do you believe that?This will happen in the blink of an eye.
The Great Disappearance
Though we talk about the Rapture, we don't often know much about it. How will it affect us? How should it motivate us in the life in which we live today? Will it happen before or after the Tribulation? In The Great Disappearance, Dr. David Jeremiah presents fascinating glimpses of hope and...www.davidjeremiah.org
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Zone1 The Rapture
- Thread starter Blaster
- Start date
Life would be so beautiful after all them religious yahoos got beamed up
Trump Shares New Ad: 'God Made Trump'
The ad, which has a run-time of two minutes and 44 seconds, alleges that God created the former president for the purpose of leading the nation.
themessenger.com
- Banned
- #43
God's handiworkTrump Shares New Ad: 'God Made Trump'
The ad, which has a run-time of two minutes and 44 seconds, alleges that God created the former president for the purpose of leading the nation.
Darby is one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" movement at the same time he first conceived his rapture theology. Therefore the Plymouth Brethren are inseparable from Rapture theology and always will be and should be avoided.
5. Modern influences of Darby include Dallas Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe and Harold Camping, the Scofield Reference Bible.
6. Darby's Rapture theology has infected almost every conservative protestant church, except for a few groups like the Churches of Christ, who rejected it as a non-Biblical doctrine and have denounced it ever since like all other man made doctrines.
5. Modern influences of Darby include Dallas Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe and Harold Camping, the Scofield Reference Bible.
6. Darby's Rapture theology has infected almost every conservative protestant church, except for a few groups like the Churches of Christ, who rejected it as a non-Biblical doctrine and have denounced it ever since like all other man made doctrines.
ninja007
Gold Member
incorrect.Darby is one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" movement at the same time he first conceived his rapture theology. Therefore the Plymouth Brethren are inseparable from Rapture theology and always will be and should be avoided.
5. Modern influences of Darby include Dallas Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe and Harold Camping, the Scofield Reference Bible.
6. Darby's Rapture theology has infected almost every conservative protestant church, except for a few groups like the Churches of Christ, who rejected it as a non-Biblical doctrine and have denounced it ever since like all other man made doctrines.
ninja007
Gold Member
Petterson, DavidDarby is one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" movement at the same time he first conceived his rapture theology. Therefore the Plymouth Brethren are inseparable from Rapture theology and always will be and should be avoided.
5. Modern influences of Darby include Dallas Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe and Harold Camping, the Scofield Reference Bible.
6. Darby's Rapture theology has infected almost every conservative protestant church, except for a few groups like the Churches of Christ, who rejected it as a non-Biblical doctrine and have denounced it ever since like all other man made doctrines.
Part of the The Rapture ~ David Petterson series.
Series Index | Previous Article | Next Article
No, you didn’t miss it. Neither did Darby. The article title is not suggesting that the Rapture occurred before the days of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), but rather is pointing out that a belief in the Rapture of the Church (in particular, a pre-tribulation Rapture) existed and was taught before Darby’s birth. As an example of the allegation that belief in a pre-tribulation Rapture is relatively recent, Michael Bird wrote, “The pretrib view … did not appear on the scene of church history until J.N. Darby in the 1830s.”[1] In this article, we will examine some of the references in biblical works pre-dating Darby that either explicitly taught or appear to teach a pre-tribulation Rapture.
Early Witnesses
After the time of the apostles, a number of writings indicate belief in the imminence of Christ’s return, which is consistent with pre-tribulationism. Clement of Rome (35-101), Ignatius of Antioch (died 110), The Didache (a late first-century anonymous Christian treatise), The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (circa 70-130), and The Shepherd of Hermas (second century) all reference Christ’s imminent return.[2] Even though it appears that the apostolic fathers were largely post-tribulational (because they believed the persecution they were enduring was the tribulation itself), they held to the doctrine of imminency. J. Barton Payne (a post-tribulationist) concluded that “belief in the imminence of the return of Jesus was the uniform hope of the early church.”[3]But it appears that Irenaeus of Lyon (120-202) was a pre-tribulationist. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John) and articulated his eschatological views in Against Heresies, Book 5. First, he referred to Enoch’s translation and Elijah’s being “caught up” as previews of the Rapture. “For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] in the substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy the assumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in the way of their body being translated and caught up.”[4] Second, Irenaeus refers to the Church’s being “caught up” before the tribulation. “And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be’ (Mat 24:21). For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”[5] The italicized “this” in his quotation is clearly a reference to the tribulation, which he then introduces.
Victorinus of Petrovium (died 304) was a bishop in modern Slovenia, martyred during Diocletian’s reign. In his commentary on Revelation (6:14), he writes, “And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.] For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.”[6] Later, while explaining Revelation 15, he writes, “And I saw another great and wonderful sign, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the indignation of God.] For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is, perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst.”[7] Therefore, Victorinus believed the Church would be raptured before the breaking of the seventh seal (and therefore, before the seven trumpet judgments and the seven bowl judgments), making him, at least, what we refer to as “pre-wrath” in his eschatology.
In a sermon entitled “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” Syrian church father Pseudo-Ephraem (fourth to sixth century) wrote, “For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”[8] The gathering Pseudo-Ephraem mentions appears to refer to a pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church.
