Today, we’re going to discuss the Christian eschatological teaching called Preterism, from the Latin praetor meaning “past”. If you don’t know what eschatology means, I’ll save you the work of looking it up. It means the Bible theology pertaining to the last days. Preterism is the belief that all the prophecies concerning the Last Days in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Additionally, the preterist believes that the prophecies from the book of Daniel were completed by the first century. He also believes that not only were Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 fulfilled before or by 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed, but that even the Revelation to John saw its complete fulfillment around that time.
You can imagine the problems this poses for the preterist. A significant number of these prophecies require some pretty inventive interpretations to make them work as having been completed in the first century. For example, Revelation speaks of the first resurrection:
“…they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:4-6 NASB)
Preterism postulates that this resurrection occurred in the first century, requiring of the preterist to explain how thousands of Christians could vanish off the face of the earth without leaving any trace whatsoever of such a stunning phenomenon. There is no mention of this in any of the later Christian writings from the second and third century. That such an event would go unnoticed by the rest of the Christian community passes belief.
Then there’s the challenge of explaining the 1000-year abyssing of the Devil so that he cannot mislead the nations, not to mention his release and the subsequent war between the holy ones and the hordes of Gog and Magog. (Revelation 20:7-9)
Despite such challenges, many support this theory, and I’ve learned that a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses have come to subscribe to this interpretation of prophecy as well. Is it a way to distance themselves from the failed 1914 eschatology of the Organization? Is it really important what we believe about the last days? Nowadays, we live in the age of you’re-okay-I’m-okay theology. The idea is that it doesn’t really matter what any of us believes as long as we all love one another.
I agree that there are a number of passages in the Bible where it is currently impossible to arrive at a definitive understanding. Many of these are found in the book of Revelation. course, having left behind the dogmatism of the Organization, we do not want to create our own dogma. Nevertheless, contrary to the idea of a doctrinal buffet, Jesus said that, “an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.” (John 4:23 NASB) Additionally, Paul warned about “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10 NASB)
We do well not to minimize the importance of truth. Sure, it can be a challenge to distinguish truth from fiction; Bible fact from the speculation of men. Still, that should not discourage us. No one said that it would be easy, but the reward at the end of this struggle is surpassingly great and justifies any effort we make. It is the effort that the Father rewards and due to it, he pours out his spirit upon us to guide us into all the truth. (Matthew 7:7-11; John 16:12, 13)
Is Preterist theology true? Is it important to know that, or does this qualify as one of those areas where we can have differing ideas without doing damage to our Christian worship? My personal take on this is that it matters greatly whether or not this theology is true. It is really a matter of our salvation.
Why do I think this is so? Well, consider this scripture: “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4 NASB).
If that prophecy was fulfilled in 70 C.E., then we need pay no heed to its warning. That’s the Preterist view. But what if they’re wrong? Then those promoting Preterism are inducing the disciples of Jesus to ignore his life-saving warning. You can see from this, that accepting a Preterist view is no simple academic choice. It could well be a matter of life or death.
Is there a way for us to determine whether this theology is true or false without getting into convoluted arguments over interpretation?
Indeed, there is.
For Preterism to be true, the book of Revelation has to have been written before 70 C.E. Many preterists postulate that it was written after the initial siege of Jerusalem in 66 C.E. but before its destruction in 70 C.E.
Revelation contains of series of visions depicting these future events.
So, if it was written after 70 C.E., it could hardly be applicable to the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, if we can ascertain that it was written after that date, then we need go no further and can dismiss the preterist view as another example of failed eisegetical reasoning.
The majority of Bible scholars date the writing of Revelation about 25 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, putting it in 95 or 96 C.E. That would negate any preterist interpretation. But is that dating accurate? What is it based on?
Let’s see if we can establish that.
The apostle Paul told the Corinthians: “At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). Do we have any witnesses that can attest to this dating?
We’ll start with external evidence.
First witness: Irenaeus, was a student of Polycarp who was in turn a student of the Apostle John. He dates the writing toward the close of the reign of Emperor Domitian who ruled from 81 to 96 C.E.
Second witness: Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 155 to 215 C.E., writes that John left the isle of Patmos where he was imprisoned after Domitian died on September 18, 96 C.E. Within that context, Clement refers to John as an “old man”, something which would have been inappropriate for a pre-70 C.E. writing, given that John was one of the youngest apostles and so would have been only middle aged by that time.
Third witness: Victorinus, a third century author of the earliest commentary on Revelation, writes:
“When John said these things, he was in the isle of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated” (Commentary on Revelation 10:11)
Fourth witness: Jerome (340-420 C.E.) wrote:
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the isle of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse” (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).
That makes four witnesses. So, the matter seems to be firmly established from external evidence that Revelation was written in 95 or 96 C.E.
Is there internal evidence to support this?
Proof 1: In Revelation 2:2, the Lord tells the congregation of Ephesus: “I know your deeds, your labor, and your perseverance.” In the next verse he praises them because “without growing weary, you have persevered and endured many things for the sake of My name.” He continues on with this rebuke: “But I have this against you: You have abandoned your first love.” (Revelation 2:2-4 BSB)
Emperor Claudius reigned from 41-54 C.E. and it was toward the latter part of his reign that Paul founded the congregation in Ephesus. Further, when he was in Rome in 61 CE, he commends them for their love and faith.
“For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints…” (Eph 1:15 BSB).
