A Preterist Exchange With A Friend

[Al Chevrier]

Hello Everyone,
I've just introduced myself on the welcome page. For my first post I'd like to share an exchange I've recently had with a new friend. I trust most find it profitable.

Mark March 27 at 7:59am
Hi Allan. Just another question to pose to you, if you don't mind. I've had a debate with a new friend of mine who also believes in universal reconciliation on the subject of death. He believes we are in the grave until the Resurrection whenever that is. On the other hand, and knowing that God is outside time, I'm inclined to think along the lines of Paul that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - that we are actually present or reigning with Jesus without a state of unconsciousness for possibly centuries. What is your persuasion? Blessing. Mark

Allan March 27 at 9:59am
Hi Mark. Good to hear from you. I believe everything took place coincidental with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. The New Testament redemptive timeframe consistently and overwhelmingly supports this again and again. My views on the resurrection can be summarized in "Whatever Became Of Melanie?" Chapter 25. I would strongly recommend "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell. It establishes a solid, irrefutable preterist foundation for New Testament Eschatology - a must read. I believe it's available online. Try searching "parousia archive", or the name of the book and author. For further consideration, go to IPA (International Preterist Association). Though they're not sympathetic with UR, there's still lots of good stuff there. Blessings. Al

Mark March 27 at 12:34pm
Thanks Allan. Actually I'm just in the middle of the Melanie book as I'm reading it for the third time, so I'll keep my eyes well open for Chapter 25. I have also been getting some good answers to my last question about the so-called 1,000 year millennium, so that's now a lot clearer. I'll look out for that Parousia book. Spring has at last arrived over this side of the big pond. God bless you again. Blessings. Mark

Mark March 29 at 5:11pm
Hi Allan. Would you describe yourself as a preterist? It is through deeper study that I can see that much of what was said by Jesus and what is in the New Testament, including Revelation, focused on the coming judgment in AD 70.Your book really blessed me accordingly. Where I am struggling a little is thinking of the 2000 years since then. Where do we believers in the time since fit into things if so much of the New Testament is speaking to that particular generation? This is why I am currently calling myself a partial preterist, although always keeping an open mind. With regard to the 1,000 year millenium of Revelation 20, some commentators see us as being presently still in the aion that it is allegorically speaking of. Even J Stuart Russell, who I am currently reading (thanks for pointing me to him as his book is awesome) infers it could be beyond the time limit of AD 70, while everything else is before it up to Revelation 20. If there is anything I have overlooked in my study, please do let me know. God bless you brother. Mark

Allan March 29 at 7:08pm
Hi Mark. I am a preterist – a full preterist if you will, and believe the mustard seed was planted, the dough leavened in AD 70. Though in my studies I've tried, I have not been able to discover Bible passages which speak of a double fulfillment. If it happened then, in a way that satisfied first century expectations, then it happened. If all their Bible based expectations were not satisfied, then it didn't happen, nor will it ever happen because the predicted time has passed. During this covenant altering event, the kingdom was taken from those who rejected it, and given to a people who would bring forth its fruit. The kingdom which was near during the ministry of Jesus and John the Baptist came in its finality and fullness in that generation. Russell's book is amazing! He establishes the audience relevance of the New Testament Scriptures with precision and power. But in my estimation he falls short in his application and understanding of the imagery and radical blessings associated with the New Covenant. It involved a New Jerusalem, a new heavens and earth - the immediate presence and power of God in the life of the believer, a returning to the garden as it were, the implications of which we have not yet begun to comprehend. In the imagery of Daniel, the huge stone is now in the process of becoming a mountain that will ultimately fill the whole earth. The yeast will continue to work and permeate the dough, until all is leavened. With respect to Revelation, do the latter chapters speak to the New Covenant? If they do, then, for me anyway, it's settled. Our job now isn't to fear-monger people into a coming kingdom, as even futurist UR believers are obliged to do; but to share the water, the river of life freely – to declare and embody a Father's love, a kingdom whose zenith is yet before us, knowing confidently that our labor is not in vain. Please reflect upon the eschatological portions of Melanie for a more coherent, comprehensive Biblical argument. Blessings, Al