The Middle Ages
Admittedly, the influence of Origen and Augustine was successful in turning the established church to a belief in amillenialism by around the fifth century. This view would dominate the Medieval period, with little-known exceptions. However, one exception was the Apostolic Brethren in northern Italy. This new (and thus, persecuted) ecclesiastical order eventually numbered in the thousands and evidently held a pre-tribulation Rapture position. In 1316, an anonymous treatise entitled The History of Brother Dolcino articulated some of the beliefs of the Apostolic Brethren.[9] Their leader, Brother Dolcino, believed he and his followers would be taken to heaven and protected from the actions of the Antichrist before later descending back to earth, thus holding to a belief in a pre-tribulation Rapture.The Archives Open
Johannes Gutenberg’s movable-type printing press in the 15th century made books more widely available. With more Bibles accessible to read and study, more biblical works were printed, especially following the Protestant Reformation. Many of these works were shelved and have been gathering dust in the antiquity sections of libraries across the world for centuries. But within the last two decades, some of these works have been converted to digital (and thus, searchable) formats. One Christian historian, William Watson, has taken advantage of these available works, spending hundreds of hours reading and searching Puritan writings from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. A simple word search for “rapt,” “rapture,” and “left behind” yielded at least two dozen findings, from notable authors such as Increase Mather, Cotton Mather, Philip Doddridge and John Gill.[10] Unquestionably, some of the uses of “rapture” by these writers refer to the act of being taken up to heaven. A few examples of William Watson’s findings will have to suffice, given the length of this article.William Sherwin (1607-1687, minister at Wallington) wrote, “The Saints … at the sounding of that last Trumpet at the end of the world shall be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye … rapt up to meet Christ in the air.” He even refers to the early church fathers’ agreeing with him: “This Doctrine many of the ancient Fathers acknowledged … Justine Martyr … Irenaeus … Tertullian … even Augustine sometime held it, though by the subtlety of Satan, forgeing lyes to asperse the Millenary opinion, and stirring men up to foist in offensive errours … in these latter times hath again discovered it, after so many hundred years of its lying hid for the most part in the Church, to be a doctrine really embraced by his faithful people [who] will doubtless certainly know, that upon their rapture to meet Christ, they shall be perfected in glory evermore in heaven.”[11]
Boston Puritan Increase Mather (1639-1723), father of Cotton Mather, wrote, “When Christ comes, Believers shall see the King … in all his Glory, and shall go with him to the Land that is very far off. Heaven is the Land that is very far off. Christ has assured believers it shall be thus, John 14.2 …. He will not go back to Heaven and leave them behind him. No, they shall sit with him in Heavenly places … [later] they shall come down from Heaven …. They shall be with him when he comes to Judge the World.”[12]
Morgan Edwards (1722-1795) helped found Rhode Island College, which eventually became Brown University. While a student at Bristol Baptist Seminary, he set forth a very clear pre-tribulation Rapture belief: “The dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s ‘appearing in the air’ (1Thes.iv,17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium … but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many ‘mansions in the father’s house’ (John xiv.2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints.”[13] Edwards’ reference to “three years and a half” does not mean that he was a mid-tribulationalist. His writings indicate he believed the total duration of the tribulation period to be not seven years but three and a half.
There are far too many references to the Rapture in Watson’s published findings to articulate here. He cites Thomas Collier, John Asgill, Robert Maton, John Archer, James Durham, Jeremiah Burroughs, Archbishop James Ussher and dozens of others. The archives have opened, and the allegation that belief in the Rapture did not appear until Darby in the 1830s simply won’t hold.
Appreciating Darby’s Contribution
Although there are many references to the Rapture (some pre-tribulational) by published works before his time, we simply do not know if John Nelson Darby was influenced by these works. His writings articulating a pre-tribulation Rapture should not be minimized but fully appreciated. We are indebted to him for his enormous contribution to the subject, setting it forth in a clearer way to a wider 19th-century audience and beyond. Darby did not invent this teaching, nor did the many who taught it prior to his time. He taught it, and they taught it, because the Bible teaches it.
ninja007
Gold Member
SIX REASONS TO REJECT PRETERISM
…six reasons you can be confident that preterism is an incorrect view of Bible prophecy. And rather than focus on the problems with full preterism, I want to show you six reasons partial preterism can be rejected. Because if I can show you that partial preterism is unbiblical, then full preterism can be set aside as even more unbiblical.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
Turn with me to Matthew 24. The verse we will be looking at here in Matthew 24 is the chief cornerstone in the preterists’ defense of their view. Here in this chapter, Jesus talks about the signs that will take place in the days leading up to His Second Coming to the Earth. He mentions, if you’ll notice…
…in v. 15, the “Abomination of Desolation” (that time when the Antichrist will set himself up in the temple of God and declare himself to be God, 2 Thess. 2)
…in v. 21, He mentions the time of the “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.”
…in v. 29, He mentions the sun and moon being darkened and that “the stars will fall from the sky.”
…and then in v. 30, He mentions “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky.”
MATTHEW 24:34
And then notice v. 34. This is the most popular proof text preterists point to. Notice what Jesus says…
Matthew 24:34
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”
And so our preterist friend says…
PRETERIST: “Ahh, you see! Jesus promised that “this generation” (v. 34)—the generation that was alive at His time—would by no means pass away until all of these things took place (the Abomination of Desolation, the great tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man). Therefore, these things must have taken place. Jesus must have come back or He would be a false prophet!”
Because of this verse (Matt. 24:34) and a couple of others that we’ll look at, preterists insist that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, including…
• the Tribulation events (spoken of in Revelation)
• and the coming of Christ
…had to have occurred before the generation of people living at the time of Jesus, died off.
Well, I disagree that this is what Jesus meant. “Then, what ‘generation’ was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?” He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.
The key to understanding this verse (Matthew 24:34) is found by backing up a verse. Notice verse 33. Jesus said…
Matthew 24:33-34
33 “Even so you too, when you see these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who, in v. 33, sees “all” those things] will not pass away until all these things take place.”
So, Jesus says “when you see all these things” (v. 33).
What things?
• The “Abomination of Desolation” (v.15)
• The time of “great tribulation” (v. 21) “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now nor ever shall.”
• The stars falling from the skies (v. 29)
That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man to the Earth (mentioned in v. 30).
Jesus was talking about the generation of people who would be alive during the events leading up to His Second Coming, that is, during the time of tribulation.