The rebuke Jesus gives them only makes sense if significant time has passed. This doesn’t work if only a handful of years have passed from Paul’s praise to Jesus’ condemnation.
Proof 2: According to Revelation 1:9, John was imprisoned on the isle of Patmos. Emperor Domitian favoured this type of persecution. However, Nero, who ruled from 37 to 68 C.E. , preferred execution, which is what happened to Peter and Paul.
Proof 3: At Revelation 3:17, we are told that the congregation at Laodicea was very rich and had no need of anything. However, if we accept a writing before 70 C.E. as preterists claim, how can we account for such wealth given that the city was almost totally destroyed by an earthquake in 61 C.E. It doesn’t seem reasonable to believe they could go from total devastation to vast wealth in the mere 6 to 8 years?
Proof 4: The letters of 2 Peter and Jude were written just before the first siege of the city, around 65 C.E. They both speak of an incipient, corrupting influence just coming into the congregation. By the time of the Revelation, this has become the full-fledged sect of Nicolaus, something that could not logically have transpired in just a couple of years (Revelation 2:6, 15).
Proof 5: By the end of the first century, persecution of Christians was widespread throughout the empire. Revelation 2:13 makes reference to Antipas who was killed in Pergamum. However, Nero’s persecution was confined to Rome and was not for religious reasons.
There seems to be overwhelming external and internal evidence to support the 95 to 96 C.E. date that most Bible Scholars hold to for the book’s writing. So, what do preterists claim to counter this proof?
Those who argue for an early date point to such things as the absence of any mention of Jerusalem’s destruction. However, by 96 C.E the whole world knew of Jerusalem’s destruction, and the Christian community understood clearly that it had all happened in accordance with the fulfillment of prophecy.
We have to bear in mind that John wasn’t writing a letter or a gospel as the other Bible writers, like James, Paul, or Peter. He was acting more as a secretary taking dictation. He was not writing of his own originality. He was told to write what he saw. Eleven times he is given the specific instruction to write what he was seeing or being told.
“What you see write in a scroll . . .” (Re 1:11)
“Therefore write down the things you saw. . .” (Re 1:19)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrna write. . .” (Re 2:8)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Pergamum write. . .” (Re 2:12)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Thyatira write. . .” (Re 2:18)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Sardis write. . .” (Re 3:1)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Philadelphia write. . .” (Re 3:7)
“And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write. . .” (Re 3:14)
“And I heard a voice out of heaven say: “Write: Happy are the dead who die in union with [the] Lord from this time onward. . . .” (Re 14:13)
“And he tells me: “Write: Happy are those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage.” (Re 19:9)
“Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true (Re 21:5)
So, are we really to think that seeing such a manifestation of divine direction, John’s going to say, “Hey, Lord. I think it would be nice to make some mention of the destruction of Jerusalem that happened 25 years ago…you know, for posterity’s sake!”
I just don’t see that happening, do you? So, the absence of any mention of historical events doesn’t mean anything. It is just a ploy to try to get us to accept the idea that preterists are trying to get across. It is eisegesis, nothing more.
Indeed, if are going to accept a Preterist view, then we have to accept that Jesus’ presence began in 70 C.E. based on Matthew 24:30, 31 and that the holy ones were resurrected and transfigured in the twinkling of an eye at that time. If that were the case, then why the need for them to escape the city? Why all the warnings about fleeing immediately so as not to get caught and perish with the rest? Why not just rapture them up then and there? And why would there be no mention in Christian writings from later that century and throughout the second century of the mass rapture of all the holy ones? Surely there would be some mention of the disappearance of the entire Christian congregation of Jerusalem. In fact, all Christians, Jew and Gentile, would have disappeared off the face of the earth in 70 C.E.—raptured up. This would hardly go unnoticed.
There is another problem with Preterism that I think outweighs everything else and which highlights a dangerous aspect to this particular theological framework. If everything happened in the first century, then what is there left for the rest of us? Amos tells us that “the sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
Preterism makes no allowance for that. With Revelation written after the events of Jerusalem’s destruction, we are left with symbolisms to give us assurances of what the future will bring. Some of these we can understand now, while others will become apparent when needed. That is the way with prophecy.
The Jews knew the Messiah would come and they had details pertaining to his arrival, details that explained the timing, location and key events. Nevertheless, there was much that was left unstated but which became evident when the Messiah finally arrived. This is what we have with the book of Revelation and why it is of such interest to Christians today. But with Preterism, all that goes away. My personal belief is that Preterism is a dangerous teaching and we should avoid it.
By saying that, I’m not suggesting that much of Matthew 24 does not have its fulfillment in the first century. What I am saying is whether something is fulfilled in the first century, in our day, or in our future should be determined based on the context and not made to fit into some pre-conceived time frame based on interpretative speculation.
In our next study, we’ll look at the meaning and application of the great tribulation referenced in both Matthew and Revelation. We won’t try to find a way to force it into any particular time frame, but rather we’ll look at the context in every place it occurs and try to determine its actual fulfillment.
Thank you for watching. If you’d like to help us continue this work, there is a link in the description of this video to take you to our donations page.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by if ever on 2020-02-28 18:01:03
In my personal study I have been reading Irenaeus' body of work that we know today as, "Against Heresies". I have also been reading writings by modern day authors, who put dating of Revelation prior to 70 A.D. I have leaned on the side of the issue that Revelation was written before 70, but I did not fully hold the preterist view that all prophecy of Revelation was fulfilled in 1st century.
