Mystery Babylon=Rome or Jerusalem?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
I have just read J Stewart Russell's book "The Parousia" and find the evidence, at least that Revelation pertains to the judgment of the Jews and Jerusalem, very compelling. The writings of Josephus seem to back it up, it is almost like Josephus was spared just to show how all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem is the majority of scholars today say it has a late date and pertains to Rome an

The problem I have with this is that they seem to take all of the first century meaning out of the prophesies made by Jesus and by doing this everything becomes "spiritualized." It is like they are allegorizing bible prophecy and a late date for Revelation helps takes away the meaning it has in pertaining to Jerusalem and can therefore be made to say anything.

Any thoughts? I know Russell was a full-preterist I am not pushing for this, just for the true hermeneutical interpretation of scripture especially in light of what history tells us. Basically wondering why so many scholars can just dismiss the evidence in Josephus and early Roman historians?

( I was going to make this a poll but did not know how)
 

holyfool33

Puritan Board Freshman
When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.:2cents:
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Mystery Babylon following careful exegesis is Jerusalem with the unbelieving reprobate pharisees, herods, and other zealots.
 

holyfool33

Puritan Board Freshman
Mystery Babylon following careful exegesis is Jerusalem with the unbelieving reprobate pharisees, herods, and other zealots.

How exactly would one exegete the passage to come to that answer or interpretation? One could say your reading your own presuppositions into scripture how would you answer this question? Of course I get accused of reading my presuppositions into scripture all the time but everyone has presuppositions a Calvinist Will read Scriptures Calvinistic and a follower of Arminius will read them as an Arminian will read them. Also and this is the thing that had me give up Preterist interpretations the use of Josephus and secular history can a person really using only scripture come to this interpretation without resorting to Josephus?:2cents:
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Israel and the Church: the Differences
You are here: Home > Essays > Israel and the Church: the Differences
by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
Dr. Thomas McCall, the Senior Theologian of our ministry, has written many articles for the Levitt Letter. He holds a Th.M. in Old Testament studies and a Th.D. in Semitic languages and Old Testament. He has served as Zola’s co-author, mentor, pastor, and friend for nearly 30 years.

This article appeared orignally in the May 1996 Levitt Letter.


The Church is Israel
Israel & Church Different
Church Decided Demise of Israel?
Israel’s Future Demeans Church’s Glory?

Introduction
One of the great theological battlegrounds of orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries has been the nature and character of the Church, especially in relation to its biblical predecessor, Israel. The two major views are that:

The Church is a continuation of Israel
The Church is completely different from Israel

First View: The Church is Israel
The predominant view has been that the Church is the “new” Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel which began in the Old Testament. In this view, the Church is the refinement and higher development of the concept of Israel. All of the promises made to Israel in the Scriptures find their fulfillment in the Church. Thus, the prophecies relating to the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” into promises of blessing to the Church. The prophecies of condemnation and judgment, though, are retained literally by the Jewish nation of Israel.

This view is sometimes called Replacement Theology, because the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy. One of the problems with the view, among others, is the continuing existence of the Jewish people, especially with regard to the revival of the new modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned to extinction, and there is no divinely ordained future for the Jewish nation, how does one account for the supernatural survival of the Jewish people since the establishment of the Church, for almost 2,000 years against all odds? Furthermore, how does one account for Israel’s resurgence among the family of nations as an independent nation, victorious in several wars and flourishing economically?

Ok, first of all the author begins by stating that the first view says the “Church is the continuation on the concept of Israel.” This is a pretty good explanation of this view! But then in the second paragraph he changes his mind and states “this view is sometimes called Replacement Theology, because the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy.” Now which is it? They believe that the “Church is the continuation on the concept of Israel” or that “the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy”?

Now let’s look at the brief argument used to dispel the belief that the Church is the continuation of Israel (or replacement if you are trying to slander such belief). The argument says that because the Jewish Nation and people exist then the view that the Church is the continuation of Israel cannot be true? That because they have over come great odds and flourished, those who view the church being a continuation of Israel are wrong.

