Partial Preterism and dating revelation

[Hazrus]

At this stage I feel that partial Preterism seems to fit best in an understanding of scripture. There are a few things, however, I can't explain which are troubling me.

One of those is determining the date that revelation was written, ie pre 70AD or around 95AD. It is concerning me because if I read it and think it is prophesising about the temple destruction, if it is written in 95AD that would be in the past. Also, I am yet to be convinced that the arguments and counter arguments for an early authorship hold much water. There seems to be better evidence for the later date.

So my question is... For those amongst us who are partial preterists or similar, is the dating of revelation a game changer? If I can't get an answer, I will rethink my doctrine for sure.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I see Preterism as a valid, lucid way of understanding Revelation. The pieces tend to fit well.

As to authorial intent, I believe it's quite likely that St. John the Revelator was laying out an exposition of events, not all of which were yet future at the time of writing.

One of the most in-depth expositions/studies of Partial Preterism (or "Orthodox Preterism") I've ever found is http://tektonics.org/eschhub.html and it has many insights which (1) explain the Partial Preterist view and (2) does so while answering the common Futurist view(s), particularly Pre-Trib/Dispensationalist/Left Behind type stuff. Recommended!

ETA- Preterism as a system doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of a dual fulfillment some time in the future. But, and this is crucial, a future fulfillment is not required. So many of these things may see a repeated fulfillment in the future and that doesn't mean Preterism is wrong. We (or I) simply believe it doesn't have to happen again in the future since it has already happened once.

 

[Douggg]

At this stage I feel that partial Preterism seems to fit best in an understanding of scripture. There are a few things, however, I can't explain which are troubling me.

One of those is determining the date that revelation was written, ie pre 70AD or around 95AD. It is concerning me because if I read it and think it is prophesising about the temple destruction, if it is written in 95AD that would be in the past. Also, I am yet to be convinced that the arguments and counter arguments for an early authorship hold much water. There seems to be better evidence for the later date.

So my question is... For those amongst us who are partial preterists or similar, is the dating of revelation a game changer? If I can't get an answer, I will rethink my doctrine for sure.

This is the one time I agree with preterists - that Revelation was given during Nero's reign. The proponents of the 95 AD timeframe is based on 2nd and 3rd hand information. I think Gentry makes the preterist argument. He has a you tube video on the tube.

Separate from the dating of Revelation issue, I would depart preterism for futurism. But I don't want to get into a big preterism versus futurism argument.

 

[RC1970]

Kenneth L. Gentry explanation about the dating of Revelation.

I think Gentry gets it right. And, the internal evidence of Revelation is compelling.

I believe that Clement of Rome (late first century) also made the claim that all of the New Testament was completed before 70AD.

 

[Hazrus]

I certainly don't think all of the NT was completed by 70AD, however I did find the link above compelling.

Let me ask this question another way --- is it possible to believe in the later dating of Revelation and reconcile with partial preterist / Amillennial views?

 

[Brian45]

The OP - At this stage I feel that partial Preterism seems to fit best in an understanding of scripture.

And what is that?

 

[Hazrus]

The OP - At this stage I feel that partial Preterism seems to fit best in an understanding of scripture.

And what is that?

Basically the following:

1. Jesus' death on the Cross means Salvation for all - the Church
2. Jesus is seated at God's right hand and is reigning over all creation. This is the millennium
3. We are now in the Last Days and have been in the Last Days for the last 2000 years
4. We are to expect persecution in the Last days
5. Jesus will return to judge all people on the Last Day, once all people whose names are in the book of life have repented
6. There will be a new heavens and a new earth

I honestly can't see the futurist viewpoint as being very strong. I am open to convincing though - hence me starting this thread.

 

[Douggg]

I certainly don't think all of the NT was completed by 70AD, however I did find the link above compelling.

Let me ask this question another way --- is it possible to believe in the later dating of Revelation and reconcile with partial preterist / Amillennial views?