However, I have had to reassess my view of Revelation after reading Irenaeus, and thinking on some of the writings of the early christians point to Revelation being written near the end of Domitian's reign.
For me this is a tough subject, as I looked at the writings to the congregations as instructed by Christ they appear to fit well with Nero's reign. But for me I must confess, just because it is plausible, does not mean it is correct.
So I have come to change my view on this and now look at the writing of Revelation being near the end of Domitian's reign.
Thanks for the well written article, as we must all work through questions.
Comment by Nightingale on 2020-02-13 11:22:56
Another great video, thanks! But is it part 7 or 6? It says 7 in the beginning of the video.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-13 17:53:56
It's 6. This I can correct without reshooting because it's in the intro.
Comment by Justin Michesloff on 2020-02-13 11:53:12
Just curious, the assertion is made “ many support this theory, and I’ve learned that a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses have come to subscribe to this interpretation of prophecy as well.“
I still have regular conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses and have never heard such a thing. Furthermore, this thought process would negate their beliefs and the authority of their GB diety.
Is this perhaps ex-JW’s? I have heard this from a number of these.
Just curious...Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-13 17:53:27
Yes, you're correct. The problem with videos is that I'd have to reshoot the entire thing just to correct that one mistake. Argh!
Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2020-02-17 14:01:55
I figured that’s what you meant.:-)
Thanks again for this video. It Is sad that certain ones who read the content on this site feel the need to be so totally negative. Perhaps one day they will join the list of ones PRESENTING material on the web rather than just (anonymously) nit picking.....
Keep up the good work brother
Comment by Vox Ratio on 2020-02-13 20:27:51
Hi Meleti,
In talking with Preterists over the years I have found that they are usually quite adamant in making a distinction between partial-Preterism and full-Preterism (realised eschatology). For this reason, it doesn't follow that "if" John's apocalypse was written prior to 70 CE then all of its contents must be applicable to a similar time as well.
Having said that, however, I tend to agree that the historical evidence supports a later date – with the caveat that church fathers and historians seem to base their conclusions off a single witness, specifically Irenaeus (who, incidentally, thought that Jesus was around 50 when he was crucified; Against Heresies 2.22). This significantly weakens the criterion of independent attestation for a later date. Moreover, there are notable scholars who consider some or all of John's writings to predate Jerusalem's fall (Wallace, Robinson, Ellis et al.). Interestingly, John's gospel is generally considered to be later than his apocalypse, yet he speaks about the colonnades by the pool of Bethesda as being now standing (Joh. 5:2) – an unlikely event if no stone was to be left upon a stone after Jerusalem's fall (cf. Luk. 21:6).
All of this is just to say that dating the NT corpus is not always an exact science. Nevertheless, to my mind there is actually a probative way to dismiss an early date for the book of Revelation. Namely, if the martyrdom of Antipas (Rev. 2:13) occurred after Jerusalem's destruction then this would categorically exclude an early date (unless we're prepared to accept wild redaction theories). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to corroborate his death from anything other than church tradition, which suffers from many of the same flaws as dating the book itself.
Luke presents Jerusalem's imminent demise as a means of understanding the immanent rise of God's kingdom (cf. Mat. 24:33; Luk. 21:31). As such, my own tentative view is that the kingdom was inaugurated with the judgement upon Jerusalem after which it became the last and only true expression of God's manifest will toward mankind. To worship with spirit and truth now requires one to freely enter God's new covenant and to serve as a kingdom light and as an invitation to others. In my opinion, when the kingdom is fully consummated (at the marriage of the Lamb), then the restoration prophecies of Revelation – indeed, of all Scripture – will also have their consummate fulfillment.Reply by Frankie on 2020-02-15 16:05:19
Hi Vox Ratio
Because I recently had a discussion with one advocate of preterism (ex-JW for many years), please allow me tell you some my opinions with respect to your interesting comment.
You wrote: "Interestingly, John's gospel is generally considered to be later than his apocalypse, yet he speaks about the colonnades by the pool of Bethesda as being now standing (John 5:2) – an unlikely event if no stone was to be left upon a stone after Jerusalem's fall (cf. Luke 21:6)."
This statement in John 5:2 doesn't have to be proof that his gospel was written before the fall of Jerusalem. Interpretation of this verse may have other grammatical and historical meanings. Here is an example of the following Biblehub comment:
"John 5:2 - Now there is at Jerusalem — The Syriac seems to have read, there was, as it is rendered in that version in the past time. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact favour this reading, as also does Nonnus. "If tolerably supported," says Dr. Campbell, "it would be accounted preferable, as this gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem." But if Jerusalem was destroyed, as it probably was, when St. John wrote this, it does not follow that the pool and its porticoes were destroyed also. The pool, or what is said to be it, is shown to travellers at the present time."
[https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/john/5.htm]
You wrote: "Luke presents Jerusalem's imminent demise as a means of understanding the immanent rise of God's kingdom (cf. Matt 24:33; Luke 21:31)".
As for verses Matt 24:33 or Luke 21:31 - this information does not have to mean the "imminent demise" of Jerusalem. Matt 24:33 or Luke 21:31 refers to the prophetic events that Jesus previously mentioned. But all of these prophecies did not relate to the immediate destruction of Jerusalem, since it is evident that some of the described prophecies of Jesus did not occur in the 1st century, nor were there any reports of them.
In addition, such events are tied to information in Revelation. The Revelation simply could not be written before the fall of Jerusalem (see Proofs 1-5 and denial of Amos 3:7 meaning in case of Preterism in this article). Moreover, there are another information in Revelation that excludes its writing before 70 AD. No chance! This is my view.