What kind of argument is this?

I can promise you that the fact that National Israel exists does nothing to the idea that the Church is the continuation of God’s Israel. It does nothing to remove the passages within scripture that tell us.

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[1] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

This is so obvious! There are now NO LONGER two people’s of God. What more proof do we need? Why are there arguments still going on? This passage tells us that there is now ONE NEW MAN IN PLACE OF TWO it says there is ONE BODY.

Who is the Israel of God?

Galatians 6
16And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

All who walk by this rule! It has nothing to do with Nationality!

Galatians 3
26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[1] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3
29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Old Testament tells us of a New Covenant coming!

Jeremiah 31
31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah

The new covenant began with the last supper!

Luke 22
20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

We need to stop stressing Nationality!

Romans 2
28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Do you SEE that? A Jew is one inwardly! Ones HEART, not his lineage, determine it!

God had this plan all along!

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2]
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

The hostility that you see on this board in these discussions should be DEAD!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
This passage speaks BOLDLY in regard to ONENESS!

NOW…..


Second View: Israel and the Church are Different
The other view, we believe, is clearly taught in the New Testament, but it has been suppressed throughout most of Church history. This view is that the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two should not be confused. In fact, the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and will continue until it is taken to Heaven at the Rapture return of the Lord (Eph. 1:9-11). None of the curses or blessings pronounced upon Israel refers directly to the Church. The Church enters into the Abrahamic and New Covenants, for instance, only by divine application, not by original interpretation (Matt 26:28).

What?

So the “Church” (We believers today who are not Jewish) were not originally in mind or in the plan” of God under His original covenant?

Really?

Gen 12: 1Now the LORD said[a] to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Notice here that God tells Abram that “in you ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTh shall be blessed.” Does this not clearly imply that this covenant will extend around the WORLD and not just to Israel?

Besides, all of God’s promises were fulfilled in Christ!

19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes. 20For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.

Paul tells us that we gentiles are now part of these promises!
12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
This leaves all the covenants, promises, and warnings to Israel intact. Israel, the natural Jewish nation, is still Israel. To be sure, Israel has been side-lined during these past 1,900 years of the Diaspora. The Church has taken center stage in the Lord’s affairs as the Gospel has spread throughout the world. Nevertheless, God has carefully preserved the Jewish people, even in unbelief, through every kind of distress and persecution. Sometimes, the professing Church itself (I speak to our shame) has been a cause of these persecutions to the Jews.

Ok which is it here? God has “supernaturally” blessed National Israel and the Jewish people, or He has “side-lined” them? How can it be both?

Not only has God preserved the Jewish nation, but He has also kept His promise to save a remnant of Israel in every generation. The remnant of Israel in this age are the Jewish believers in Christ who have joined the Gentile believers, and form the Church, the Body of Christ (Rom. 11:5). In this respect, then, a part of Israel (the believing remnant) intersects with the Church during the Church Age. But this does not make Israel the Church, or vice versa.

Wait….is the “conversion of the Jews CURRENT throughout these ages, or is it a future event? It seems like the author of this article is claiming BOTH? I agree completely that the word of our Lord speaks CLEARLY of a “remnant” of national Jews who will embrace Jesus as Messiah! But this author claims it has been happening and even admits that this remnant intersects (continues maybe?) with the Church! He seems to understand the position of the Church and Israel being one right here, but then quickly asserts that while it is easy to read this into his statement it is not what he believes! More confusion!

In the future, both God’s warnings and promises to Israel will come to pass. After the Lord is finished with the Church Age, and has taken the Church to Heaven in the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-18), God will restore Israel to center stage on the world’s divine theater. First comes the devastating “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer. 30:7) also known as the Great Tribulation. This is a dreadful period of seven years, which begins relatively lightly during the first half, but intensifies into full focus during the latter half. During this time the world is judged for rejecting Christ, but, more specifically, Israel is judged, purged and prepared through the fiery trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. This is the bad news.

