Partial preterist interpretation of the Revelation, by chapter

[Beckrl]

"Natural Israel" refers to the ethnic tribes of Israel. Ethnic Israel (natural Israel) was the nation of people that God chose to serve as his example to the rest of the world, and the nation he chose to foster the lineage of the Messiah. Hence, "ethnic Israel" (natural Israel) "gave birth" Christ. After failing to destroy Christ, Satan turned his attention to destroy "the woman", which were the apostles and the other founders of the Church, from ethnic Israel.

The "supper of the great God" is meant to be an intentional parallel to the "marriage supper of the Lamb", but they are not the same thing. The "marriage supper of the Lamb" means life for those who are invited to it, but the "supper of the great God" means death for those who are "invited" it.

Thanks for responsing and given clarifications. That helps sharpen my understanding.
Beck

[markedward]

How can this be when John wrote the book of Revelation around AD 95?

The belief that John wrote the book of Revelation in 95 AD is derived from a single source written nearly a 100 years later by the Christian Irenaeus, who has often been criticized for his chronological errors. Literally every point of evidence for a 95 AD authorship of the book of Revelation is derived from Irenaeus' statement, which is agreed by numerous scholars to be "ambiguous at best".

On the other hand, there are several points of evidence within the book of Revelation that indicate an authorship of the book around the year 64-68 AD. There are several points of external evidence to supplement it as well. However, the authority of Scripture comes before any other written source. When it comes down to the internal evidence of the Revelation against the external evidence, I follow the internal evidence of the Revelation. Hence, I believe the Revelation was written in about 64-68 AD.

[Partaker of Christ]

The writings and opinions of Ignatius are not equal to the authority of Scripture.

Simple. They disagree with Ignatius.

Why would Ignatius be silly enough, or even to dare speak of being in the last days, 'IF' it was very evident that they were not?

[markedward]

Why would Ignatius be silly enough, or even to dare speak of being in the last days, 'IF' it was very evident that they were not?

Clarify your meaning here.

[Partaker of Christ]

Clarify your meaning here.

Hi Mark.

My comments are about and against preterism.

I believe you are my brother in Christ, but one who is caught up in the lie of preterism.
If I love you as a brother, should I remain quite?

[RogerW]

The belief that John wrote the book of Revelation in 95 AD is derived from a single source written nearly a 100 years later by the Christian Irenaeus, who has often been criticized for his chronological errors. Literally every point of evidence for a 95 AD authorship of the book of Revelation is derived from Irenaeus' statement, which is agreed by numerous scholars to be "ambiguous at best".

On the other hand, there are several points of evidence within the book of Revelation that indicate an authorship of the book around the year 64-68 AD. There are several points of external evidence to supplement it as well. However, the authority of Scripture comes before any other written source. When it comes down to the internal evidence of the Revelation against the external evidence, I follow the internal evidence of the Revelation. Hence, I believe the Revelation was written in about 64-68 AD.

Greetings Markedward,

Of course since much of the doctrine of pp hinges on the Revelation being written before AD 70, and you say there is internal evidence within the book of Revelation, would you please provide this evidence? This too has been one of the reasons I have been reluntant to embrace the full doctrine of pp.

Many Blessings,
RW

[kay-gee]

Thanks Markedward. This is probably the best exposition of Revelation I have ever read. All things considered, I believe I am a full fledge pp.

all the best...

[thedee]

The belief that John wrote the book of Revelation in 95 AD is derived from a single source written nearly a 100 years later by the Christian Irenaeus, who has often been criticized for his chronological errors. Literally every point of evidence for a 95 AD authorship of the book of Revelation is derived from Irenaeus' statement, which is agreed by numerous scholars to be "ambiguous at best".

On the other hand, there are several points of evidence within the book of Revelation that indicate an authorship of the book around the year 64-68 AD. There are several points of external evidence to supplement it as well. However, the authority of Scripture comes before any other written source. When it comes down to the internal evidence of the Revelation against the external evidence, I follow the internal evidence of the Revelation. Hence, I believe the Revelation was written in about 64-68 AD.

And what is your evidence that brings you to that conclusion?

[markedward]

And what is your evidence that brings you to that conclusion?

Of course since much of the doctrine of pp hinges on the Revelation being written before AD 70, and you say there is internal evidence within the book of Revelation, would you please provide this evidence?

Absolutely. I would guess that you have heard some of these before, in some thread or another.

