went flat? lol

[topcat54]

In any case, there is some evidence that historical premillennialism was the position of the early church. However, there is strong evidence that there was a belief in the rule of the Son of David from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

Don't confuse isolated statements by a subset of church fathers as being "the position" of the early church. For that we must look to the creeds and a broader selection of writings.

Also be careful not to read modern Roman Catholic views (e.g., Mariology) back into the early fathers like Augustine.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***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.***

Triumphalism!!!

Why, you say that as if it is a bad thing. Look, I'm sure that it is some kind of in vogue thing to be a true blue Christian, but I can hardly be in a bad mood when....

#1. The battle belongs to the Lord.
#2. The war has already been fought and won.

I'm amused at those who "bind" Satan for a few reasons:

#1. If they don't believe that Satan is bound in this age, what do they think they accomplish by "binding" someone whom the Lord had ordained to not be bound.
#2. They spend so much time in prayer to the Lord talking to Satan. Not much of a quality prayer life.
#3. If the Lord has ordained that Satan have some influence then what do they think they will accomplish by trying to "bind" up what the Lord has ordained to be.

The funny part is that their binding cannot be that "Christ defeated the enemy and they are standing on that victory and reminding the enemy of it." They are trying to prevent Satan from having some ability. I've listened plenty of times. They are actually in fear of some Satanic "influence" or "stronghold" and so they are "binding" Satan so they can go and win a victory.

My prayer and worship life does not revolve around Satan. I don't feel the need to remind Satan that he has lost. My time is spent praising Jesus for what he did. It is far richer and more satisfying than trying to rub Satan's nose.

Meanwhile, I'm looking over the battlefield. Jesus has won, Satan is defeated. And there are a whole horde of Christians thinking they have to go win some battle. Perhaps, instead of taking Satan "serious" these Christians should get their eyes off of him and get them on Christ. Satan won't seem so scary after that.

Furthermore, Satan may roar and seek whom he may devour, but that doesn't mean that Satan may have them. Perhaps the lion roars in frustration because he is bound from devouring the saints.

On a parting note, I'm not sure if you think I'm suppose to quake in fear that you are citing Calvin's commentaries. Do you even know what Calvin's Eschatology was? Here is a hint: he wasn't a premill Dipsy running around "binding" up Satan thinking he needed to engage in epic battles against the forces of darkness.

Oh, and Paul wasn't a premill Dipsy either. He believed like me that the saints were already in victory, reigning over the earth with Christ:
Eph 2:5-6 GB
(5) Euen when we were dead by sinnes, hath quickened vs together in Christ, by whose grace ye are saued,
(6) And hath raysed vs vp together, and made vs sit together in the heauenly places in Christ Iesus,

From where I sit with Jesus, there sure are a lot of Christians chasing ghosts and shadows instead of ruling and reigning with Christ. Oh, well, as Dr. Eckleburg has noted, it gives them something to do.

[xzins]

I'll be sure to be careful. :>)

[Lord_Calvinus]

That's right, brother, Frumanchu. Our historic creeds, which we confess, state that we believe that Christ will come to judge, not set up a nifty little kingdom and restore animal sacrifice. Boy will there sure be some disappointed Premills, who are getting ready to rule and reign, only to find out that they missed out on the Millennial kingdom of Christ.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Well, the scripture says of the increase of peace there will be no end. So, if there is total peace, how can it increase?
And it isn't whether or not I say so; it's what the scripture itself says.***

Well, I'm not asserting that there is total peace now, whatever that means. I'm asserting exactly what the Bible states in that Christ rules and reigns in the midst of his enemies. He will do so until the last enemy is put under his feet, which is death. (Psalms, 2, 110, 1 Co 15) Since I still observe that there is death, it is quite obvious that Christ's reign and subjection of his enemies is not yet complete, even if the full Preterist has some kind of wild and zany explaination of how death is some kind of metaphorical representation of something else.