Been awhile since I posted...
I know some people follow this blog. I'd like to hear from you. How'd you become a preterist? Did your family/wife/husband handle this okay? Tell me your story.
John Noe's Charismatic Preterist Idealism & His False Accusations Levied Against Full Preterism
John Noe's Charismatic Preterist Idealism & His False Accusations Levied Against Full Preterism
Friday, February 12, 2010 at 11:08pm
Noe was invited back to discuss the topic of the Kingdom post AD 70 on "The Journey." Here is my response to that interview and the accusations he made in it against the FP view. The bulk of this response deals with Noe's inability to answer a direct and clear question related to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and his accusations that Full Preterism teaches a "spiritual" kingdom and that we allegedly do not teach on the kingdom enough - like he does. Noe follows this up with the accusation or concern that our view of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge has contributed to a decline of Christianity in the U.S - along with us not teaching teaching on the kingdom and that when we do it is a spiritual one. Our teaching on the kingdom is equivalent to other false (futurist) views on the kingdom - per Noe. But its alright because Noe wrote another article in the ETS journal where he claims that we will most likely experience a revival of the charismata soon - due to his leadership in presenting the Charismatic Preterist Idealist approach to Scripture.
I have already given a refutation of his first interview. In that he stated that Christians are capable of holding to false doctrine because they "WANT" too in light of the clear teaching of Scripture. In Noe's second interview he demonstrates that - "thou art the man" Mr. Noe.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity given me to express my disagreements with Mr. Noe in his first and now second interview. I will seek to voice my concerns as graciously as I can while holding to my Biblical responsibility to test all things in the light of Scripture.
1) My first and overall concern is similar to my perception of Noe’s first interview. In the first interview Mr. Noe had the opportunity to tell the ETS lecturer that he was mistaken on what Full Preterism believes and teaches and that what he thought was Full Preterism was actually Hyper Preterism. Noe had the opportunity to set the record straight but instead decided he wanted to coin his own term and be the leader of it “Preterist Idealism” – seeking to kick start it in his article in the ETS journal. Much could be said of this approach, but I’ll just say it is sad and I don’t find it honorable or honest in the least bit. So far we have had two professing Full Preterists who have been charismatics and have sought to coin this term “Preterist Idealism.” One could not shake or drop his existentialism and charismatic theology at the narrow gate of Full Preterism and ended up forsaking the position altogether and now attacks us claiming that we overthrow the faith of Chrisitians (Todd Dennis). Noe has not gone all the way back to futurism, but in this second interview he has attacked the Full Preterist view nonetheless. Let me explain why I feel so strongly that Noe’s approach and accusations are false.
2) Noe levied two very serious charges against Full Preterism. The first was that we do not emphasize the kingdom in our teaching and the second is that Full Preterist cessationalists are no different than futurists who do not present Christ and the Kingdom as preeminent in their teachings. He lumped us in with futurists and claimed that all these views are the result of the decline of Christian growth in the United States. Please listen to the tail end of the interview if you think I am mistaken in this. Why? Well according to Noe, there are two problems with the Full Preterist view:
a) We believe the miraculous sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and knowledge have “ceased” at the arrival of that which is perfect/the Second Coming/New Creation (1 Cor. 13:8-12/Isaiah 52:8 [“eye to eye”] Revelation 21-22:4, 10-12).
b) We allegedly do not put the kingdom as a priority in our teaching and we teach that the Kingdom is “spiritual.”
Let me now address these accusations or concerns that Noe has levied against us.
First of all, as Michael Loomis noted it took Noe 20 minuets to answer his question on what “the perfect” is in the text and what exactly “ceased” (if anything) in AD 70. My point is that Noe dodged the heart of the question entirely. He correctly identified the “knowing in part” as the Old Covenant (OC) and “the perfect” as the New Covenant and went to the book of Hebrews to support the superiority of the NC over against the fading of the OC citing Hebrews 8:13. Michael sought to help Noe by giving an illustration of a glass being half empty (representing the OC) and then the filling up of the rest of the glass as the NC revelation - reaching its fulfillment in AD 70. The question was, “Once the glass is full, don’t we drink the whole glass and not just half of it?” This implied that the gifts continued post AD 70. First of all the illustration does not even remotely fit the context of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 as they applied it to the two covenants. For the illustration to apply, the first half of the glass (OC revelation) would be water (“in part,” “childish,” “seeing a poor reflection,”) and the filling up of the second half of the glass would be the wine of the NC revelation. When Christ’s Second Coming/Appearing (which Noe downgraded the significance of in his first interview BTW) took place, the glass was transformed into a full glass of wine for the Church to drink from – the first half of water (which they claimed was the OC in the illustration) – having been “transformed” (2 Cor. 3-5) and now “disappeared” or “vanished” (Heb. 8:13).
Unfortunately Noe (and Michael to a certain extent) did not address the question regarding the “ceasing” or the “disappearing” of the OC order and its relationship to “prophecies,” “tongues,” and “knowledge.” (1 Cor. 13:12; Hebrews 8:13).
Since Noe admits that the “in part” was the weak/beggarly and insufficient OC system and “the perfection” is the NC system, then this is how the text is broken down:
OC – Know in part / NC – Perfection comes. AD 70 “imperfect disappears.”
OC – Child / NC – A man. AD 70 childish things “put behind.”
OC – Poor reflection in a mirror / NC – See face to face.
OC – Know in part / NC – Know as I am fully known.
*OC =’s imperfect disappearing/putting behind or away childish things/prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ceasing.
Noe did not address the questions and the parallel structure of the text itself. In other words he AVOIDED the heart of the question. So how did he answer it? He went to 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 and he and Michael used some sarcasm and asked, “Yeah, we don’t see these Full Preterist cessationalists claiming that the gift of “teaching” or the gifts of helps “ceased” in AD 70. Uh, well, where does Paul ever say that they would?!? John and Michael – how about you stick to the text at hand and what Paul said would “cease” instead of running to a passage where Paul does not say all those gifts would? Noe mentions this is an issue of “hermeneutics” and then blindly ignores following them in addressing the text at hand.
Noe (still avoiding the text) decided that the charismatic miraculous gifts were still for today because the gospels and the NT use the words “the Kingdom” and “the Church.” His reasoning was: “If we still have the Kingdom and the Church Post AD 70, then the “model” of the Kingdom in the gospels and in the book of Acts (which include these miraculous signs) MUST also be here today post AD 70. What in the world kind of “argument” is that? Surely Noe knows that the gospels and the NT were written in the TRANSITION period right? Surely one could list a number of things that were taking place during this transition period (the “working model”) that did not continue post AD 70 (such as obedience to the OC “jots and tittles” Matthew 5:17-18) – as Noe himself would acknowledge did not carry over? Is the Kingdom then STILL “at hand” then? After all, this was apart of the “working model” period right?
3) Noe oddly appealed to the Great Commission of (Matthew 28:18-20 & thus indirectly to Mark 16:15-17 I suppose) to support that the miraculous sign gifts are still for today. He said that since the disciples were called to preach the gospel and teach the “nations,” then that commission hasn’t changed. And therefore since that commission (“the working model”) included the miraculous (cf. Mark 16:15-17), then if we are to continue to preach and teach the nations, then the miraculous must also be with us today. First of all, we encounter the same problem with “the nations” in (Rev. 10:11). Apparently Noe is saying this same Great Commission which includes these “nations” must include post AD 70 (2000 + years away nations) and therefore the charismata must be included in the “teaching” of these nations. They do not. Paul specifically says that the gospel reached “all nations” (Greek ethnos, Romans 16:25-26) prior to AD 70 and therefore the Church had fulfilled Jesus’ commission and commandment in (Mark 13:10 and Matthew 28:18-20). This was fulfilled at the “end of the age” which Noe knows was the end of the OC age in AD 70 – when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would “cease.” Is there anywhere where the Bible says evangelism was to cease post AD 70? Of course not! The entire function of the NC Kingdom/Church/New Creation is to do just that (Isaiah 65-66/Revelation 21-22:17). How in the world this means that prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge is to be carried over post AD 70 is beyond me.