• At the two ends of the book (chapters 1 and 22, John repeats that the prophecies contained in the book "must soon take place". The fact that he tells his reader this at both the beginning and the end of the book is a direct statement about the timing of the book. The English word "soon" comes from the Greek phrase "en tachos", which literally means "in short", "in quick", or "in speed". A proper English paraphrase is that John was telling his original readers that the fulfillment of the books was going to come upon them within a brief amount of time, hardly supportive of a distant fulfillment.
• At the two ends of the book (chapters 1 and 22), John repeats that "the time is near" for fulfillment of the books prophecies. The fact that he tells his reader this at both the beginning and the end of the book is a direct statement about the timing of the book. The English word "near" comes from the Greek word "engus" which most literally translates as "at hand". In other words, John was claiming that "the time is at hand". In no language would such a phrase imply a distant fulfillment of the book.
• In the last chapter (22), John is told to not "seal up the prophecies of this book because the time is at hand". Compare this in sharp contras to Daniel 8 and Daniel 12, in which the prophet, living in the sixth-century BC was told to "seal up" his prophecies because the time for their fulfillment was far. Many Christians believe that the prophecies of Daniel concerned events that were to be fulfilled a few centuries after Daniel died, including the First Coming of Jesus and his crucifixion. If the fulfillment of prophecies between the 3rd-century BC and the 1st-century AD were far enough in the future from the 6th-century BC to be a reason for Daniel to "seal up" his prophecies, why would we ever believe that John, writing in the 1st-century AD, was told to not "seal up" his prophecies because the time was "at hand", if their fulfillment would not even begin until the 21st-century AD (or later)? To put it briefly: Daniel wrote in 6th-century BC; his prophecies concerned the 3rd-century BC up to the 1st-century AD; this three-century delay was enough in Daniel's future to be the reason for him to "seal up" his prophecies. John wrote in the 1st-century; he was told not "seal up" his prophecies. So which makes more sense, for "at hand" to refer to events only a few years later, or for "at hand" to refer to events more than twenty-centuries later?
• John was specifically told to write to seven literal, physical, contemporary churches in Asia (Minor). Why would John write prophecies addressed to seven contemporary churches if the prophecies addressed to them had nothing to do with them? The most common explanation is that the seven churches represent seven eras of Christian history, but there isn't a single dot of Scripture to support this claim. Likewise, that claim requires sweeping the seven literal first-century churches under the rug. The most sensible way to properly consider the fact that John was told to write his prophecies to those specific seven churches is if those specific seven churches had a need to be written to.
• Throughout the seven letters, once in chapter 16, and multiple times in the final chapter of the book, Christ claimed that he was "coming soon" (Greek word "tachu", related to the phrase "en tachos"). He claimed it directly to the seven literal, physical churches contemporary with John. Are we really supposed to believe that John was told to write a letter to, say, the church in Philadelphia, in which Jesus tells the first-century Christians there "I am coming soon", but he was actually referring to his Second Coming in our future? If nothing that could remotely be called a "coming" of Christ took place in the first-century Philadelphians' "soon" future, John could rightly be accused of giving a false prophecy.
• The seven seals of Revelation 6 and 8 greatly resemble the prophecies of Christ's Olivet Discourse, which he explicitly stated would be fulfilled within the lifetime of the apostles' generation, and in connection with the destruction of the Second Temple. This connection between Christ's prophecies and the seven seals would indicate that there was some sort of connection between the Revelation's prophecies and the events leading up to 70 AD, when the Second Temple was destroyed (perfectly within the "this generation" time frame).
• Revelation 14 specifically depicts to the reader the "firstfruits for God and the Lamb". There are at least three verses in the New Testament (within the letters of Paul, and the letter of James) that explicitly identify the "firstfruits" of Christ as being the apostles and their contemporaries.
• Revelation 13 identifies the beast's name as being equated to the number 666 (or 616, your footnote may tell you). John explicitly tells his readership that they can identify the name behind 666 if they have wisdom. John places no other conditions on how to "decipher" the number, which plainly means that John's contemporaries could use wisdom to determine the identity of who 666 (or 616) refers to. If the number 666 (or 616) refers to a man in our future, this task would be absolutely impossible for every Christian from the first-century up to whenever that man finally arrives on the scene. John must have in mind a first-century man if he honestly expects his contemporary Christians to identify him using only wisdom and not, say, the New York Times. In extension, the identity of this first-century man would be accessible to Christians of all times.
• John tells his readers that the "mark of the beast" is the beast's name or the number of that name, being the number of a man. Hence, the number is a man's name. The practice of "codifying" a person's name into a number was a very widespread practice in first-century Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures, whereas nowadays it is virtually non-existent. As a matter of fact, there are two historically verified Hebrew spellings of the name Nero Caesar. In this practice of number-names, the first spelling equates to 666, the second spelling equates to 616. The simple fact that man who began the first official, legal persecution of Christians bears a name that equates to both 666 and 616 is astounding.
• In Revelation 17, John is told that the seven "heads" of the beast correlate to seven "kings". John is told that the first five "kings" had already died, the sixth one ruling at the time John was presently writing, and the seventh one would reign as "king" for only a short matter of time. In pure historical fact, the first six emperors of Rome were: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. This makes the sixth emperor Nero Caesar (which would limit the date of John's authorship to 54-68 AD), and the seventh emperor "yet to come" would be Galba, who ruled for only seven months before being assassinated, perfectly fitting John's description.
• In Revelation 13, John states that the persecution of Christians would last for 42 months. Nero Caesar's persecution of Christians lasted exactly 42 months, from November of 64 AD to June of 68 AD. The fact that Nero was the sixth emperor of Rome, that his name fits both 666 and 616, that he lived in the first-century AD, that he instigated the first official, legal persecution of Christians is, and that it lasted for exactly 42 months is, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence.

