What Soon Coming Crisis Did Revelation Refer To?

[Duncan]

Steve,

Revelation is showing us the spiritual side of things--unveiling the spiritual realm. Yes, Jesus won all authority in heaven and on earth at the cross (Matt. 28:18). But it was at AD 70 that God fully implemented this kingdom authority (Rev. 11:17). I discuss Daniel 2 and 7 in volume one of my book. Those chapters show this AD 70 full establishment of the kingdom of God. I was surprised to learn that the classic Jewish interpretation (Rashi) sees the little horn of Dan. 7 as being Titus (which is my interpretation). How they can escape the conclusion that the saints inherited the kingdom at that time I dont know (see Dan. 7:24-27) See here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true

[Apollos]

Duncan, have you considered contacting Logos to see if your books could be sold there? I tend to prefer to have technical books i n Logos rather than paper or even kindle, because of the ease of looking up biblical references and other citations while I'm working through the book, as well as highlighting etc.

[Duncan]

Duncan, have you considered contacting Logos to see if your books could be sold there? I tend to prefer to have technical books i n Logos rather than paper or even kindle, because of the ease of looking up biblical references and other citations while I'm working through the book, as well as highlighting etc.

That would be great, but most places do not want to hear from authors pushing their books. Plus preterism is still very much a minority view and is thus not all that economically viable. Most preterist books are a little ahead of their time. I think that is slowly changing, however, as the Dispensationalist Captivity slowly comes to an end

[steve7150]

Most preterist books are a little ahead of their time.



Duncan,
I appreciate your dedication to Preterism but i thought i brought up a lot of objections that you didn't respond to. Here is another,

In Dan 2.44-45 "In the times of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms AND BRING THEM TO AN END, but it will itself endure forever."


According to Preterism God's kingdom on earth initiated by Jesus came into it's fullness in 70AD, but Daniel says the kingdoms of men would be brought to an end. Did anything like that happen in 70AD? Did kingdoms end, did evil end, did resurrections occur, were all the living and dead judged? It's not enough to simply say all this happened in a spiritual plane, where is the validation, where's the beef?



by

[Duncan]

Most preterist books are a little ahead of their time.


Duncan,
I appreciate your dedication to Preterism but i thought i brought up a lot of objections that you didn't respond to. Here is another,

In Dan 2.44-45 "In the times of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms AND BRING THEM TO AN END, but it will itself endure forever."

According to Preterism God's kingdom on earth initiated by Jesus came into it's fullness in 70AD, but Daniel says the kingdoms of men would be brought to an end. Did anything like that happen in 70AD? Did kingdoms end, did evil end, did resurrections occur, were all the living and dead judged? It's not enough to simply say all this happened in a spiritual plane, where is the validation, where's the beef?

by

Not a short answer to that (other than the fact that the kingdom of God was not supposed to come with observation Luke 17:20-21). I go into detail on Daniel 2 and 7 (which show the full establishment of the kingdom of God) in volume I. Perhaps you can tell me why it is that the only kingdom that is shown past the 11th ruler of the fourth kingdom (Rome) is the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:17-27). I say the four kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. What do you say they are? The only kingdom I see after that is the kingdom of God (and please don't give me the balony that the Roman Empire has been ruling the world for the last 2,000 years).

[steve7150]

Perhaps you can tell me why it is that the only kingdom that is shown past the 11th ruler of the fourth kingdom (Rome) is the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:17-27). I say the four kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. What do you say they are? The only kingdom I see after that is the kingdom of God (and please don't give me the balony that the Roman Empire has been ruling the world for the last 2,000 years).
Duncan
http://sites.google.com/site/antichrist ... ondcoming/

Duncan




Jesus said the kingdom of God arrived with him but the question seems to be , did anything in 70AD bring it into it's fullness.

Daniel said mens kingdoms would be brought to an end.
Evil should come to an end.
Satan destroyed
Judgment of the dead and living
Resurrections

I think Preterism is more an anti-reaction to Dispensationalism rather then a biblically based system. Historicism on the other hand is balanced and makes sense entirely on it's own.

[Paidion]

But Hort was undoubtedly correct that the subject in Irenaeus' statement is still John, not Revelation - Irenaeus is speaking of how John the person, who was consulted by the elders, would have declared the meaning of the name of the beast had it referred to Irenaeus' time.

Let's examine Irenæus' words:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, toward the end of Domitian's reign. (Against Heresies, v, 30.3)

What does Irenæus say was seen at the end of Domitian's reign? He has just indicated that John BEHELD the apocalyptic vision. If the demonstrative pronoun "that" does not refer to its nearest probable antecedent "vision", to what does it refer?

You seem to be saying that it refers to John. But why would Irenæus mention that John was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign? What relevance would that fact have to the topic at hand?

[Apollos]

What does Irenæus say was seen at the end of Domitian's reign? He has just indicated that John BEHELD the apocalyptic vision. If the demonstrative pronoun "that" does not refer to its nearest probable antecedent "vision", to what does it refer?

You seem to be saying that it refers to John. But why would Irenæus mention that John was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign? What relevance would that fact have to the topic at hand?

Irenaeus doesn't use a demonstrative pronoun as such, and the demonstrative is only used in English as a way of avoiding making the antecedent explicit, to reflect the ambiguity of the Greek.

δι’ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη

It is worth reading Hort's explanation of how the γὰρ here made him question the traditional view, and brought him to the conclusion that the referent must be John.

Hort's view, and the view of Chase, which I can only briefly summarize, is that the reference is to the beginning of the chapter:

1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;

John was seen by the elders, and to them he confirmed the number as being 666.

The reasoning is thus: had the meaning of the number been relevant for the present time, the meaning would have been made known to the elders by the one who was seen by them, for he was seen in the present time.

Under the traditional view, the passage makes little sense, because the point is that John who saw the vision would have made the meaning known if the fulfillment was for the present - but it isn't for the present, according to Irenaeus' argument.

Hort's commentary (The Apocalypse of John), and Chase ("The Date of the Apocalypse: The Evidence of Irenaeus," Journal of Theological Studies, 1907) who comments on a lecture he delivered on the subject at Cambridge, are both well worth reading on this for anyone desirous of being acquainted with both sides of the argument.

I assume, on reflection, you referred to Victorinus, not Eusebius?