4) To be quite honest I almost fell out of my chair at Noe’s second charge against Full Preterism. He asked Michael a rhetorical question as to where Jesus or the NT ever taught a “spiritual kingdom”? He apparently has a problem with us teaching this. The other was that we don’t present Christ and the Kingdom in our teaching. Wow. Well, first of all anyone reading and knowing their OT and NT, understands that the Messianic Kingdom is synonymous with: The New Creation, Salvation, Redemption, Resurrection, Seed, The New Jerusalem, The New Temple, The New Priesthood, Spiritual Water, Bread, etc… Noe actually is claiming we don’t teach on these topics?!? In all sincerity (with sarcasm thrown in) – “What planet has or is Noe on when he makes these kind of unfounded accusations?!?” Jesus and the NT writers do NOTHING but present these NC KINGDOM “true” and “SPIRITUAL” anti-type realities in contrast to the physical OC types and shadows of the OC Kingdom.
5) Noe lost me when he wanted to develop the “physical” “everlasting” kingdom promises which we allegedly don’t emphasize. It seems they were fulfilled in the physical birth of Jesus. Okay, so what was Noe’s point here? I have no idea. I do know that we don’t know Jesus any more “after the flesh” and that Jesus has gone back to the glory that He had with the Father before the incarnation – obviously post AD 70. Yes, the “everlasting kingdom” continues to expand in the hearts and minds of men and women today and the gospel changes societies wherever it goes. So how does this “prove” Noe’s point that we are guilty of teaching a “spiritual” kingdom and on par with the twisted futurists teachings on the kingdom – I’ll never know! Some how we all need John Noe and his “Preterist Idealism” to save us though.
6) Noe also tried the typical Charismatic cop-out that we aren’t experiencing a revival of the outpouring of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, because of these false views of the kingdom (which includes Full Preterism) that are being taught today. We are filled with unbelief. So Noe comes to save the day by writing another article in the ETS explaining why they will “soon” come back. Why? Well, apparently it is because Noe is spearheading charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” Oh please. I will be more than happy to take Noe to any hospital in the U.S. or in the deepest darkest jungles (he can pay for that, since he admitted he has a lot of money in his first interview) – and let’s watch Noe perform some miracles and healings with HIS FAITH. This is a tired old Charismatic and Pentecostal cop-out that teaches you aren’t healed because you lack faith – or “you must haven’t forgiven someone in your past” etc… We’ve all heard the lines before.
Noe of course acknowledges that most “tongues” and “prophecy” taking place today is “learned behavior” and that there are “abuses” out there. At least we agree on that. But this is no different than ANY Charismatic or Pentecostal group I’ve encountered. They all criticize other “extreme” groups and claim they are the “mature” or “balanced” group in which the Spirit is “really moving.” I encountered this in the Assembly of God, The Vineyard, and Calvary Chapel movements. Noe offers nothing new – same old lines.
7) I firmly believe with all of my heart that Noe owes the Full Preterist community an apology for his unfounded charges and accusations. I firmly believe that just as Ed Steven’s has done a disservice to Full Preterism by adopting a literal rapture view, Noe has equally done so with his charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” It is my honest and sincere prayer that both men will examine the Scriptures more clearly and turn from teaching what they have thus far.
8) For a more Biblical approach to the issue of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge, please see my article on this subject on my web site. Also read David Green's and William Bell’s. Don Preston has also done a wonderful job on this topic and will have a book out soon covering this issue.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to express where I agree and disagree with some of the guests on the show from time to time.
In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),
Mike Sullivan
www.treeoflifeministries.info
www.fullpreterism.com
Friday, February 12, 2010 at 11:08pm
Noe was invited back to discuss the topic of the Kingdom post AD 70 on "The Journey." Here is my response to that interview and the accusations he made in it against the FP view. The bulk of this response deals with Noe's inability to answer a direct and clear question related to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and his accusations that Full Preterism teaches a "spiritual" kingdom and that we allegedly do not teach on the kingdom enough - like he does. Noe follows this up with the accusation or concern that our view of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge has contributed to a decline of Christianity in the U.S - along with us not teaching teaching on the kingdom and that when we do it is a spiritual one. Our teaching on the kingdom is equivalent to other false (futurist) views on the kingdom - per Noe. But its alright because Noe wrote another article in the ETS journal where he claims that we will most likely experience a revival of the charismata soon - due to his leadership in presenting the Charismatic Preterist Idealist approach to Scripture.
I have already given a refutation of his first interview. In that he stated that Christians are capable of holding to false doctrine because they "WANT" too in light of the clear teaching of Scripture. In Noe's second interview he demonstrates that - "thou art the man" Mr. Noe.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity given me to express my disagreements with Mr. Noe in his first and now second interview. I will seek to voice my concerns as graciously as I can while holding to my Biblical responsibility to test all things in the light of Scripture.
1) My first and overall concern is similar to my perception of Noe’s first interview. In the first interview Mr. Noe had the opportunity to tell the ETS lecturer that he was mistaken on what Full Preterism believes and teaches and that what he thought was Full Preterism was actually Hyper Preterism. Noe had the opportunity to set the record straight but instead decided he wanted to coin his own term and be the leader of it “Preterist Idealism” – seeking to kick start it in his article in the ETS journal. Much could be said of this approach, but I’ll just say it is sad and I don’t find it honorable or honest in the least bit. So far we have had two professing Full Preterists who have been charismatics and have sought to coin this term “Preterist Idealism.” One could not shake or drop his existentialism and charismatic theology at the narrow gate of Full Preterism and ended up forsaking the position altogether and now attacks us claiming that we overthrow the faith of Chrisitians (Todd Dennis). Noe has not gone all the way back to futurism, but in this second interview he has attacked the Full Preterist view nonetheless. Let me explain why I feel so strongly that Noe’s approach and accusations are false.
2) Noe levied two very serious charges against Full Preterism. The first was that we do not emphasize the kingdom in our teaching and the second is that Full Preterist cessationalists are no different than futurists who do not present Christ and the Kingdom as preeminent in their teachings. He lumped us in with futurists and claimed that all these views are the result of the decline of Christian growth in the United States. Please listen to the tail end of the interview if you think I am mistaken in this. Why? Well according to Noe, there are two problems with the Full Preterist view:
a) We believe the miraculous sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and knowledge have “ceased” at the arrival of that which is perfect/the Second Coming/New Creation (1 Cor. 13:8-12/Isaiah 52:8 [“eye to eye”] Revelation 21-22:4, 10-12).
b) We allegedly do not put the kingdom as a priority in our teaching and we teach that the Kingdom is “spiritual.”
Let me now address these accusations or concerns that Noe has levied against us.
First of all, as Michael Loomis noted it took Noe 20 minuets to answer his question on what “the perfect” is in the text and what exactly “ceased” (if anything) in AD 70. My point is that Noe dodged the heart of the question entirely. He correctly identified the “knowing in part” as the Old Covenant (OC) and “the perfect” as the New Covenant and went to the book of Hebrews to support the superiority of the NC over against the fading of the OC citing Hebrews 8:13. Michael sought to help Noe by giving an illustration of a glass being half empty (representing the OC) and then the filling up of the rest of the glass as the NC revelation - reaching its fulfillment in AD 70. The question was, “Once the glass is full, don’t we drink the whole glass and not just half of it?” This implied that the gifts continued post AD 70. First of all the illustration does not even remotely fit the context of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 as they applied it to the two covenants. For the illustration to apply, the first half of the glass (OC revelation) would be water (“in part,” “childish,” “seeing a poor reflection,”) and the filling up of the second half of the glass would be the wine of the NC revelation. When Christ’s Second Coming/Appearing (which Noe downgraded the significance of in his first interview BTW) took place, the glass was transformed into a full glass of wine for the Church to drink from – the first half of water (which they claimed was the OC in the illustration) – having been “transformed” (2 Cor. 3-5) and now “disappeared” or “vanished” (Heb. 8:13).