PRETERIST: “Well Charlie, I hear what you’re saying, but it just seems odd to me that Jesus would talk about events that were so far off. Why would Jesus speak to His disciples about events that He knew weren’t going to happen for at least two thousand years?”
Actually, Jesus told His disciples that He didn’t know the day or the hour these events would take place in Matthew 24:36.
Why would Jesus speak of events that were so far off? Because He was answering the question His disciples asked Him a few minutes earlier about the “end of the age” (v. 3).
Notice what they asked Him in Matthew 24:3…
Matthew 24:3
“What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?”
That’s why Jesus spoke to them about events so far off. They asked! If what Jesus said in Matthew 24 was about events that would transpire in A.D. 70 (as preterists believe), then Jesus failed to answer their question. They asked about events regarding the “end of the age” (v. 3) and that’s what Jesus told them about—events that are still in the future. So, Matthew 24:34 fails to support the preterists’ view.
Another popular proof text for the preterist position is found in Matthew 10:23.
MATTHEW 10:23
Jesus said to His disciples…
Matthew 10:23
“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
PRETERIST: “Ahhh, you see! Jesus promised that He would come again before His disciples would finish evangelizing the cities of Israel. So He must have come in the first century.”
Is that what Jesus meant there? I don’t think so. Let’s carefully reread the second half of the verse. Jesus said…
Matthew 10:23
“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
Now, there are a few different views regarding what Jesus may have meant here, so I don’t want to be dogmatic here with an interpretation. But I believe, along with a good number of Bible commentators, that Jesus was simply telling His disciples that there was so much work to be done (so many cities to reach with the gospel) that they would not finish taking the gospel to their own country before His Second Coming.
And if we’re right—that this is what Jesus meant—Jesus’ prediction certainly came to pass. The disciples never did complete taking the gospel to all of the cities of Israel. Why?
Because Israel, to a large degree, would not receive their message. Jesus, even alludes to the coming Jewish unreceptivity to the gospel in the first part of the verse. Notice again there, v. 23.
Matthew 10:23
“When [not if] they persecute you in this city, flee to another. [That was going to be a common response. Then Jesus says…] For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel [that is, you will not finish the task of taking the gospel to the Jewish people] before the Son of Man comes.”
Persecution (e.g., Acts 8:1) and a prevailing Jewish unreceptivity to the gospel prevented the disciples from going through all the cities of Israel. And to this day the job of taking the gospel to all the Jews has not been completed.
Another possible interpretation, one that Dr. Norman Geisler mentions in his Systematic Theology (Vol. 4, p. 637), is that Jesus may not have even been talking about his Second Coming at the end of the age, but just coming to them again, as in days or weeks later, perhaps reuniting with them near the end of their outreach efforts.
For preterists to insist that Matthew 10:23 requires a first century return of Jesus, fails to keep in mind that there are other possible, and I believe more plausible, interpretations of this passage.
Other Scriptures that preterists appeal to in support of their position are found in…
The Book of Revelation
There are four verses in particular.
Revelation 1:1
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.”
Revelation 2:16
“…I am coming to you quickly.”
Revelation 11:14
“The third woe is coming quickly.”
Revelation 22:12
“Behold, I am coming quickly.”
PRETERIST: “See! Jesus said, ‘I am coming to you quickly.’ Surely, He could not have had in mind events that were two thousand years later. The events spoken about here in the Book of Revelation had to have been fulfilled quickly—shortly after He lived.”
Well, I disagree.
The Greek word translated “shortly,” or “quickly,” here in these passages in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1, etc.) is the Greek word “tachús.”
This word does not refer to a soon event but a swift event.
• The Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 814) says this word means: “quick, swift,” or “speedy.”
• Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 616) agrees, saying that the word tachu means: “quickly, speedily.”
• Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament Words (p. 913) also agrees, saying this word means: “swift, quick…quickly.”
Jesus was not describing when the events will occur, but rather the manner in which they will take place when they do occur. He was saying that when these events take place, they are going to unfold suddenly, quickly, with great swiftness.
So, these verses in the Book of Revelation do not support the preterist position. And that is the first reason to reject preterism…
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
A second reason to reject preterism is…
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
By “church fathers” I am referring to those leaders in the church of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples (e.g., Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp).
Many people don’t realize this, but many of their writings survive to this day. You can go to Amazon.com and buy an encyclopedic size set of the writings of the church fathers (38 volumes) and see with your own eyes what they had to say on a wealth of theological issues.
And as far as the church fathers and preterism are concerned, there is zero indication from known writings of the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.
There are no early church writings that teach that Jesus returned (physically or spiritually) in the first century.
None!
If we, as God’s people, are supposed to understand the prophecies of the New Testament according to the preteristic view, you would think God would have left at least one written record of this.
The idea that Jesus came back in A.D. 70 was a foreign idea during the first 5 centuries of the church and then only mentioned sporadically after that until about 400 years ago.
Norman Geisler points out that it wasn’t until the early 17th century–when preterist thinking was applied by the Jesuit Catholic scholar Luiz de Alcazar (1554-1613) to the Book of Revelation–that it was given very serious consideration.
So, that’s a second reason to reject preterism: None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
In other words, not only did the early church not refer to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they refer to it as a future event.
The oldest extra-Biblical Christian document known to exist is a document called The Didache. It is a simple collection of early church doctrine. Most scholars believe it was written near the close of the first century, most likely around A.D. 80. It was used and cited by many of the church fathers, as well as by the Christian historian Eusebius (see his Ecclesiastical Church History 3:25). So its early existence is well documented.
The full text of The Didache had been lost for centuries. Amazingly, it was rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. The interesting thing that this document proves is that those who lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded the events spoken of in Matthew 24-25 as yet to be fulfilled prophecy.
This early church document mentions the Antichrist, the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as events that were yet to come. So the Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the preterist view is incorrect.