This is where the “great commission” fails, Satan takes control of the planet, and believers are removed so this can happen. I do not wish to get into a lengthy “end times” debate here, but one can clearly see how believing this way in regard to “end times” FORCES you to believe that God has two peoples when His word strictly says He does not.


The good news is that, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready, willing, and eager to receive Him, and proclaim, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39). As the stumbling of Israel brought blessing to the world at Christ’s First Coming, the reception of Israel to Christ at His Second Advent will be like “life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15). The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation (some one-third of the Jewish people who enter the Tribulation), will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on the same earth and the same capital city, Jerusalem, that rejected Him centuries before. Israel will be the head of the nations, and no longer the tail, and all nations will send representatives to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Isa. 2:2-3; Micah 4:1). The Church will return with Christ, and will rule with Him for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-5). He Himself told His disciples that they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel in the restoration (Matt. 19:28). Thus, Israel has not been forgotten in God’s plan. While the Jewish nation still has a dark period facing it, there is a glorious finale to Israel’s long history.

Oh, so there are two plans of redemption? No, instead Christ reigns NOW from Heavenly Jerusalem and does not need to sit on a literal earthly throne in order to rule and reign. He is Lord right now sitting at God’s right hand.

How Did the Church Decide the Demise of Israel?
The New Testament Church was very much involved with the vicissitudes of Israel. Jesus is an Israeli, as were all the apostles, and the concerns of Israel, spiritually and politically, were very much a part of their lives. The greatest struggles the early Church had were over the relationship between Israel and the Church, law and grace, and the fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ (Galatians). Many of the Jewish believers were not comfortable with the Gentile believers at first; and as time went on and Gentiles began to predominate numerically, the attitudes were reversed. Galatians shows how the Jewish party tried to impose the Mosaic Law on Gentile Christians, and Romans shows how the Gentile party began to “boast against the branches” (Rom. 11:18), resenting the place of Israel in history and theology.

It took some time, perhaps a couple of centuries, but eventually the vast Gentile majority in the Church began to view Israel as a vestigial organ that had outlived its usefulness. In fact, the predominant Christian view was that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD signaled the official and divinely-ordained end of the Jewish nation, never more to be re-instituted as a national entity. The fact that Jerusalem lay in ruins and the Jewish people were scattered over the world was seen as conclusive evidence that God was forever finished with national Israel. If there were any purpose for the existence of the Jewish people, it was to remind the world of the severe judgment of God upon a disobedient people.

If this harsh view of Israel were true, though, what of the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament? For those who claimed to believe in the entire Bible as the Word of God, this was a great problem. How could a faithful God not keep His promises to His ancient people? To deal with this took extraordinary theological dexterity and alchemy. The theologians had to propose that Israel in the Scriptures did not really mean Israel, especially when it came to the promises of eternal blessing. Instead, Israel meant something else, something that came to be known in the New Testament as the Church. The Church became the new Israel, and through this remarkable transformation, wherever blessing is promised to Israel in the Old Testament, it was interpreted to mean the Church. This is Replacement Theology, in which the Church has become Israel.

Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept, primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century. Augustine actually states that he was previously a Chiliast, meaning that he was a believer in the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth after His return. This is the same as our current description of Premillennialism. However, he had come to the conclusion that this view was “carnal,” and had adopted the view that the reign of Christ would be something more “spiritual,” and would actually occur during the Church Age. Such a view necessitated the extinction of Israel, and the cancellation of all promises God made to the Jewish nation. These promises of blessing would now be fulfilled within the framework of the Church.

This view, which had been latent in Christendom, now flourished throughout the Byzantine world. From this point on, the theological legs were cut out from under Israel, and the predominant Christian theology was that there was no future for Israel. Replacement Theology has been the rule that has survived the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the Reformation in Church History. Only during the last Century or so has the Premillennial concept of the future of Israel come to the forefront in evangelical Christianity. Even so, it is a minority view.