Unfortunately Noe (and Michael to a certain extent) did not address the question regarding the “ceasing” or the “disappearing” of the OC order and its relationship to “prophecies,” “tongues,” and “knowledge.” (1 Cor. 13:12; Hebrews 8:13).
Since Noe admits that the “in part” was the weak/beggarly and insufficient OC system and “the perfection” is the NC system, then this is how the text is broken down:
OC – Know in part / NC – Perfection comes. AD 70 “imperfect disappears.”
OC – Child / NC – A man. AD 70 childish things “put behind.”
OC – Poor reflection in a mirror / NC – See face to face.
OC – Know in part / NC – Know as I am fully known.
*OC =’s imperfect disappearing/putting behind or away childish things/prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ceasing.
Noe did not address the questions and the parallel structure of the text itself. In other words he AVOIDED the heart of the question. So how did he answer it? He went to 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 and he and Michael used some sarcasm and asked, “Yeah, we don’t see these Full Preterist cessationalists claiming that the gift of “teaching” or the gifts of helps “ceased” in AD 70. Uh, well, where does Paul ever say that they would?!? John and Michael – how about you stick to the text at hand and what Paul said would “cease” instead of running to a passage where Paul does not say all those gifts would? Noe mentions this is an issue of “hermeneutics” and then blindly ignores following them in addressing the text at hand.
Noe (still avoiding the text) decided that the charismatic miraculous gifts were still for today because the gospels and the NT use the words “the Kingdom” and “the Church.” His reasoning was: “If we still have the Kingdom and the Church Post AD 70, then the “model” of the Kingdom in the gospels and in the book of Acts (which include these miraculous signs) MUST also be here today post AD 70. What in the world kind of “argument” is that? Surely Noe knows that the gospels and the NT were written in the TRANSITION period right? Surely one could list a number of things that were taking place during this transition period (the “working model”) that did not continue post AD 70 (such as obedience to the OC “jots and tittles” Matthew 5:17-18) – as Noe himself would acknowledge did not carry over? Is the Kingdom then STILL “at hand” then? After all, this was apart of the “working model” period right?
3) Noe oddly appealed to the Great Commission of (Matthew 28:18-20 & thus indirectly to Mark 16:15-17 I suppose) to support that the miraculous sign gifts are still for today. He said that since the disciples were called to preach the gospel and teach the “nations,” then that commission hasn’t changed. And therefore since that commission (“the working model”) included the miraculous (cf. Mark 16:15-17), then if we are to continue to preach and teach the nations, then the miraculous must also be with us today. First of all, we encounter the same problem with “the nations” in (Rev. 10:11). Apparently Noe is saying this same Great Commission which includes these “nations” must include post AD 70 (2000 + years away nations) and therefore the charismata must be included in the “teaching” of these nations. They do not. Paul specifically says that the gospel reached “all nations” (Greek ethnos, Romans 16:25-26) prior to AD 70 and therefore the Church had fulfilled Jesus’ commission and commandment in (Mark 13:10 and Matthew 28:18-20). This was fulfilled at the “end of the age” which Noe knows was the end of the OC age in AD 70 – when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would “cease.” Is there anywhere where the Bible says evangelism was to cease post AD 70? Of course not! The entire function of the NC Kingdom/Church/New Creation is to do just that (Isaiah 65-66/Revelation 21-22:17). How in the world this means that prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge is to be carried over post AD 70 is beyond me.
4) To be quite honest I almost fell out of my chair at Noe’s second charge against Full Preterism. He asked Michael a rhetorical question as to where Jesus or the NT ever taught a “spiritual kingdom”? He apparently has a problem with us teaching this. The other was that we don’t present Christ and the Kingdom in our teaching. Wow. Well, first of all anyone reading and knowing their OT and NT, understands that the Messianic Kingdom is synonymous with: The New Creation, Salvation, Redemption, Resurrection, Seed, The New Jerusalem, The New Temple, The New Priesthood, Spiritual Water, Bread, etc… Noe actually is claiming we don’t teach on these topics?!? In all sincerity (with sarcasm thrown in) – “What planet has or is Noe on when he makes these kind of unfounded accusations?!?” Jesus and the NT writers do NOTHING but present these NC KINGDOM “true” and “SPIRITUAL” anti-type realities in contrast to the physical OC types and shadows of the OC Kingdom.
5) Noe lost me when he wanted to develop the “physical” “everlasting” kingdom promises which we allegedly don’t emphasize. It seems they were fulfilled in the physical birth of Jesus. Okay, so what was Noe’s point here? I have no idea. I do know that we don’t know Jesus any more “after the flesh” and that Jesus has gone back to the glory that He had with the Father before the incarnation – obviously post AD 70. Yes, the “everlasting kingdom” continues to expand in the hearts and minds of men and women today and the gospel changes societies wherever it goes. So how does this “prove” Noe’s point that we are guilty of teaching a “spiritual” kingdom and on par with the twisted futurists teachings on the kingdom – I’ll never know! Some how we all need John Noe and his “Preterist Idealism” to save us though.
6) Noe also tried the typical Charismatic cop-out that we aren’t experiencing a revival of the outpouring of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, because of these false views of the kingdom (which includes Full Preterism) that are being taught today. We are filled with unbelief. So Noe comes to save the day by writing another article in the ETS explaining why they will “soon” come back. Why? Well, apparently it is because Noe is spearheading charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” Oh please. I will be more than happy to take Noe to any hospital in the U.S. or in the deepest darkest jungles (he can pay for that, since he admitted he has a lot of money in his first interview) – and let’s watch Noe perform some miracles and healings with HIS FAITH. This is a tired old Charismatic and Pentecostal cop-out that teaches you aren’t healed because you lack faith – or “you must haven’t forgiven someone in your past” etc… We’ve all heard the lines before.
Noe of course acknowledges that most “tongues” and “prophecy” taking place today is “learned behavior” and that there are “abuses” out there. At least we agree on that. But this is no different than ANY Charismatic or Pentecostal group I’ve encountered. They all criticize other “extreme” groups and claim they are the “mature” or “balanced” group in which the Spirit is “really moving.” I encountered this in the Assembly of God, The Vineyard, and Calvary Chapel movements. Noe offers nothing new – same old lines.
7) I firmly believe with all of my heart that Noe owes the Full Preterist community an apology for his unfounded charges and accusations. I firmly believe that just as Ed Steven’s has done a disservice to Full Preterism by adopting a literal rapture view, Noe has equally done so with his charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” It is my honest and sincere prayer that both men will examine the Scriptures more clearly and turn from teaching what they have thus far.
8) For a more Biblical approach to the issue of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge, please see my article on this subject on my web site. Also read David Green's and William Bell’s. Don Preston has also done a wonderful job on this topic and will have a book out soon covering this issue.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to express where I agree and disagree with some of the guests on the show from time to time.
In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),
Mike Sullivan
www.treeoflifeministries.info
www.fullpreterism.com
When was Book of Revelation written?
One of the main arguments with futurists and preterists is the dating of the book of Revelation, with its reference to the Temple, the Temple was destroyed in 70AD (fact) so when John is told to measure the Temple it must have been while it was still standing, before 70AD, if the book was written after 70AD(futurist thought) then it would mean a future Temple, one that has not yet been built, but unfortunately for the futurists there is a huge Muslim mosque where the Temple needs to be built and the churches mentioned in Revelation are no longer around, here is a piece I came across, I do not know the guys views on eschatology, but I feel gives a good explanation of the dating of the book of Revelation...
Overview When was Book of Revelation written?
by Wolfgang Schneider
Introduction
There are two dates that are commonly mentioned for the writing of the Book of Revelation: (a) an early date - still during the lifetime of Caesar Nero, about the middle of the 60s AD; and (b) a late date - about 95/96 AD furing the time of Caesar Domitian.