In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like…
• Papias
• Clement of Rome
• Ignatius
• Polycarp
• Justin Martyr
…wrote of a future Second Coming.
Well, this raises a question. Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later? I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.
So, that is a third reason to reject preterism: The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
This poses a big problem for the preteristic view. Preterists believe the Book of Revelation was a prophecy written by the apostle John describing events that would shortly come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people as their city would be destroyed by the Romans.
For the preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70. But there is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
For example, consider Irenaeus. He lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).
So get this in your mind . . . Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation), and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus. Well, in Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to 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 [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
Hold on. Stop there for a second. That’s interesting. Note that Irenaeus (AD 120–202) believed that the “Antichrist” had still not been revealed. That throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint. Why? Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff, believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.
That’s not what Irenaeus thought. We’ll talk more about why Nero can’t be the Antichrist shortly. But let’s continue with Irenaeus’s quote. I want you to notice when he says John the apostle had his apocalyptic vision…
“…For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.
Here’s what is so fascinating about Irenaeus’s statement. Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.
Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus is devastating to the preterist position.
But, let’s suppose for preterists’ sake that Irenaeus was a sloppy historian and that the Book of Revelation was written near the beginning of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81). That would still place its writing after the destruction of Jerusalem.
And if the Book of Revelation was written anytime after the destruction of Jerusalem, it can not be a collection of prophecies about events that found their fulfillment before and in A.D. 70 as preterists claim.
PRETERIST: “Hold on here a second Charlie. You shouldn’t base the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation on the writings of one person.”
Okay. Here are some others who affirmed the very same thing…
Clement of Alexandria, (who lived from about A.D. 150 to 215) also testified to a post A.D. 70 date for the writing of the Book of Revelation. He mentions that John was exiled to the isle of Patmos until “after the death of the tyrant” (another reference to Domitian who died in A.D. 96).
Another source for a post A.D. 70 completion date for the Book of Revelation is Victorinus.
Victorinus was an early church bishop who suffered martyrdom around A.D. 304. He said in his commentary on the Book of Revelation, that John had his vision of the apocalypse while “he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian.”
Another early church source is Eusebius…
Eusebius lived from A.D. 260 – 340. He is known as “the father of church history,” due to his classic work Ecclesiastical History. Several times in his writings he also dates the Book of Revelation to the reign of Domitian.
In addition to these men, there was Jerome.
Jerome, the one who translated the Scriptures into Latin (The Vulgate), lived from 340 to 419. He states clearly in two places that John was banished under Domitian and that is when he wrote the Book of Revelation.
These statements from some of the greatest, most reliable names in early church history, build a compelling case that the Book of Revelation was written many years after A.D. 70 and the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.
And if these men were telling us the truth about this matter, the whole preteristic view goes up in smoke.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
As I have said, preterists believe the Book of Revelation is now an account about things that have already been fulfilled.
In an attempt to justify their position preterists have searched high and low through historical records of the first century (primarily Josephus’s writings) in an attempt to find historical details that could possibly discuss the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation.
One of their widely held beliefs is that the Antichrist, or “the beast” as he’s called in the Book of Revelation, was actually the cruel Roman Emperor Nero.
Could this be? Could those passages about the Antichrist, the beast, the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:9), be references, not to a coming world ruler but references to the now dead Roman Emperor Nero?
Preterists think so. How do they arrive at this conclusion?
Preterists like to point out that when you apply gematria (pronounced: Juh May Tree uh)—a Jewish way of assigning numerical value to letters—to Nero’s name, you actually end up with the number 666 (Rev. 13:18).
And that can sound pretty compelling to people who don’t bother to do any research on the issue. Well, there are numerous problems with this conclusion but I’ll briefly just point out that…
Number crunching Nero’s name doesn’t work in Greek, the language John wrote the Book of Revelation in and the language his initial audience in Asia Minor spoke. So preterists take Nero’s name and convert it to Hebrew. But it still doesn’t add up to 666! So, preterists add one of Nero’s titles (Caesar) to his name. But it still doesn’t quite add up, so they rely on an abnormal spelling of the word Caesar that drops a Hebrew letter from the normal spelling. And then, what do you know! The letters add up to 666!
Well, you can get just about any name to equal 666 if you tinker with it like that (changing the language, adding titles, misspelling words).
But even if Nero’s name did add up to 666, no one in the early church seemed to be able to figure this out. None of the church fathers or early commentators identify Nero as the antichrist or associate him with the number 666. None! In fact the earliest mention of Nero being the antichrist doesn’t appear to have occurred until about 1831.
And there’s plenty of reasons why the early church didn’t think Nero was the antichrist. The facts surrounding his life don’t comport with the Bible.
Turn with me to 2 Thessalonians 2.
2 Thessalonians 2:8
“And then the lawless one [that is one of the titles given to the coming world leader] will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.”
How does the Bible say this “lawless one,” the Antichrist, will be brought to an end? By “the Lord.” When will that happen? Notice the verse again. At “His coming.”
The Bible teaches that this “lawless one,” the Antichrist, will be brought to an end by “the Lord” Himself at “His coming” (2 Thess. 2:8, Rev. 19:19-20). Well, this verse is problematic for the preterist viewpoint. How so?
A. This was not how Nero died. Suetonius (a first century Roman historian) tells us that Nero committed suicide at the age of 31, when “he drove a dagger into his throat.” [Source: Suetonius (c.69 – c.140) The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, “he drove a dagger into his throat”]. Far from being consumed by the breath of Christ at His coming, Nero actually took his own life.
B. Nero committed suicide two years before preterists say Jesus came back. Preterists believe Jesus’ prophecy about coming back in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70. But Nero committed suicide in June of 68, two years before A.D. 70! Obviously this could not have been a fulfillment of what 2 Thessalonians 2:8 says will happen to the Antichrist.
