@@terencechambers7479 "That’s true in both cases." that's a false equivalency, for sure. You can be a futurist and still believe in the early date for Revelation. It doesn't make a difference either way. But in order to be any type of preterist, the early date absolutely must be 100% true without exception. For the vast majority of the past 2000 years the early date has been the minority view and didn't even come into being until over 4 centuries after John had died. That's a huge red flag right there, to say nothing of the extraordinarily outlandish hermeneutical gymnastics with Scripture the preterist doctrine requires in order to have any validity.
@@JohnnyDoe1012 Because satan can't deceive you? If you think that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the "vast majority" has always been right throughout history then you're clueless.. If you think that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what was in the minds of the "vast majority" nearly 2000 years ago then you're still clueless. Dispensationalism is a pox upon Christianity. I was raised in it, and thank God I found it in me to begin to doubt men and trust in the Holy Spirit. People need to read their bibles, and stop listening to the teachings of 1800's cult leaders like Joseph Smith and John Nelson Darby.
That’s a good question. I have looked a couple times and have not found it. Granted I didn’t look too hard since I had his dissertation, but it would be good for him to publish it if he has not.
@@thebiblesojourner - I was listening to a book by Ron Rhodes and he mentioned where you can find it for free. www.pre-trib.org/media/k2/assets/Documents/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf This might be a good resource for people to use.
What's the point of believing man's word on the dating of the book? …to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 1:1) “…to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 22:6) “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (Rev. 22:10; Compare Dan. 8:26) Given and promised to real people 2000 years ago. Thou shalt not steal.
I appreciate the conciseness of the argument. Unfortunately, it is quite subjective based on your presupposition on how quickly “shortly” must come to pass.
@@thebiblesojourner "The Bible gives an example of man attempting to change the meaning of time words used by God; and God's response. In Ezekiel 7, God said the Day of the Lord was at hand. The Day of the Lord in this context was when God used Babylon to punish Israel for her sin. This is the concept of the Day of the Lord; it is not an "end of time" idea. It is when God used a nation to punish another as it related to his chosen people. In chapter 11, Israel responded to the threat of coming judgment. They insisted that although Ezekiel said it was at hand it was really not. It was time to build houses, not worry about judgment. One can almost hear some of those people: "Well, yes, Ezekiel has said the Day of the Lord is at hand, but after all, 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day,' (Psalms 90:4)." When Israel "elasticized" God's words of imminence into relativity, ambiguity and meaning-less-ness, God responded. In Ezekiel 12:21ff, God told Ezekiel to tell Israel that her days of changing the time for his predictions were over. He had said judgment was at hand; Israel said it was not at hand. God would not tolerate it. Ezekiel was instructed to tell Israel that in that generation judgment would fall just as God had indicated when he said it was at hand. What we have, then, is an example of man saying that while God had said something was imminent it really was not; it was for a long time off. We have God's response; when God said "at hand" he meant "at hand!" He did not mean hundreds or thousands of years; he meant "soon!" Another example of man changing the meaning of God's time words is in Amos 6:3. God warned Israel the time had come for her to be judged (Amos 8:2). In spite of the warnings, Israel "put far off the evil day." Isaiah 56:12 shows they were saying "tomorrow shall be as today." In spite of God's warning that judgment was at hand they insisted "All things continue as they were," II Peter 3:3-4! They refused to believe God meant "near" when he said "at hand!" As a result God said "Woe" to them! Reader, what is the practical difference between Israel of Old denying "at hand" meant "soon," and Bible students today who read the New Testament time statements and say they did not mean "soon?" What is the difference between those in Isaiah's day who denied the warnings of imminent judgment, saying life was going to go on as usual, and those today who read the time statements made in the first century and say the predicted events were not truly imminent? Those who deny the first century application of the at hand time statements of the New Testament are doing the same thing as the Israelites of Old--denying that "at hand" meant "soon!""
How does a postmellinialist change a light bulb? He doesn't. Instead, he adds a second light fixture and convinces you that the first light bulb is still on.
I thought amill and postmill overlapped preterism. Amill and postmill (being similar to amill) are interpretation models, but preterism is their interpretive method to arrive at their models. Similarly, premill is the dominant evangelical model, but only by way of the futurist interpretive method. Again... maybe I'm wrong.
