One of the problems I have with preterism is the way preterists selectively and arbitrarily single out the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as God's judgement on apostate Israel. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that Revelation, the Olivet Discourse, and 1 Thes 2 center on God's judgment of apostate Israel. Why think those prophecies begin and end with the Great Revolt (66-70)? From what I've read, the Bar-Kokhba revolt (132-135) was at least as devastating as the Great Revolt:
Indeed, there's a sense in which the Bar-Kokhba revolt was even more devastating. After the Great Revolt, Jews still had the optimism and resources to stage two more wars of liberation. But the Bar-Kokhba revolt crushed their nationalistic aspirations and left them dispossessed in a way the Great Revolt did not:
After 135 CE, when the rebellion was crushed, Hadrian acted even more ruthlessly and set about on a campaign to wipe away not only the remnants of the Jewish people but the memory that they had ever existed. In effect, he decided to “solve the Jewish problem” once and for all.
He realized that the final solution to the Jewish problem lay not only in killing Jews but in destroying Judaism. As long as the Jews had their religion no one would ever really be able to eradicate them entirely. Therefore, he issued decrees that outlawed Judaism on the pain of death. The decrees of Hadrian were the most fearsome in history against the Jewish people.
Teaching Torah was the worst “crime” a Jew could commit under these circumstances. Jewish tradition is rich with stories about the “10 Martyrs Murdered by the [Roman] Government.” It is during Hadrian’s reign that this happened. He was not content merely killing these great rabbis, but doing it in public display of brutality and torture, hoping to crush the spirit of the Jewish people. Foremost among the martyrs was Rabbi Akiva.Hadrian did not stop there. He forbade mention of the name Jerusalem and renamed the holy city, Aelia Capitolina. He also forbade Jews from living there. Most notable of all, he employed an army of slaves to plow over the Temple Mount. He simply lowered it almost 1,000 feet. When one goes to Jerusalem today, the mountains around the Temple Mount (such as the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus) are taller. Before Hadrian, however, Mount Moriah (the mountain upon with the Temple stood) was the highest mountain there. Hadrian literally reconstructed the landscape in order to prove to the Jews that it would never be rebuilt again.
Overall, Hadrian unleashed and eight to ten year reign of persecution after the defeat of Bar Kochba almost unmatched in Jewish history. It did not end until Hadrian died. His successor, Antoninus Pious, not only overturned his decrees but was very benevolent toward the Jews. Even so, the Jewish people after Hadrian were crushed almost beyond recognition. Bar Kochba’s defeat marked the end of any sort of Jewish autonomy in the Jewish homeland until the twentieth century.
http://www.jewishhistory.org/bar-kochba/
On preterist assumptions, why isn't Hadrian as good a candidate for the Antichrist as Nero?
1) Significantly more Jews were killed during the First Jewish-Roman War - about one million verses about half a million during the Bar Kochba Revolt.
ReplyDelete2) The temple was destroyed during the First Jewish-Roman War.
3) The events of the First Jewish-Roman War unfolded in a prophetically significant way. It lasted seven years and about halfway through Jerusalem was seiged and the Temple was destroyed. Because of this, many preterists say thay this was Daniel's last week and the great tribulation. On the other hand, some futurist commentators such as Knox Chamblin have said the First Jewish-Roman War was a type of the last days. While a plausible theory, this implicitly admits that the first Jewish-Roman war has remarkable similarities to certian "end-times" prophecies.
4) Not all preterists say that Nero was the antichrist. Some say that Vespasian or Titus was and others say that the antichrist is an entity (such as the Roman empire), group of people, or spirit.
Also, you said the Great Revolt (AKA the First Jewish-Roman War) lasted from 66 AD to 70 AD. Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD but the war continued until the Jews were defeated at Masada in 73 AD.
ReplyDeletei) No doubt the Great Revolt was a tremendous setback for Jews. Yet they were able to regroup and stage two major counterattacks thereafter. So the outcome of the Great Revolt wasn't decisive.
ReplyDeleteii) Once again, it's arbitrary to single out the Great Revolt as representing God's prophesied judgment on apostate Israel to the exclusion of the Bar-Kokhba revolt. Why should only the former represent divine judgment, but not the latter? The only reason I can see is because preterism requires it, not because events or prophecy requires it.
iii) You're extending the Great Revolt to a 7-year-interval to make it fit Daniel's 70-week prophecy. But that's circular. You're extending the Great Revolt to seven years because preterism requires that duration to make it dovetail with Daniel's prophecy.
iv) This presumes that Daniel's last week has reference to the Great Revolt, which is, of course, one of the very issues in dispute.
v) If you're going to extend the Great Revolt past AD 70, why date all the NT books prior to AD 70? Isn't that canonical dating-scheme axiomatic for preterism?
vi) Likewise, if you're going to extend the Great Revolt to include a mopping-up operations against outlying pockets of resistance, why stop there? Why not include the whole period from 66-135? The only reason I can see is that preterism requires a cut-off with the Great Revolt, not because events require it.
vii) Sure, preterists can differ with each other on the identity of the Antichrist, but in that case they can't prooftext the Neronian date of Revelation from Rev 13 & 17. There are too many candidates to fill the slots.
viii) If the Great Revolt can be a type of final judgment, so can the Bar-Kokhba revolt.
