Are Christians Today Being Persecuted by Titus's Great Tribulation?

https://www.alankurschner.com/2020/02/26/this-is-the-key-question-to-ask-the-person-who-thinks-the-abomination-of-desolation-in-matthew-2415-was-caused-by-titus/

Beale on a Point Against Preterism

"Some preterists believe that the great tribulation was to take place before and during the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But they do not adequately explain how the churches of Asia Minor would be affected by a future tribulation limited to Jerusalem or even to Palestine." (Beale, Revelation, 435)

Utopian preterism

(Sister Mary Prudence Allen) I was born in 1940 in Oneida, New York where some descendants of the utopian Oneida Community (1848-1881) lived in the Mansion House and in homes nearby. Both of my father's parents were born as stirpiculture children while the Oneida Community was still active. My mother was a southern Baptist from Kentucky. Because the Oneida Community was a fundamentalist Protestant Utopian community which believed that Christ has returned in AD 70, they thought that the goal of life was to live in the spirit of Christian perfection. My father was not baptized until shortly before his death. My mother, who is descended from a line of ministers and Christian Cherokees, had a deep Christian faith, Robert George & R. J. Snell, eds., Mind, Heart, and Soul: Intellectuals and the Path to Rome (2018), 29-30.

The Identification of the Beast as the Roman 10th Legion and Titus: An Example of Context Replacement

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-identification-of-beast-as-roman.html

More Musing on the Beast

Previously, I have presented some evidence for why I think the beast in Revelation 13 could have referred to the Roman X Legion Fretensis.  To give a brief overview of some of the evidence for context in this post: it was the X Legion and the beast in Revelation was said to have "ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns"; "Fretensis" means "of the sea strait" and the beast was said to have come "out of the sea"; the X Fretensis had auxillaries from seven different legions assigned to it (seven heads)--one of which, the XII Fulminata, had been ambushed and routed to the point of losing it's aquila and one of the heads of the beast was said "to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed"; despite losing the aquila (which normally resulted in a legion being disbanded), the XII Fulminata was not disbanded and in fact was used as the primary force in the siege of Jerusalem; the X Fretensis was headed by General Titus and, according to Irenaeus, the Aramaic form of "Titus" numerologically added up to six hundred sixty-six; Roman legions carried images (literally: imago) of either the current emperor or the emperor who founded the legion, and the beast in Revelation was said to set up an image that it forced people to worship--something that Titus did when he destroyed the temple in 70 AD and set up the legion's image there; if that image was of the current emperor it would have been Vespasian, the father of General Titus and who's real name was also Titus and thus would have also added up to six hundred sixty-six; the beast was "allowed to make war on the saints and conquer them" which the X Fretensis literally did; and finally, it was "allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months" which is how long it took the X Frentensis from the time it landed in Judea until the fall of the Temple.

In response, a couple of people pointed out that of the beast in Revelation 17 it is said: "the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 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. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast."

Now the first question that could be asked here is whether or not this is even the same beast as in Revelation 13.  And that brings up more discussion.  After all, in Revelation 13 there are actually two beasts mentioned: "I saw a beast rising out of the sea" (verse 1); "Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth" (verse 11).  Finally, Revelation 17 describes the beast in that chapter as: "I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast" (verse 3).  Many have concluded the scarlet beast is the same as the beast from the sea because both are said to have "seven heads and ten horns" but this is not a necessary conclusion.  However, even granting they are the same beast (as I do lean toward), it is clear that the horns on the scarlet beast have multiple meanings, standing both for seven mountains and for seven kings even within chapter 17.  Furthermore, in chapter 17, the horns, heads, and beast itself all stand for kings at various times.

But beyond even that, I would maintain that all three of the beasts (if they are three distinct entities, or both of them if there's just two) are actually referencing different aspects of the same structure.  After all, in historical times, kings and kingdoms were synonymous, as were generals and their armies.  In the case of the X Fretensis, since General Titus moved on to become emperor after the death of his father, you could have army, general, king, and kingdom all wrapped up in the same entity.

To give some more credence to this view we can look at Daniel.  In Daniel 7, the prophet also had a vision of four beasts.  The last beast "had great iron teeth" and "was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns" (Daniel 7:7).  The fact that this beast had ten horns, like the beasts mentioned in Revelation, is an indication that it might be referring to the same beast as in Revelation 13 and/or 17.  Additionally, the "great iron teeth" gives a callback to Daniel 2, where Nebuchadnezzar had the dream of the statue with iron legs and feet made of iron mixed with clay--a reference to the Roman Empire, which would be "a divided kingdom" (Daniel 2:41, Rome being divided between the East and West) destroyed by a rock "cut out by no human hand" which destroyed all empires forever.  And indeed, after the Roman Empire collapsed, there has been no empire since.  Even those that wished to be empires (e.g., the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc.) were hardly like the previous empires that have been destroyed by the rock, which is Christianity.

Returning to the beast in Daniel 7, the dream was interpreted there: "These four great beasts are four kings who shall rise out of the earth" (verse 17).  But in verse 23, we read: "As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms."  Important for the point I'm seeking to establish, the beasts are described both as kings and as kingdoms in the same chapter and, indeed, the exact same context.  So I think it's clear that the ancients did not differentiate between kings and their kingdoms, generals and their armies.  Indeed, this is the natural outworking of societies built on federal headship, where the federal head stands in place of everything that head oversees.  From the Garden of Eden, when Adam was the federal head for all mankind, to Father Abraham being the federal head for all Jews, even up to Christ being the federal head of all who believe in Him, the concept is through all of Scripture.

But there's something else in Daniel too which bears more directly on the identity of the beast.  The ten horns are also defined: "As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings" (verse 24).  Additionally, we are told: "But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end" (verse 26).

What makes this interesting is that the 10th emperor of Rome was Titus.  After those ten, "another shall arise after them".  The 11th emperor was Domitian.  Domitian was also the third emperor of his family (the Flavian family), and after he was assassinated the Roman senate enacted "damnatio memoriae" on him--literally damning his memory as a form of dishonor.  Thus, one could say he brought down his family (three kings) and his dominion was taken away, consumed, and destroyed--literally.  And again, remember that each ruling member of the Flavian family was named "Titus" so each of them would have added up to six hundred sixty-six in numerology, to link it back to Revelation too.