The question about the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is important for an accurate understanding of those events which are mentioned and spoken of in the book. A correct understanding must take into consideration when a statement was made, only then can the time frames and time related elements of the mentioned events be correctly understood. It is remarkable that the proponents of each position often accuse the other that their whole interpretation is based on the dating of the writing of the book and therefore would fall apart if the book were written at a different time. Such arguments are only partly correct. Certainly, as I have already mentioned, the knowledge of the date of writing is important to correctly understand the statements made in the book; if that premise is wrong, the interpretation will be wrong as well.
Now, the most important points for determining the time of writing of the Book of Revelation are the statements and the information in the book, which provide time elements and hints that either directly tell time factors or else imply or indicate time elements. Considering the truth that the Book of Revelation was revealed by God and that the prophet John correctly wrote down the truths he was shown, we can see that the time related information in the book (internal to the book) is the most important criteria for dating the writing of the book. Such information gained from the contents of the book is often called "internal evidence", and such internal evidence has a higher priority and carry more weight than the so called "external evidence", that is, information about the matter in other sources and other works.
The scholars are not really united on this matter, and in the course of certain theological views the late date is preferred today by the majority. The interpretations based on the acceptance of the late date as correct usually place the events recorded in the book of Revelation in the still future and thus they consider the prophecies in Revelation as unfulfilled. Rather important for the acceptance of the late date (approx. 96 AD) is a quote from a writing of the church father Irenaeus where he mentions John in the context of the persecutions of Christians by Caesar Domitian. Based on this source, the writing of Revelation is then placed in the time of Domitian because of the mention that John was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God.
I would like to set forth in this study some of the often used arguments for both dates. In addition, I will mention some points which I would consider to be imortant. Other than that, the readers have the privilege to consider the matter and to come to their own conclusions concerning this topic.
External sources and evidence
I have listed only some external sources, they are repeatedly used by representatives of both positions as a support for their respective interpretations.
Irenaeus - hints to a late date?
The proponents of a late date determine their conclusion mostly from a statement by church father Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), which was quoted by the church historian Eusebius in AD 325, where he writes:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
If John had seen these visions toward the end of the reign of Caesar Domitian, the years 95/96 AD would be good candidates for the time of writing. Domitian died in 96 AD after having reigned 14 years as Casear and Roman emperor.
However, there are a number of things about this quote from Irenaeus which are not as clear and somewhat ambiguous. A question remains about "who" or "what" was seen. Was John seen still at that time? Or did John see the vision which then was recorded in the Book of Revelation at that time? A difficulty is that the statement comes to us as a third party quote of what someone else quoted that someone else supposedly said about two centuries earlier. We read what Eusebius had heard or knew from some source about Irenaeus, but the statement by Irenaeus is actually a "second hand" report, in that he makes reference to Polycarp. It was not Irenaeus himself, but Polycarp, who according to Irenaeus' recollection saw "that" sometime toward the end of Domitian's reign. It is not clear from this statement what Polycarp was referring to as "that was seen", for he could be referring to John and the visions John saw, he could be referring to the name of the Antichrist, he could also be referring to the book without it being clear if he actually meant that the book was written then or that it already existed. This quote is not as clear as some want to make it, when they base their dating of the writing of the Book of Revelation on this source.
Irenaeus mentioned in another one of his works concerning the number of the name of the antichrist that this number is found in all ancient and approved or recognized copies/writings. This mention of "ancient copies" is interesting because Domitian's reign ended only shortly before Irenaeus' own time and if the book were written in about 95/96 AD, there would hardly have been any "ancient" copies of the book in his day. This mention in Irenaeus' 5th book of his writings seems to point to an earlier date of writing of the Book of Revelation, at least a few more decades removed from his own time so that he could speak of "ancient [older]" copies being in existence.
Aramaic Peshitta Preface - hints to an early date
The preface comment to the Book of Revelation in the Aramaic Peshitta version has a comment which would place the writing of the Book of Revelation to the early date, a time prior to 70 AD. The title page of the Book of Revelation contains the following statement: "The revelation which God gave the evanglist John on the island of Patmos where he had been banned by Nero Caesar." The emperor Nero however died in 68 AD, and according to Roman rules those banned by a Cesaer would be released after the Caesar's death ... thus, John would have been released from Patmos in 68 AD (or shortly thereafter) and the time when he received this revelation and wrote it down would have been prior to 70 AD. John himself mentions in the book that he was at Patmos, when he received this revelation.
Internal evidence
There are a number of points arising from the internal evidence, that is, from information given in the book itself, which all indicate the early date as not only probable but the only possible date for what is stated in the Book.
Warnings to seven churches in Asia
The Book of Revelation specifically mentions that this revelation was of special relevance to the seven churches in Asia and that John wrote it and had it sent to those churches by messengers (cp Rev 1:4). It is important to note that during Paul's ministry in the 50ies AD, there had been nine churches established in Asia. At about 60/61 AD there was a large earthquake in which, as we can read in secular sources, the cities of Colossae, Hierapolis and Laodicea were totally destroyed. Laodicea was the only city of these three which was rebuilt soon afterwards, which then left seven cities with churches in Asia. The period of time where there were only seven churches in Asia was only during the few years from the early 60ies AD to the time prior to the Jewish war.
In order for the book to even be of benefit to the Christians in Asia, it must have been written prior to 66/67 AD, before Vespasian was coming through this area with his armies as they were getting in position for the war against the Jews. Once the war started, the Romans plundered and persecuted the Christians as well as the Jews wherever they came through.
An interesting detail from the message to the church at Philadelphia (cp Rev 3:7ff) also sheds some light on the possible time of writing. The believers at Philadelphia are warned by Christ in this revelation that an "hour of temptation" was imminent and "about to come upon all the world [the Roman empire]" and that they should hold fast and remain faithful as he [Christ] was coming soon. This is important and significant in that it is addressed to believers of a church in the 1st century AD and in that the first persecution of Christians all over the Roman empire took place under Nero Caesar in 64 AD. If this warning to the believers in Asia about an imminent temptation and the encouragement to hold fast related to this persecution, then the book seems to have been written even prior to 64 AD.
John's later activities
Another internal evidence in the book itself is connected to a reference about certain activities which John was still to experience in his life afterwards. In Rev 10:11, John is told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings". Now, if John would have received this revelation in 96AD and written it at that time, then these words which he was told did not come to pass, seeing that he was a very old man at that time and hardly able to walk and travel. But, if John did receive this revelation and write it down during the time of Nero approx 65-66 AD, then he could fulfill what he was told. He would have been able to prophesy and to teach during the reigns of Caeasars Galb, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and also Domitian (spanning the time from 68-96 AD).
Destruction of city and temple at the end of the age
There are a number of references in the book of Revelation with symbols that have reference to the temple, and in addition Rev 11,1-2 makes reference to the destruction of the temple and the city of Jersualem. This event was also foretold by Jesus, when he prophesied about the judgment on Jerusalem which was to come by the Son of man at the end of the age.
There is a parallel record in Zec 14:2 about this "day of the Lord" with its destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and Zec 13:7ff places this shortly after the shepherd would have dispersed his sheep (Jesus did quote from this section in Mt 26,31). Rev 11,2 is also a parallel to Mal 4, where a day of the Lord is spoken about when the Lord would separate and burn the chaff (the evil ones). This also parallels what Jesus mentions in parables about the burning of the chaff, the burning of apostate Israel, "at the end of the world [age]" (cp Mt 13:40,49).
Now, when is or was "the end of the age"? Other records in the NT scriptures provide some insight as they mention certain things which happen in connection with the end of the age. The writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus as "now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:26), and we can see from this passage that "the end of the world [age]"is the time when the Messiah Jesus through his sacrifice put away sin; in other words, the "end of the age" was the time during which Jesus lived and fulfilled his ministry almost 2000 years ago.