Mark April 10 at 7:00am
Hi Allan again. How are you? Just to let you know that since our last contact, and having done some deeper study, I have moved considerably nearer to the full preterist position. Answers to questions I have struggled over are becoming clearer by the day. And content in the Melanie book is clearer on the third reading than when I first read it a year ago. Just to ask you Allan, do you regard the appearance of Jesus during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (which Matthew 24 seems to refer to) as the so-called Second Coming to earth? If so, do you see any further earthly appearance to come or is it a case of seeing Him as we become present with him after death? I am progressing through The Parousia book. Preterism really does now make sense to me. God bless you brother. Mark

Allan April 10 at 9:48am
Hi Mark. I'm very happy for you in your pursuit and discovery of truth along the preterist path. It is indeed gratifying to finally find the eschatological key that opens so many dark and obscure passages. Remember that Jesus came in 70 AD not only to take the Kingdom from those who rejected it, but to give it to a people who would bring forth its fruits. It was a coming in judgment, yes - but also a glorious coming in blessing. I've copied a brief Melanie quote from Chapter 20. Please carefully consider the entire chapter.
"And is this not the absolute and supreme essence of Christian salvation? To be filled with the very person and presence of God? To know Him intimately? To walk with Him and talk with Him? To live our lives in the light of His presence and the radiance of His glory?
"In Ezekiel we read a prophetic word pertaining to the inauguration and commencement of the New Covenant Age: 'The glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing the east... and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.' Ezek. 43:4, 5 NIV As Jesus declared in the Olivet Discourse: 'For as the lightening comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.' Matt. 24:27 NIV To those who love me, said Jesus, I will also love them, and show myself to them; My Father and I will come to them and make our home with them. John 14:21, 23 The writer to the Hebrews, contrasting the Old Covenant with the New: 'The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, BY WHICH WE DRAW NEAR TO GOD.'! Heb. 7:18, 19 NIV
"Do you realize what we now possess as New Testament believers? Everything that Adam lost in the garden, the spiritual death and separation from God that he passed down to all his descendants, Christ has recovered and restored far above and beyond anything we could ever imagine! As believers we are now the temple, the dwelling place of God! The glory-cloud that filled the tabernacle of old, the holy fire that consumed the sacrifice upon the altar now resides in our hearts, and we dare to live no differently than our neighbor. The glory of God and heaven inhabits our very souls, yet we continue to cower in fear. Oh when will we begin to comprehend and live up to this glorious birthright?..."

Mark April 10 at 10:38am
Thanks Allan. The truth is a wonderful thing. I think what possibly clinched it for me was when I saw a video by an American speaker and author who applied a partial preterist argument to describe Matthew 24 up to verse 29 as confirming judgment upon the Christ rejecting Jews in AD 70 and the sign of the Son of Man, which is correct. But that from 29 onwards he was saying the chapter points to a still yet future 'second' coming of Christ (even though we are 2000 years on). But I was unable to see where the clear distinction lay. His line did not sound clear and convincing. When I read that chapter in its entirety, it seems Jesus is talking of 'one event' to one audience, just as do the preceding and following chapters. Hence, full preterism seemed to make more sense now. But it is strangely ironic that so many of my UR associates and prominent UR figures, some who have written otherwise good books and who are on my Facebook list, support a futurist and literal view. I have to disagree with them on this, but unite on basis that we all believe in universal reconciliation. To me I can now see that preterism and UR naturally fit together, even though so many preterists don't accept UR. Are you having lovely Spring weather over in Canada? It is gorgeous over here. Hope it stays like this for the next few months. Blessings in abundance. Mark

Allan April 10 at 11:20am
Hi Mark. You're dead on. UR built upon a solid "full" preterist foundation is impregnable. With regard to the Olivet Discourse, another clincher of the seamlessness of Matthew's account is reading it in parallel with the accounts of Mark and Luke. It becomes very plain that there is no division.
Spring is beginning to peer out from behind the remaining snow banks in Sudbury. We're usually about a month behind Southern Ontario, which I suspect is probably a few weeks behind your spring. Ahhh! Summer! I can hardly wait - 3 months of mosquitoes and road repair. :)
Blessings, Al