You are correct, a lot of Amill and postmill interpreters will occasionally overlap having either a preterist interpretation (past fulfillment) or a idealistic interpretation (non-historic fulfillment). By far and large though, Amil tends to be more idealistic, and postmill more preterist. But it depends on the passages. For the book of Revelation, many (if not most) amil interpreters would be more idealistic in their interpretation of Revelation.
@@thebiblesojourner good point. Yes, I guess both are preterist about cer6a8n starting assumptions, but then how they reconcile details to make it work does break down on either backwards rationalization of specific events in scripture, or symbolic representations. Consider me educated. I underestimated the difference in interpretive method faulting instead to think of postmill as a kind of protestant innovation of amill from a reformed perspective, which doesn't view the mill as fully ascendant, like Rome did, but instead embracing a kind of utopian future ascendancy of the church via reformed dominionism/theonomy, prior to the Parousia.
I would challenge all preterists to listen to this podcast and the points made below: The post-70 A.D. dating of the book of Revelation renders all preterist thought null and void. The earliest Christian historian who recorded the church's knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation was Hegesippus in 150 A.D. (around the time when most of those who would have known John had likely already died), and this continued to be the accepted view until about 4 centuries later with the Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript in which someone wrote that John was exiled under Nero. It is sometimes claimed that the Neronic dating is in the original, but this is impossible since the original lacked the book of Revelation. From what I've been able to gather, there is no source or reasoning given for this change in that 6th century manuscript. This is problematic at best, and lacks the authoritativeness that would be required to credibly make such a huge revision to what was commonly accepted and passed down from the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd. The same can be said for the Muratorian Fragment, which is the 7th century copy of the 2nd century original, with no way to prove the Neronic dating was in the original. There is no record of any of the early church fathers holding to the Neronic date of Revelation. A fascinating glimpse into the early church fathers and what they believed on a variety of topics is in 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs', over 700 pages compiled by David Bercot. In addition to Hegesippus (110-180 A.D. and who, notably, wrote this decades prior to Irenaeus as the podcast references), Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), Hyppolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.), Eusebius (263-339 A.D.), Jerome (345-420 A.D.), Sulpicius Severus (363-425 A.D.), and a number of others both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until the 6th century should give early-date advocates pause. So at least most of the events of Revelation are still in our future (some view the messages to the churches as having already been strictly for them and completely fulfilled, while some view each church as symbolic for a different time period, and of course there could be room for double-fulfillment of most of those first 3 chapters). There was a celebration on Patmos in 1995 commemorating 1900 years (approximately, as in 95 or 96 A.D.) since the Revelation Jesus gave to John. Also, what other events in the 1st century A.D. are ever claimed as taking place 2 or 3 decades earlier (or later, for that matter)? Can any preterist name just one? With all of the accurate records kept during the Roman Empire era and surviving today, there is little room for such a vast difference being feasible. It's commonly believed that Jesus died around 30 or 33 A.D., Paul and Peter were martyred in the 60's, Nero lived from 37-68 A.D., etc. No one says Jesus died in 3 A.D. or 60 A.D., or that Peter and Paul were martyred in the 30's A.D. or 90's A.D., or that Nero actually reigned around the time of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. The majority of scholarship has always placed John's writing of Revelation in the mid-90's, but somehow preterists think it's ok to switch this around by 3 decades compared to the overwhelming consensus of the past 2000 years? The great fire of Rome took place for nearly a week during 64 A.D., but no one places it in 54 A.D. let alone 34 A.D. A powerful earthquake in 60 A.D. devastated Laodicea. And yet no one ever says that earthquake took place in 30 A.D. which was 30 years prior. With the vast majority of evidence to the contrary, preterism literally rests on this single pillar of the dating of the book of Revelation. And, really, that is no pillar at all in light of the historicity of the late date.
Just found your channel, and as a seminarian/dispensationalist, I’m loving your material so far! God bless!
That's very encouraging to hear, thank you! Praise God!
Thank you for doing this. It was a big question for me when I was trying to figure out eschatology
Absolutely! It definitely is a large part of the argument since some eschatological systems are tied to the dating of Revelation.
❤Thank you. You were very helpful and clear in your presentation.
Appreciate your encouragement and feedback. Blessings to you!