I fully agree with statement in the end of Eric's video "that Preterism is a dangerous teaching and we should avoid it". With exclamation mark.
Love to you and all. FrankieReply by Vox Ratio on 2020-02-15 20:29:51
Hi Frankie,
Thanks for your insightful response.
I'm aware of the grammatical arguments against Wallace's position (say, those of Kostenberger), but I think Wallace has adequately defended his contention against such criticism. Nevertheless, let me just say that I don't think this one piece of evidence is enough to overthrow a late date and thereby reject a deeper tradition. It is, however, an interesting lacuna that the late date traditions don’t seem to account for.
Concerning the parallel illustrations given in Matthew 24:32f and Luke 21:31ff, it seems evident to me that the Lukan narrative clarifies details as it does also in other eschatological texts (cf. Mat. 24:15; Luk. 21:10). By drawing upon the signs of the seasons, Luke has Jesus underscoring the nearness of the kingdom with the events of Jerusalem's final season. As I see it, it is contextually difficult to place this parable in the future since the audience were those who were sensitive to the Jewish summer and had just been made aware that "these things" included Jerusalem's destruction – thereby binding the pericope to a definitive chronology.
With that said, I see Luke 21:7-24 as directly relating to the events leading up to Jerusalem's demise and vss 25-28 acting as an apocalyptic literary device (viz. periphrasis) that inaugurates the "Son of Man" kingdom prophecy in Daniel (Dan. 7:13-14). On this view, the famous cloud riding motif – also found in Isaiah – would likewise be one of judgement; and specifically, judgement against Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 19:1ff). This view has the benefit of explaining how Jesus could say to his enemies at his trial that they would see the fulfilment of Daniel's Son of Man prophecy, for they were going to experience the related judgement firsthand (Mar. 14:62). Moreover, it also helps explain Matthew's proximate language regarding the wrath that the Pharisees and Sadducees would experience at the hands of the one greater than John the Baptist (Mat. 3:7ff).
Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus cautioning his disciples against a false parousia, but he does not get to the parousia proper until vs 37 in Matthew's gospel. It is here, and following, that I believe Christ begins to brace his disciples for his ultimate arrival. On the one hand, this implies that the echoes of Daniel within the Olivet discourse are the authorial use of a common OT trope, namely, that of using Jewish cosmic apocalyptic language to foreshadow God's impending judgement (cf. Isa. 19:1ff; Ezek. 32:7f, Jo. 2:31). On the other hand, the parousia proper would thereafter be something that one can only be awake to in their heart, since there would be no place of escape like there was in the days preceding Jerusalem's fall. (As an aside, if we note the adjectival modifier in the Gk. of Mat. 25:19, POLUN CHRONON, there appears to be some precedent for Christ's arrival as not taking place for a long time).
Of course, what I've said is only a tentative opinion, but I hope that I've made a reasonable case for the position nonetheless. I no longer adhere to labels. Like Meleti, I prefer the Bible to be read without the taint of categorical thinking. Nevertheless, if a passage fits a particular theology (or eschatology) better than another then I see no reason why one should not agree with it, yet without having to lend credence to any broader tenet of that same theology.
Love and peace to you too, brother Frankie.Reply by Frankie on 2020-02-16 17:24:50
Hi Vox Ratio.
Thank you my brother for your deep explanation of your stance to prophecies in Matt 24 and Luke 21. If I have more time, I would go back to this topic. In particular, trying to segment (IMO) the prophecies into those that were fulfilled in 70 AD and those concerning the future, especially in connection with the information in Revelation.
I meant my comment as criticism of Preterism (certainly not as a criticism of you, my brother). In my opinion, Preterism is very harmful because it destroys the timeline leading to the definitive elimination of evil on Earth removing the eager expectation of the second coming of Jesus Christ (if He has already come, then will He not come?).
IMO, Preterism is biblically unsustainable theory and I think it is dangerous - I have no doubts about this. I feel from your response that your position is similar.
God bless you Vox Ratio. Frankie
Comment by anonymous on 2020-02-16 18:52:24
Hi Eric,
I'm a little surprised at the way you are becoming dogmatic about things in some of your articles. Seeing as like many of us you have escaped a dogmatic environment with leaving JW's, I find it extremely interesting how you can be this way. I differ from you in my opinion in a couple of areas. For example, I disagreed with another article you write recently. I think the Masoretic text is the correct text of the Bible, and the Septuagint is faulty (from a chronological perspective). You think otherwise, but I would never say that all those who read a faulty bible are on a dangerous path. I also believe the Textus Receptus is the correct text for the Greek Scriptures, yet a lot of people today read a modern Bible based on Westcott and Hort or similar. Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are riddled with errors and missing passages, yet I would never say to someone that they are on a dangerous path if they read a Bible which is based on those and is therefore incorrect. It might lead them to lose their faith altogether. Which verses are meant to be there, and which verses can we trust? It becomes a matter of opinion. And, after all, I could be wrong in my opinion.