Not only that, but remember that Daniel was speaking to the king of Babylon of the statue and said that when the rock crashed into the feet of the statue: "it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (Daniel 2:45).  The gold head was Babylon itself. And what happens when the beast falls in Revelation?  "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!" (Revelation 14:8 and 18:2).

So what to make of all this?  The beast motif used in Daniel is echoed in Revelation, so in both places probably refers to the same thing.  There are very clear signs in both Daniel and Revelation that link the beast to Roman history, from the "seven mountains" being the seven hills of Rome, to Rome being the final empire, to the oddities of the X Legion, to the result of Domitian's end.  The beast stands in for the entire system of Rome, from its armies to its leaders.  There are certainly a lot of coincidences, far more than would happen by chance, in two different books of the Bible written six or seven hundred years apart not to treat Rome as the intended referent. 

Ultimately this means that we can broadly conclude that since Daniel and Revelation both reference the Roman Empire, the events that feature the beasts have a historical fulfillment already.  Of course many who agree that these are referring to Rome also claim that there will be a dual fulfillment in the future.  Is it possible for a future fulfillment?  Well, I suppose anything is possible.  But what reason do we have to suspect that these events will happen again?  So far, we have a prediction that we have quite a bit of evidence to show was fulfilled in the first century, and there is lots of language that infers this is permanent (e.g., "It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever" -- Daniel 2:44).  Why, then, should we expect a future fulfillment too? 

What will it affect for you, theologically, if it turns out that the preterist view is correct and only the final judgment depicted in Revelation 20 remains to be completed?  What if, instead of a pessimistic view, we held to the promise that the stone cut not by human hands is a mountain that never passes away?  Would it affect how you evangelize to others not to live in fear that the beast might be seeking to brand your forehead right now?

I think it would.  I think it changes how we approach world events and other people--and not in a positive manner--to treat this as a future fulfillment.  Not only that, by treating it as a future fulfillment we ignore the past fulfillment.  And we have to, because once we acknowledge it happened in the past we need to come up with a reason to believe it will happen again, and the text just doesn't provide us those reasons.  Thus, we cut ourselves off from a line of evidence that gives more credence to the faith of Christianity.  Atheists have no way of explaining how Daniel could possibly have known about the Roman Empire being the last empire similar in any shape to that of Babylon.  And yet we don't use that evidence.  We can't use that evidence, because to use it means we can't insist on future despair.  We inadvertently falsify a chunk of the Scripture...and what do we gain?  A sense of impending doom? 

Why not victory in Christ instead?

A Reply to Jeff Durbin with a Juxtposition of Handing a Biblical Passage

Preterist and postmillennialist Jeff Durbin has recently put out a spate of material and videos on eschatology. The problem with them is they are incredibly shallow, clichéd, and dismissive of futurist interpretation. They may work for his listeners but not thinking people.

I was actually disappointed because I like some of the other material he has put out on abortion and such. I recently challenged him to debate ex-preterist, now-futurist Dr. Brock Hollett, who was willing to debate. Pastor Durbin cited his health and declined the debate. Fine, but he did not show any willingness to debate once his health cleared up. The invitation remains open. Nevertheless.

I found his argumentation against premillennialism and futurism to be really, really bad (he and Gary DeMar are stuck in the 1970s and 80s on pop-pretrib literature and show zero familiarity with scholarly or even semi-scholarly futurist literature).

I wanted to at least respond to him so his listeners and readers can hear the other side—surely he will encourage this. We shall see.

So to begin, I have chosen to start with his mishandling of Jesus's "left behind" passage in Matthew 24. Recently in an in-studio interview with DeMar, he gave a cursory and flawed reason why he thinks it is the righteous who are left and the wicked taken rather than the other way around. So I will juxtapose his reasoning (the righteous are left behind) with my reasons for my interpretation (the righteous are taken).

I trust this will be an instructive exercise why Durbin should not be dismissive of the futurist interpertation. The following link is to my response to Durbin on the left behind passage.

https://www.alankurschner.com/2019/09/05/a-reply-to-jeff-durbins-mishandling-the-left-behind-passage/

Was There a Persecution under Domitian?

http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/07/was-there-persecution-under-domitian.html

Microcosmic judgments

Christ states that John is to write ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει |γενέσθαι| μετὰ ταῦτα “that which you see [Aorist as a perfective aspect, not past tense], that which is and what is destined to take place” in v. 19.  “That which is” is typically understood as referring to the present judgment of Christ concerning the churches in the letters and then “that which is destined to take place after these things” refers to the future. This is not completely false, but may need some nuancing. What is likely being said is that the microcosmic events occurring now and the macrocosmic events occurring in the future are what John is seeing and writing about throughout the book. They are combined and one is being placed in the context of the other rather than seen as two separate events that don’t have much to do with one another. The judgment Christ renders of the churches now is part of the judgment to come. The salvation He gives to the churches now is part of the salvation that is to come. Hence, John is told to write in the typical framework of the apocalyptic genre. What is now is placed in the context of what is to come as though what is to come is, to a smaller degree, taking place now through the microcosmic event occurring in the present. This is made clearer by understanding that John has split the scene in Daniel, where the Ancient of Days opens the books to render judgment. The Son comes to render judgment upon the churches and receive His kingdom in the present, but will ultimately not receive it from the Ancient of Days until the final judgment (i.e, John's "already-not yet" framework is on display in Revelation as it is in his Gospel).

http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/02/notes-on-revelation-112-20.html

This interpretation has potential relevance for the debate between preterists and futurists. Two kinds of judgment are both in play: microcosmic judgments stand for macrocosmic judgments, and in Revelation, these are blended. Those who say Revelation reflects a failed prediction about the timing of the Parousia fail to appreciate the distinction. Past judgments are microcosmic reflections of the macrocosmic judgment to come. In Revelation, the judgments blur, both because one kind mirrors the other, and because this is a visionary medium about what the prophet sees. Like a dream in which the imagery is fluid. 

Dark skies

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep (1 Thes 4:14, ESV).