The coming of the Lord is placed as "near"
In Rev 1, the coming of the Lord is introduced and it is carried through the whole book to Rev 22, where we read about "Surely, I come quickly [soon]!" In Rev 1:7 the coming of the Lord in the clouds is mentioned, in addition we learn that those who pierced him would see him, as would be the case with all the tribes of the land, etc. Rev 1:7 is a reference to Zec 12:10, the words which Jesus also used when he was speaking to Caiaphas the highpriest (cp Mt 26:64).
The descriptions of Jesus about his coming in Mt 16:27-28; 23:34-39 and 24:30-31 are parallel to the record in Dan 9:24-27. Jesus was very clear about his coming being imminent and still happening during "this generation", that is, during the lifetime of some of his contemporaries, while some of his apostles and disciples would still be alive. Christ would come to judge the wicked and to execute the judgment on apostate Israel who were persecuting him and his disciples. This would not be a judgment that would occur at some very distant time in the future; instead, Jesus was rather emphatic about it being "soon", and "about to come".
For example, in Mt 16:27, Jesus used the words "For the Son of man SHALL COME ...". Grammatically, this looks in English like a simple future, describing an event that could be at any time (near or distant) in the future. However, the Greek uses the word mello in connection with the "come", and the expression should be translated as "For the Son of man IS ABOUT TO COME ..."! (For the meaning of mello, compare Thayer, Greek and English Lexicon, p. 396). Jesus declares that he "is about to come", and this imminency he emphasizes by stating in the next verse, that some of those who heard him that day would not die and actually see the Son of man coming in his kingdom! In other words, they would still be alive when Christ would come!
Conclusion
As we consider these points given in the NT scriptures, and as we accept that what is stated is indeed true, there are really two possibilities: (1) Jesus did already come, as he himself prophesied, or (2) there are some of those disciples who heard Jesus that day who are still alive somewhere on earth and who are approx 2000 years old by now.
The coming of the Lord was one of the various judgments of God and is parallel to the judgments of the LORD mentioned in Gen 3, when Adam and Eve were judged for transgressing God's command. It is parallel to the coming of the LORRD to judge Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18; it is parallel to the coming of the LORD upon Egypt at the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt (cp. also Exo 2:8, Jer 5:25; 10:5-11; Joel 2:1; Zeph 1:1-18; 14:5)
The coming of Christ in Rev 1:7 is a mention of that coming when the Son of man would judge the enemies of his assembly and his coming to execute judgement on apostate Israel, it marks the events prophesied to happen at the end of the age.
From both external and internal evidence of the Book of Revelation, an early date is the only option which will harmonize well with the content of the book. Although the later date of 96 AD is widely accepted in many Christian circles and groups today (even though this theory basically only rests on one statement in one external source), the evidence in the book of Revelation itself points rather clearly to an earlier date of 65-66 AD for the time of writing, the time when John was banned to the Isle of Patmos during the persecution by Caeasar Nero.
Overview When was Book of Revelation written?
by Wolfgang Schneider
Introduction
There are two dates that are commonly mentioned for the writing of the Book of Revelation: (a) an early date - still during the lifetime of Caesar Nero, about the middle of the 60s AD; and (b) a late date - about 95/96 AD furing the time of Caesar Domitian.
The question about the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation is important for an accurate understanding of those events which are mentioned and spoken of in the book. A correct understanding must take into consideration when a statement was made, only then can the time frames and time related elements of the mentioned events be correctly understood. It is remarkable that the proponents of each position often accuse the other that their whole interpretation is based on the dating of the writing of the book and therefore would fall apart if the book were written at a different time. Such arguments are only partly correct. Certainly, as I have already mentioned, the knowledge of the date of writing is important to correctly understand the statements made in the book; if that premise is wrong, the interpretation will be wrong as well.
Now, the most important points for determining the time of writing of the Book of Revelation are the statements and the information in the book, which provide time elements and hints that either directly tell time factors or else imply or indicate time elements. Considering the truth that the Book of Revelation was revealed by God and that the prophet John correctly wrote down the truths he was shown, we can see that the time related information in the book (internal to the book) is the most important criteria for dating the writing of the book. Such information gained from the contents of the book is often called "internal evidence", and such internal evidence has a higher priority and carry more weight than the so called "external evidence", that is, information about the matter in other sources and other works.
The scholars are not really united on this matter, and in the course of certain theological views the late date is preferred today by the majority. The interpretations based on the acceptance of the late date as correct usually place the events recorded in the book of Revelation in the still future and thus they consider the prophecies in Revelation as unfulfilled. Rather important for the acceptance of the late date (approx. 96 AD) is a quote from a writing of the church father Irenaeus where he mentions John in the context of the persecutions of Christians by Caesar Domitian. Based on this source, the writing of Revelation is then placed in the time of Domitian because of the mention that John was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God.
I would like to set forth in this study some of the often used arguments for both dates. In addition, I will mention some points which I would consider to be imortant. Other than that, the readers have the privilege to consider the matter and to come to their own conclusions concerning this topic.
External sources and evidence
I have listed only some external sources, they are repeatedly used by representatives of both positions as a support for their respective interpretations.
Irenaeus - hints to a late date?
The proponents of a late date determine their conclusion mostly from a statement by church father Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), which was quoted by the church historian Eusebius in AD 325, where he writes:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
If John had seen these visions toward the end of the reign of Caesar Domitian, the years 95/96 AD would be good candidates for the time of writing. Domitian died in 96 AD after having reigned 14 years as Casear and Roman emperor.
However, there are a number of things about this quote from Irenaeus which are not as clear and somewhat ambiguous. A question remains about "who" or "what" was seen. Was John seen still at that time? Or did John see the vision which then was recorded in the Book of Revelation at that time? A difficulty is that the statement comes to us as a third party quote of what someone else quoted that someone else supposedly said about two centuries earlier. We read what Eusebius had heard or knew from some source about Irenaeus, but the statement by Irenaeus is actually a "second hand" report, in that he makes reference to Polycarp. It was not Irenaeus himself, but Polycarp, who according to Irenaeus' recollection saw "that" sometime toward the end of Domitian's reign. It is not clear from this statement what Polycarp was referring to as "that was seen", for he could be referring to John and the visions John saw, he could be referring to the name of the Antichrist, he could also be referring to the book without it being clear if he actually meant that the book was written then or that it already existed. This quote is not as clear as some want to make it, when they base their dating of the writing of the Book of Revelation on this source.
Irenaeus mentioned in another one of his works concerning the number of the name of the antichrist that this number is found in all ancient and approved or recognized copies/writings. This mention of "ancient copies" is interesting because Domitian's reign ended only shortly before Irenaeus' own time and if the book were written in about 95/96 AD, there would hardly have been any "ancient" copies of the book in his day. This mention in Irenaeus' 5th book of his writings seems to point to an earlier date of writing of the Book of Revelation, at least a few more decades removed from his own time so that he could speak of "ancient [older]" copies being in existence.
Aramaic Peshitta Preface - hints to an early date
The preface comment to the Book of Revelation in the Aramaic Peshitta version has a comment which would place the writing of the Book of Revelation to the early date, a time prior to 70 AD. The title page of the Book of Revelation contains the following statement: "The revelation which God gave the evanglist John on the island of Patmos where he had been banned by Nero Caesar." The emperor Nero however died in 68 AD, and according to Roman rules those banned by a Cesaer would be released after the Caesar's death ... thus, John would have been released from Patmos in 68 AD (or shortly thereafter) and the time when he received this revelation and wrote it down would have been prior to 70 AD. John himself mentions in the book that he was at Patmos, when he received this revelation.
Internal evidence
There are a number of points arising from the internal evidence, that is, from information given in the book itself, which all indicate the early date as not only probable but the only possible date for what is stated in the Book.
Warnings to seven churches in Asia
The Book of Revelation specifically mentions that this revelation was of special relevance to the seven churches in Asia and that John wrote it and had it sent to those churches by messengers (cp Rev 1:4). It is important to note that during Paul's ministry in the 50ies AD, there had been nine churches established in Asia. At about 60/61 AD there was a large earthquake in which, as we can read in secular sources, the cities of Colossae, Hierapolis and Laodicea were totally destroyed. Laodicea was the only city of these three which was rebuilt soon afterwards, which then left seven cities with churches in Asia. The period of time where there were only seven churches in Asia was only during the few years from the early 60ies AD to the time prior to the Jewish war.