[thedee]

Absolutely. I would guess that you have heard some of these before, in some thread or another.

• At the two ends of the book (chapters 1 and 22, John repeats that the prophecies contained in the book "must soon take place". The fact that he tells his reader this at both the beginning and the end of the book is a direct statement about the timing of the book. The English word "soon" comes from the Greek phrase "en tachos", which literally means "in short", "in quick", or "in speed". A proper English paraphrase is that John was telling his original readers that the fulfillment of the books was going to come upon them within a brief amount of time, hardly supportive of a distant fulfillment.
• At the two ends of the book (chapters 1 and 22), John repeats that "the time is near" for fulfillment of the books prophecies. The fact that he tells his reader this at both the beginning and the end of the book is a direct statement about the timing of the book. The English word "near" comes from the Greek word "engus" which most literally translates as "at hand". In other words, John was claiming that "the time is at hand". In no language would such a phrase imply a distant fulfillment of the book.
• In the last chapter (22), John is told to not "seal up the prophecies of this book because the time is at hand". Compare this in sharp contras to Daniel 8 and Daniel 12, in which the prophet, living in the sixth-century BC was told to "seal up" his prophecies because the time for their fulfillment was far. Many Christians believe that the prophecies of Daniel concerned events that were to be fulfilled a few centuries after Daniel died, including the First Coming of Jesus and his crucifixion. If the fulfillment of prophecies between the 3rd-century BC and the 1st-century AD were far enough in the future from the 6th-century BC to be a reason for Daniel to "seal up" his prophecies, why would we ever believe that John, writing in the 1st-century AD, was told to not "seal up" his prophecies because the time was "at hand", if their fulfillment would not even begin until the 21st-century AD (or later)? To put it briefly: Daniel wrote in 6th-century BC; his prophecies concerned the 3rd-century BC up to the 1st-century AD; this three-century delay was enough in Daniel's future to be the reason for him to "seal up" his prophecies. John wrote in the 1st-century; he was told not "seal up" his prophecies. So which makes more sense, for "at hand" to refer to events only a few years later, or for "at hand" to refer to events more than twenty-centuries later?
• John was specifically told to write to seven literal, physical, contemporary churches in Asia (Minor). Why would John write prophecies addressed to seven contemporary churches if the prophecies addressed to them had nothing to do with them? The most common explanation is that the seven churches represent seven eras of Christian history, but there isn't a single dot of Scripture to support this claim. Likewise, that claim requires sweeping the seven literal first-century churches under the rug. The most sensible way to properly consider the fact that John was told to write his prophecies to those specific seven churches is if those specific seven churches had a need to be written to.
• Throughout the seven letters, once in chapter 16, and multiple times in the final chapter of the book, Christ claimed that he was "coming soon" (Greek word "tachu", related to the phrase "en tachos"). He claimed it directly to the seven literal, physical churches contemporary with John. Are we really supposed to believe that John was told to write a letter to, say, the church in Philadelphia, in which Jesus tells the first-century Christians there "I am coming soon", but he was actually referring to his Second Coming in our future? If nothing that could remotely be called a "coming" of Christ took place in the first-century Philadelphians' "soon" future, John could rightly be accused of giving a false prophecy.
• The seven seals of Revelation 6 and 8 greatly resemble the prophecies of Christ's Olivet Discourse, which he explicitly stated would be fulfilled within the lifetime of the apostles' generation, and in connection with the destruction of the Second Temple. This connection between Christ's prophecies and the seven seals would indicate that there was some sort of connection between the Revelation's prophecies and the events leading up to 70 AD, when the Second Temple was destroyed (perfectly within the "this generation" time frame).
• Revelation 14 specifically depicts to the reader the "firstfruits for God and the Lamb". There are at least three verses in the New Testament (within the letters of Paul, and the letter of James) that explicitly identify the "firstfruits" of Christ as being the apostles and their contemporaries.
• Revelation 13 identifies the beast's name as being equated to the number 666 (or 616, your footnote may tell you). John explicitly tells his readership that they can identify the name behind 666 if they have wisdom. John places no other conditions on how to "decipher" the number, which plainly means that John's contemporaries could use wisdom to determine the identity of who 666 (or 616) refers to. If the number 666 (or 616) refers to a man in our future, this task would be absolutely impossible for every Christian from the first-century up to whenever that man finally arrives on the scene. John must have in mind a first-century man if he honestly expects his contemporary Christians to identify him using only wisdom and not, say, the New York Times. In extension, the identity of this first-century man would be accessible to Christians of all times.
• John tells his readers that the "mark of the beast" is the beast's name or the number of that name, being the number of a man. Hence, the number is a man's name. The practice of "codifying" a person's name into a number was a very widespread practice in first-century Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures, whereas nowadays it is virtually non-existent. As a matter of fact, there are two historically verified Hebrew spellings of the name Nero Caesar. In this practice of number-names, the first spelling equates to 666, the second spelling equates to 616. The simple fact that man who began the first official, legal persecution of Christians bears a name that equates to both 666 and 616 is astounding.
• In Revelation 17, John is told that the seven "heads" of the beast correlate to seven "kings". John is told that the first five "kings" had already died, the sixth one ruling at the time John was presently writing, and the seventh one would reign as "king" for only a short matter of time. In pure historical fact, the first six emperors of Rome were: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. This makes the sixth emperor Nero Caesar (which would limit the date of John's authorship to 54-68 AD), and the seventh emperor "yet to come" would be Galba, who ruled for only seven months before being assassinated, perfectly fitting John's description.
• In Revelation 13, John states that the persecution of Christians would last for 42 months. Nero Caesar's persecution of Christians lasted exactly 42 months, from November of 64 AD to June of 68 AD. The fact that Nero was the sixth emperor of Rome, that his name fits both 666 and 616, that he lived in the first-century AD, that he instigated the first official, legal persecution of Christians is, and that it lasted for exactly 42 months is, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence.