Hazrus, the dating of Revelation is not enough to substantiate the preterist view is right overall. I agree with the preterists on the dating, but I am a futurist. And in one of Gentry's videos, he also has it right about the 5 fallen kings and the one is king, Gentry names as being Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero - good for Gentry on that.

His failure though is to think Vespasian (following Nero) is the 7th forthcoming king. Vespasian was of a different family dynasty - the Flavians The 7th forthcoming king will be the little horn person of the end times.

In Revelation 12, which the chapter is about the 70th week relevant to Israel, the heads on the dragon have their crowns. The significance of that is that the little horn will have come to power as the 7th king, completing the prophecy of 7 kings in Revelation 17.... as Revelation 12 contains the full 7 years in it. Which are Revelation 12:6, the 1260 days, the first half - and Revelation 12:14 the second half.

Compare to Revelation 13, with 42 months left, which there are no crowns on the heads, with one head mortally wounded and come back to life - signifying that the little horn person has been killed - ending the prophecy of the 7 kings. He comes back to life but not as the 7th king, but as the 8th king.... of the Roman Empire, which in the end times will be the EU in its final form.

 

[Douggg]

Basically the following:

1. Jesus' death on the Cross means Salvation for all - the Church
2. Jesus is seated at God's right hand and is reigning over all creation. This is the millennium
3. We are now in the Last Days and have been in the Last Days for the last 2000 years
4. We are to expect persecution in the Last days
5. Jesus will return to judge all people on the Last Day, once all people whose names are in the book of life have repented
6. There will be a new heavens and a new earth

I honestly can't see the futurist viewpoint as being very strong. I am open to convincing though - hence me starting this thread.

Begin a study for yourself on the crowns/no crowns on the heads/horns on the beast in Revelation 17, 12, 13 - why they are different in each of the three chapters. It can only be by the futurist view, the 70th week still ahead of us.

 

[RC1970]

Let me ask this question another way --- is it possible to believe in the later dating of Revelation and reconcile with partial preterist / Amillennial views?

No. The Partial Preterist view is that the vast majority of biblical prophesy has been fulfilled, including the Revelation of John. My personal belief is that we are currently somewhere around Revelation 20 verse 7.

The vast majority of John's Revelation concerns the events that occurred in and around 70AD.

 

[droptozro]

I haven't studied Revelation enough. I used to be premil post-trib, but I began to see problems as I allowed historical context(audience, time texts, Hebrew apocryphal language) to have it's place all over the NT... especially in Matthew 24. I've heard some of the arguments on the dating of Revelation also, but cannot remember many of them right now. I know the text starts out clearly with this though...

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place

Unless one wishes to show me a variant, it seems kind of difficult to get around the language itself if we're honest with the text. "Shortly" wouldn't mean much if all which follows is really thousands of years off. I'm open to hearing though, I've clearly been wrong before I believe.

If it were to be written after the destruction of the Temple, it doesn't make much sense that John is also told about Jews in their synagogues being the "synagogue of satan" and how judgment was 'about' to come upon the known world and earth(which usually means Israel) right after that in Revelation 3:9-. I know there were other synagogues though, so it's not a nail in the head. Other preterists mention John measuring the temple and how it seems to not make sense if it were destroyed--but if I remember from my past studies correctly(and I could be wrong very easily about this)---that temple John measured was larger than the one known to have existed or described in the OT. But that's a very faint memory again, and I haven't studied it in depth.

 

[droptozro]

• We are now in the Last Days and have been in the Last Days for the last 2000 years
• 
  

• There will be a new heavens and a new earth

I don't understand how you think preterists teach your 3rd point? The "last days" in many texts(Heb 1:1) refer to the times of the end of the covenant and Israel's leadership. The apostles all teach as if it's *their* last days. I've never heard a preterist teacher/believer(until now) say we're all in the last days and have been for the last 2000 years... that's a non-preterist view from my understanding.