This is a fascinating little verse. Because it's rather elliptical, and the syntax is ambiguous, we need to be cautious about erecting a huge theological edifice on this slender foundation. That said, it's worth exploring what the passage may well mean.

The ESV gives a highly defensible rendering. Perhaps the best rendering. 

Assuming that's a good translation, several implications seem to follow:

i) Dead Christians (the "saints") are currently in the presence of Christ, wherever he is. We might say heaven, although Christ has a physical existence. Is it a state or a place?

ii) Be that as it may, the verse indicates that when Jesus comes back to earth, he will bring the saints back with him. The saints will accompany him from heaven to earth. They will be his entourage or retinue. 

iii) Assuming that's the correct interpretation, let's try to visualize that scene. First, you have the "mechanics" of transporting them from heaven to earth. Maybe they just appear out of thin air. Instant teleportation. 

iv) If they descend from the sky, we're talking about–what?–billions of the saints suddenly appearing overhead. If they're between the sun and the earth, they'd darken the sky. Likewise, if they're between the moon and the earth, on a full moon. So the sky might be black with the crowded figures of the saints, casting a vast shadow over the earth. 

Or if they're not between the sun and the moon, they'd appear to form a vast black cloud or flock of birds in formation flight. 

That alone will make the Second Coming a highly visible event. Imagine living on earth at the time. Imagine an unbeliever watching this unfold. 

v) Assuming this interpretation is correct, it's at odds with preterism. Some preterists think Jesus already returned, symbolically, in the Fall of Jerusalem. But of course, there was nothing corresponding to billions of saints suspended in midair, descending to earth. 

Revelation then and now

Many scholars view the 1C as the proper frame of reference for interpreting Revelation. You also have scholars who think Revelation has a futuristic dimension, but is grounded the 1C. Even though, say, Rev 19-22 looks far ahead, they think much of Revelation speaks directly to the situation facing 1C Christians. 

But here's an interesting thing about Revelation: from a 1C standpoint, it's surreal and hyperbolic. Yet as of the 20-21C, the surreal, hyperbolic aspects are becoming increasingly feasible. 

That doesn't necessarily mean we should interpret the imagery literally. I myself think it's dream-like. Things are possible in dreams that are physically impossible. 

But it is striking that technological advances make the literal interpretation of Revelation more realistic, in terms of hitech analogues to the ancient imagery. 

Pretenders and the Parousia

23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:23-25).

i) The Olivet Discourse is often thought to be an embarrassment for Christian theology because, on one interpretation, Jesus made a false prediction. He synchronized the Parousia and the end of the world with the fall of Jerusalem. 

Certainly there are element to the extended prophecy that suggests events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem. Yet on another interpretation, there's a shift from a short-term oracle to a long-term oracle. I myself find that persuasive. 

ii) But I'd like to make another point. Consider vv23-27. This doesn't fit the fall of Jerusalem. So it suggests that at this juncture, the oracle is looking beyond the fall of Jerusalem to a more distant denouement. 

I take the thrust of vv23-27 to be that Christians won't have to go looking for messiah when he returns. The onus will not be on them to apply criteria to ID the messiah. Rather, when he comes back, the return of Christ will be so unmistakable that this will undoubtedly be the true messiah, in the person of Jesus.

But it's hard to see how the fall of Jerusalem fills the bill. To begin with, Jesus refers to false prophets and messianic pretenders who perform signs and wonders. That's a stock phrase that triggers associations with the miracles of the Exodus. But Jesus said even that's an unreliable indicator. Yet Exodus-redux miracles are far more impressive than what happened at the fall of Jerusalem. So if even miracles on the scale of the Exodus fail to ID the true messiah's return, the fall of Jerusalem would surely fall short. There was nothing supernatural about the fall of Jerusalem. At best, Josephus reports a few miracles. But even if we credit them, those are less spectacular than Exodus-style miracles. If, in the greater case of Exodus-redux miracles, these are unreliable criteria, then a fortiori, the lesser case of Jerusalem's downfall would be even more ambiguous.  

Is preterism heresy?

http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2014/09/is-preterism-heresy.html

70 weeks

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (Dan 9:24-27).

I'm going to discuss several different interpretations of this passage.

1. There's the liberal interpretation, which relates this to the Antiochean crisis in the mid-2C BC. This suffers from some basic problems:

i) It's predicated a the secular assumption that there is no God who reveals the future.

ii) It identifies the character who's "cut off" as Onias III. However, even on liberal dating schemes, that's off by over 70 years. Liberals salvage that identification by blaming the anachronism on the the anonymous author of Daniel, who was confused. Of course, that's a circular argument. Their identification is inconsistent with the evidence. So they preemptively discount falsifying counterevidence.

iii) Antiochus never destroyed the temple or the city (of Jerusalem). And that's hardly an incidental detail.

iv) Likewise, what does the "strong covenant" refer to in his career? 

v) Ironically, liberals have their own gap theory, when they split the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks. Likewise, they split the "prince" and "anointed one" in vv25-26a into two different figures. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it disqualifies them from attacking amils and premils who draw similar distinctions. 

2. Some interpretations think there are two characters in view. A protagonist and an antagonist. This, in turn, has two basic variations:

i) Jesus is the protagonist, while Titus and Hadrian are the antagonists. Titus and Hadrian destroy the temple and/or the city (of Jerusalem).

ii) Jesus is the protagonist, while a future Antichrist is the antagonist.

3. Apropos 2(ii):

On this view, Dan 9:26 refers to 1C events while v27 refers to still future events. The "covenant" is a treaty or nonaggression pact which the Antichrist makes with the Jews on his rise to power. He later reneges on the deal. 

What are we to make of this interpretation? 

i) I think proponents are correct to believe that the 1C events did not exhaust Dan 9:24-27.

ii) There's nothing inherently ad hoc about positing temporal gaps. Both amils and premils do this. Arguably, that's clearly in view in Daniel, at one point or another. As one scholar notes:

But you notice between verse 2 and 3 there is an unmentioned interval of over 150 years. Daniel simply passes from Xerxes who attacked Greece, to Alexander the Great, who destroyed the Persian Empire. Daniel skips over 150 years without any reference to it. 