Mark May 15 at 11:41am
Hi Allan. How are doing? I am now fully persuaded that UR and full preterism are the truth. I am now firmly in that camp after much deep study. I believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70; that the scripture verses many Christians say confirm a so-called second coming of Jesus occurred at that same time, and that the 1,000 year millennium happened before then as well. It's all clear now. I also am now convinced that when we die, our spirit immediately goes to be with the Lord. However, I would be interested to clarify something with you Allan. At the end of the aion we are now in, do you foresee any form of New Heaven and New Earth - an appearance or coming of Jesus? How do see the end of the aion materializing? You and I know that sin is still rife on the earth. Is there to be a time coming when humanity will exist on this earth where there is no more sin, as well as in heaven? Forgive me if I have missed anything in yours or any other writings. Otherwise, I am now a 'full' preterist, but just tying up the loose ends. God bless you and hope Spring is in full flow in Ontario. Mark

Allan May 15 at 1:39pm
Hi Mark. Good to here from you. Discovering the "harmony of truth" is indeed a gratifying experience! UR, soundly built upon a solid preterist foundation is completely unassailable; and if we are to win the day and turn the church right-side-up again, it will be with a preterist tipped lance. It's a tragedy that most UR proponents are oblivious to this as of yet. It's blessedly ironic that most proponents of preterism, who at this point loath UR, are in the process of establishing the foundation that is paving the road for a substantial UR break through.
It would appear to me from the Scriptures that a distinguishing feature of the New Covenant is that it is a "world without end." What Christ has done and established is more than enough to transform lives and societies, to bring us to God here and now. With regard to a future consummation, I believe the Scriptures are silent. But how can sin go on forever? Sin essentially is "missing the mark." It is either innocently or intentionally "falling short of the glory of God," a failure to love God supremely and to love my brother as myself. As the light of truth and a Heavenly Father's love gains sway in our hearts and society, as our true brotherhood impresses itself more and more upon our spirits and consciences, self-centeredness and sin will be less and less. I believe the power of sin resides primarily in ignorance and fear. We overcome it not by suspicion and superiority, but by light and love. We make the world Christian by emulating Christ ourselves. There is no other way. Essentially, the light that resides in our hearts is God's ultimate means of combating the darkness. Yes, he can eliminate sin totally by eliminating the field in which it resides – but what glory is there in that? There is no Gospel victory there, but a pathetic admission of defeat. The Gospel is and will continue to be victorious! I believe we are living in the infancy of our collective human experience. If geologists are right, it has taken God 4.5 billion years to construct the stage. In the light of the geological clock, we have just arrived but a few seconds ago. Who knows! We may have multiple billions and trillions of years of human history yet to write? We may yet be destined to populate the universe! Yet all the church wants to do is escape it! I believe an important feature of UR is embracing life and living with gusto for the glory of God – determining each day to let our light shine, to contribute to the changing of the world, first by changing ourselves.
God Bless, Al

Mark May 15 at 1:46p
This is awesome Allan. And I think we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the depth and expanse of God's plans and love for us. Have a lovely Sunday and week ahead.

[Blake Murray]

I am seeking the truth...New to this preterist view, I find the following issues as stumbling blocks to full acceptance.  PLEASE ADVISE!

This doctrine was founded by the Jesuits back in the time of the Reformation.  The Reformers were preaching from Revelation 17 that Mystery Babylon was Rome. So the church was hemorrhaging very badly. The Protestants were breaking away so the Jesuits had to stop this by explaining that it was not Rome so they made up this doctrine of Preterism.  Today some have unwittingly bought into it because of a lack of breadth in their knowledge of biblical prophecy.
One point in case is that the Book of Revelation was not even written until about 95 or 96 AD. Our best sources say that this is true. Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John who wrote Revelation. Iraneus said that Polycarp told him that the book was written in the days of Dometian who left office around 95 or 96 AD and that's when all the exiles that were under religious persecution by Dometian were released. That's when John the Revelator was released. He then returned to deliver his messages to the seven churches of Asia. In other words, if we interpret Irenaeus as the Preterists want we are left without any certain date for the writing of Revelation. That means, it could have been written at any point prior to John's death. If it was not written in the 90's, it could have been written in the 70's or 80's. Yet the Preterists argue that it was written in the 60's. Why? Since apart from Irenaeus there is no direct source for dating Revelation, we have no other choice but to assume the only evidence Preterists have for an early dating of the book is their own theory that it was fulfilled in 70 AD.  Any date after 70 AD would negate their entire theory. Preterists throw out the existing evidence simply because it disagrees with their hypothesis. Then they reconfigure the evidence to fit with their pre-existing conclusions. The Preterists are clearly molding the evidence to arrive at their desired conclusion. This is faulty logic and their assessment should be rejected as biased. Even if the book of Revelation was written in the 60's, the core of the belief of Preterism is in Daniel 9:27 where it says that he shall confirm the covenant for seven years. This involves the teaching of Daniel's 70 weeks which is one of the most important end-time prophecies of the Bible.