Still not sure about the "new heavens and new earth" too--I've really got to study that one. It seems to refer to the end of the covenant language also, but I admit I really struggle with that because I don't understand how this creation itself will be out of bondage if it's not literal too. Maybe someone could give their quick take on that phrase if they're feeling like it?

 

[ghtan]

At this stage I feel that partial Preterism seems to fit best in an understanding of scripture. There are a few things, however, I can't explain which are troubling me.

One of those is determining the date that revelation was written, ie pre 70AD or around 95AD. It is concerning me because if I read it and think it is prophesising about the temple destruction, if it is written in 95AD that would be in the past. Also, I am yet to be convinced that the arguments and counter arguments for an early authorship hold much water. There seems to be better evidence for the later date.

So my question is... For those amongst us who are partial preterists or similar, is the dating of revelation a game changer? If I can't get an answer, I will rethink my doctrine for sure.

I am a futurist and therefore not as familiar with preterism but I believe preterism requires a pre-AD70 date of writing. But that is also preterism's archilles heel because some of the John's visions clearly do not fit a pre-AD70 date. I think the most obvious is the vision of the multitude of gentile believers in heaven in 7:9. Why would a prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem suddenly focus on an innumerable throng of gentile believers in heaven? That too should have told John that 'shortly' in 1:1 does not mean a few years' time or even within his generation for John could not have expected the number of gentile believers to grow to millions upon millions within his lifetime. And it did not.

 

[Hazrus]

... so are there any Partial Preterists here who believe in a later date for Revelation?

 

[keras]

... so are there any Partial Preterists here who believe in a later date for Revelation?

Absolutely I do. The prophesies in Revelation simply do not fit with the events of AD 70-135
I can be called a PP, because some prophesies of Jesus are fulfilled, Luke 21:20-24 for example, but most await the end times for their complete and final fulfillment.
I have actually stood in the cave on Patmos where John supposedly wrote Revelation. No clues there as to when, but I have thoroughly researched this question and am convinced he was there during Domitian's reign; 81-96 AD

 

[RC1970]

Absolutely I do. The prophesies in Revelation simply do not fit with the events of AD 70-135
I can be called a PP, because some prophesies of Jesus are fulfilled, Luke 20-24 for example, but most await the end times for their complete and final fulfillment.
I have actually stood in the cave on Patmos where John supposedly wrote Revelation. No clues there as to when, but I have thoroughly researched this question and am convinced he was there during Domitian's reign; 81-96 AD

Preterism requires a belief that either all or the vast majority of Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. If you believe that "most" of the prophecies of Jesus in Luke (20-24) have not been fulfilled and that the Revelation is not referring to events in the first century, it would be disingenuous to call yourself a Preterist.

 

[keras]

Preterism requires a belief that either all or the vast majority of Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. If you believe that "most" of the prophecies of Jesus in Luke (20-24) have not been fulfilled and that the Revelation is not referring to events in the first century, it would be disingenuous to call yourself a Preterist.

Thank you. I am not a preterist, then.
Just that some prophesies have been fulfilled literally, such as Luke 21:20-24 and the rest will also be literally fulfilled. [allegories excepted]

 

[victorinus]

I believe john the baptist wrote the first apocalypse which was later redacted by a second and third john

 

[JohannineScholar]

nvm

 

[Deborah~]

No. The Partial Preterist view is that the vast majority of biblical prophesy has been fulfilled, including the Revelation of John. My personal belief is that we are currently somewhere around Revelation 20 verse 7.

The vast majority of John's Revelation concerns the events that occurred in and around 70AD.

That we are currently at Revelation 20:7 is my view as well, although I have arrived at that view through my own study of New Testament history so I'm not familiar with all the teachers everyone cites and I get lost with all the various terms.
But there is little in the way of Bible study that has done more to build up my faith than seeing the hand of God at work in history in how He brought to pass so very many prophecies at the time and in the very manner He had foretold.
In Christ,
Deborah ~