…in chapter 2, chapter 7, and chapter 9 he [E. J. Young] is very much against the idea of an unmentioned interval between two great events. But here he assumes a jump of at least two thousand years without it being mentioned between verse 11:35 and 36…Young, without saying so, assumes an unmentioned interval of at least 2000 years at this point between Antiochus Epiphanes and the Antichrist. 

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/27-daniel/macrae_daniel_text_audio/macrae_daniel_lecture10.pdf

Of course, making allowance for temporal gaps doesn't justify posting temporal gaps without sufficient exegetical justification.

iii) However, both 9:26 and 9:27 share a common "desolation" motif. "Desolation" in v27 is a carryover from "desolation" v26. It seems arbitrary to split them up.

In addition, it's artificial to drive a wedge between "city and the sanctuary" in v26 and "sacrifice and offering" in v27. Those are clearly interrelated concepts. Jerusalem and the temple are where sacrifice and offering take place. 

iv) In addition, if we correlation Dan 9:24-27 with the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is, in part, answering a question about the Second Temple. The Herodian temple. That's the frame of reference. Not a Millennial temple.

v) Proponents of this view tend to flip back and forth. V24 is mainly about the future, although "atoning for iniquity" is about the past (i.e. the Crucifixion). Vv25-26 shift back to the past (i.e. the public ministry of Christ) while v27 shifts to the far future. It's a very choppy interpretation, which breaks up the flow of the passage. Not just gaps, but reversals.

In fairness, though, prophecy might include flashbacks and flash forwards. 

vi) There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that the Antichrist might make a temporary treaty with the Jews. However, the text itself doesn't say that or imply that. In addition, I think that's out of context (see below).

4. Some interpretations think there's just one character in view throughout. That has two basic variations:

i) Christ is the consistent referent.

ii) The Antichrist is the consistent referent.

5) Apropos 4(ii), this suffers from a couple of basic problems:

i) It shares some problems with #3. 

ii) Arguments for the messianic interpretation militate against it (see below).

Apropos 4(i), on this view:

i) The Crucifixion moots the sacrificial system. In effect, the city and sanctuary are destroyed by his definitive redemptive death. At that point they've outlived their rationale. 

ii) The Crucifixion is the abomination of desolation.

iii) The "strong covenant" refers to the new covenant, foretold by Jeremiah (Jer 31). And we know that Jeremiah's oracles were on Daniel's mind (Dan 9:2). 

iv) There's a pun between "cutting" a covenant (an idiomatic term for making a covenant) and the Messiah who is "cut off" (i.e. crucified).

v) The church age is the 70th week. It began in the past, but the ending is future. 

6) I think elements of (5) are very appealing. But it suffers from some weaknesses:

i) Why would we favor a figurative interpretation when the temple and the city were actually razed by Titus and Hadrian's forces? The wording of the oracle, combined with subsequent events, invites a literal interpretation.

ii) Although, taken by itself, the Crucifixon is uniquely "abominable," in what sense would the Crucifixion be a sign or advance warning to flee Jerusalem and head for the hills decades ahead of time? It makes no sense of how that functions in the Olivet Discourse. 

7) It's possible to combine some details of these different interpretations.

i) For instance, who destroyed Jerusalem? Literally, that was Titus and Hadrian. Yet they were agents of God. So God destroyed it. And the Jews brought it on themselves. So they destroyed it–when they repudiated the Messiah. From that moment on, its doom was a foregone conclusion. And there's a sense in which Jesus destroyed it by rendering it obsolete.  

ii) Just as Antiochus was a type of Roman emperors or a type of Antichrist, Roman emperors can be a type of Antichrist. 

Likewise, one can view the fall of Jerusalem as a type of endtime deliverance and judgment. 

Parsing the Olivet Discourse

I'm going to say a bit more about my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. My interpretation is provisional.

1) One complication is the fact that this discourse is recorded, with variations, in all three Synoptic Gospels. So one question is how to correlate them.

2) Some scholars, based on the assumption of Markan priority, as well as the further assumption that Mark's version is more "authentic" (because it's earlier and less subject to embellishment than Matthew and Luke), take Mark's version as the standard of comparison.

Although I think Markan priority is plausible, I don't think that makes his version more authentic than the other two.

3) Other scholars center their analysis on Matthew's version because that's the most detailed. And I think that's logical, although it's important to qualify that by comparing Matthew with Mark and Luke.

4) There are roughly three basic interpretive approaches one can take to the Olivet Discourse:

i) Interpret the text preteristically throughout.

ii) Interpret the text futuristically throughout.

iii) Interpret the first part preteristically and the second part futuristically. 

All three approaches can appeal to some verses which support their approach. All three approaches must square their interpretation with problem passages that seem to be at odds with their approach. It's difficult to consistently carry through any of the three approaches. 

5) I myself incline to 4(iii). What about difficulties with that approach?

i) One source of ambiguity is due to the fact that we're dealing with a prediction that is, in some measure, modeled on OT exemplars. So the language is, to that extent, allusive and impressionistic rather than precisely descriptive. 

ii) In Biblical typology, an earlier event can foreshadow a later event. But that's a two-way street. Typology assumes similarity between type and antitype. But in that case, just as an earlier event can foreshadow a later event, a later event can backshadow an earlier event. Even if the Olivet discourse is predicting an event in the near future (the First Jewish Revolt) as well as another event in the distant future (the Parousia), it wouldn't be surprising if it sometimes uses similar language for both, inasmuch as type and antitype are, in fact, similar to some degree. Typology involves repetitive historical patterns.

iii) I'm inclined to say the first part of the text emphasizes the First Jewish Revolt while the second part emphasizes the Return of Christ, which has yet to eventuate. 

Let's also consider some specific verses:

6) Who are the Messianic pretenders? In principle, this could refer to two different kinds of claimants:

i) These could be men who claim to be the real Messiah, in contrast to Jesus. That claim would be more likely to mislead some Jews or Jewish-Christians. 

ii) These could be men who claim to be Jesus. They are Jesus come back. That claim would be more likely to mislead some Gentile Christians. 

iii) Preterists identify these claimants with some 1C candidates. One problem with that identification is that Jesus says at least some of the claimants gain a following by performing miracles. So that sets the bar pretty high, even for impostors. 