Tired old drivel that is so obvious that it should be shunned by anyone willing to read the bible in context. All Israel are those who profess Christ! Your National origin is meaningless!

Does Israel’s Future Demean the Church’s Glory?
Some suggest that if Israel has not ceased to exist in its covenant relationship to God, and if Israel still has a future in the divine plan, this somehow diminishes the position of the Church. Is such a concern valid? It is almost as though the Church has been jealous of Israel, and afraid that if it recognized Israel’s future promises, it would somehow demean Christ and the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is when the Church recognizes Israel that the true distinctiveness and glory of the Body of Christ becomes evident. This called-out body, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles during the Church Age, is the highest entity the Lord has created, superior to the universe, all the Angels, the nations, and Israel. Our Head, our Husband, our Friend is the Son of God Himself. We shall reign with Him when He rules the earth, and our 12 Founding Apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. The Angels themselves will study us forever as the greatest exhibit of God’s grace, and we will actually judge the Angels. This is our destiny, and this writer, for one, would not trade his position in the Body of Christ with any creature in the universe! Why, then, be disturbed over what God has promised the Jewish people? Why be jealous over the future destiny of Israel? How short sighted of us! Indeed, the Church’s finest and most distinctive hour will be when Israel is restored nationally and spiritually to the Lord at the Second Coming of Christ. We will return from Heaven with Him as His glorious Bride to rule Israel and the world. What more could we ask?

So, if we are not to suffer from spiritual myopia, we must recognize what the Lord is doing with Israel, not shrinking from it as though our own interests will be overshadowed. Rather, we rejoice in these developments, with full assurance that our own redemption draws ever closer.

Again, this is simply this authors “end times” beliefs forcing him to see things this way. If you are a Premill, Pretrib believer this scenario MUST be true. If there is no rapture, and IF the many who believe the great tribulation was in AD70 are correct this entire doctrine falls flat! If those who profess that the “he who makes a covenant with many” in Daniel chapter 9 is indeed Jesus Christ and not some spooky “Antichrist” coming to take over the world, then again, this doctrine falls flat.

Dispensationalism is FORCED to create two peoples of God in order to promote a secrete rapture, the take over of earth by Satan for seven years, and the slaughter of 75% of the Jewish Nation in order to punish them for something that they were already punished for in AD70.

You should be able to clearly see through this attempt to prop up an “end times” scenario.

I pray that you do!
 

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
Revelation 11:8
and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city . . . where their Lord was crucified [Jerusalem].
Revelation 16:19
The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.
Revelation 17:18
And the woman [mystery babylon] that you saw is the great city


Perhaps this is overly simple...but John seems to use the term "the great city" to specifically refer to Jerusalem. Making "the great city" be different cities or a future city would be quite confusing to John's first century audience.
 

Leslie

Puritan Board Junior
How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?
the 7 hills is Rome. Jerusalem used Rome to persecute the early Christians. It was the Pharisees that seduced Pontius Pilate to crucify the Lord Jesus.
 

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?

I agree with Anton.

The harlot was sitting on the beast, i.e, she was being supported by Rome. Rome gave her her position, until Rome (and the beast) hated her and burnt her with fire and devoured her (rev. 17:16).

As for the 7 hills, the Angel tells us in the interpretation that they are 7 kings. What is important is who the 7 kings are...NOT what or where the 7 geological features called hills or mountains are.

An interesting side note though: Jerusalem, like Rome, also has 7 hills (mt. Moriah being the center one). Most people never think of this, but if you look into it you will find the names of the 7 hills in Jerusalem...(I have them in one of my books here, but I will need to look it up)
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
Personally, I took this view as the most possible way.

But our Confession did not treat it this way.

Any thoughts?
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.:2cents:

I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.

Theognome
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.:2cents:

I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.

Theognome

Unless you hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as I do. :2cents:
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.:2cents:

I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.

Theognome

Unless you hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as I do. :2cents:

Actually, I do. But I don't believe it was written before ad67.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?

It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed.

Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.

