While I have some disagreements with some of what B.C. Hodge has written here, and I do think he misunderstands my main point (probably because I haven't written it clearly), I rather enjoyed his response too. One thing I do agree with is the statement: "Actually, what this all means is that the symbols are not stuck in time, but can be applied to different rulers in the past and future." This is precisely why I see it being fulfilled in many different historical contexts around the fall of Jerusalem, as I have pointed out. In point of fact, I have tried to make it clear that these aren't referring to any one thing at all. To that end, it's a bit of a misnomer to say that I think the beast applies to the X Legio Fretensis, because that makes it appear as if I *only* think it applies to that legion, when I have argued that it applies to other referents as well (such as the Flavian emperors).
I will answer one thing Hodge asked though. After I pointed out that I did not include Revelation 20 as anything being complete, he asked: "Why stop there? The final judgment in Revelation 20 has the beast and false prophet thrown in. Immediately after the rest of the wicked are thrown in with them. If that is only Rome in the past, then that judgment has occurred. Why would that, as opposed to the rest, await a fulfillment? Because it is obviously not true."
Well, actually I say that because Revelation 20 specifically gives us a time referent that says the binding is: "until the thousand years were ended". And ultimately, it is the temporal cues that are critical to look at, and it's those things that make Preterism so valid. I'm glad that Hodge is concerned with correct Biblical interpretation, but I am amazed how quickly that disappears when the text plainly gives us the time to be expect.
Jesus says that the generation He is speaking to will not pass away before these things take place. He says there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see Him in His glory. Revelation begins by stating that these are things that must soon take place.
We can compare that, on the other hand, to what was said to Daniel in chapter 8:26--"The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now." Now, Daniel was written around 600 BC, and even limiting the referent to Antiochus IV places that at the mid-100s BC. That means that Gabriel told Daniel that the vision would be "many days away" when it was within 500 years. But somehow "this generation will not pass away" and "some of you shall not taste death" and "these things must soon happen" refers to a time that is four times longer than the wait that is "many days" away?
I could totally be incorrect about what the Beast refers to, that is true. It is historical speculation (which happens to fit at a rate that doesn't seem statistically likely to be chance). But what I cannot accept is taking the Bible seriously about *what* the various symbols mean while simultaneously completely ignoring the urgency of the time that is also being presented. So I would maintain that even if the beast of Rev 13 was never intended to refer to the X Legio Fretensis, or to Titus, or to the Roman oppression of Jerusalem, it clearly must have meant something during that time frame.
And because the time frame was key, there is no reason for us to speculate that it will have some kind of later fulfillment too. If I said in June of 2005 that I will attend a meeting on June 7, 2006, and then I showed up at the meeting on June 7, 2006, why would you expect that I will be coming at a future June 7 for a year that we have not yet gotten to?
Again, setting Rev 20 in the future makes sense, because we're told those events occur after the millennium--and we also know that it was used to indicate long periods of time, not necessarily exactly 1000 years. But "soon" was never meant 2000 years, especially when 500 years was sufficient for God to inform Daniel that it was many days off.
Peter, just to make some things clear where I think you may be misunderstanding me.
1. The Olivet Discourse (as well as many comments in the Synoptics) is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. That's clear by the context. So quoting that as an argument to bolster your view of Revelation does nothing unless you are replacing the context of Revelation with the Olivet Discourse, which many Preterists do. This is an exegetical fallacy. The Olivet Discourse is the Olivet Discourse and Revelation is Revelation. That's important to keep straight when interpreting a passage because we can tend to blend texts together and ignore what each is doing.
2. I was under the impression that you were a Preterist in your interpretation of the millennial kingdom, and they usually place the millennium within the 40 year period, so it's good to know that you take it differently. That changes my comments on the judgment, but also may challenge a Preterist reading of the entirety of that passage as well.
3. My point was not that these symbols can refer to anything, and therefore, Titus and the X Legion, etc., but that they can be applied/repurposed to refer to anything. I have no problem with using them in application to Titus, but that isn't the actual specific referent in the context of Revelation. So these symbols point to actual things in history. They may be meant to be applied to other things, however, especially since there is no literal fulfillment concerning the destruction of Rome or the specific judgment mentioned of the emperor, etc. in the first century. My point is that the literal referent negates the interpretation that it refers to Titus or the X Legion, etc. But of course one can apply it to those things, as Jesus applies the abomination of desolation in Daniel to the army surrounding Jerusalem.
