9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10 they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction (Rev 17:9-11).
This is a controversial passage. It's a key prooftext for preterism.
i) Scholars usually think the "seven hills" is a thinly-veiled allusion to the city of Rome. I think that's probably correct as far as it goes, although I also think this is case in which reality dovetails with symbolism. It's a coincidence that Rome was associated with seven hills. John exploits that topographical coincidence. But his numerology is symbolic. It just so happens that Roman topography plays into Johannine numerology at this particular juncture. Most of the time, John's numerology lacks that precise, real-world correspondence.
ii) Most commentators think there's an allusion to Nero. Preterists think that's an allusion to the historical Nero. Other commentators think that's an allusion to Domitian as a Nero redivivus figure.
a) One problem with the Neronian identification is that if, a la postmill preterists (e.g. Ken Gentry), you think Revelation allegorizes the fall of Jerusalem, then it's hard to see the relevance of a Roman locus in Rev 17:9-11. Nero's relation to the fall of Jerusalem is pretty secondary, to say the least.
b) Likewise, it's hard to see the pressing relevance of the Neronian persecution to Christians living in Asia Minor.
c) A problem with the Nero redivivus identification is that Nero returns from the dead, not to wreak vengeance on the people of God, but on current imperial regime. But wouldn't that be a good thing for Christians? Not persecuting the faithful, but persecuting their persecutors (i.e. the Roman ruling class).
iii) As many commentators have pointed out, no matter how you juggle Roman emperors, trying to correlate Rev 17:10 with a specific historical succession of Roman emperors is ad hoc.
iv) I think John is making the general point that until the Day of Judgment, the church will always have enemies. Just when you think you've put one mortal threat behind you, there's another lying in wait. You can beat back evil, but it always returns.
That might seem discouraging, but that forewarning is an antidote to disillusionment.
Moreover, although this is a perennial battle for the church, when Christians die and go to heaven, they do put that behind them once and for all. They hand their sword to the next generation. And even though this is a vicious cycle throughout the church age, it will terminate with the Day of Judgment.
I think the preterist, intepretation, even the partial preterist interpretation is so full of problems. It may sound like it makes sense at first, but it eventually breaks down. For example, let's say all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, well what about the following chapter, Matthew 25, with the judgment between the sheep and the goats? There is nothing indicating that Matthew 24 and 25 are talking about different events. Matthew 25 is expanding on Matthew 24. I don't see how the sheep and goats judgement happened in Matthew 24.
ReplyDeleteNero's relation to the fall of Jerusalem is pretty secondary, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteKenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, and using them, it seems, R. C. Sproul, seem to be the 3 main popularizers of the Partial-preterist view of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation. There is a lot of good in what they bring to the table of these debates on eschatology. I don't agree with every detail, but a lot of it makes sense.
Since Nero appointed Vespasian as general in 67 AD to attack Jerusalem and put the rebellion of the Jews (started earlier in 66 AD over taxes) and this eventually led to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and then the suicide of 400 Jews on Masada in 73 AD - it seems to have a pretty major connection. Nero commits suicide in 68 Ad, and Vespasian eventually becomes Emperor (after three others vie for it for a short time - Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and then Titus is general who destroys Jerusalem.
"five have fallen, one is" - Revelation 17:9-10
If one starts with
1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus
3. Tiberias
4. Caligula
5. Claudius
6. Nero
it fits pretty well,
also, Neron Caeasar in Hebrew letters does equal 666 - six hundred and sixty six.
Also, the temple seems to be still standing at the time of writing - Revelation 11
Also, John refers to Jerusalem as "spiritual Egypt, Sodom" (Revelation 11:8) and taking that principle of calling Jerusalem the names of great historical enemies of God and the Jews, John seems to apply the name "Babylon" to Jerusalem - seems to be calling Jerusalem (Jewish leadership, the temple) as apostate and a harlot - an adulterous woman. (Revelation chapters 17-18)
The adulterous woman rides the beast - "controlling Rome" - in persecuting and killing the Messiah - (Gospels - manipulating Pilate to carry out the crucifixion) and then persecuting the saints, the believers. (Revelation chapters 17-18).
Seems to fit pretty well to me; even though there are difficulties. Hard to be dogmatic, but the partial- preterism does make a lot of sense; but I would also say that there is an element of some things that are going to be repeated in general - like Revelation 19 seems to be also about the second coming at the end of time before the judgement.
the problem is how to understand the 7th king of Rev. 17:9-10 and the eighth and so on in verses 11ff.
Another problem I have with Gentry and DeMar is seeing Revelation 1:7 as ONLY about judgment on apostate Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. Seems to be referring to Christ's ascension in Daniel 7:13-14 and ruling and reigning and could include both the idea of "cloud judgment" (Isaiah 19:1) - Jesus uses it in Mark 14:60-64 to say He is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that they (the ones who tried and persecuted and condemned Him) will see Him - "coming in judgement in 70 AD and ruling in heaven" - includes ascension, session, ruling, judging in 70 AD and ruling from heaven until He returns, and includes His literal return also.
Seems to have lots of "already and not yet" built into it, as does Matthew 24.