C. Daniel 9:27 says that this coming world leader will make a seven year covenant relating to Israel. Nero never made any such covenant.
D. The Bible says this coming world leader will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4). That never happened. Nero never stepped foot in the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, Nero never stepped foot in the city of Jerusalem.
E. Revelation 13:16-17 says that under the Antichrist’s coming government, people will be given a mark on their hand or forehead that will permit them to buy and sell. Nothing of the sort ever occurred under Nero, nor ever has to this date. These facts of history, relating to Nero, are another blow to the preterist position. None of these things ever happened.
So, that is the fifth reason to reject preterism: The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The Book of Revelation tells us that in the coming Tribulation, when God’s wrath is poured out upon a God-rejecting world, the Earth will experience three waves of judgment, with each wave containing seven judgments.
The Book of Revelation tells us of:
• 7 Seal judgments
• 7 Trumpet judgments
• 7 Bowl judgments
…judgments that will devastate the Earth.
Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 that it will be a time of…
Matthew 24:21
“…great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
Listen to some of these judgments described in the Book of Revelation…
Revelation 8:8-9
8 “Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.”
When did that ever happen in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem? Nothing like that has ever happened in recorded history.
Revelation 16:18-19
18 “…there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the Earth. 19 Now the great city [a reference to Jerusalem, see Rev. 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations [plural] fell.”
When in the first century (or any other time for that matter) was there an earthquake that not only split Jerusalem into three parts but caused “the cities of the nations” (Rev. 16:19) to fall?
Well of course, that never happened. That earthquake is still to come.
The Book of Revelation also prophesies about an event that will wipe out 25% of the Earth’s population. Notice…
Revelation 6:8
“And power was given to them over a fourth of the Earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the Earth.”
When was “a fourth of the Earth” (Rev. 6:8) killed? Not in the first century.
In another prophecy (Rev. 9:18), John sees into the future and describes three plagues that will wipe out one third of the remaining population. Notice…
Revelation 9:18
“By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed.”
Was “a third of mankind” (9:18) killed by three plagues in the first century? No.
Revelation 11:5-6 prophesies of “two witnesses…[who] will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth” in Jerusalem, who will be able to destroy their enemies with fire (11:5) and who will be able “to smite the Earth with every plague, as often as they desire.” (11:6)
John goes on to say that these two witnesses will be killed, only to be resurrected and carried up to Heaven in the sight of their enemies (Revelation 11:12).
There is no record that anything like that happened in the first century. Where is there mention of any of these things being literally fulfilled in the annals of history, secular or Christian? There isn’t. And for good reason: none of the events mentioned in Revelation 6-22, have happened. It is only by abandoning the plain literal meaning of the words used in Scripture and spiritualizing or allegorizing the Scriptures that preterists can make these prophecies fit into a pre-A.D. 70 scenario.
We reject that method of Bible interpretation. When these prophecies are fulfilled, they are going to be fulfilled literally, just like the prophecies surrounding God’s past judgments were fulfilled in:
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
• The judgments against Pharaoh and Egypt shortly before the Exodus
• The destruction of the world in the Genesis flood
CONCLUSION
So, as we have seen this brief article, there are very good reasons why the preteristic view of Bible prophecy should be rejected.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Any one of these reasons alone is great reason to doubt the preterist position. All six of these reasons taken together are reason to reject this view of Bible prophecy outright.
Brothers and sisters, I exhort you to be a Berean (Acts 17:11)! Examine the Scriptures daily and test everything you hear by the Word of God (Isaiah 8:20; 1 Thess. 5:21). There are a lot of strange teachings out there on Christian radio stations, Christian cable channels, and in Christian bookstores. It’s important that you know the Bible. So, be a student of the Scriptures. Read the Bible daily—and not just so you can avoid false doctrine, but so that you can really get to know your Creator. He is so worth knowing!
Do you know Him? You can. Jesus, God in the flesh, died on that cruel wooden cross in your place, to pay the penalty for your sins, so that you could be forgiven, rescued from spending eternity in Hell, and be brought back into a relationship with Him. He rose from the grave three days later and today He is offering mankind (you!) the free gift of salvation and everlasting life to all those who will place their faith in Him. Preterism: Examined and Refuted
…six reasons you can be confident that preterism is an incorrect view of Bible prophecy. And rather than focus on the problems with full preterism, I want to show you six reasons partial preterism can be rejected. Because if I can show you that partial preterism is unbiblical, then full preterism can be set aside as even more unbiblical.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
Turn with me to Matthew 24. The verse we will be looking at here in Matthew 24 is the chief cornerstone in the preterists’ defense of their view. Here in this chapter, Jesus talks about the signs that will take place in the days leading up to His Second Coming to the Earth. He mentions, if you’ll notice…
…in v. 15, the “Abomination of Desolation” (that time when the Antichrist will set himself up in the temple of God and declare himself to be God, 2 Thess. 2)
…in v. 21, He mentions the time of the “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.”
…in v. 29, He mentions the sun and moon being darkened and that “the stars will fall from the sky.”
…and then in v. 30, He mentions “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky.”
MATTHEW 24:34
And then notice v. 34. This is the most popular proof text preterists point to. Notice what Jesus says…
Matthew 24:34
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”
And so our preterist friend says…
PRETERIST: “Ahh, you see! Jesus promised that “this generation” (v. 34)—the generation that was alive at His time—would by no means pass away until all of these things took place (the Abomination of Desolation, the great tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man). Therefore, these things must have taken place. Jesus must have come back or He would be a false prophet!”
Because of this verse (Matt. 24:34) and a couple of others that we’ll look at, preterists insist that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, including…
• the Tribulation events (spoken of in Revelation)
• and the coming of Christ
…had to have occurred before the generation of people living at the time of Jesus, died off.