In order for the book to even be of benefit to the Christians in Asia, it must have been written prior to 66/67 AD, before Vespasian was coming through this area with his armies as they were getting in position for the war against the Jews. Once the war started, the Romans plundered and persecuted the Christians as well as the Jews wherever they came through.
An interesting detail from the message to the church at Philadelphia (cp Rev 3:7ff) also sheds some light on the possible time of writing. The believers at Philadelphia are warned by Christ in this revelation that an "hour of temptation" was imminent and "about to come upon all the world [the Roman empire]" and that they should hold fast and remain faithful as he [Christ] was coming soon. This is important and significant in that it is addressed to believers of a church in the 1st century AD and in that the first persecution of Christians all over the Roman empire took place under Nero Caesar in 64 AD. If this warning to the believers in Asia about an imminent temptation and the encouragement to hold fast related to this persecution, then the book seems to have been written even prior to 64 AD.
John's later activities
Another internal evidence in the book itself is connected to a reference about certain activities which John was still to experience in his life afterwards. In Rev 10:11, John is told that he "must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings". Now, if John would have received this revelation in 96AD and written it at that time, then these words which he was told did not come to pass, seeing that he was a very old man at that time and hardly able to walk and travel. But, if John did receive this revelation and write it down during the time of Nero approx 65-66 AD, then he could fulfill what he was told. He would have been able to prophesy and to teach during the reigns of Caeasars Galb, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and also Domitian (spanning the time from 68-96 AD).
Destruction of city and temple at the end of the age
There are a number of references in the book of Revelation with symbols that have reference to the temple, and in addition Rev 11,1-2 makes reference to the destruction of the temple and the city of Jersualem. This event was also foretold by Jesus, when he prophesied about the judgment on Jerusalem which was to come by the Son of man at the end of the age.
There is a parallel record in Zec 14:2 about this "day of the Lord" with its destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and Zec 13:7ff places this shortly after the shepherd would have dispersed his sheep (Jesus did quote from this section in Mt 26,31). Rev 11,2 is also a parallel to Mal 4, where a day of the Lord is spoken about when the Lord would separate and burn the chaff (the evil ones). This also parallels what Jesus mentions in parables about the burning of the chaff, the burning of apostate Israel, "at the end of the world [age]" (cp Mt 13:40,49).
Now, when is or was "the end of the age"? Other records in the NT scriptures provide some insight as they mention certain things which happen in connection with the end of the age. The writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus as "now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:26), and we can see from this passage that "the end of the world [age]"is the time when the Messiah Jesus through his sacrifice put away sin; in other words, the "end of the age" was the time during which Jesus lived and fulfilled his ministry almost 2000 years ago.
The coming of the Lord is placed as "near"
In Rev 1, the coming of the Lord is introduced and it is carried through the whole book to Rev 22, where we read about "Surely, I come quickly [soon]!" In Rev 1:7 the coming of the Lord in the clouds is mentioned, in addition we learn that those who pierced him would see him, as would be the case with all the tribes of the land, etc. Rev 1:7 is a reference to Zec 12:10, the words which Jesus also used when he was speaking to Caiaphas the highpriest (cp Mt 26:64).
The descriptions of Jesus about his coming in Mt 16:27-28; 23:34-39 and 24:30-31 are parallel to the record in Dan 9:24-27. Jesus was very clear about his coming being imminent and still happening during "this generation", that is, during the lifetime of some of his contemporaries, while some of his apostles and disciples would still be alive. Christ would come to judge the wicked and to execute the judgment on apostate Israel who were persecuting him and his disciples. This would not be a judgment that would occur at some very distant time in the future; instead, Jesus was rather emphatic about it being "soon", and "about to come".
For example, in Mt 16:27, Jesus used the words "For the Son of man SHALL COME ...". Grammatically, this looks in English like a simple future, describing an event that could be at any time (near or distant) in the future. However, the Greek uses the word mello in connection with the "come", and the expression should be translated as "For the Son of man IS ABOUT TO COME ..."! (For the meaning of mello, compare Thayer, Greek and English Lexicon, p. 396). Jesus declares that he "is about to come", and this imminency he emphasizes by stating in the next verse, that some of those who heard him that day would not die and actually see the Son of man coming in his kingdom! In other words, they would still be alive when Christ would come!
Conclusion
As we consider these points given in the NT scriptures, and as we accept that what is stated is indeed true, there are really two possibilities: (1) Jesus did already come, as he himself prophesied, or (2) there are some of those disciples who heard Jesus that day who are still alive somewhere on earth and who are approx 2000 years old by now.
The coming of the Lord was one of the various judgments of God and is parallel to the judgments of the LORD mentioned in Gen 3, when Adam and Eve were judged for transgressing God's command. It is parallel to the coming of the LORRD to judge Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18; it is parallel to the coming of the LORD upon Egypt at the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt (cp. also Exo 2:8, Jer 5:25; 10:5-11; Joel 2:1; Zeph 1:1-18; 14:5)
The coming of Christ in Rev 1:7 is a mention of that coming when the Son of man would judge the enemies of his assembly and his coming to execute judgement on apostate Israel, it marks the events prophesied to happen at the end of the age.
From both external and internal evidence of the Book of Revelation, an early date is the only option which will harmonize well with the content of the book. Although the later date of 96 AD is widely accepted in many Christian circles and groups today (even though this theory basically only rests on one statement in one external source), the evidence in the book of Revelation itself points rather clearly to an earlier date of 65-66 AD for the time of writing, the time when John was banned to the Isle of Patmos during the persecution by Caeasar Nero.
A Mystery that Bible Scholars Missed:
The World Ended 2000 years Ago,
But it Was Not Our World, it Was the World of Israel.
THE JEWISH WORLD - FROM ABRAHAM TO CHRIST
The first chapter of Matthew contains an interesting verse: V17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." The nation of Israel had its very beginning with Abraham, and ended in the days of Christ. It lasted forty-two generations. If Israel were to continue after a two thousand year pause in existence or "holding pattern," or "dormant period," we can be sure the Bible would have worded this passage differently. But the Word of God says nothing about a "restored" Israel in the future, nor any future generation or remnant of Israel. The generation living in Christ's day was the last generation. The Rapture happened. The Resurrection happened. Christ returned. The Great Tribulation happened - not exactly the way "prophets" have been describing it for years. But remember, it only concerned the nation and people of Israel. If Bible scholars could ever accept that, and re-examine their cherished theologies, they would find that 99% of all Scripture verses easily fit into a comprehensible pattern of sound Bible theology; it all would make sense.
DANIEL'S PROPHECY CLOSED
Prophecy experts have preached for years that the book of Daniel will be a "sealed" book until the Second Coming of Christ, that we will only begin to understand it then. And the verse from Daniel most often quoted is this one: "And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan. 12:15). This means, without a doubt, that no one was supposed to understand anything that Daniel wrote until the time of the end. But a few hundred years later, the Lord Jesus Christ himself quoted from Daniel:
DANIEL'S PROPHECY WAS OPENED
Matt. 24:15 "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" History records that Christ came to earth some 2000 years ago. That was His First Advent. In the days of Christ's First Advent, whosoever heard Him, or whosoever read Daniel's book for himself, could understand it. That, therefore, was the time of the end. The modern Jew today refuses to believe that, and so do certain Bible scholars. The stubbornness of the Jews can be explained; they don't believe in Christ, and reject the New Testament. No one can understand those Bible scholars.
The bottom line is, Christ came to give Israel one last chance. They blew it. Therefore, what would have been a glorious new beginning for the nation became, instead, the time of the end.