Which Christ confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27 for seven years? Will it be our Lord Jesus Christ or the Antichrist?
"He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator." (Daniel 9:27)
The question then is who is the "he"? The traditional view of this passage is that the he is the Antichrist. The Antichrist will confirm a covenant and stop sacrifices that at some point in the future will resume, and set up the Abomination of Desolation. Preterists say that the he there is the real Christ, that Jesus Christ is actually the one that causes sacrifices to stop by sacrificing himself.  So how do we know who the he is? We can know for sure who he is because the covenant is confirmed elsewhere. The "he" of Daniel 9:27 will do three things: he first confirms the covenant, he stops the daily sacrifices, and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation.
In Daniel 11, we have a discourse about the King of the North. When you get to verse 31, it talks about the Antichrist and his partners placing an abomination that makes desolate and stopping the sacrifices.  This is absolute proof that the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the Antichrist not the real Christ.
"And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."(Daniel 11:31)
If you're still not sure this is the Antichrist, read what else this man does:
"And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done." (Daniel 11:36)
Christ speaking against God? Is that Jesus Christ speaking against the God of god? That is obviously not going to happen. It's the Antichrist exalting himself above all that is called God. The apostle Paul referred to the same thing. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, the apostle Paul said that day shall not come, speaking of the second coming, until there comes a rebellion first and that Man of Sin is revealed, the Son of Perdition, who exalts himself above all that is called God of that is worshiped and sits in the Temple of God claiming to be God. So both Scriptures reveal the Antichrist talking about exalting himself above God and claiming to be God. Daniel 9:27 is speaking about the Antichrist and not Jesus Christ which is again text proof for the reason that Preterism is a false doctrine and should not be believed.

Again, I am attempting to find someone to explain how this can be explained away...any help will be greatly appreciated!!

[Al Chevrier]

Hi Blake,

For one who is seeking truth along the preterist path, I find it surprising that you have not availed yourself of the resources available to clear up some of these "stumbling blocks" yourself. For example: have you read "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell? Have you searched the various preterist web sites (i.e.: International Preterist Association), perusing the various books, articles and submissions with an open Bible in hand? Have you considered some of the preterist friendly articles on Tentmaker? It doesn't appear to me that you have. Also, why you would want clarification on these matters so that you can throw your lot in with those who have "unwittingly bought into it because of a lack of breadth in their knowledge of biblical prophecy" is beyond me. With regard to one issue you raise, please consider a pertinent quote from IPA. Note that this site is not sympathetic with UR in the least. Yet I believe they are unwittingly laying a strong Biblical foundation for the final holiness and happiness of all. 

DATE OF REVELATION, PART 1.
The Authorship date of the Revelation by the Apostle John: 70 A.D. or 96 A.D.?

The futuristist and Historicist positions take the later date of 96 A.D. Both need the later date to deny the imminency verses of the Revelation that confine it's "revealing" to events that were "shortly to come to pass" and "at hand". This question is what most Historicists hang their hat on to refute preterism. They appeal to history, tradition, and hearsay evidence rather than the internal evidence of the Revelation itself.

The 96 A.D. date was handed down by tradition and based solely on a single obscure statement quoted by Eusebius.

