Who is the false prophet in Rev 13:11-18? Preterists identify the referent as the Roman imperial cult, and that's certainly germane to 1C Christians. However, I'm inclined to think Revelation uses flexible imagery that has multiple referents throughout the course of church history. Sometimes the threat to Christians comes from a hostile religion, like Islam or the Roman imperial cult. But sometimes it comes from within, when a corrupt church forms an alliance with the state to persecute the faithful, viz. Arian bishops, Roman Catholicism, "official" churches in China, the Russian Orthodox church in league with Putin, and Progressive Christians who team up with secular progressives.
What do you think of the synthesis that the immediate/direct referent is the Roman imperial cult, because Revelation uses the Roman persecution as the prototypical persecution... but with the intention of it then being understood in that way, as prototypical?
ReplyDeletei.e. Not that it's flexible imagery *with no particular referent* that can be applied to lots of different things, but that it's flexible imagery because that persecution was prototypical, and in future persecutions, all sorts of variations on the same essential characters and scenes will re-appear and be re-enacted, in different ways?
Yes, I think that's a plausible understanding of the principle.
DeleteAre you aware of any commentator who holds that position, whilst either arguing that Revelation is post-AD 70, or is indifferent about the date?
DeleteI am wondering if preterist (w.r.t. Revelation) arguments about the date are not missing something. The arguments normally assume that, if the depictions in Revelation are of the imperial persecution, and depict (some) events prior to AD70, then therefore a) Revelation prophesies AD70 and b) it's necessary to launch an argument for its pre-AD70 dating as a literary composition. But, it occurs to me, that this misses out an option that hasn't been considered: that the visions deliberately re-capitulate past, pre-AD-70 events, because those events are prototypical of the Christian age. It's as if John says "you know how being a Christian plays out... you've already seen it, already experienced it... that was no set of random events... the same actors, the same scenes, in new configurations, will re-appear, and re-play themselves".
That is to say... *not* that "Revelation trades off stock imagery, which is why it can be plausibly fitted to pre-AD 70, because the spiritual war follows known patterns", but "Revelation *deliberately* re-capitulates events around (without having to all be pre-) AD70, as a teaching device about the church age. Are there commentators who hold that?
DeleteI think the modified idealism of Beale and Poythress is similar. We might at Ramsey Michaels.
DeletePersonally, I'm open to concepts like a "dual fulfillment" but I begin with the concept that if a prophet says X will happen, and then X does happen, there's no reason to think the prophecy has not already been fulfilled. That is, just because some prophecies have "echoes" (for lack of a better word) does not mean we should expect it for all prophecies. By the same token, however, one cannot rule out that it's a possibility.
ReplyDeleteSo when it comes to the prophecies that were fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (for example), I maintain that it's certainly *POSSIBLE* that events might happen again, but I don't have a reason to *EXPECT* that they will. I would need other evidence to get me to that view. But that said, if it did happen again, it would not surprise me either.
(Just for the record, I am a partial-preterist.)
Isn't the reason *why* there's so much debate as to exactly which bits of (such-and-such passage, Revelation) apply to AD70, and which bits apply to the end of the world, precisely because a) each repeats common prophetic themes associated with God coming to judge and because b) in connection with that, God's coming to judge Israel is an anticipation of his coming to judge all the nations? It's because of that 'overlap' (that is to say, that God's judgments follow recurring patterns) that the debate can even exist.
DeleteThat's not to say that there has to be a neat "this is that" repetition of everything, as if all events need just one analogue, of course.
That's one of the reasons, yes. But again, and I speak only for myself, I take the default position of "if it's historically fulfilled then do not expect there to be another fulfillment, but always remember that it's possible."
DeleteSteve, if you take a stand on the dating of Revelation, do you take one before or after 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple?
ReplyDeleteSince I think the descriptions of persecution are hyperbolic, I don't think the internal evidence is sufficient to date it to the 60s or the 90s.
DeleteThat's interesting. I'll have to think about that. Thanks.
DeleteThe false prophet does miracles such as calling fire down from heaven. That sounds like no past historical figure. He must be in the future.
ReplyDelete