After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.

Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.

Theognome
 

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior
So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?

It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed.

Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.

After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.

Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.

Theognome

Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind. :( Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind. :( Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.

When all else fails, there's always the 'pan-mil' perspective- no matter what we argue, it will all pan out in the end. Christ will come again in power and glory, and all of us will rejoice.

Theognome
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?

It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed.

Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.

After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.

Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.

Theognome

Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind. :( Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.

Well to sway you back I would recommend Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.

Free online here...
 

YXU

Puritan Board Freshman
Gentry's argument is very convincing and sound. But I start to think about the historical view now, maybe the case is not that easy to identify.
 

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior
Well to sway you back I would recommend Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.

Free online here...

Thanks! I've wanted to read this anyway. Now I don't have to buy it!

My confusion came because Riddlebarger claims that the partial preterists choose the earlier date to suit their theology. When it comes to exactly when the book was written no one seems to want to make a strong claim. There seems (to me) to be a little doubt on both sides. I lean heavily toward PP but I don't want to choose a date for the book of Revelation to justify my theology. That being said, I realize I still have a lot of study to do.
 

shackleton

Puritan Board Junior
What helped for me was reading "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Gentry and his explanation of the book of Matthew and the correlations between the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation.

Take Josephus' "War of the Jews" into account as well, a lot of the things predicted by Jesus seemed to have happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.

The reason for the destruction of the Temple makes more sense when taking into account how Jesus was bringing a lawsuit against the Jews for their rejection of God and doing it the same way the prophets of the OT did. The destruction of the Temple and the events that lead up to it are similar to the events leading up to the destruction of Solomon's Temple, war, destruction, exile.

God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I know that Erick is a sharp dude, but for anyone lurking, I would not recommend reading anything by Russell. Read Gentry, DeMar, Riddlebarger etc. instead. :2cents:

2 Tim 2:16-18 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.

Interesting thought, thanks.
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
What helped for me was reading "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Gentry and his explanation of the book of Matthew and the correlations between the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation.

Take Josephus' "War of the Jews" into account as well, a lot of the things predicted by Jesus seemed to have happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.

The reason for the destruction of the Temple makes more sense when taking into account how Jesus was bringing a lawsuit against the Jews for their rejection of God and doing it the same way the prophets of the OT did. The destruction of the Temple and the events that lead up to it are similar to the events leading up to the destruction of Solomon's Temple, war, destruction, exile.

God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.

Gentry, Kik, et al's reading of the Olivet Discourse is frankly the biblical way to read Matt 24 & 25.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
"Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
"Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."

Rev. Winzer -- Have you read Samuel Petto's commentary on Revelation? I gather it contains an appendix "proving Pagan Rome was not Babylon and that the Jews shall be Converted," which sounds very interesting to me.
 

TaylorOtwell

Puritan Board Junior
The may be slightly off topic, but can anyone cite sources that prove the siege of Jerusalem last 3.5 years. I often see this quoted as a fact, however, no source is given. Did Josephus mention this anywhere?
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Josephus isn't considered a good source for a couple reasons including switching sides and self aggrandizement, but the siege didn't last 3.5 years, it lasted a few months. Masada fell three years later, and perhaps the 3.5 year figure you've seen is the length of time of the whole rebellion?

PS remember there were several sieges of Jerusalem. I think Jerusalem has fallen a dozen time since Christ, and will more than likely fall that number of times in the future.
 

TaylorOtwell

Puritan Board Junior
Josephus isn't considered a good source for a couple reasons including switching sides and self aggrandizement, but the siege didn't last 3.5 years, it lasted a few months. Masada fell three years later, and perhaps the 3.5 year figure you've seen is the length of time of the whole rebellion?

PS remember there were several sieges of Jerusalem. I think Jerusalem has fallen a dozen time since Christ, and will more than likely fall that number of times in the future.

OK, Thanks. Most of the places I had seen this figure quoted was in reference to the passage regarding the trampling of the city by Gentiles for 42 months.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top