I see. So you basically believe that the entire book of Revelation has already been fulfilled? If that is the case, where are we at today as far as a biblical standpoint?

[My heart's Desire]

It appears to me that if the Book of Revelation to a Partial Pre. has already been fulfilled then there is no danger to me if I DON'T believe in that view, which I don't but Markedward thank you for being so gracious to answer my questions.

[markedward]

I see. So you basically believe that the entire book of Revelation has already been fulfilled?

No. Re-read the summaries of chapters 20-22 in the first post.

It appears to me that if the Book of Revelation to a Partial Pre. has already been fulfilled

Partial preterism believes that most of the book was fulfilled in the first-century, not all of the book.

[My heart's Desire]

No. Re-read the summaries of chapters 20-22 in the first post.

Partial preterism believes that most of the book was fulfilled in the first-century, not all of the book.

Thank you. I do understand that and apparently we both still believe the Lord will soon return.

[kay-gee]

Thank you. I do understand that and apparently we both still believe the Lord will soon return.

It should be plainfully clear that the end of all things has not yet been accomplished. There is no doubt that the Lord is returning, however to even use the word "soon", is a supposition. No one knows that but God. He will return at a time of His choosing not the time that seems the right time to us.

all the best...

[kay-gee]

The reason this position is the most sound to me is...it lays to rest all these hysterical scenarios that men invent concerning the ends times. With the PP/amill interprtation, everything lays flat. All has been fulfilled. The church survived though Hell rose against it. We have nothing to do but look for Christ to return for His own and to bring judgement against the world.

all the best...