The book of Revelation was meant to be an unveiling, of "things which would shortly come to pass". If that was not actually the case, then wherein lies the value of the book? It must then remain an unexplainable mystery, and one which is subject to multiple futuristic interpretations. Why would God do that? Coming out from the JW's, the Preterist viewpoint was the one which made the most sense to me, and one which would not leave me waiting on the rooftop in white robes for a second coming of Jesus. I know that I will die, just like all other men who came before me, and my hope is still in a resurrection through Jesus Christ. But the futuristic explanations of Christians who still wait for a second coming really left me wanting. I was willing to dismiss not only Revelation as a weird book and a late addition to the canon, but question the validity of the Bible altogether before Preterism. Revelation is simply Johns version of Matthew 24, but in vivid and expanded detail. But whether that is true or isn't true, no one can really ever say. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. Let alone call it a dangerous teaching. Believe in the Lord Jesus and you'll be saved is all that matters.
I have read experiences where people have come to believe Preterism is true, and have been kicked out of their church for heretical teachings. Sound familiar? I will continue to believe Preterism is the best possible explanation for what is contained in the Bible, after having looked at the other explanations out there. But if something better comes along and makes more sense in the future, I'll be willing to change my mind. I'm not really good with saying things in the right way, and none of what I have written is meant to offend. But I do appreciate all the believers in Jesus Christ on this forum who all have something to offer, and who are to be applauded for continuing to live a godly life after leaving a cult. While discussing the Bible is great, it is best not to lose sight of the big picture and what really matters, our faith in Jesus Christ and supporting other believers. I wish everyone all the very best.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-16 19:32:35
Anonymous, why don't you reveal your name?
You say, "yet I would never say to someone that they are on a dangerous path if they read a Bible which is based on those and is therefore incorrect."
Please provide me with the reference where I have said such a thing.
You then switch from commenting on Bible manuscripts upon which translations are based to discuss my condemning of Preterism. Yes, I do refer to it as a dangerous teaching, but I wasn't dogmatic.
Let's be clear here. This is what I said:
"There is another problem with Preterism that I think outweighs everything else and which highlights a dangerous aspect to this particular theological framework."
and...
"My personal belief is that Preterism is a dangerous teaching and we should avoid it."
It is wrong for you to label an opinion, a personal belief, or what someone thinks as dogmatic. Otherwise, the opinions you have expressed in your comment are also dogmatic.Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-17 07:26:04
I find the first question a little bit odd. Whether I use the name anonymous, MeletiVivlon, or Batman should not matter one bit. Focus on the topic at hand. I setup this account years ago and haven't bothered to change it, and as you are very well aware most JW's who leave the religion choose to remain anonymous to keep their friends and family. This includes yourself when you first started publishing articles. You don't know me, if that's what you want to know. I'm just some random person who left Jehovah's Witnesses in a different part of the world.
My illustration about Bible translations was taken the wrong way, and you missed the point. I was merely saying that while I personally do not agree with some translations or Biblical texts, it would be wrong of me (for example) to start preaching that people who read them are on a dangerous path, or that their salvation is at risk because they use the wrong Bible. I'm not saying that's what you've done with Bible translations. But this is what you've done with Preterism. Let me put it another way. KJV Onlyists would argue that their Bible is the only correct Bible, and any other translations are full of errors and heresies. Is this a reasonable view? We would not want to take this type of stance on things, as it creates division.
I'm not going to argue with you on this topic of Preterism. You've made your views crystal clear. In condemning Preterism (full or partial), you have labelled it as "a dangerous teaching and we should avoid it", "it could well be a matter of life or death", and "it is really a matter of our salvation." But you say you aren't dogmatic about your opinion, so thanks for clearing that up. I was getting confused. If something is dangerous, that means it is to be feared. But the Bible says that perfect love casts fear aside.
The Bible really is a fiddle on which many tunes can be played. While I would probably not agree with your futuristic interpretations of Scripture, I would just say to you "I think you are incorrect", or "I can't agree with your interpretation." What is more important to me is your belief in Jesus Christ. For me to say to you "You are promoting a dangerous teaching which must be avoided because it means your salvation", would not even cross my mind. That just takes it to a whole new level. I personally would have to be dogmatic about what I believe to say something like that, or preach it to others.
Anyway, thanks for replying. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. And that's OK. Have a great week.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-17 09:07:06
I think if you reread your words relating to an article of mine that you disagreed with concerning manuscripts, you can see how it could be taken as something other than an illustration. But let's set that aside is a moot point.
[A] Is this a reasonable view? We would not want to take this type of stance on things, as it creates division.
[M] Avoiding anything causing division is very much a JW argument. That is reasoning based on dogmatism. The word of the GB is not opinion, but law, and questioning it would cause division. The witnesses are not even willing to reason on such things. Dogmatism. However, Jesus told us he came to create division. The reason he and his followers created division was that they spoke truth. Jesus said that the worshippers that the Father looks for are those who worship in spirit and in truth. So yes, I believe it is a reasonable view to speak out boldly when you feel something is dangerous and harmful to your brothers and sisters.
[M] Could I be wrong? It would be dogmatic of me to claim I cannot be wrong. It would be dogmatic of me to refuse to reason on any matter? That is not the case here. Holding a firm view is not synonymous with dogmatism. Let's not stick a label on something just because it seems an easy way to make the other person look bad.
[M] Does the fact I could be wrong on something mean I can't have a firm belief on anything? Am I to accept Pilate's cynical response to Jesus, "What is truth?"
[A] I’m not going to argue with you on this topic of Preterism. You’ve made your views crystal clear. In condemning Preterism (full or partial), you have labelled it as “a dangerous teaching and we should avoid it”, “it could well be a matter of life or death”, and “it is really a matter of our salvation.”
[M] First, please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I didn't condemn partial preterism. Second, why wouldn't you argue your views? Adhering to one's views without being willing to have them openly examined is the definition of dogmatism, is it not?