Why are premillennialist better in raising their daughters than a postmillennialist?
They are cautious in not letting them date too early.
Haha, can’t believe I just saw this now! 😂
An eschatological position hinging on the date of Revelation creates a serious bias. That is a problem.
@@terencechambers7479 "That’s true in both cases."
that's a false equivalency, for sure. You can be a futurist and still believe in the early date for Revelation. It doesn't make a difference either way. But in order to be any type of preterist, the early date absolutely must be 100% true without exception. For the vast majority of the past 2000 years the early date has been the minority view and didn't even come into being until over 4 centuries after John had died. That's a huge red flag right there, to say nothing of the extraordinarily outlandish hermeneutical gymnastics with Scripture the preterist doctrine requires in order to have any validity.
@@JohnnyDoe1012 Because satan can't deceive you? If you think that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the "vast majority" has always been right throughout history then you're clueless.. If you think that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what was in the minds of the "vast majority" nearly 2000 years ago then you're still clueless. Dispensationalism is a pox upon Christianity. I was raised in it, and thank God I found it in me to begin to doubt men and trust in the Holy Spirit. People need to read their bibles, and stop listening to the teachings of 1800's cult leaders like Joseph Smith and John Nelson Darby.
Did Mark Hitchcock ever put his dissertation into print?
That’s a good question. I have looked a couple times and have not found it. Granted I didn’t look too hard since I had his dissertation, but it would be good for him to publish it if he has not.
@@thebiblesojourner - I was listening to a book by Ron Rhodes and he mentioned where you can find it for free.
www.pre-trib.org/media/k2/assets/Documents/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
This might be a good resource for people to use.
What's the point of believing man's word on the dating of the book?
…to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 1:1)
“…to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 22:6)
“Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (Rev. 22:10; Compare Dan. 8:26)
Given and promised to real people 2000 years ago. Thou shalt not steal.
I appreciate the conciseness of the argument. Unfortunately, it is quite subjective based on your presupposition on how quickly “shortly” must come to pass.
@@thebiblesojourner "The Bible gives an example of man attempting to change the meaning of time words used by God; and God's response. In Ezekiel 7, God said the Day of the Lord was at hand. The Day of the Lord in this context was when God used Babylon to punish Israel for her sin. This is the concept of the Day of the Lord; it is not an "end of time" idea. It is when God used a nation to punish another as it related to his chosen people.
In chapter 11, Israel responded to the threat of coming judgment. They insisted that although Ezekiel said it was at hand it was really not. It was time to build houses, not worry about judgment. One can almost hear some of those people: "Well, yes, Ezekiel has said the Day of the Lord is at hand, but after all, 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day,' (Psalms 90:4)."
When Israel "elasticized" God's words of imminence into relativity, ambiguity and meaning-less-ness, God responded. In Ezekiel 12:21ff, God told Ezekiel to tell Israel that her days of changing the time for his predictions were over. He had said judgment was at hand; Israel said it was not at hand. God would not tolerate it.
Ezekiel was instructed to tell Israel that in that generation judgment would fall just as God had indicated when he said it was at hand. What we have, then, is an example of man saying that while God had said something was imminent it really was not; it was for a long time off. We have God's response; when God said "at hand" he meant "at hand!" He did not mean hundreds or thousands of years; he meant "soon!"
Another example of man changing the meaning of God's time words is in Amos 6:3. God warned Israel the time had come for her to be judged (Amos 8:2). In spite of the warnings, Israel "put far off the evil day." Isaiah 56:12 shows they were saying "tomorrow shall be as today." In spite of God's warning that judgment was at hand they insisted "All things continue as they were," II Peter 3:3-4! They refused to believe God meant "near" when he said "at hand!" As a result God said "Woe" to them!
Reader, what is the practical difference between Israel of Old denying "at hand" meant "soon," and Bible students today who read the New Testament time statements and say they did not mean "soon?" What is the difference between those in Isaiah's day who denied the warnings of imminent judgment, saying life was going to go on as usual, and those today who read the time statements made in the first century and say the predicted events were not truly imminent? Those who deny the first century application of the at hand time statements of the New Testament are doing the same thing as the Israelites of Old--denying that "at hand" meant "soon!""
How does a postmellinialist change a light bulb? He doesn't. Instead, he adds a second light fixture and convinces you that the first light bulb is still on.