You said: "And because the time frame was key, there is no reason for us to speculate that it will have some kind of later fulfillment too. If I said in June of 2005 that I will attend a meeting on June 7, 2006, and then I showed up at the meeting on June 7, 2006, why would you expect that I will be coming at a future June 7 for a year that we have not yet gotten to?"
Because if you said it more generically that you were going to show up at a future meeting and you were going to show up at a future meeting in a red suit and you showed up at the next years meeting in a blue suit, we might see that first meeting as only a partial fulfillment of something still to come.
4. I'm not sure why you would argue against some future fulfillment when I was arguing that the immediate fulfillment of these things is under the persecution of Domitian and Christ coming to judge His churches in the first century. My point is that the lack of literal fulfillment when it comes to certain things looks to a future one in terms of an idealistic model, but the immediate referents for the images and situation Christ is addressing in the book is all in the first century. It just isn't AD 70.
I would also point out that if you believe there is an event to come, you also believe there are both past and future fulfillments of what Christ is saying. Certainly the churches in the first century and the beast is being judged, and yet there is a future judgment as well. I would also argue that since there are many "comings" of Christ according to the Bible, as there were in the Old Testament of God as well, there is no reason to assume that there would not be many in the future. We all agree there is a final one, but it makes sense to understand the plurality of parousias in a biblical theological context where there have been and are many referred to be. "From now on you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds . . ." (Matt 26:64 // Luke 22:69). "You will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man but you will not see it . . ." (Luke 17:22). The parousia is simply Christ sitting at the right hand of God and taking possession of His kingdom through judgment and salvation applied throughout history until the consummation. We should then ask, Why would there not be more than one event in which He does this? Why would there not be multiple/continual events that take place until the completion of His work at the Father's right hand, where all things He inherited are claimed?
While I have some disagreements with some of what B.C. Hodge has written here, and I do think he misunderstands my main point (probably because I haven't written it clearly), I rather enjoyed his response too. One thing I do agree with is the statement: "Actually, what this all means is that the symbols are not stuck in time, but can be applied to different rulers in the past and future." This is precisely why I see it being fulfilled in many different historical contexts around the fall of Jerusalem, as I have pointed out. In point of fact, I have tried to make it clear that these aren't referring to any one thing at all. To that end, it's a bit of a misnomer to say that I think the beast applies to the X Legio Fretensis, because that makes it appear as if I *only* think it applies to that legion, when I have argued that it applies to other referents as well (such as the Flavian emperors).
ReplyDeleteI will answer one thing Hodge asked though. After I pointed out that I did not include Revelation 20 as anything being complete, he asked: "Why stop there? The final judgment in Revelation 20 has the beast and false prophet thrown in. Immediately after the rest of the wicked are thrown in with them. If that is only Rome in the past, then that judgment has occurred. Why would that, as opposed to the rest, await a fulfillment? Because it is obviously not true."
Well, actually I say that because Revelation 20 specifically gives us a time referent that says the binding is: "until the thousand years were ended". And ultimately, it is the temporal cues that are critical to look at, and it's those things that make Preterism so valid. I'm glad that Hodge is concerned with correct Biblical interpretation, but I am amazed how quickly that disappears when the text plainly gives us the time to be expect.
Jesus says that the generation He is speaking to will not pass away before these things take place. He says there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see Him in His glory. Revelation begins by stating that these are things that must soon take place.
We can compare that, on the other hand, to what was said to Daniel in chapter 8:26--"The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now." Now, Daniel was written around 600 BC, and even limiting the referent to Antiochus IV places that at the mid-100s BC. That means that Gabriel told Daniel that the vision would be "many days away" when it was within 500 years. But somehow "this generation will not pass away" and "some of you shall not taste death" and "these things must soon happen" refers to a time that is four times longer than the wait that is "many days" away?