[A] But you say you aren’t dogmatic about your opinion, so thanks for clearing that up. I was getting confused.
[M] There is no need to be petulant.
[A] If something is dangerous, that means it is to be feared. But the Bible says that perfect love casts fear aside.
[M] To follow your logic, since Christians are to have perfect love they are not to consider anything as dangerous or to be feared. That Scripture simply doesn't apply to what we're talking about here.
[A] The Bible really is a fiddle on which many tunes can be played. While I would probably not agree with your futuristic interpretations of Scripture, I would just say to you “I think you are incorrect”, or “I can’t agree with your interpretation.”
[M] That is true, but most of these tunes are discordant and harmful. One only has to look at how the Bible has been misused throughout history to prove that point beyond any question. The philosophy which you seem to be promoting, and which is all too common today, and which in my opinion is also dangerous, is that of buffet Christianity. It doesn't really matter what we believe as long as we love one another. I agree that there are many issues upon which we can be flexible, but there are also issues upon which we must stand firm. Otherwise, Jesus' words about worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth are meaningless.
[A] What is more important to me is your belief in Jesus Christ.
[M] And what if my belief in Jesus Christ is that the first time he came into existence, it was as a mere man; that he never preexisted? What if my belief in Jesus Christ is that while growing in the belly of Mary he was also God; that Jesus was both God and man? What if my belief in Jesus Christ is that he was merely an angel? What if I believe he is God, the third person of a Godhead? What if my belief which I am required to teach to others in obedience to Matthew 28:18, 19, is something which inhibits others from coming to a true and accurate knowledge of the Father and the Son?
[A] For me to say to you “You are promoting a dangerous teaching which must be avoided because it means your salvation”, would not even cross my mind. That just takes it to a whole new level. I personally would have to be dogmatic about what I believe to say something like that, or preach it to others.
[M] In that case you are incapable of preaching anything to others because you are not firm in any belief. When you examine the preaching of the apostles, you see nothing but firm belief. There is no wishy-washy, you're-okay-I'm-okay, whatever-you-want-to-believe-is-okay message in their teaching.
[M] You're quite welcome to believe what you wish to believe. That is between you and the Lord. You're even welcome to express your views. You are also welcome to have your views cross-examined. You're also welcome to have someone disagree with you as I do. I could say that I'm sorry if my firm view that you are wrong to accept full Preterism and that such a belief is dangerous to you and others, but that would be disingenuous. I'm not sorry at all. I believe it is my duty to stand firm for my beliefs.Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-17 15:37:52
I never said I was a full Preterist. But regardless of that, keep playing those tunes on that book called the Bible. You be as firm in your views as you like. Don’t let anyone stop you on the march for truth. The great thing about music, is that if it’s discordant to your ears, you can either turn it off or walk away. Which is what I’ll be doing in this case. I wish you all the best in your endeavours
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”
1 Corinthians 13:1-2Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-17 15:44:51
An excellent quote, Anonymous. I particularly like the continuation.
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.. . .” (1Co 13:4-8)Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-17 16:45:52
Well, I wasn’t going to quote the whole chapter to you ? Throughout this conversation I have said I do not intend to offend anyone, and I have wished everyone well multiple times. I have been kind. Not becoming provoked? I wasn’t provoked, I just found your strong views highly unusual. And if no one says anything to you, how are you to know how you might be affecting others? I could say that I’m sorry if my firm view that you are wrong to condemn full Preterism and that such a belief is dangerous to you and others, but that would be disingenuous. I’m not sorry at all. I believe it is my duty to stand firm for my beliefs. Have a great day
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-17 18:26:29
Good for you. I admire those who stand firm for what they believe. You have a great day as well.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-02-22 11:13:51
Iron sharpens iron (proverbs 27:17). Never be afraid to disagree or state your points of view. That is how we learn.
Goodness me, if we all stood and said, isn't that good, how wonderful etc, then whoever we were discussing would get big headed (mind you it is always encouraging to commend good thoughts). Having said that, this is about how it is with WT. They present and everyone says "wasn't that wonderful ".
No wonder the r & f are getting soft : no one is allowed to sharpen anyone. Thinkers excluded of course.
Reply by Frankie on 2020-02-23 10:22:53
Dear brother/sister.
Let me please respond to your comment. You said: "Revelation is simply John's version of Matthew 24, but in vivid and expanded detail. But whether that is true or isn't true, no one can really ever say. Not you. Not me. Not anyone."
So let me say that I CAN really say, that whole Revelation is not at all the vivid and detailed version of Matthew 24. Am I dogmatic? No, because I firmly stay on my position on the basis of dozens of proofs relating to plenty of pictures and information contained in the book of Revelation throughout entire book, especially in chapters 20-22. And not just because of influencing from WT. So should I argue now? Should I present these issues one by one? Do I have a chance to convince you?
There is no place here to analyse every of such information, with endless logical or linguistic reasoning. Please allow me to encourage you to examine Revelation once more and to explain all information contained in chapters 20-22 (first of all, but not only) within the historical framework and the spirit of Matthew 24.
I am sending this comment to you having in mind 1 Cor 13:12.
Agape to you despite our different views.
FrankieReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-23 10:43:19
Well put, Frankie. Actually, some would consider a statement like "Revelation is simply John's version of Matthew 24" to be dogmatic. Of course, it could just be a strongly held opinion, which some might still consider to be dogmatic. Sometimes you can't win for losing. ?
Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-23 18:12:38
I appreciate the kind thoughts, and I wish you the same. Many people have tried over the years to explain Revelation, and failed miserably. This will keep going on for thousands of years to come. Unless of course you believe in a future great tribulation and second coming of Jesus. Of course I don’t think you are being dogmatic, because you haven’t told me your opinion is a matter of salvation or life and death. If you got into that territory, yes I would say you are being dogmatic. A JW will tell me that someone must believe in 1914 or risk disfellowshipping and lose their salvation. If it’s that important, I’ll tell them they are being dogmatic. You can’t run away at the end of it all and say “Well, it was only my opinion”. Does that make sense? All of this stuff related to last days is not a salvation issue, and I highly doubt Jesus Christ would take away my salvation because I stuffed up the understanding of a book so open to multiple interpretations, none of which conclusively make sense to a thinking person. Which means we are all free to have our opinion on it, stop arguing about the Bible and be nice to each other ?
Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-23 18:17:34
Why are my comments now awaiting moderation lately? ? I’ve said nothing offensive to anyone.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-23 19:26:59
None of your comments have been blocked. What is your concern?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-02-23 19:25:58
So your definition of dogmatic is an opinion held on a matter of life and death. Well, that is your definition or to put it another way, your opinion. However, given that, I would accept that it must work both ways. To illustrate, there is a clear life-and-death warning found at Revelation 18:4 which reads:
“And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.” (Re 18:4)
So, by your definition, if my opinion is that this is a future event, and that ignoring this warning will destroy one's chances at salvation, then I am being dogmatic.
You, on the other hand, have clearly stated that you believe Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, an expanded explanation of Matthew 24. So you're saying that this warning doesn't apply to the future. An opinion concerning salvation diametrically opposed to my own. In other words, we both hold an "opinion [that] is a matter of salvation or life and death" with the only difference being one is for a future fulfillment and one for a past fulfillment. Hence, by your definition, we are both being dogmatic.
I'm okay with that. Are you?Reply by anonymous on 2020-02-24 05:02:59
Believe it or not, I'm actually enjoying this conversation :) I find it fascinating how we have such wildly different perspectives. I think that most of Revelation can be explained through what happened to Jerusalem, however there are some chapters at the end where I throw my hands in the air. I'm not rock solid on it, it's a theory, an idea, call it what you like but it makes the most sense to me. I think the resurrection is still to occur, that seems a no brainer. That's makes me, if you want to stick a label to me, a partial Preterist. But I'm open-minded to new ideas. My declining to agree with a dogmatic view (or saying it doesn't make sense to me) does not by default then make me just as dogmatic as well. It would just mean I'm not buying what someone else is selling. Once fear of judgement is bought into the equation, it shuts the door on being open-minded to different views. I had to lose fear of judgement, to read "apostate" literature and gain a different perspective. Otherwise I would still be a JW.
To give you an example, I was raised by my father to believe that to take a blood transfusion was trampling on Jesus sacrifice. He made sure I was thoroughly clear on that. So it was a salvation issue, and one that meant you had to be rock solid in your belief of that interpretation of Scripture. I would have given my life for this interpretation (actually I'm lucky to be here anyway as my mother refused Anti-D medication and I was a rhesus baby as a result). It was religious dogma, pure and simple. What about now? Look, at the end of the day, they could still possibly be right. If they are, my salvation is finished. But I highly doubt it from what I've read. I certainly don't believe it is the salvation issue they make it out to be. So, to summarise, my skepticism of someone else's dogmatic view, and believing that another explanation probably makes more sense, does not by default make me just as dogmatic.
Here is an interesting article titled "The Origins of Millerite Separatism", which I think you will find interesting with respect to Revelation chapter 18.
https://aurora.edu/documents/library-archives/origins-of-millerite-separatism-andrew-taylor.pdf
Page 3 - "Millerites self-righteously believed that they had interpreted the Bible accurately. Convinced Millerism was the only path to salvation, they thought that anything opposed to it was sinful. Since most Millerites were disaffected members of “sinful” mainstream evangelical churches, Miller’s theology set his followers and their churches on a collision course.
Historians have identified the climax of conflict between Millerites and their churches in the summer of 1843—when a Millerite evangelist named Charles Fitch preached the highly divisive sermon, “Come Out of Her, My People,” to his followers in Ohio. Fitch’s argument relied upon Revelation 18: 1-5 and 14: 8, which prophesies that since ‘“Babylon the great is fallen…and is become the habitation of devils,”’ then it is necessary for saints to “‘come out of her…that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”6 Up until this point, the Millerite leadership had interpreted the biblical image of Babylon as referring exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. And, firmly in line with Protestant tradition, Millerites originally believed that the Papacy embodied the Antichrist.7 Fitch’s sermon, however, innovatively applied the images of Babylon and Antichrist—which represented everything that was opposed to the ways of God—to all Protestant churches as well. His belief that both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches represented the Antichrist led him to warn that “if you intend to be found a Christian when Christ appears, come out of Babylon, and come out now!”8 The only Christians who would be saved during God’s imminent judgment were those Millerites who withdrew from their churches, Fitch declared.
