An honest question for the preterist: When did Rev 19:19 take place? “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to do battle with the one who rode the horse and with his army.”
Apocalyptic literature is difficult because of how much imagery is used. History is also difficult because we don't have everything preserved in enough detail. But if we can map 90% to a specific event, then I think that warrants us being confident in saying the other 10% is probable to that same time, even if we can't prove it.
I suppose I could speculate on when it might have happened, but that would be all it is: speculation. And it probably will be worthwhile, so I'll look into it for sure. However, to reiterate my main point: if we can see a huge majority of Revelation fulfilled within the lifetime of those who were with Christ, then we have good reason to conclude that everything not specifically given a time frame outside of that scope (e.g., what happens after the millennial reign) happened then too.
Thanks for your response. Here is the problem I have. It is a common move by preterists to say this: "apocalyptic literature is difficult because of how much imagery is use." I actually think the more imagery the more it can clarify the meaning of passages in Rev. The assumption is that imagery is difficult to interpret. That may be the case for some instances, but it is not the case with most instances, especially as they are viewed, not in isolation, but the book of Revelation as a whole. In addition, it is best to take case by case examples, such as the one I asked about as in Rev 19:19 that undercuts preterism, at least partial-preterism. So much of Revelation is couched in _consummation_ language (e.g. resurrection/"white robes", elevated status of the saints, not merely "under the altar") that is connected to, for example, defeating the beast. I also think that when many interpreters claim an agnostic posture to interpretation of Revelation (not that you are totally doing this) it under cuts biblical authority since Jesus plainly tells us that we can _know_ the meaning of the message of the prophecies in Revelation. It may be fuzzy to some interpreters, but they should not project that hermeneuttic agnosticism on to other interpreters who have discovered its meaning.
But it would be good to learn your understanding of Rev 19:19. No hurry though.
An honest question for the preterist: When did Rev 19:19 take place? “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to do battle with the one who rode the horse and with his army.”
ReplyDeleteHello Alan,
DeleteApocalyptic literature is difficult because of how much imagery is used. History is also difficult because we don't have everything preserved in enough detail. But if we can map 90% to a specific event, then I think that warrants us being confident in saying the other 10% is probable to that same time, even if we can't prove it.
I suppose I could speculate on when it might have happened, but that would be all it is: speculation. And it probably will be worthwhile, so I'll look into it for sure. However, to reiterate my main point: if we can see a huge majority of Revelation fulfilled within the lifetime of those who were with Christ, then we have good reason to conclude that everything not specifically given a time frame outside of that scope (e.g., what happens after the millennial reign) happened then too.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. Here is the problem I have. It is a common move by preterists to say this: "apocalyptic literature is difficult because of how much imagery is use." I actually think the more imagery the more it can clarify the meaning of passages in Rev. The assumption is that imagery is difficult to interpret. That may be the case for some instances, but it is not the case with most instances, especially as they are viewed, not in isolation, but the book of Revelation as a whole. In addition, it is best to take case by case examples, such as the one I asked about as in Rev 19:19 that undercuts preterism, at least partial-preterism. So much of Revelation is couched in _consummation_ language (e.g. resurrection/"white robes", elevated status of the saints, not merely "under the altar") that is connected to, for example, defeating the beast. I also think that when many interpreters claim an agnostic posture to interpretation of Revelation (not that you are totally doing this) it under cuts biblical authority since Jesus plainly tells us that we can _know_ the meaning of the message of the prophecies in Revelation. It may be fuzzy to some interpreters, but they should not project that hermeneuttic agnosticism on to other interpreters who have discovered its meaning.
But it would be good to learn your understanding of Rev 19:19. No hurry though.
Thanks,
Alan