Well, I disagree that this is what Jesus meant. “Then, what ‘generation’ was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?” He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.
The key to understanding this verse (Matthew 24:34) is found by backing up a verse. Notice verse 33. Jesus said…
Matthew 24:33-34
33 “Even so you too, when you see these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who, in v. 33, sees “all” those things] will not pass away until all these things take place.”
So, Jesus says “when you see all these things” (v. 33).
What things?
• The “Abomination of Desolation” (v.15)
• The time of “great tribulation” (v. 21) “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now nor ever shall.”
• The stars falling from the skies (v. 29)
That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man to the Earth (mentioned in v. 30).
Jesus was talking about the generation of people who would be alive during the events leading up to His Second Coming, that is, during the time of tribulation.
PRETERIST: “Well Charlie, I hear what you’re saying, but it just seems odd to me that Jesus would talk about events that were so far off. Why would Jesus speak to His disciples about events that He knew weren’t going to happen for at least two thousand years?”
Actually, Jesus told His disciples that He didn’t know the day or the hour these events would take place in Matthew 24:36.
Why would Jesus speak of events that were so far off? Because He was answering the question His disciples asked Him a few minutes earlier about the “end of the age” (v. 3).
Notice what they asked Him in Matthew 24:3…
Matthew 24:3
“What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?”
That’s why Jesus spoke to them about events so far off. They asked! If what Jesus said in Matthew 24 was about events that would transpire in A.D. 70 (as preterists believe), then Jesus failed to answer their question. They asked about events regarding the “end of the age” (v. 3) and that’s what Jesus told them about—events that are still in the future. So, Matthew 24:34 fails to support the preterists’ view.
Another popular proof text for the preterist position is found in Matthew 10:23.
MATTHEW 10:23
Jesus said to His disciples…
Matthew 10:23
“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
PRETERIST: “Ahhh, you see! Jesus promised that He would come again before His disciples would finish evangelizing the cities of Israel. So He must have come in the first century.”
Is that what Jesus meant there? I don’t think so. Let’s carefully reread the second half of the verse. Jesus said…
Matthew 10:23
“When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
Now, there are a few different views regarding what Jesus may have meant here, so I don’t want to be dogmatic here with an interpretation. But I believe, along with a good number of Bible commentators, that Jesus was simply telling His disciples that there was so much work to be done (so many cities to reach with the gospel) that they would not finish taking the gospel to their own country before His Second Coming.
And if we’re right—that this is what Jesus meant—Jesus’ prediction certainly came to pass. The disciples never did complete taking the gospel to all of the cities of Israel. Why?
Because Israel, to a large degree, would not receive their message. Jesus, even alludes to the coming Jewish unreceptivity to the gospel in the first part of the verse. Notice again there, v. 23.
Matthew 10:23
“When [not if] they persecute you in this city, flee to another. [That was going to be a common response. Then Jesus says…] For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel [that is, you will not finish the task of taking the gospel to the Jewish people] before the Son of Man comes.”
Persecution (e.g., Acts 8:1) and a prevailing Jewish unreceptivity to the gospel prevented the disciples from going through all the cities of Israel. And to this day the job of taking the gospel to all the Jews has not been completed.
Another possible interpretation, one that Dr. Norman Geisler mentions in his Systematic Theology (Vol. 4, p. 637), is that Jesus may not have even been talking about his Second Coming at the end of the age, but just coming to them again, as in days or weeks later, perhaps reuniting with them near the end of their outreach efforts.
For preterists to insist that Matthew 10:23 requires a first century return of Jesus, fails to keep in mind that there are other possible, and I believe more plausible, interpretations of this passage.
Other Scriptures that preterists appeal to in support of their position are found in…
The Book of Revelation
There are four verses in particular.
Revelation 1:1
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.”
Revelation 2:16
“…I am coming to you quickly.”
Revelation 11:14
“The third woe is coming quickly.”
Revelation 22:12
“Behold, I am coming quickly.”
PRETERIST: “See! Jesus said, ‘I am coming to you quickly.’ Surely, He could not have had in mind events that were two thousand years later. The events spoken about here in the Book of Revelation had to have been fulfilled quickly—shortly after He lived.”
Well, I disagree.
The Greek word translated “shortly,” or “quickly,” here in these passages in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1, etc.) is the Greek word “tachús.”
This word does not refer to a soon event but a swift event.
• The Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 814) says this word means: “quick, swift,” or “speedy.”
• Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 616) agrees, saying that the word tachu means: “quickly, speedily.”
• Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament Words (p. 913) also agrees, saying this word means: “swift, quick…quickly.”
Jesus was not describing when the events will occur, but rather the manner in which they will take place when they do occur. He was saying that when these events take place, they are going to unfold suddenly, quickly, with great swiftness.
So, these verses in the Book of Revelation do not support the preterist position. And that is the first reason to reject preterism…
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
A second reason to reject preterism is…
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
By “church fathers” I am referring to those leaders in the church of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples (e.g., Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp).
Many people don’t realize this, but many of their writings survive to this day. You can go to Amazon.com and buy an encyclopedic size set of the writings of the church fathers (38 volumes) and see with your own eyes what they had to say on a wealth of theological issues.
And as far as the church fathers and preterism are concerned, there is zero indication from known writings of the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.
There are no early church writings that teach that Jesus returned (physically or spiritually) in the first century.
None!
If we, as God’s people, are supposed to understand the prophecies of the New Testament according to the preteristic view, you would think God would have left at least one written record of this.
The idea that Jesus came back in A.D. 70 was a foreign idea during the first 5 centuries of the church and then only mentioned sporadically after that until about 400 years ago.
Norman Geisler points out that it wasn’t until the early 17th century–when preterist thinking was applied by the Jesuit Catholic scholar Luiz de Alcazar (1554-1613) to the Book of Revelation–that it was given very serious consideration.