I thought amill and postmill overlapped preterism.
Amill and postmill (being similar to amill) are interpretation models, but preterism is their interpretive method to arrive at their models.
Similarly, premill is the dominant evangelical model, but only by way of the futurist interpretive method.
Again... maybe I'm wrong.
You are correct, a lot of Amill and postmill interpreters will occasionally overlap having either a preterist interpretation (past fulfillment) or a idealistic interpretation (non-historic fulfillment). By far and large though, Amil tends to be more idealistic, and postmill more preterist. But it depends on the passages. For the book of Revelation, many (if not most) amil interpreters would be more idealistic in their interpretation of Revelation.
@@thebiblesojourner good point. Yes, I guess both are preterist about cer6a8n starting assumptions, but then how they reconcile details to make it work does break down on either backwards rationalization of specific events in scripture, or symbolic representations.
Consider me educated. I underestimated the difference in interpretive method faulting instead to think of postmill as a kind of protestant innovation of amill from a reformed perspective, which doesn't view the mill as fully ascendant, like Rome did, but instead embracing a kind of utopian future ascendancy of the church via reformed dominionism/theonomy, prior to the Parousia.
Funny, I’m not listening to this when you originally posted it, but it is 4th of July. Just not the one you were referring to 😂
A happy little quirk! 😄
I would challenge all preterists to listen to this podcast and the points made below:
The post-70 A.D. dating of the book of Revelation renders all preterist thought null and void. The earliest Christian historian who recorded the church's knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation was Hegesippus in 150 A.D. (around the time when most of those who would have known John had likely already died), and this continued to be the accepted view until about 4 centuries later with the Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript in which someone wrote that John was exiled under Nero. It is sometimes claimed that the Neronic dating is in the original, but this is impossible since the original lacked the book of Revelation. From what I've been able to gather, there is no source or reasoning given for this change in that 6th century manuscript. This is problematic at best, and lacks the authoritativeness that would be required to credibly make such a huge revision to what was commonly accepted and passed down from the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd. The same can be said for the Muratorian Fragment, which is the 7th century copy of the 2nd century original, with no way to prove the Neronic dating was in the original. There is no record of any of the early church fathers holding to the Neronic date of Revelation. A fascinating glimpse into the early church fathers and what they believed on a variety of topics is in 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs', over 700 pages compiled by David Bercot.
In addition to Hegesippus (110-180 A.D. and who, notably, wrote this decades prior to Irenaeus as the podcast references), Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), Hyppolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.), Eusebius (263-339 A.D.), Jerome (345-420 A.D.), Sulpicius Severus (363-425 A.D.), and a number of others both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until the 6th century should give early-date advocates pause. So at least most of the events of Revelation are still in our future (some view the messages to the churches as having already been strictly for them and completely fulfilled, while some view each church as symbolic for a different time period, and of course there could be room for double-fulfillment of most of those first 3 chapters).
There was a celebration on Patmos in 1995 commemorating 1900 years (approximately, as in 95 or 96 A.D.) since the Revelation Jesus gave to John. Also, what other events in the 1st century A.D. are ever claimed as taking place 2 or 3 decades earlier (or later, for that matter)? Can any preterist name just one? With all of the accurate records kept during the Roman Empire era and surviving today, there is little room for such a vast difference being feasible.
It's commonly believed that Jesus died around 30 or 33 A.D., Paul and Peter were martyred in the 60's, Nero lived from 37-68 A.D., etc. No one says Jesus died in 3 A.D. or 60 A.D., or that Peter and Paul were martyred in the 30's A.D. or 90's A.D., or that Nero actually reigned around the time of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. The majority of scholarship has always placed John's writing of Revelation in the mid-90's, but somehow preterists think it's ok to switch this around by 3 decades compared to the overwhelming consensus of the past 2000 years? The great fire of Rome took place for nearly a week during 64 A.D., but no one places it in 54 A.D. let alone 34 A.D. A powerful earthquake in 60 A.D. devastated Laodicea. And yet no one ever says that earthquake took place in 30 A.D. which was 30 years prior.
With the vast majority of evidence to the contrary, preterism literally rests on this single pillar of the dating of the book of Revelation. And, really, that is no pillar at all in light of the historicity of the late date.