Seems to me the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is the most important aspect because of the significance of how it proves that Christ's atonement was the "final sacrifice" and the "once for all" nature of it taught in the book of of Hebrews- and that that event is alluded to by Daniel 9:24-27 (the clear parts of 1. the six purposes of "atonement for sin", etc. 2. the coming of Messiah, 3. the death of Messiah, then 4. the destruction of the temple), Matthew 23:36(this generation) to 24:1-3 (see all these buildings, not one stone will be left upon another), with verse 15 - "as the prophet Daniel spoke, let the reader understand". the Bar Kokhba rebellion is a further extension of the events of 66-73 AD, and the basic judgment of scattering the apostate Jews out of the land, because they were disobedient to the Abrahamic (I will be your God and you will be My people - they rejected their own God by rejecting Jesus Christ, etc.) and Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:5-6; Leviticus 18 - "I will spew you out of the land", Lev. 26:14, 33; Deut. 4:27; 28:47-49, 64)
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me that 70 AD is in the middle of a seven year period of the war of 66-73 AD (he will put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the last seven year period) and how the 3 and 1/3 and 42 months passages (Daniel and Revelation) corresponds to those passages; and that there is a parallel with the 3 and 1/2 years of Christ's ministry, then He is crucified, "cut off", and then around 3 and 1/2 years later Saul of Tarsus is converted and the gospel starts really going out to the Gentiles. Could that be the final "seven periods of seven years"?
1) The Great Revolt lasted until 70 AD according to some sources and 73 AD according to others. Some historians consider the fall of Jerusalem to be the end of the war and some consider the defeat at Masada to be the final event. I had not seen anyone claim the war ended in 70 AD until reading this article but I've now seen some other sources that date the war that way. I'm not begging the question because dating it from 66 AD to 73 AD is not a preterist invention.
ReplyDelete2) The Bar Kochba revolt may also have been a judgement on Israel but the point is that the events of 66 AD to 73 AD have prophetic significance. They lasted seven years and halfway though the temple was destroyed, which is likely the "abomination that causes desolation." Note that when Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple in Luke 21 he said "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" (v. 20-21A). In the parallel verses of Matthew 24:15-16, Jesus said "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." So Jesus linked the abomination that causes desolation with the siege of Jerusalem.
3) The Bar Kokhba event may have been a judgement on Israel (I want to emphasize that I'm not denying that) but it could not have been a type of the last days or a fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week or the great tribulation. It did not last seven years according to anyone's reckoning and there are no links between events in the Bar Kohkba revolt and any prophecies.
4) I don't see how this significantly affects the debate about the dating of the books of the New Testament but I need to add that I'm not a full preterist so I'm not committed to an early date for Revelation. It seems to me that a preterist interpretation of a passage or book in the bible requires that the given passage be written before the events it prophecies BEGIN, so extending the end of the events a few years doesn't change anything.
5) The Bar Kokhba Revolt doesn't work as a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, 1 Thessalonians 2, or Revelation. For my part, I don't hold to a past fulfillment of Revelation but I would add Daniel to the list. At best, you could say that Hadrian was the man of lawlessness. However, there is no siege of Jerusalem, hence no "armies surrounding Jerusalem." There is no temple, so there can be no "abomination that causes desolation" at the temple. Since the temple has already been destroyed, sacrifice cannot cease. There was no "fleeing to the mountains" as happened in the years leading up to 70 AD when Christians in Jerusalem fled to the city of Pella.
One issue is whether we think Mt 10:23, 16:28, and the Olivet Discourse all refer to the same event. Likewise, does the temple in 2 Thes 2 refer to the Herodian temple, or is that a metaphor for the church? Finally, the symbolic language of Revelation is fairly open-textured.
DeleteOne can pick out details which seem to correlate with certain historical events, yet other details are missing from the same event. Is there one event that fulfills every detail? Of is this spread out?
I recommend "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible." GIll believed in a past fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and his commentary gives an explanation of how each part of it was fulfilled in the first century. You can find his commentary at BibleHub.com
Deletehttp://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/24.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJosephus (Antiquities 18.257-309) (Philo also, according to others) - records that Caligula-Gaius did try to set up his image in the temple in 40 AD, but his general was persuaded by the Jews to not do it; and Caligula died before Petronius, his general got news of Caligula's response to him. Is 2 Thessalonians, written around 50-51 AD, using that past event to predict another Caesar (Nero) who will try something similar and that Claudius is "holding him back" (asserting that Paul mades a play on words with the Latin for "to restrain" (claudere - related to Claudius' name)? Kenneth Gentry has an interesting chapter on that issue in his book, "Perilous Times". (Page 105) Gentry points out the Greek grammar of "kathisai" to sit in the infinitive there is an "infinitive of intended purpose" that does not necessarily mean that the intention was actually accomplished. All of that is very interesting, but I have a problem with Gentry and DeMar interpreting "our gathering to Him" as "gathering in the churches as the people of God" / ending of OT covenant era and destruction of temple.
ReplyDelete"the temple" in 2 Thess. 2 being interpreted as "the church" seems really strained.
ReplyDeleteHave you read Beale's commentary on 2 Thes 2?
ReplyDeleteNo; I was considering getting his commentary on Revelation; but very expensive . . . now another . . . running out of room on shelves and funds . . . (smile) Thanks for recommendation. Hopefully, I will get time later to investigate at a seminary library about 1 hour from me. (It is a liberal PCUSA seminary, but their library is great. They usually have all conservative works also.
ReplyDelete