7) There's some difficulty correlating the "abomination of desolation" with a 1C event. Considered in isolation, the best candidate for that identification would be the Roman desecration of the temple, after the Romans sacked Jerusalem and invaded the city. But in context, that's much too late to serve as advance warning to get out while the getting is good. 

Some preterists correlate the "abomination of desolation" with the Zealot desecration of the temple. That's probably their best bet. But whether that's how the disciples, or the original readers of the Synoptic Gospels, would construe the reference, is a different question.

8) Even if, taken in isolation, it's possible to interpret the "coming Son of Man" imagery in Mt 24 preteristically, doesn't that commit the preterist to interpreting Mt 25 preteristically as well? 

9) There's the question of what "the end" refers to. In context, does that denote fall of Jerusalem or the Parousia?

10) What does the phrase "wars and rumors of wars" refer to? Was there ever a time in human history when you didn't have wars and rumors of war? That makes even less sense on a global, purely futuristic interpretation. 

If, however, this alludes to the ramp up to the First Jewish Revolt, then that makes a lot of sense. When you hear about insurrection in Jerusalem and Judea, now is the time to get out of Dodge, for once the Roman armies occupy the countryside and surround the city, you're trapped. 

11) What about earthquakes? These are so random that they don't seem to be advance warning. Perhaps, though, the point is not the occurrence of these signs in isolation, but an unusual conjunction of independent signs.

12) The imagery of someone on the rooftop having to leave everything behind naturally suggests an elevated vantage-point from which the observer could see the advancing Roman armies. Had he heeded the preliminary signs, that would have given him sufficient lead-time to make his escape with provisions, at a good time of year for travel. But if you wait until you can see the whites of their eyes, than you waited too long. You are likely to be overtaken. Your escape route cut off. Weather may be rotten for travel by foot. You're lack provisions. I think this section is clearly concerned with location conditions in and around Jerusalem. If you wait until the Roman counterattack is imminent, you just ran out of time. 

13) On a global, futurist interpretation, it's hard to see how leaving town would protect you from end-of-the-world events. Surely there's nowhere to run under that scenario. And the time of year would be irrelevant. 

14) I don't see how the futurist interpretation of Mt 24:33 makes sense in light of vv30-31. If, at that point, you are actually witnessing the return of Christ, then the signs have surely outlived their usefulness. For what they signify is now evident to all. 

15) I take the "whole world" (Mt 24:14) to be an idiomatic designation for the Roman Empire. 

16) Some futurists cite Mt 24:29 to prove that we're not dealing with two different events, widely separately in time. There are, however, two problems with that appeal:

i) The Greek adverb (eutheos) is often used as a transitional device to segue from one scene to another. A syntactical convention. It allows for narrative compression. Indefinite intervals. The implied duration must be supplied by context or other clues. 

ii) And it's only used in Matthew's version of the Discourse. 

17) Apropos (16), The disciples ask Jesus about two events. Since one event is actually earlier (indeed, much earlier!) than the other, that's the order in which he answered them. First the fall of Jerusalem-related events, then Parousia-related events. First and second. 

One is earlier, one is later. They seem close together because he's responding to a two-part question. But the fact that they're close together in the sequence of the answer doesn't mean they're close together in the sequence of time. 

18) Some futurists appeal to Mt 24:21. However, I take that to be a warning to get out of Dodge before the Romans besiege Jerusalem, for once Jerusalem is surrounded by Roman armies, and the countryside occupied, there's no exit. 

In other words, a reference to the First Jewish Revolt, expressed in hyperbolic, end-of-the-world jargon, for which there's OT precedent.  

A warning, decades ahead of time, for true believers in Jerusalem, to evacuate when the signs of that particular catastrophe were coming to pass. And that's distinct from the Parousia. 

Some might object that it's artificial to take the first part as referring to the near future (1C events) and the second part as referring to the distant future (the Parousia), but the disciples asked a two-part question, so Jesus is, to some extent, answering them on their own terms. That's how they framed the question. So it's a part 1, part 2 answer. But in reality, these are separate events. 

Of course, if they ask the wrong question, he's free to reformulate the question. But there's nothing to indicate that he recast the question. 

The coming of the Son of Man in Mark's Gospel

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2005_56_2_04_Adams_SonOfMan_Mark.pdf

When is Jesus coming?

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place…3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (1:1,3).

i) Liberal preterists view this as a clear case of failed prophecy. John expected Jesus to return "soon," for the time is "near." What could be plainer? 2000 years later, that can't be true. 

Up to a point, conservative preterists (e.g. Gentry, Mathison) agree with liberal preterists, but they salvage the veracity of the prediction by redefining the terms of fulfillment. According to them, it refers, not to a personal return of Christ, but the fall of Jerusalem.

ii) However, even in the text, the timing is more ambiguous. Soon for whom? In relation to whom is the time near? According to the text, in relation to the reader (or lector). But that's not a fixed frame of reference. Which reader? Which lector? The text itself makes the timing relative to the timeframe of the lector. But different lectors read Scripture aloud at different times. They belong to different churches. The public reading of Scripture doesn't occur at just one time and place. Rather, whenever the church meets for corporate worship, Scripture is read aloud.

The time-marker is indexed to the reader. But that's a relative rather than absolute frame of reference. 

iii) In addition, there's a further complication. In Revelation, there's more than one kind of dominical coming. There are at least two, or maybe three, different ways or senses in which he comes. For instance:

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen (1:7).

i) That's a classic reference to the Second Coming. Notice the universal language. "Every eye." "All the tribes of the earth." 

ii) Morever, this has its background in Zech 12:10. Yet John adds totalizing language to stress the universality of the event. This is a global, one-time event, involving the physical return of Christ. 

iii) Notice, too, how difficult this is to square with conservative preterism:

a) To begin with, "every eye" didn't witness the fall of Jerusalem. "All tribes of the earth" didn't mourn over the fall of Jerusalem. Even most inhabitants of the Roman Empire didn't witness the fall of Jerusalem, much less inhabitants of India, China, Japan, Australia, Northern Europe, North and South America, &c. Only a tiny fraction of the human race was even alive in 70 AD. And of those, only a tiny fraction of humanity witnessed the fall of Jerusalem. Fractions of fractions of fractions. 

