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 <

[ksen]

I think the creeds support an amillennial position.

That's fair. I just think the Apostle's Creed is neutral on the millenial position.

[57chevypreterist]

Good question! Both are on dictionary.com, so I suspect either reading would be considered acceptable. But "gads" was not listed as an acceptable alternative for either one, not was it listed by itself.

:o)

Blessings

[Seven_0]

Well, did Adam die "in that day" or not? Did God lie to Him?

2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Adam almost made it to the second day before he died the first death. First must come before second.

[57chevypreterist]

I am not equating the "second death" with "spiritual death". The scriptures describe being thrown into the lake of fire as "the second death". I am only saying that the "death" that was thrown into the lake of fire in the "second death" was "spiritual death", not "physical death".

[Frumanchu]

"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."

While it's clearly not explicit, I think it's a big strain to argue that the Church fathers believed Christ was coming from the right hand of God the Father Almighty to first set up a 1,000 year kingdom and then judge the living and the dead.

[Seven_0]

I am not equating the "second death" with "spiritual death".

I Cor 15:46 may apply here.

[topcat54]

The death that Christ came to put away was spiritual death, the same death that Adam died when he ate of the friut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He did this via His blood in the New and Everlasting Covenant. No metaphor there.

Why did Christ need to die physically if He only came to deal with "spiritual death"?

"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5:25-29)

How do you deal with the spirtual and physical implications of this passage?

[57chevypreterist]

I Cor 15:46 may apply here.

1 Cor.15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

This passage you quoted, in its context, is referring to Adam, the physical Adam, who came first. The second ("last") Adam is referring to Jesus, the spiritual Adam, the one who cam second. Verse 46, properly understood in its context, means:

"The spiritual [Adam] did not come first, but the natural [Adam], and after that the spiritual [Adam].

It does not refer to spiritual nor physical death, which is what you and are are discussing.

[Seven_0]

It does not refer to spiritual nor physical death, which is what you and are are discussing.

The pattern of natural, then spiritual, had long been established in scripture before Paul pointed it out in I Cor 15. If this were the only evidence, I should leave the discussion now, but I point your attention to the myriad examples in scripture, where the pattern is followed. There are easily thousands of them, Cain then Able and so on.

There are two deaths. Christ died, not so that we could skip the natural death but the Spiritual death. You can't skip the second death, because the second death would become the first.

[Seven_0]

OOPS

You can't skip the FIRST death, because the second death would become the first.

[57chevypreterist]

Why did Christ need to die physically if He only came to deal with "spiritual death"?

Because God set up His Covenant such that without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.

Hebrews Chapter 9 lays this out beautifully.

[57chevypreterist]

I'm unclear as to what you are driving at in your last two posts.

Spiritual death occurred in the garden when God cursed Adam because he sinned, did it not? Wasn't Adam (and mankind) separated from God at that time? Was not this separation from God the spiritual death of Adam AND mankind? Did not God promise at that time to send His Son ("her Seed") to crush the serpent's head? Wasn't that Christ's mission, to redeem mankind from the spiritual death caused by sin? To restore mankind back to a right relationship with God?

Are you saying that the spiritual death did NOT occur prior to Adam's physical death?

Please clarify. Thanks!

[topcat54]

That only begs the question. Why does there need to be shedding of blood if Christ only came to deal with spiritual death?

This all some very gnostic.

[57chevypreterist]

I'm not sure how it's "begging the question", as you say.

You asked, why the shedding of blood, my answer, because the Bible says so.

I mean, why did God have to send His Son to die anyway? Why did He not just forgive our sins, and that's that?! Surely He has the power to forgive sins without the shedding of blood; yet, He requires it. I don't have the answer to that for you.

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29)

I see this question as one that God may not have revealed an answer for in the Bible. If you have a biblical answer, would you kindly share it?

As far as gnosticism, I haven't studied it in depth; needless to say, I believe that Scripture teaches Jesus was fully human and fully divine, so that when He did die on the cross, He physically died. I'm unclear as to how the shedding of Jesus' blood as the perfect sacrifice ends up sounding "very gnostic" to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Theology

Blessings,

[Seven_0]

Spiritual death occurred in the garden when God cursed Adam because he sinned, did it not? … Wasn't that Christ's mission, to redeem mankind from the spiritual death caused by sin? To restore mankind back to a right relationship with God?

I have a problem with the second part of this statement. I think that there are two and only two deaths, “natural” and “spiritual”. When Christ died, it was not to bring us back from the spiritual death, but to keep us from even going through it. Thus, when Christ said, “He that believeth in me shall never die,” it was spiritual death that he was talking about.

Please don’t think that I have all the answers, there are many objections here. Some I can answer to my satisfaction, some I cannot, at least not yet.

As for Adam, why would he even have to die spiritually? Why would he die twice? When Adam and Eve sinned, God didn’t kill them, he killed an animal, and covered their shame with skins. Why a sacrifice? What significance would a sacrifice have if Adam and Eve died anyway? Where does it say that Adam died spiritually?