THE GOSPEL ALREADY PREACHED
Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Ever since who can remember when, modern "prophets" have been keeping us informed about the advances in radio and television, and how the Gospel is going out even into the remotest parts of the earth, and that it won't be long before the whole earth will be covered with the preaching of the Gospel, and that will be one of the things that will signal the time for Christ to return.
But if we set aside imaginations, and just believe the Bible, we find that the Gospel has already been preached in all the world --- 2000 years ago. Colossians 1:23 "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; "
So, the Gospel was preached in all the known world at that time, thus setting the stage for the end of the world to happen any time thereafter. Now, if the end of the world had not come in those days, and if the world is still waiting to hear the Gospel, then Paul's announcement that the Gospel had already been preached to every creature under heaven would have been a lie. All the "creatures under heaven," most assuredly included the Jews (especially the Jews), and the world was the world as it was then known, not the entire globe. "The end," was the end of the Jewish world.
IN THESE LAST DAYS
Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds";
In the "old days," God spoke to the "Old Timers" of Israel by the prophets. But IN THESE LAST DAYS He spoke to "us" (the first century Jews) by His Son, Jesus Christ. This verse leaves no room for debate: "These last days" came in the days of Christ's first advent. We can say that the "last days" lasted from the moment of Gabriel's announcement to Mary of the coming birth of Jesus (the beginning of the end), to the end of the war between Rome and Israel in AD70.
SPIRIT POURED OUT UPON ALL FLESH
Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams": Common "wisdom" of the learned vainly awaits the day when God will pour out of His Spirit upon all flesh. In actuality, however, that has already happened. Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Jewish Christians were astonished, they couldn't believe that God would pour out of His Spirit on all flesh, even the Gentiles. But he did just that - two thousand years ago. What more need be said?
SCOFFERS
2Peter 3:3-4 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."
Who are these "scoffers?" Prophecy experts identify them as future unbelievers and doubters of the world. But the language they use betrays them as Jews, i.e., "...since the fathers fell asleep..." Who talks that way these days? And "...from the beginning of creation..." The modern unbelievers, and future unbelievers, are evolutionists; they don't believe in Creation. How could they argue about anything from the "beginning of Creation?" These scoffers, who appeared in the last days, were the first century Jews who rejected Christ, and the teaching that He would come again. They referred to their ancestors as "fathers," and didn't deny Creation
Who wrote the Gospel of John?
It may of not been the apostle John, could it have been Lazarus.
Read the article here.
Read the article here.
Mistaken Identity Doctrine.
By Terry Cropper
At the center of many debates today is the question of who is "the Israel of God." It is the belief of dispensations that God made a promise to Abraham (Genesis chapters 15 and 17) that he would give to him an earthly, national people with the result they view has always been God's intention to have such a people.
God was so committed to creating such an earthly, nationalistic people that this was the primary reason why God has never has been nor ever will be done with the physical seed of Israel. It is because is this false teaching that most Christians will not even preach the gospel to a Jews.
It is also an article of faith among dispensations that the creation of a modern state, of Israel in Palestine in 1948, is a providential confirmation of their claim that the Jews are God's earthly, national people and that further, God continues to work with the physical seed of Abraham.
Though it might be exciting to think that God is doing something spectacular with the physical seed of Israel in Palestine in our times,. Lest not confuse what is temporary with what is permanent, and what is permanent with what is temporary in scripture.
It is the argument of this article that Jesus Christ is the true Israel of God and that everyone who is united to him by grace alone, through faith alone becomes, by virtue of that union, apart of God’s true Israel. This means that it is wrong headed to look for, expect, hope for or desire a reconstitution of nationalistic Israel out side of fath in Christ in the future.
We cannot understand what God has done for us in history, apart from understanding one of the most important terms in scripture. (The Israel of God). The church is not plan B or something which God instituted until he could recreate a national people in Palestine, but rather, God only had the national people temporarily (from Moses to Christ) as a foreshadowing of the creation of the New Covenant in which the ethnic distinctions which existed under Moses were fulfilled and abolished (Ephesians 2.11-22; Colossians 2.8-3.11).
Christian mistaken identity has made nationalistic Israel the true Israel of God instead of the spiritual/eternal nation in the body of Christ that is taught in the Bible. As a result, this view teaches that the temporal, type or shadow standards serve as the fulfilment of itself. This view takes away the glory from what Jesus Christ has done.
In the Hebrew scriptures the expression "out of Egypt" occurs more than 140 times. It is one of the defining facts of the existence of national Israel. When God gave the Law he said, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (Exodus 20:2) They were a redeemed people belonging to their Savior.
However national Israel coming out of the land of Egypt was a (type or shadow) that pointing to a greater spiritual truth to be fulfilled in Christ Jesus. The type or shadow was not the fulfillment.
If we will only let scripture show us it gives the very definition of God’s true Israel come out of Egypt. It most significant when Matthew quotes (Hosea 11.1) which says. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My.
Matthew's inspired interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is our Lord Jesus, not the temporary, nationalistic, people who are the true Israel of God. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son. (Matthew 2:14-15)
The only reason God orchestrated the first Exodus was so that he might orchestrate the second Exodus and that so we might know that Jesus is the true Israel of God and that all Christians are God's Israel regardless of ethnicity.
Herod was about to execute his bloody rage against the firstborn of the Jews. In Herod’s character, attitude, and actions we are to see an echo from the Old Testament. Herod, king of the Jews, is playing the part of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Herod is doing what Pharaoh did in opposition to God and His people. So what is Matthew doing here? How is he using Hosea’s words? He is saying that Jesus, God’s Son, is Israel, the true Israel. And that Jesus will retrace Israel’s steps. Israel is another proper name of Jesus Christ.
But wait there is more. A further reversal of roles is unfolds in scripture. God refers to the whole nation of Israel as if they were (one person), His ‘son’. We see this in Exodus 4:22-23: Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me”…’ Now, turning to the pages of the New Testament, we see Jesus is God’s one and only Son and the firstborn over all creation.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15) Jehovah's Witnesses will use the Colossians passage to teach that Christ was physically created by God the Father. This is a misunderstanding of the text. A simple understanding of Old Testament and Jewish culture will help enlighten us in regards to the meaning of this passage. The word firstborn was a term to denote the special role of the first son. The firstborn was the preeminent one, the special one that would receive a double portion from the father. It was the important firstborn blessing from the father that Jacob had stolen form Esau. (see Genesis 27)
Therefore, Colossians 1:15 is declaring that Jesus is the firstborn, or special and preeminent One over all creation. Jesus is the only son of God and firstborn of God. And, being the divine first and last and King of kings, Lord of lords such would be true.
Consequently, if Christ is the true Israel, and I propose that He is, then all those who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile, must be the true Israel of God. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians. 6:15-16). Paul taught that since Christ has come only those who have a relationship with God based on faith in Christ are the "Israel of God." Thus, all those joined to Christ are to participate in and receive all the blessings that belong to Christ.
It is because Jesus is the true Israel of God that, in his infancy and indeed in his entire life, he recapitulated the history of national Israel. What rebellious national Israel would not do, Jesus did. He loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and his neighbor as himself. (Matthew 22.37-40; Deu 11:1)
What rebellious national Israel would not obey the commandments of God. (Exodus 16:28; 2 Kings 17:18) Jesus God’s Israel did. (John 12:49) What rebellious national Israel would not shepherd and feed the sheep. (Ezekiel 34:1-2) Jesus God’s Israel did. (Mark 6:34; John 10:11) When the sheep were scattered because rebellious national Israel refused to shepherd over them. (Ezekiel 33:5-10) Jesus God’s Israel gathered them. "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. " (John 10:11) Please take the time to read ((Ezekiel 33:11-15).
Whereas national Israel were law-breakers, Christ was the true law-keeper and this not for His own sake but for ours. And where the nation of Israel failed, Jesus the true Israel, and obedient Son, prevailed. When the axe was sunk through the root (Matthew. 3:7-10) of "Israel after the flesh" in AD70, all that stood was the superior eternal nation called the "Israel of God."