Perhaps a preterist would say John's language is hyperbolic. However, that's dubious, since John adds totalizing language to Zech 12:10 to accentuate the universality of the event. 

Moreover, even if the language is hyperbolic, it's one thing to exaggerate for rhetorical effect–quite another when the truth of the matter is nearly the opposite. The number of humans who witnessed the fall of Jerusalem is statistically insignificant in relation to the whole.

b) In addition to the spatial mismatch (i.e. failing to match the biogeographical scope of the claim), the preterist interpretation also succumbs to a temporal mismatch. If this refers to the fall of Jerusalem, then those who "pierced him" must be still be alive about 40 years after the fact to mourn that calamity. Minimally, those who "pieced him" must refer to the Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem (i.e. Pilate, the Sanhedrin) who were party to the execution of Christ. It might also include the mob, which demanded his death.

But is there any reason to think that all, or even most, of those who were complicit in the death of Christ were still alive to witness the fall of Jerusalem? Surely many of them died in the intervening years. 

If, however, this refers to a future advent, which is roughly synchronized with the general resurrection, then they will be in a position to witness the return of Christ. 

iv) In addition to a universal, one-time coming of Christ, Revelation also refers to one or two different kinds of local, repeatable comings. Take, for instance, the Christophany in 1:9ff. Jesus makes a personal appearance to John. He comes to John on Patmos. That's clearly different from the Second Coming. It's unlikely that Jesus appeared to John in the flesh. It's a vision. The details are surreal. Yet it's a case of Jesus coming back. 

v) And we have similar examples in the letters to the seven churches:

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (2:5). 

Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth (2:16). 

Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you (3:3). 

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me (3:20).

a) In context, these refer, not to the Second Coming, but to localized comings. For one thing, Christ's coming in these situations is contingent on whether or not the churches are penitent. But it's incongruous to suggest that the timing of the Second Coming is conditional on the behavior of a particular church in Asia Minor.

Since, moreover, these are different churches, the Second Coming can't be synchronized with their behavior inasmuch as the behavior of one local church isn't synchronized with the behavior of another local church. What if Ephesus repents, but Sardis does not? What if Philadelphia repents at a different time than Pergumum or Laodicea? 

In Rev 2-3, Jesus can't come back at one time or the same time (i.e. the Second Coming) if his return is contingent on events which happen at different times. So this must refer to local, repeatable comings of Christ. 

b) There's also the question of whether this involves a personal appearance/reappearance (e.g. 1:9ff.) or Jesus "coming" to them indirectly in the sense of visiting judgment on them or restoring fellowship with them. If so, that would be a different type of coming than 1:9ff.–both of which differ from 1:7. 

v) The larger point is that when Revelation says Jesus is coming "soon," or the time is "near," you can't just assume that that denotes the Second Coming, for in Revelation, Christ "comes" in different ways. When is Christ coming? In Revelation, that depends on what kind of coming is in view. 

Newspaper exegesis

Dispensational premils are frequently accused of resorting to "newspaper exegesis." And they are, indeed, often guilty as charged. One classic example is John F. Walvoord's, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis. Nor surprisingly, he had to keep updating it. 

That's a trap which premils often fall into. And it can be spiritually hazardous, for when events falsify their interpretation of endtime prophecy, they can become disillusioned and lose their faith. 

But in fairness, "newspaper exegesis" isn't really unique to dispensationalism or premillennialism. There's a sense in which every school of prophecy attempts to correlate Biblical prophecies with historical events. For instance, Loraine Boettner defended postmillennialism based on his rosy reading of modern history. In his view, the world was getting better. Like Dispensationalists, postmils may imagine that they are on the verge of the Second Coming. Dabney was a postmil, although the Civil War may have dampened his optimism. 

Obviously, the historicist school attempts to correlate Revelation with milestones in church history, viz. the Gothic war, rise of the papacy, rise of Islam, the Ottoman Empire, &c., Preterists attempt to correlate NT prophecies with the First Jewish-Roman War or the fall of the Roman Empire. 

Amils correlate golden age prophecies with world mission. Because amil correlations are far looser than Dispensational correlations, amil correlations aren't directly falsifiable, which spares them the embarrassment of premillennial date-setters. But it's a difference of degree rather than kind. Every school of prophecy runs the risk of misidentifying predictions. That's unavoidable–although some positions are more vulnerable than others. 

The Bar-Kokhba revolt

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:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt1.html

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2471-bar-kokba-and-bar-kokba-war

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? 

A brief history of postmil preterism

Postmil preterism has become popular in some contemporary Reformed circles. To my knowledge, Warfield was the first postmil preterist, but it didn't catch on at the time.

Postmillennialism has a long history in Calvinism. But a synthesis of preterism and postmillennialism seems to be more innovative.

Warfield's preterism is clear from how he interprets the Johannine Antichrist (in 1 John) and the Pauline Antichrist (in 2 Thessalonians). That, in turn, commits him, in some measure, to a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. 

I don't know if Warfield arrived at his preterism independently of how he arrived at his postmillennialism. His mentor and teacher, Charles Hodge, was a postmil. Warfield began his career as a NT scholar, before succeeding A. A. Hodge at Princeton. I don't know where Warfield picked up preterism. 

I think Reformed postmillennialism was kept alive by Loraine Boettner. He's a bridge between Warfield and the resurgence of postmill preterism. He got clobbered when he contributed to The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. If memory serves, Martin Selbrede helped him behind the scenes to shore up his case.  

To my knowledge, the resurgence of postmil preterism initially took place in theonomic circles, although I don't think Rushdoony was a preterist. I don't know if Bahnsen was the fist to recombine preterism with postmillennialism. 

A further complication was the split between the Rushdoony faction and the Tyler Texas faction. The movement spawned splitter groups, with some former members leaving the movement. It's possible that the resurgence of postmil preterism would have been abortive had it not been for the influential patronage of R. C. Sproul. 

Warfield was easily the most distinguished postmil preterist. Among the current crop, Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry seem to be the two best scholars. You also have hack popularizers like Gary DeMar. 