The statement was by the Bishop of Lyons, named Irenaeus, who lived from A.D. 130 to A.D. 202. We only have Latin translations of his entire work containing the statement, but the passage in question is preserved in its original Greek in a quotation of it by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, written about A.D. 325. Here is the statement from Irenaeus, as quoted by Eusebius:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

This statement is not an eyewitness testimony from Irenaeus, but his recollection of what was said by an even earlier man, Polycarp, who is suposed to have known John personally.

Two things: First, the key statement that "it is not long since it was seen" is ambiguous in the original Greek text. The word "it" can refer either to the visions John saw, the book he produced, or to John himself. The writer could have intended to say, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." But no matter which way you want to see it, the statement is still ambiguous. If it means that the book of Revelation was itself seen at that time, it does not necessarily place the date of authorship then. If it refers to John, we know that he did live to the time of Domitian, although he was by then an aged and frail man.

This particular line of support for the late date is very precarious and suspect: Eusebius quotes Irenaeus. Irenaeus refers to Polycarp, who is said to have seen either John or the Apocalypse sometime in the last part of Domitian's reign in about A.D. 96. We do not know if he meant that he saw the book or the man and we do not know if he meant to imply that the book was written then or not. Morever, it comes to us through three  people separated by three centuries. This is simply HEARSAY evidence, and it is not much evidence at that! Hearsay evidence that has been "handed down by TRADITION".

Tradition is not a sufficient basis for scriptural interpretation when our understanding of the basic nature of the church and our relationship to God is at stake!

Where, then, can we turn to find reliable and authoritative evidence for the date of this important book? Within the book itself! This internal evidence, especially in view of the lack of any reliable external evidence for the late date, is the most authoritative and conclusive information we have that tells us about the date of authorship (and thus sheds light on the proper interpretation of the book).

"It is obvious that if the book itself throws any distinct light on this subject, this internal evidence, especially in the absence of reliable historical testimony, ought to be decisive. Instead of appealing to tradition or to some doubtful passage in an ancient father, we interrogate the book itself.... It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written." (James M. MacDonald, "The Life and Writings of John", p. 151 152)

For further study on the internal evidence for the 70 A.D. date read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's books  "The Beast of Revelation   666" and "Before Jerusalem Fell".

DATE OF REVELATION, PART 2
What specific internal evidence within the Revelation establishes it's date of authorship? How does the Hebrew nature of the Apocylpse with the many Old Testament allusions and references support the date of authorship?

John T. Robertson made an interesting observation in his book "Redating the New Testament" which explored these questions: "One of the oddest facts about the N.T. is that... the single most datable and climatic event of the period   the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple is never once mentioned as a past fact."

Robertson asked himself, Just WHY any of the books of the NT needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem." He said he felt it exceptionally "strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at."

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D wrote in his "Apocalypse Then, Not Now": "I did my own research... The further I went, the more I also felt compelled by the facts to limit all of the canonical books to pre AD 70 dates. I could find no compelling evidence for doing otherwise. Can you?

"One fact that I found intriguing and convincing arose from a contrast with other books of that era. Nearly every document written after AD 70, both Jewish and Christian (of which many exist) refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet not one document in the NT mentioned it as a PAST event. Robinson calls this "an arresting fact." And indeed it certainly should arrest our attention. For it strongly implies that every book in our NT  cannon must have existed before AD 70. This marvel would exist on the order of a current historical writing about the 20th century Europe that never mentioned the holocaust of World War II."

Considering the above, does this not make the internal scriptural evidence found in Chapter 11   that describes the Temple as still standing   as a strong argument for the pre 70 A.D. date of the Revelation's authorship?

"I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, 'Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." (Rev. 11:1 3)

This passage gives us a symbolic imagery of a very specifically described physical temple   one possessing the exact nature of the stone Temple of Herod.

Ed Stevens: from, "What Happened in 70 A.D.":
"Those who interpret the book of Revelation in connection with Domitian and Rome are forgetting what the book is presenting. Revelation is NOT just discussing the death of a "beast," but also the downfall and destruction of some "Great City Babylon" and the end to some very threatening persecution.... What "Great City" which was important to the Christians and Jews fell "shortly" after 96 A.D.? What great persecution which was a  grave threat to Christ's followers ended "shortly" after 96 AD? None did. Revelation (11:8) identifies who the "Great City" was ("the city where their Lord was crucified"): Jerusalem! Revelation (18:24) also identifies who the "Great City" was: And in her was found the BLOOD OF PROPHETS and of saints and of ALL who have been slain ON THE EARTH.