Seven

[Lord_Calvinus]

Wow! That is not much of a victory. You know, it had not occured to me just how gnostic full Preterism was. I mean, there is no complete redemption for all of creation. It is like the physical world has something wrong with it. It does seem to me that placing creation under the subjection of decay is completely without hope for redemption.

[57chevypreterist]

it had not occured to me just how gnostic full Preterism was.

"It should already be clear that there is no convergence between preterism and this Gnosticism. To my knowledge, preterists all believe in the goodness of God's original creation (including the body), in the unity of God as revealed in Scripture, in the fall of humanity in Adam, and the need for Jesus Christ, God incarnate in hypostatic union, to redeem sinners by his substitutionary atoning death upon the cross. Moreover, preterists in general uphold the resurrection of Christ and of humanity in a transformed body, their primary divergence with traditionalists being over the nature of the resurrection body."

link to article

[57chevypreterist]

I mean, there is no complete redemption for all of creation.

In Genesis 3, God's reaction to Adam's sin was to promise to send Messiah. I see nowhere in Gen. 3 where He promises to redeem the physical creation. In fact, He curses the ground after He gives His promise to send the Messiah.

Appeals are usually then made to Romans 8.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail from Dr. Kelly Birks, pastor of Messiah Reformed Church in Omaha, Nebraska:

"On Romans 8, this passage too is also speaking of human beings and Christians in particular. Check out the word for "Creature" there. It's KITISIS. Look up the places where it occurs in the NT. Mk. 16: 15, Col. 1:23, 2 Cor. 5: 17. It is often used for "people", and Christians in particular. Also, notice the context of the statement surrounding the KITISIS or "creatures" in Rom. 8: 18-23. You will see that in V. 18b, Paul is speaking of the glory that is about to be revealed in "us." So he is introducing a discussion about believers, and not inanimate objects like mountains, dirt , trees, etc. In V. 19, the creature WAITS for the manifestation of the Sons of God. How does an inanimate object WAIT for something? This context is not even a metaphorical one, so no reason to understrand this in a poetic way. In V. 20 mankind (creatures) were made subject to vanity or emptiness by Adam. In V. 21 people (creatures) are delivered from the bondage of corruption. Now we're getting into 1 Cor. 15:42, 50-54. In the resurrection at the parousia, the believer is delivered from the "corruptable" earth bound body. In Rom. 8: 22, only people can groan and travail, not inaminate objects. It's wrapped up very nicely in V.23 which you should compare to 2 Cor. 5: 1-4. Also, in Rom. 8: 23b, it says that the believers that Paul was writing to ("the glory which is about to be revelaed in US"-V. 18...) were waiting for the adoption which Paul defines as "the redemption of our body." The Greek word for "redemption" is APOLUTRO, which means to be "loosed from" something, or "freed from" something. Here, it is clear that Paul is defining the adoption as being an act that frees, or looses the believer from their earthly bodies which is the "groaning and travaling" that is going on earlier in Rom. 8: 21-22."

So, if one wants to construct an entire systematic theology of the redemption of the physical creation from this one Bible passage, they can go for it, but I personally don't think the Biblical evidence in Romans 8 is that strong.

Blessings

[57chevypreterist]

You have completely lost me...

Are you suggesting that Adam did not die spiritually?

In Gen. 2:17, God promised Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit, he (Adam) would die. Yet Adam did not physically die in that day--he physically died 900 + years after that. But God did sent Adam out from His presence that very day. He was removed from God's presence--this is where Adam (spiritually) died "in that day". Is this not where mankind was separated spiritually from God, resulting in the need for Messiah's redemption? Is it not sin that separated us spiritually from God?

You wrote: "When Christ died, it was not to bring us back from the spiritual death, but to keep us from even going through it. Thus, when Christ said, “He that believeth in me shall never die,” it was spiritual death that he was talking about."

I would say that when Christ died, it was indeed to bring mankind back from the spiritual death (i.e., separation from God) that Adam's sin had caused. And that from that point forward, believers are no longer subject to it. For them (us), it has been "thrown into the lake of fire"...i.e., it has been put away as far as we are concerned. We are redeemed! Praise Messiah!

Again, either Christ fulfilled ALL things as He promised...or He didn't. I believe He did because that's what the scriptures teach.

As far as the need for a sacrifice, please read my post # 714.

(And I don't understand everything either!)

Blessings

[Seven_0]

Are you suggesting that Adam did not die spiritually?

Yes, tenuously. I am suggesting that the order of "natural" then "spiritual" should be applied to birth, death and resurrection. There are two births, two deaths, and two resurrections. The natural always teaches the spiritual.

Or do you mean spiritual "rebirth"? How can you have spiritual rebirth without spiritual death?From post 699.

With birth, it is straightforward, we are first born in Adam, then we are born in Christ. Earlier you directed my attention to John 3. Spiritual rebirth would be akin to resurrection. Do you think God would use the natural birth to illustrate resurrection?

Basically, what I am saying is that the ‘”second death” is another name for “spiritual death,” just as the “second birth” is another name for “spiritual birth.” The spiritual death did not happen in the beginning in Genesis, but at the end in Revelation.

I am not exaggerating when I say that there are thousands of examples where the order “‘natural” then “spiritual” occurs. Try to find a first born son in Christ’s geneology.