Hi Ken,
DeleteSince, according to your own summary, Jerusalem is actually sacked by Gen. Titus under Emperor Vespasian, with three emperors between Nero and Vespasian, Nero is at several removes from the fall of Jerusalem.
"If one starts with 1. Julius Caesar…it fits pretty well."
And if one starts with Augustus, it doesn't fit.
Moreover, even if one starts with Julius Caesar, there's a problem with identifying #7 and #8.
"also, Neron Caeasar in Hebrew letters does equal 666 - six hundred and sixty six."
That identification may be correct. However, it's not that clear-cut:
i) To begin with, the process of deriving Nero from 666 is quite convoluted and fairly arbitrary.
ii) More to the point, even if this is a cryptogram for Nero, that doesn't select for a pre-70 date for Revelation. Most scholars who think John is alluding to Nero think John is trading on the Nero redivides myth. But that's at least as consistent with a post-70 date for Revelation. Indeed, a later date would give the legend more time to develop and disseminate.
iii) Furthermore, John may view Domitian as a throwback to Nero.
iv) Finally, the number of the Beast may not be a code name. Rather, in John's numerology, 7–with its Sabbatarian overtones–generally has positive connotations. Since 6 falls short of 7, 6 has negative connotations. So 6 (or multiples thereof) may simply be John's way of contrasting good (symbolized by 7) with evil (symbolized by 6).
"Also, the temple seems to be still standing at the time of writing - Revelation 11"
The temple in John's *vision* is intact. But Revelation is not a historical narrative. John saw many things in his vision which did not exist at the time he was writing. Things both past and future.
"Also, John refers to Jerusalem as 'spiritual Egypt, Sodom' (Revelation 11:8) and taking that principle of calling Jerusalem the names of great historical enemies of God and the Jews, John seems to apply the name 'Babylon' to Jerusalem - seems to be calling Jerusalem (Jewish leadership, the temple) as apostate and a harlot - an adulterous woman. (Revelation chapters 17-18)."
i) To say John refers to Jerusalem in Rev 11:8 begs the question. John doesn't say "Jerusalem" is spiritual Egypt and Sodom.
ii) Even if Jerusalem lies in the background, I'd say John is comparing Rome to Jerusalem. Just as Jerusalem was the site of Christ's unjust death, Rome directs the persecution of Christ's followers.
"The adulterous woman rides the beast - 'controlling Rome' - in persecuting and killing the Messiah - (Gospels - manipulating Pilate to carry out the crucifixion) and then persecuting the saints, the believers. (Revelation chapters 17-18). Seems to fit pretty well to me; even though there are difficulties."
i) Even if we accept a preterist date for Revelation, by the 60s, Rome had a larger role in persecuting Christians than Jerusalem. Not to mention if we shift to Domitian.
ii) In addition, I don't think John's language is confined to 1C persecution. Indeed, his language is quite hyperbolic by that standard. The scale of persecution John recounts in Revelation exceeds anything that either Jews or Romans did to 1C Christians.
Although 1C persecution of Christians (by the Roman state) occasioned Revelation, I think the imagery is intentionally adaptable to cycles of persecution throughout the church age.
"Also, the temple seems to be still standing at the time of writing - Revelation 11"
DeleteYou're assuming that this refers to the Second Temple (Herod's temple) in Jerusalem. But given the allusions to Ezk 40ff. in this passage, many commentators think it stands for the church. The Christian community. (And, of course, dispensationalists think it looks ahead to the millennial temple.)
Yes, all good points. That is why it is so hard to be dogmatic on these issues with Revelation and Eschatalogy. I have noticed friends at church don't like it when I say, "Well, here are the options" and "some scholars believe this and others that"; and " I don't know for sure.".
DeleteJohn doesn't say "Jerusalem" is spiritual Egypt and Sodom.
"where their Lord was crucified" seems clear that he means Jerusalem in Revelation 11:8
"and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically (ESV) (or mystically - NASB) is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.
It's good for you to give them the best options. Scripture isn't equally clear on all issues, not because revelation is unclear, but because there's much that God hasn't revealed.
DeleteChrist was literally crucified in Jerusalem. However, this comes on the heels of his statement that the "great city" is spiritual Egypt and Sodom. It doesn't make sense for the first two descriptors to be figurative, but the last descriptor to be literal.
DeleteEither all three (Egypt, Sodom, Jerusalem) are figurative or else John is saying these literal cities/countries exemplify the great city. The great city is a transtemporal entity that's embodied at different times and places.
Partial Preterism says Matthew 23:36 to 24:35 is about 70 AD; but that Matthew 24:36 "But of that day" is talking about Jesus literal return and judgment at the end of time, so Matthew 24:36 to 51 and chapter 25, in their scenario are about the final judgment.
ReplyDeleteI find that fairly compelling, but it seems to me that Matthew 24:29-31 also some application to when Christ returns at the end of time. Seems like some kind of double fulfillment.
As I wrote about Rev. 1:7 - it also seems clear to have a double fulfillment, both to 70 AD and to the second coming. Mark 14:60-64 Jesus applies Daniel 7:13-14, seemingly, also, to His ascension and ruling, and claim to Deity.
Ken, with all due respect, you engaging in eisegesis. Your imposing a distinction on the text that isn't there.
ReplyDelete