(cont)
DeleteI could totally be incorrect about what the Beast refers to, that is true. It is historical speculation (which happens to fit at a rate that doesn't seem statistically likely to be chance). But what I cannot accept is taking the Bible seriously about *what* the various symbols mean while simultaneously completely ignoring the urgency of the time that is also being presented. So I would maintain that even if the beast of Rev 13 was never intended to refer to the X Legio Fretensis, or to Titus, or to the Roman oppression of Jerusalem, it clearly must have meant something during that time frame.
And because the time frame was key, there is no reason for us to speculate that it will have some kind of later fulfillment too. If I said in June of 2005 that I will attend a meeting on June 7, 2006, and then I showed up at the meeting on June 7, 2006, why would you expect that I will be coming at a future June 7 for a year that we have not yet gotten to?
Again, setting Rev 20 in the future makes sense, because we're told those events occur after the millennium--and we also know that it was used to indicate long periods of time, not necessarily exactly 1000 years. But "soon" was never meant 2000 years, especially when 500 years was sufficient for God to inform Daniel that it was many days off.
Peter, just to make some things clear where I think you may be misunderstanding me.
ReplyDelete1. The Olivet Discourse (as well as many comments in the Synoptics) is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. That's clear by the context. So quoting that as an argument to bolster your view of Revelation does nothing unless you are replacing the context of Revelation with the Olivet Discourse, which many Preterists do. This is an exegetical fallacy. The Olivet Discourse is the Olivet Discourse and Revelation is Revelation. That's important to keep straight when interpreting a passage because we can tend to blend texts together and ignore what each is doing.
2. I was under the impression that you were a Preterist in your interpretation of the millennial kingdom, and they usually place the millennium within the 40 year period, so it's good to know that you take it differently. That changes my comments on the judgment, but also may challenge a Preterist reading of the entirety of that passage as well.
3. My point was not that these symbols can refer to anything, and therefore, Titus and the X Legion, etc., but that they can be applied/repurposed to refer to anything. I have no problem with using them in application to Titus, but that isn't the actual specific referent in the context of Revelation. So these symbols point to actual things in history. They may be meant to be applied to other things, however, especially since there is no literal fulfillment concerning the destruction of Rome or the specific judgment mentioned of the emperor, etc. in the first century. My point is that the literal referent negates the interpretation that it refers to Titus or the X Legion, etc. But of course one can apply it to those things, as Jesus applies the abomination of desolation in Daniel to the army surrounding Jerusalem.
You said: "And because the time frame was key, there is no reason for us to speculate that it will have some kind of later fulfillment too. If I said in June of 2005 that I will attend a meeting on June 7, 2006, and then I showed up at the meeting on June 7, 2006, why would you expect that I will be coming at a future June 7 for a year that we have not yet gotten to?"
Because if you said it more generically that you were going to show up at a future meeting and you were going to show up at a future meeting in a red suit and you showed up at the next years meeting in a blue suit, we might see that first meeting as only a partial fulfillment of something still to come.
4. I'm not sure why you would argue against some future fulfillment when I was arguing that the immediate fulfillment of these things is under the persecution of Domitian and Christ coming to judge His churches in the first century. My point is that the lack of literal fulfillment when it comes to certain things looks to a future one in terms of an idealistic model, but the immediate referents for the images and situation Christ is addressing in the book is all in the first century. It just isn't AD 70.
I would also point out that if you believe there is an event to come, you also believe there are both past and future fulfillments of what Christ is saying. Certainly the churches in the first century and the beast is being judged, and yet there is a future judgment as well. I would also argue that since there are many "comings" of Christ according to the Bible, as there were in the Old Testament of God as well, there is no reason to assume that there would not be many in the future. We all agree there is a final one, but it makes sense to understand the plurality of parousias in a biblical theological context where there have been and are many referred to be. "From now on you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds . . ." (Matt 26:64 // Luke 22:69). "You will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man but you will not see it . . ." (Luke 17:22). The parousia is simply Christ sitting at the right hand of God and taking possession of His kingdom through judgment and salvation applied throughout history until the consummation. We should then ask, Why would there not be more than one event in which He does this? Why would there not be multiple/continual events that take place until the completion of His work at the Father's right hand, where all things He inherited are claimed?
ReplyDelete