So, that’s a second reason to reject preterism: None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
In other words, not only did the early church not refer to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they refer to it as a future event.
The oldest extra-Biblical Christian document known to exist is a document called The Didache. It is a simple collection of early church doctrine. Most scholars believe it was written near the close of the first century, most likely around A.D. 80. It was used and cited by many of the church fathers, as well as by the Christian historian Eusebius (see his Ecclesiastical Church History 3:25). So its early existence is well documented.
The full text of The Didache had been lost for centuries. Amazingly, it was rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. The interesting thing that this document proves is that those who lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded the events spoken of in Matthew 24-25 as yet to be fulfilled prophecy.
This early church document mentions the Antichrist, the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as events that were yet to come. So the Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the preterist view is incorrect.
In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like…
• Papias
• Clement of Rome
• Ignatius
• Polycarp
• Justin Martyr
…wrote of a future Second Coming.
Well, this raises a question. Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later? I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.
So, that is a third reason to reject preterism: The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
This poses a big problem for the preteristic view. Preterists believe the Book of Revelation was a prophecy written by the apostle John describing events that would shortly come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people as their city would be destroyed by the Romans.
For the preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70. But there is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
For example, consider Irenaeus. He lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).
So get this in your mind . . . Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation), and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus. Well, in Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to 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 [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
Hold on. Stop there for a second. That’s interesting. Note that Irenaeus (AD 120–202) believed that the “Antichrist” had still not been revealed. That throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint. Why? Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff, believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.
That’s not what Irenaeus thought. We’ll talk more about why Nero can’t be the Antichrist shortly. But let’s continue with Irenaeus’s quote. I want you to notice when he says John the apostle had his apocalyptic vision…
“…For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.
Here’s what is so fascinating about Irenaeus’s statement. Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.
Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus is devastating to the preterist position.
But, let’s suppose for preterists’ sake that Irenaeus was a sloppy historian and that the Book of Revelation was written near the beginning of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81). That would still place its writing after the destruction of Jerusalem.
And if the Book of Revelation was written anytime after the destruction of Jerusalem, it can not be a collection of prophecies about events that found their fulfillment before and in A.D. 70 as preterists claim.
PRETERIST: “Hold on here a second Charlie. You shouldn’t base the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation on the writings of one person.”
Okay. Here are some others who affirmed the very same thing…
Clement of Alexandria, (who lived from about A.D. 150 to 215) also testified to a post A.D. 70 date for the writing of the Book of Revelation. He mentions that John was exiled to the isle of Patmos until “after the death of the tyrant” (another reference to Domitian who died in A.D. 96).
Another source for a post A.D. 70 completion date for the Book of Revelation is Victorinus.
Victorinus was an early church bishop who suffered martyrdom around A.D. 304. He said in his commentary on the Book of Revelation, that John had his vision of the apocalypse while “he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian.”
Another early church source is Eusebius…
Eusebius lived from A.D. 260 – 340. He is known as “the father of church history,” due to his classic work Ecclesiastical History. Several times in his writings he also dates the Book of Revelation to the reign of Domitian.
In addition to these men, there was Jerome.
Jerome, the one who translated the Scriptures into Latin (The Vulgate), lived from 340 to 419. He states clearly in two places that John was banished under Domitian and that is when he wrote the Book of Revelation.
These statements from some of the greatest, most reliable names in early church history, build a compelling case that the Book of Revelation was written many years after A.D. 70 and the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.
And if these men were telling us the truth about this matter, the whole preteristic view goes up in smoke.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
As I have said, preterists believe the Book of Revelation is now an account about things that have already been fulfilled.
In an attempt to justify their position preterists have searched high and low through historical records of the first century (primarily Josephus’s writings) in an attempt to find historical details that could possibly discuss the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation.
One of their widely held beliefs is that the Antichrist, or “the beast” as he’s called in the Book of Revelation, was actually the cruel Roman Emperor Nero.
Could this be? Could those passages about the Antichrist, the beast, the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:9), be references, not to a coming world ruler but references to the now dead Roman Emperor Nero?
Preterists think so. How do they arrive at this conclusion?
Preterists like to point out that when you apply gematria (pronounced: Juh May Tree uh)—a Jewish way of assigning numerical value to letters—to Nero’s name, you actually end up with the number 666 (Rev. 13:18).
And that can sound pretty compelling to people who don’t bother to do any research on the issue. Well, there are numerous problems with this conclusion but I’ll briefly just point out that…
Number crunching Nero’s name doesn’t work in Greek, the language John wrote the Book of Revelation in and the language his initial audience in Asia Minor spoke. So preterists take Nero’s name and convert it to Hebrew. But it still doesn’t add up to 666! So, preterists add one of Nero’s titles (Caesar) to his name. But it still doesn’t quite add up, so they rely on an abnormal spelling of the word Caesar that drops a Hebrew letter from the normal spelling. And then, what do you know! The letters add up to 666!
Well, you can get just about any name to equal 666 if you tinker with it like that (changing the language, adding titles, misspelling words).
But even if Nero’s name did add up to 666, no one in the early church seemed to be able to figure this out. None of the church fathers or early commentators identify Nero as the antichrist or associate him with the number 666. None! In fact the earliest mention of Nero being the antichrist doesn’t appear to have occurred until about 1831.
And there’s plenty of reasons why the early church didn’t think Nero was the antichrist. The facts surrounding his life don’t comport with the Bible.
Turn with me to 2 Thessalonians 2.
2 Thessalonians 2:8
“And then the lawless one [that is one of the titles given to the coming world leader] will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.”
How does the Bible say this “lawless one,” the Antichrist, will be brought to an end? By “the Lord.” When will that happen? Notice the verse again. At “His coming.”