"Fitch argued that Millerites’ salvation depended on their separation from their churches because he believed that the church had been corrupted by “nominal” Christians—those who claimed to be Christian, but did not live “godly” lives—and “corrupt,” worldly ministers. Depicting the churches as havens for God’s enemies, Fitch’s sermon was designed to answer the question that Millerites naturally wondered when faced with such negative characterizations of their churches: should they remain within them or separate? Fitch warned them that only by separating could they live piously in the remaining months before judgment. If they did not withdraw, they should expect damnation. Fitch’s radical sermon appears to have had a significant impact. In the subsequent months, most Millerites withdrew from their churches."
This is just a theory, but I think that Babylon mentioned in Revelation is Jerusalem.
Here are Jesus words at Matt 23:29-36 - "“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You build the tombs of the prophets, and adorn the memorials of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have partaken with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.
33 “You serpents! You generation of vipers! How can you escape the judgment of hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come on this generation."
Which would explain why Jesus would want any of his faithful followers (my people) to get out of her before it was too late, and the explanation of Daniel to them so they would know when to do so.
It makes sense to me, but at the end of the day (wait for it), I could be wrong :) And I probably am.
Thanks for the conversation up till now Eric. It's been interesting, and I appreciate the hard work you put in. The dissection you have made over the years of the Watchtower Society's teachings has been really good to read, and I've always enjoyed your perspective on things. Have an awesome day :)
Reply by Frankie on 2020-02-24 17:45:15
Hello Anonymous
Thank you for your response. I’m finally writing to you some thoughts. Please do not take it as criticism, but as your brother's view.
In the NT is much information that is a matter of life and death. It is also in Revelation. Please, do not quench the Spirit, which is in you. Please, try to understand, because you wrote:
“ ... understanding of a book so open to multiple interpretations, none of which conclusively make sense to a thinking person.”
Anyone who deals with God's Word and (with prayer for God’s Spirit) sincerely seeks to understand biblical information, IS thinking person. Bible, and also the Revelation, is written for thinking persons:
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but TEST EVERYTHING; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:19-21).
Dear Anonymous, you are right, Jesus will not condemn you for Your opinions (which may change over time) unless you divert someone from Jesus’ way (but even then everything is in Jesus righteous hands). If the Spirit of God is in you, you will bear his fruit for your life (Gal. 5:16,22) and you shall not bear the fruit of death (Gal 5:19-21). If you love your brothers and keep the commandments of Jesus, you remain in Jesus’ love (John 13:35; 15:10). And everything will be all right.
I noticed your statement: “ .... stop arguing about the Bible and be nice to each other”.
Yes, "to be nice to each other" is the fruit of God’s Spirit. It is a manifestation of love. But there is another thing. The Spirit of God that is in me tells me that I am His child and drives me expaining the things of my heavenly Father as it is given to me. I do not condemn anyone for his/her views (Luke 6:37). Everyone has the right to them because God deals with everyone individually, based on the state of his/her mind, heart, and his abilities.
But I can't stop reasoning, maybe arguing or fighting, because of this something/Someone in me (Romans 8:9 / John 15:4). Just like my brother Paul, to whom I am absolutely nothing:
“And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). “I have fought the good fight“ (2 Tim 4:7).
So I hope, we will meet in God’s Kingdom, whether in Heaven or on Earth (it doesn't matter, I will receive anything that my Lord prepared for me) and then everything will be clear and we will live forever with our Heavenly Father and His Son.
Love to you and to all Picketers.
FrankieReply by anonymous on 2020-02-25 20:04:40
Thanks for the kind response Frankie. I’m sure we’ll find out when we meet Jesus one day. If the hope within you is for a future coming great Tribulation, followed by Armageddon and a second coming of Jesus which will happen in your lifetime, I actually wouldn’t want to take that away from you. However, the truth only finds those who actively seek it. I was about to give up on Revelation. I studied the Revelation Climax book 3 times as a kid in the bookstudy. Somehow, through God’s grace, I was able to remove my Watchtower glasses, and also at a later time my futurist glasses. And it felt like a revelation (pun intended). As in, how can I have read this book so many times and missed this? I hope you experience this feeling too one day if you read Revelation in the light of audience relevance. If not, that’s OK too. Thanks for the conversation ?
Reply by Frankie on 2020-02-26 15:04:56
Hello Anonymous
Thank you for your time. For explanation only - I believe that Armageddon can occur anytime, in a week or in hundreds of years, it does not matter, and that membership in any religious organization will not save anyone, because everyone has their own responsibility before God.
It is important that you dropped your WT glasses. I removed my WT glasses about 25 years ago according to His will. And then (but not immediately after that and not in one second) something happened to me that I had never experienced before. God's touch (John 3:5). Since then I know that I have my beloved Father up there and that I am His beloved child. I wish you a lot of love, which is the most important of all (1 Cor 13:13).
Frankie
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-02-17 12:17:44
Eric, until you decided to discuss it, I had not ever considered Preterism. You have done well to reason and explain it and show why it does not stand consideration. That is how we learn.
I did not think you were ever being dogmatic on the subject. You have expressed your opinion, and that is why most of us are on this site, as we could not express our opinions freely on the scriptures as JWs, without risking trouble.
Whatever you have written, if it were incorrect then I am sure you would acknowledge an error.
The search for truth involves expressing opinions, allowing others to examine them and acknowledging, that multiple views can be acceptable. Why ? Because with many things in the Bible, there is insufficient information to prove a particular point of view. I wish it were not so, but I believe our heavenly father has allowed this for a reason. As Paul wrote - they are always searching and never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth - how can anyone come to an accurate knowledge of truth if that one does not have some degree of flexibility as to what is true until such time as it is proven to be true.
Am I waffling. It was not my intent.