Here's a generally positive review, which–however–registers concerns:

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=1089

Partial preterism is a very unstable position. If you start with partial preterism, it's hard to stop with partial preterism. In that respect, it's disturbing to see the inroads that preterism is making in some Reformed circles. Here's a glowing review from the OPC rag that's utterly oblivious to the dangers of shipwreck:

http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=259

And here's a review, by a hyperpreterist, which charts Mathison's drift towards the rocky shoals of hyperpreterism:

There are some very significant changes in this book from some of Mathison's previously written works on eschatology that need to be pointed out. 

The main change is that Mathison used to divided Matthew 24-25 up into two sections--with two comings of Christ: 1) one in AD 70 Mt 24:1-34, and 2) one to end time Mt 24:35ff (cf. Mathison, "DISPENSATIONALISM Rightly Dividing the People of God?" p. 138ff). He is now partially following Gary DeMar's exegesis that the OD (Olivet Discourse) is united and that the coming of Christ in Mt 25:31ff. is also a reference to Christ's return in AD 70 (380). I say "partially" because he will not admit that the "end of the age" is the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 which is contextually tied to the destruction of the temple, which DeMar boldly points out. Mathison's change is curious because he, along with other Reformed theologians in his book, "When Shall These Things Be?" condemned "hyper-preterists" for coming up with exegesis or interpretations that could not be found in the early church fathers. Question, "What early church father taught that the coming of the Son of Man in Mt 25:31 was NOT the "actual" Second Coming of Jesus connected to the general judgment and resurrection - as Mathison has attempted to pull off in "FROM AGE TO AGE?" 

Mathison takes EVERY eschatological text in 1 and 2 Thessalonians as being fulfilled in AD 70 except for 1 Thessalonians 4 (507ff., cf. Mathison, "Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope" pp. 225ff.). In order to establish his preterist interpretations of say 2 Thessalonians 2, he uses the parallels or analogy of Scripture hermeneutic with Matthew 24: 

2 Thess. 2:1=Matt. 24:27, 30 a coming of the Lord
2 Thess. 2:1=Matt. 24:31 a gathering together to Him
2 Thess. 2:3=Matt. 24:5, 10-12 apostasy
2 Thess. 2:7=Matt. 24:31 the mystery of lawlessness
2 Thess. 2:9-10=Matt. 24:24 satanic signs and wonders
2 Thess. 2:11=Matt. 24:5, 24 a deluding influence on unbelievers (Mathison, Postmillennialism, 230). 

BUT when the resurrection is associated with Christ's return and is the topic, he avoids the parallels that Amillennialists and Full Preterists make between Matthew 24-25 with that of 1 Thessalonians 4-5: 

1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30 from heaven
1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31 with archangelic voice
1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31 with God's trumpet
1 Thess. 4:17=Matt. 24:31 believers caught up to be with Christ
1 Thess. 4:17=Matt. 24:30 believers in "clouds"
1 Thess. 5:1-2=Matt. 24:36 exact time unknown
1 Thess. 5:2=Matt. 24:43 Christ comes like a thief
1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:37-39 unbelievers caught unaware
1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8 birth pains
1 Thess. 5:4-5=Matt. 24:43 believers are not deceived
1 Thess. 5:6=Matt. 24:42 believers told to be watchful
1 Thess. 5:7=Matt. 24:49 exhortation against drunkenness
1 Thess. 5:4-8=Matt. 24:27, 36-38 the day, sons of light, sons of the day (Michael Sullivan, "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?,chapter 4, THE ESCHATOLOGICAL MADNESS OF MATHISON OR HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE?" pp. 107-108)" 

Due to creedal commitments (obviously not exegesis), notice how he is FORCED to violate his own parallel hermeneutical approach - with partial preterists such as Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, and Peter Leithart all having the same problems. Mathison now claims that Jesus did not teach about His actual Second Coming, but Paul (through progressive revelation) did in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. But Paul tells us that what he is teaching in 1 Thess. 4:15ff. is "According to the Lord's own words..." (see above). Matthison is obviously "conflicted" between his hyper-creedalism and Full Preterism, and that is why he makes these bizarre statements and avoids the obvious Full or True Preterist interpretations.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2MKLF21V0RP7S/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0875527450

A preterist approach to Revelation

I'm going to comment on this article:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/preterist-approach-revelation-unfolding-biblical-eschatology/ 

I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach. This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled. My approach then may be considered as essentially preterist.x

It isn't clear to me why Mathison draws the line at Rev 20-22. 

i) Maybe he thinks it would be heretical to say Rev 20-22 has already been fulfilled. But from a preterist perspective, isn't that question-begging? Traditionally, that would be heretical because traditionally Christians didn't interpret statements about the return of Christ preteristically. By the standards of the Apostles' creed and the Nicene creed, hyperpreterism is heretical.

But since Mathison thinks a midcourse correction is overdue in how we interpret NT prophecy, isn't it more logical for him to maintain that the traditional classification of hyperpreterism as heretical is mistaken, due to flawed hermeneutics? 

ii) Or maybe he thinks Rev 20-22 still lies in the future for the common sense reason that these events obviously haven't taken place as of yet. If so, it's hard to see how he'd distinguish that from past events in Rev 4-19. For instance, Revelation describes global catastrophes. On the face of it, that didn't happen in the 1C. 

Perhaps he'd say he doesn't interpret the language of global catastrophes literally. If so, how is the type of language in Rev 20-22 essentially different from the type of language in Rev 4-19?

iii) Also, on the face of it, Rev 19 describes the return of Christ. Yet he places Rev 19 in the past. Does that mean he thinks the Second Coming of Christ took place in the 1C? 

Before explaining why I believe this approach to be correct, I must explain why I do not believe the other approaches to be fully adequate. Proponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history. This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.

Up to a point I'm sympathetic to that criticism, especially when dealing with futurists like Robert Thomas. However, this objection generates tensions with Mathison's own position, as we shall see shortly.

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies. The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come. The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies.

i) We need to distinguish between Rev 2-3 and Rev 4-22. Rev 2-3 was directly addressed to 1C Christians. It's about their situation. 