The Bible teaches that this “lawless one,” the Antichrist, will be brought to an end by “the Lord” Himself at “His coming” (2 Thess. 2:8, Rev. 19:19-20). Well, this verse is problematic for the preterist viewpoint. How so?
A. This was not how Nero died. Suetonius (a first century Roman historian) tells us that Nero committed suicide at the age of 31, when “he drove a dagger into his throat.” [Source: Suetonius (c.69 – c.140) The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, “he drove a dagger into his throat”]. Far from being consumed by the breath of Christ at His coming, Nero actually took his own life.
B. Nero committed suicide two years before preterists say Jesus came back. Preterists believe Jesus’ prophecy about coming back in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70. But Nero committed suicide in June of 68, two years before A.D. 70! Obviously this could not have been a fulfillment of what 2 Thessalonians 2:8 says will happen to the Antichrist.
C. Daniel 9:27 says that this coming world leader will make a seven year covenant relating to Israel. Nero never made any such covenant.
D. The Bible says this coming world leader will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4). That never happened. Nero never stepped foot in the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, Nero never stepped foot in the city of Jerusalem.
E. Revelation 13:16-17 says that under the Antichrist’s coming government, people will be given a mark on their hand or forehead that will permit them to buy and sell. Nothing of the sort ever occurred under Nero, nor ever has to this date. These facts of history, relating to Nero, are another blow to the preterist position. None of these things ever happened.
So, that is the fifth reason to reject preterism: The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The Book of Revelation tells us that in the coming Tribulation, when God’s wrath is poured out upon a God-rejecting world, the Earth will experience three waves of judgment, with each wave containing seven judgments.
The Book of Revelation tells us of:
• 7 Seal judgments
• 7 Trumpet judgments
• 7 Bowl judgments
…judgments that will devastate the Earth.
Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 that it will be a time of…
Matthew 24:21
“…great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
Listen to some of these judgments described in the Book of Revelation…
Revelation 8:8-9
8 “Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.”
When did that ever happen in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem? Nothing like that has ever happened in recorded history.
Revelation 16:18-19
18 “…there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the Earth. 19 Now the great city [a reference to Jerusalem, see Rev. 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations [plural] fell.”
When in the first century (or any other time for that matter) was there an earthquake that not only split Jerusalem into three parts but caused “the cities of the nations” (Rev. 16:19) to fall?
Well of course, that never happened. That earthquake is still to come.
The Book of Revelation also prophesies about an event that will wipe out 25% of the Earth’s population. Notice…
Revelation 6:8
“And power was given to them over a fourth of the Earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the Earth.”
When was “a fourth of the Earth” (Rev. 6:8) killed? Not in the first century.
In another prophecy (Rev. 9:18), John sees into the future and describes three plagues that will wipe out one third of the remaining population. Notice…
Revelation 9:18
“By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed.”
Was “a third of mankind” (9:18) killed by three plagues in the first century? No.
Revelation 11:5-6 prophesies of “two witnesses…[who] will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth” in Jerusalem, who will be able to destroy their enemies with fire (11:5) and who will be able “to smite the Earth with every plague, as often as they desire.” (11:6)
John goes on to say that these two witnesses will be killed, only to be resurrected and carried up to Heaven in the sight of their enemies (Revelation 11:12).
There is no record that anything like that happened in the first century. Where is there mention of any of these things being literally fulfilled in the annals of history, secular or Christian? There isn’t. And for good reason: none of the events mentioned in Revelation 6-22, have happened. It is only by abandoning the plain literal meaning of the words used in Scripture and spiritualizing or allegorizing the Scriptures that preterists can make these prophecies fit into a pre-A.D. 70 scenario.
We reject that method of Bible interpretation. When these prophecies are fulfilled, they are going to be fulfilled literally, just like the prophecies surrounding God’s past judgments were fulfilled in:
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
• The judgments against Pharaoh and Egypt shortly before the Exodus
• The destruction of the world in the Genesis flood
CONCLUSION
So, as we have seen this brief article, there are very good reasons why the preteristic view of Bible prophecy should be rejected.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Any one of these reasons alone is great reason to doubt the preterist position. All six of these reasons taken together are reason to reject this view of Bible prophecy outright.
Brothers and sisters, I exhort you to be a Berean (Acts 17:11)! Examine the Scriptures daily and test everything you hear by the Word of God (Isaiah 8:20; 1 Thess. 5:21). There are a lot of strange teachings out there on Christian radio stations, Christian cable channels, and in Christian bookstores. It’s important that you know the Bible. So, be a student of the Scriptures. Read the Bible daily—and not just so you can avoid false doctrine, but so that you can really get to know your Creator. He is so worth knowing!
Do you know Him? You can. Jesus, God in the flesh, died on that cruel wooden cross in your place, to pay the penalty for your sins, so that you could be forgiven, rescued from spending eternity in Hell, and be brought back into a relationship with Him. He rose from the grave three days later and today He is offering mankind (you!) the free gift of salvation and everlasting life to all those who will place their faith in Him. Preterism: Examined and Refuted
Nero had to have assistance with his suicide and there were rumors that he hadn't died or that he would return from across the river with an army of Pathians to start the persecutions again.
The tribulation was local. The Christians fled Jerusalem for Pella and avoided the whole thing.
Nice cut and paste.
The tribulation was local. The Christians fled Jerusalem for Pella and avoided the whole thing.
Nice cut and paste.
The Cult Christian imagined pay-off for a life that warrants a Jackpot win .
A modern twist of Animism when uneducated natives believed in anything which caught the attention of the eye and ear .
This time a Fake figure which will drop down from the sky with end of term grades .
Really? Any more bright ideas?
A modern twist of Animism when uneducated natives believed in anything which caught the attention of the eye and ear .
This time a Fake figure which will drop down from the sky with end of term grades .
Really? Any more bright ideas?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 228
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 351
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 90
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8073
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-