"When this verse is compared with Jesus' statements in Luke 13:33 35 and Matt. 23:29 39, one can readily see that the "Great City" under consideration is Jerusalem. Jesus says that Jerusalem is the city that "kills the prophets," and that the "guilt of ALL the righteous BLOOD shed ON EARTH" would fall upon Jerusalem in that generation (Matt. 23:34 37). Upon comparing these statements of Jesus with Rev. 18:24, the conclusion is inescapable: Jerusalem is the "Great City". And, if the book of Revelation is dealing with the downfall of Jerusalem, it must have been written before 70 AD in order to predict it.

"What persecution is under consideration in Revelation? The other books of the NT speak of a serious persecution which the JEWS inflicted upon the Christians (see Matt. 10:16 23; Matt. 24:9,10,21; Acts 8:1; Gal. 1:13, etc.). This Jewish persecution came to a standstill in 70 AD. The death of Domitian in 96 AD did NOT stop the Roman persecution. Rome persecuted Christians for more than 2 centuries later.

"In Matt. 24:22, Jesus says that unless that "tribulation" was stopped, none of the "elect" would have been left to tell the story. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD put a stop to this threat. And it completely stopped the sacrifices.

There are many other internal witnesses that make a late date improbable and the 70 A.D. as the most likely date of authorship. A thorough discussion on the dating question is offered in "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth L. Gentry (I.C.E., 1989). Internal evidence such as Nero's identity as the beast (the  sixth king in Rev. 17:10 who IS.) is compelling, and Gentry's discussion of external evidence is also impressive.

For example one citation from Gentry's book quotes the sixth century writer Arethas in which he speaks of a pre A.D. 70 writing and meaning for Revelation:

"When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jew were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

Works from Tertullian, Jerome, and Eusebius indicate that John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Nero at the same time that Paul and Peter were martyred, not 30 years later under Domitian. (e.g. Turtullian, in 'On Prescription Against Heretics', 36, where he states: "Rome...where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in death...where the Apostle John was...thence remitted to his island exile!" "The Writings of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus, vol. II, translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1870) p. 43)

The sixth and seventh century versions of the Syriac New Testament contain as the title to the book of Revelation: "written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."

THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA
"John, to the seven churches in the province of Asia..." (Rev. 1:4)

There was only one small window of time in which there were only seven congregations in the area of the Roman province of Asia (modern day Turkey). Paul had established nine congregations in that land (in nine cities), but the churches at Colosse and Hierapolis are not mentioned in the address and letters of Revelation. The reason is that these two cities, along with Laodicea, were subjected to a great earthquake in approximately A.D. 61, and all there were destroyed. Laodicea was rebuilt soon after the earthquake, but Colosse and Hierapolis were not rebuilt. Because these towns were quite close together (Hierapolis was about 6 miles north of Laodicea, and Colosse was about 10 miles east, forming a small "triplet" of towns, with Laodicea being the most prominent.) This left SEVEN churches in Asia Minor during the five years just prior to the beginning of the war, the most likely time for the writing of the Revelation and the letters of John (where he states "we know it IS the last hour"   I John 2:18).
We know these seven churches are not symbols because they themselves are symbolized later in verse 12 and then interpreted in verse 20 by Christ Himself:

"....I saw seven golden lampstands." "...The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

These literal and real congregations which John addressed the book to, were in existence in that region at that very precise time of the beginning of the war in A.D. 67. The imperatives in the Apocalypse which are directed toward the reader are given in  the second and third chapters. These letters to these 7 churches address specific situations and mention particular individuals. Their intent is obviously to address the circumstances that these churches were facing at the time. We would do well to heed the counsel and warnings in chapters 2 and 3, but the Apocalypse was written TO the seven churches in Asia   not to the twentieth century. While the Apocalypse is relevant to believers in all ages, God specifically directed it to these first century churches.