And, of course, the seven churches of Asia Minor may well have been the initial recipients of Revelation. But that doesn't ipso facto mean Rev 4-22 is about them. Even if Rev 2-3 is firmly grounded in the 1C, it doesn't follow that 4-22 refer to 1C events. That requires a separate argument.

To take a comparison, Abraham was the initial recipient of God's promise. Yet the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is incremental.  

ii) Appealing to the temporal markers ("soon," "near") is deceptively simple. This seems to be Mathison's argument:

Revelation was written to 1C readers. Revelation says these events will happen soon. Therefore, they had to happen in the 1C. 

Problem with that inference is that it turns on the correct identification of who is in view. Suppose you're a futurist. You think the final generation is the subject of the prophecies. In that case, the stopwatch begins whenever they come on the scene. 

The fact that 1C Christians were the original recipients of Revelation is irrelevant to whether these are short-term or long-term prophecies. Mathison believes that many OT prophecies were long-term prophecies. The original audience didn't live to see them fulfilled, because the prophecies didn't refer to their situation, but a future generation. 

You first have to identify the intended subject, then apply the time-markers to the intended subject. The time-marker ("soon," "near") doesn't select for the referent. Rather, the referent selects for the time-marker. Once you determine who it's about, then it will be soon for them.    

The idealist approach is held by many in the present day, but it is fundamentally flawed as a method of interpreting the book of Revelation. It’s most serious problem is that it brushes over the specificity found within the text. Bauckham explains,

Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today.xiv

Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same.xv

i) I think pure idealism is wrong. By "pure idealism" I mean a purely cyclical view of history. A closed-system in which the same kinds of things happen over and over again, without any progression towards a final denouement. No exit. 

But idealism has an element of truth. History is repetitious. Each generation faces similar challenges. Idealism is a half-truth. 

ii) There's a tension between Mathison's appeal to the use of stock imagery and his appeal to historical particularity. In the nature of the case, stock imagery isn't specific to any particular time. The very fact that Revelation carries over so much OT imagery shows you that the imagery is applicable to different times and places. Flexible descriptors. 

iii) In addition, the fact that the situation of 1C Christians occasioned Revelation doesn't mean Revelation is confined to their situation. 

iv) One commentator outright denies Mathison's presupposition. He takes the opposite view:

Despite obvious differences between John's time and our own, his visions were probably as strange to many of his first readers as they are to us. These visions are by no means a picture of the social world that John actually lived in, but rather a prolonged piercing glance through that world to the cosmic struggle between good and evil taking place just behind or beyond it…In short the book of Revelation gives us little information about the actual social world in which it was written. J. R. Michaels, Revelation (IVP 1997), 21. 

For Michaels, Revelation isn't a mural of the 1C social world, but a window into the spiritual battle behind-the-scenes. One may or may not agree with his perspective, but Mathison's guiding assumption is no longer a given. 

Proponents of the futurist, historicist, and idealist approaches offer several criticisms of the preterist approach to the book. Probably the most serious criticism is that this approach robs the book of any contemporary significance. John Walvoord, for example, writes, “The preterist view, in general, tends to destroy any future significance of the book, which becomes a literary curiosity with little prophetic meaning.”xvi Leon Morris echoes this sentiment, claiming that the preterist approach “has the demerit of making it [the book of Revelation] meaningless for all subsequent readers (except for the information it gives about that early generation).”xviiIt is actually rather surprising that this criticism is repeated so often by conservative evangelical scholars. It implies that any biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled are meaningless for readers in later generations. But are the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meaningless for later generations? Are the multitudes of Old Testament prophecies concerning the destruction of Israel and Judah and the subsequent exile meaningless for later generations? Obviously not, and neither would the prophecies in Revelation be any less meaningful or significant if it were shown that many or most of them have already been fulfilled. All Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), even those parts of Scripture containing already fulfilled prophecies.

The problem with that comparison is that if all OT prophecies were fulfilled in the past, including golden age oracles about the world to come, yet we are still here, in a world with death, disease, suffering, and moral evil, then we'd have to reinterpret those passages in a way that drains them of hope for anything better. If Christ returned in the 1C, but it made so little difference, then that's a very despairing outlook.

Now, because Mathison is a partial preterist, he can blunt the full force of that implication, but that raises the question of whether you can hop onto the streetcar of preterist hermeneutics, then hop off before it arrives at that grim destination. If preterist hermeneutics are valid for Rev 4-19, they are valid for Rev 20-22. 

Secondly, when the genre of the book is taken into consideration, it provides strong evidence for a basically preterist approach to the book. The book is a prophecy (1:3; 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). It is an apocalyptic prophecy set within the form of an epistle, but it is a prophecy nonetheless. Why is this important? It is important because it means that our approach to the other prophetic books of the Bible should provide us with some guidance in how we approach this last prophetic book of the Bible. We should approach it and read it in the same basic way. We do not read any of the Old Testament prophetic books as a whole in an idealist manner, and there is precious little in any of them that could be approached in a historicist manner. We recognize that these prophecies were given to specific people in specific historical contexts. Many of the Old Testament prophecies deal with impending judgments upon either Israel or Judah or the nations that oppressed Israel. They also contain glimpses of ultimate future restoration. In short, we take a basically preterist approach to the Old Testament prophetic books, recognizing that they speak largely of impending events, yet also deal at times with the distant future.xix Given that this is the way in which the Old Testament prophetic books are approached, it seems that our presumption should be in favor of the same basic approach to the prophetic book of Revelation.

i) The scope of prophecy is qualified by the object of prophecy. The church is not a specific people at a specific time and place. The church exists at different times and places. It exists more or less continuously in some places. It ceases to exist in some places where it used to exist. It movies into new places where it didn't exist. Christians live and die at different times and places. They often face impending threats. Yet a threat impending for Christians in one period is not the same impending threat for Christians in another period. 

ii) OT prophets frequently use fairly interchangeable language for different historical judgments.

iii) Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70-year exile had a definite point of fulfillment. Yet Daniel (9:2,24-27) and the Chronicler (2 Chron 36:18-21) both view that prophecy as a specific exemplification a repeatable principle. Daniel extends it to ten jubilees.