As an ending note, some opponents of the early 70 A.D. date claim there is no support for it. Such claims are misleading, for it ignores the evidence and the many able proponents of an early date. Kenneth Gentry names over one hundred prominent scholars who believe the Apocalypse to have been written before 70 A.D. in "The Beast of Revelation" (I.C.E., 1989, pp. 83 84)

Concerning our second question, consider Chilton's comment: "Revelation is the most "Biblical" book in the Bible. St. John quotes hundreds of passages from the Old Testament, often with subtle allusions to little known religious rituals of the Hebrew people. In order to understand Revelation, we need to know our  Bibles backward and forward."

The keys to understanding the symbols and images in the Revelation are found in the Bible, not the newspaper or evening news.

While the internal evidence is the most important evidence to consider in the dating question, it is also the most involved. It requires sound exegesis of more than the first eight verses of the Apocalypse, and that work has been done by others. (For example, "Days of Vengeance", by David Chilton)

References: Prophecy Fulfilled   God's Perfect Church, by David P. Crews Apocalypse Then, Not Now, by L. Michael Hall, Ph.D The Development of the New Testament, by Arthur M. Ogden What Happened in 70 AD, by Ed Stevens Redating the New Testament, by John A. T. Robertson A Reasonable Look at Reveation, by Christ Schlect. For further study on the internal evidence for the 70 A.D. date read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's books  "The Beast of Revelation   666" and "Before Jerusalem Fell".

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: @ Blake....you're far from being the only one on here who chokes at the concept of full preterism, so no worries.....eat the meat, spit out the bones. Blessings....

[Al Chevrier]

My apologies to Blake if I was a bit rough on him. During my 40 plus years of seeking truth, I've been slapped around quite a bit, and my dander gets up when I feel someone is bringing into question my intelligence and personal integrity. I know, it's a pride thing – I admit, I'm a work in progress.
I was introduced to the preterist interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures in the early 80s. Even then I saw the imminence theme pervading the Scriptures, and readily deemed myself a partial preterist; yet I resisted the possibility of full preterism, for fear of undermining virtually everything I had believed the Scriptures to teach. I was a good Reformed Baptist, and partial preterism was as far as I felt safe to go. Being wired the way I am, I took it as a personal challenge to decimate and refute the full preterist position. After 3 years of being flogged repeatedly, I finally threw in the towel and accepted full preterism. The reason it took so long I would attribute more too how soundly bound I was to reformed theology than anything else. One of the many implications of a preterist Bible based hermeneutic is that it completely decimates the doctrine of hell. Because of this I soon became a closet annihilationist. A few years after this I was challenged by a book provided on the Tentmaker site, and in a short while embraced universal reconciliation. If it hadn't been for my preterist views and the resultant hell void, I wouldn't have been searching UR sites to begin with. Over the past decade or so preterism has been experiencing a significant surge. For the most part these are not sheep, but diligent, thoughtful students. I believe they could be convinced of UR in mass and evangelize the church if we but provide them with a UR gospel soundly based upon a solid Biblical preterist foundation. Yes, we appeal to the heart and emotions; but if we are to win the day the battle must be fought on the field of Scripture. We must decimate their champions. We must convince their leaders of the truly good news of the gospel, and the sheep will follow. And remember: truth has nothing to fear – if we ask our Father for bread He will not give us a stone. Blessings, Al     

[Song]

Thanks for sharing my friend. It's over ten years later, and today, I also had a preterist exchange with a friend, for a while over email that I met on a Zoom call. In terms of eschatology, out of all the views, right now at this moment I believe that preterism is true.

It's tricky because, I have made futurist dispensationalist assumption posts in the past. I've gone ahead and added disclaimers to them on Tentmaker, it's the least I can do. But I am convinced by scripture above all, and I try to let go of any bias I may have.

In terms of pride, I also suffer with that a bit. But then I remember that I falsely believed in Eternal Concious Torment and Annihlationism too. Albeit, I discovered Preterism after UR, but the concept is the same. Bible proofs lead to truth!

[darryl]

slowly coming around to the preterist view with some reservations but in many ways preterism makes more sense.