Does this mean God has shut out Jews from salvation? Not at all. He has placed Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing. As Paul teaches it, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Galatians 3:28)
With all this background in mind we ask the questions, "Who are Abraham's children?" The Apostle Paul argues very clearly that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3.16 says, The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," (Singular) meaning one person, who is Christ. Paul explains what he means. The promises given to Abraham were NT gospel promises. They were given before Moses and they were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus is Abraham's true Son, he is "the seed" promised to Abraham. Thus Jesus is the true Israel of God.
Jesus also made a crucial distinction between the nationalistic seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Jesus said to the Jews, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32) To which they respond by pointing out that they are physically descended from Abraham (v.33).
To this Jesus responds, "If you were Abraham's children...then you would do the things Abraham did" (v.39). This, then is our Lord's definition of a child of Abraham. One who does the things Abraham did. What did Abraham do? According to Jesus, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (v.56).
According to Jesus the Messiah, a Jew, a true Israelite is one who has saving faith in the Lord Jesus before or after the incarnation. In fact, Jesus told the Pharisees of His day, that they were sons of the devil! (John 8:44) Thus it should not surprise us to find substantially the same teaching in the Apostle Paul's theology. In Romans 4, Paul says that one is justified in the same way Abraham was justified, by grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone (Rom 4:3-8). And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:29)
Part of the confusion which surrounds God's plan in history, and therefore part of the reason Christians are so confused about God's plans for the future of his people, is the misunderstand what Jesus came to do for national Israel. He did not come to set up a national, earthly Jewish kingdom, but he did come to be their Savior and the Savior of all of God's people whether Jew or Gentile.
"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This was John the Baptist's declaration in John 1:29 upon seeing Jesus for the first time. Our Lord, before he was incarnate, identified himself to Israel through the Prophet Isaiah (43.3) as "the Holy One of Israel," their "Savior."
Later, in sermon, Peter said that God has now "exalted" Jesus "to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. Christ did not come to reinstate and fix the Mosaic theocracy or to establish an earthly millennial Jewish kingdom, but to save Jewish and Gentile sinners and to make them, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, Abraham's children.
"It is not as though God's Word has failed" (Romans 9:6). The reason that only some Jews have trusted Jesus as Messiah is because not "all Israel are is Israel. Nor because they are his fleshly descendants are they Abraham's children." Rather, Abraham's children are reckoned "through Isaac" (9:7) What this means is that "it is not the natural children who are God's, but children of the promise" (v.8). How was Isaac born? By the sovereign power of God. How are Christians born? By the sovereign power of God. Every Christian is an "Isaac" in his own way.
The fact is confirmed in Scripture, most notably by the very definition of who is Israel. The role of natural Israel was a temporal picture of God’s true Israel Christ. It is declared early in the Bible, and is maintained throughout. In Hosea we read. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. And in Matthew 2:15, we read the fulfillment of this Scripture which speaking of Jesus Christ. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
In Exodus 4:22-23 we read. Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me”…Obviously, Christ is the only begotten son of God, and his firstborn. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15) Hebrews 12:23 refers to the saved as the "church of the firstborn"
Who is the Israel of God? Christ is the true Israel of God. Notice it Paul says (those IN Christ Jesus). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians. 6:15-16).
Is God finished saving Jews? Not at all. Salvation is of the Jews, Gentiles, by God's undeserved favor, have been grafted into the true Israel of God which is Christ Jesus.
At the center of many debates today is the question of who is "the Israel of God." It is the belief of dispensations that God made a promise to Abraham (Genesis chapters 15 and 17) that he would give to him an earthly, national people with the result they view has always been God's intention to have such a people.
God was so committed to creating such an earthly, nationalistic people that this was the primary reason why God has never has been nor ever will be done with the physical seed of Israel. It is because is this false teaching that most Christians will not even preach the gospel to a Jews.
It is also an article of faith among dispensations that the creation of a modern state, of Israel in Palestine in 1948, is a providential confirmation of their claim that the Jews are God's earthly, national people and that further, God continues to work with the physical seed of Abraham.
Though it might be exciting to think that God is doing something spectacular with the physical seed of Israel in Palestine in our times,. Lest not confuse what is temporary with what is permanent, and what is permanent with what is temporary in scripture.
It is the argument of this article that Jesus Christ is the true Israel of God and that everyone who is united to him by grace alone, through faith alone becomes, by virtue of that union, apart of God’s true Israel. This means that it is wrong headed to look for, expect, hope for or desire a reconstitution of nationalistic Israel out side of fath in Christ in the future.
We cannot understand what God has done for us in history, apart from understanding one of the most important terms in scripture. (The Israel of God). The church is not plan B or something which God instituted until he could recreate a national people in Palestine, but rather, God only had the national people temporarily (from Moses to Christ) as a foreshadowing of the creation of the New Covenant in which the ethnic distinctions which existed under Moses were fulfilled and abolished (Ephesians 2.11-22; Colossians 2.8-3.11).
Christian mistaken identity has made nationalistic Israel the true Israel of God instead of the spiritual/eternal nation in the body of Christ that is taught in the Bible. As a result, this view teaches that the temporal, type or shadow standards serve as the fulfilment of itself. This view takes away the glory from what Jesus Christ has done.
In the Hebrew scriptures the expression "out of Egypt" occurs more than 140 times. It is one of the defining facts of the existence of national Israel. When God gave the Law he said, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (Exodus 20:2) They were a redeemed people belonging to their Savior.
However national Israel coming out of the land of Egypt was a (type or shadow) that pointing to a greater spiritual truth to be fulfilled in Christ Jesus. The type or shadow was not the fulfillment.
If we will only let scripture show us it gives the very definition of God’s true Israel come out of Egypt. It most significant when Matthew quotes (Hosea 11.1) which says. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My.
Matthew's inspired interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is our Lord Jesus, not the temporary, nationalistic, people who are the true Israel of God. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son. (Matthew 2:14-15)
The only reason God orchestrated the first Exodus was so that he might orchestrate the second Exodus and that so we might know that Jesus is the true Israel of God and that all Christians are God's Israel regardless of ethnicity.
Herod was about to execute his bloody rage against the firstborn of the Jews. In Herod’s character, attitude, and actions we are to see an echo from the Old Testament. Herod, king of the Jews, is playing the part of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Herod is doing what Pharaoh did in opposition to God and His people. So what is Matthew doing here? How is he using Hosea’s words? He is saying that Jesus, God’s Son, is Israel, the true Israel. And that Jesus will retrace Israel’s steps. Israel is another proper name of Jesus Christ.
But wait there is more. A further reversal of roles is unfolds in scripture. God refers to the whole nation of Israel as if they were (one person), His ‘son’. We see this in Exodus 4:22-23: Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me”…’ Now, turning to the pages of the New Testament, we see Jesus is God’s one and only Son and the firstborn over all creation.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15) Jehovah's Witnesses will use the Colossians passage to teach that Christ was physically created by God the Father. This is a misunderstanding of the text. A simple understanding of Old Testament and Jewish culture will help enlighten us in regards to the meaning of this passage. The word firstborn was a term to denote the special role of the first son. The firstborn was the preeminent one, the special one that would receive a double portion from the father. It was the important firstborn blessing from the father that Jacob had stolen form Esau. (see Genesis 27)
Therefore, Colossians 1:15 is declaring that Jesus is the firstborn, or special and preeminent One over all creation. Jesus is the only son of God and firstborn of God. And, being the divine first and last and King of kings, Lord of lords such would be true.
Consequently, if Christ is the true Israel, and I propose that He is, then all those who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile, must be the true Israel of God. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians. 6:15-16). Paul taught that since Christ has come only those who have a relationship with God based on faith in Christ are the "Israel of God." Thus, all those joined to Christ are to participate in and receive all the blessings that belong to Christ.
It is because Jesus is the true Israel of God that, in his infancy and indeed in his entire life, he recapitulated the history of national Israel. What rebellious national Israel would not do, Jesus did. He loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength and his neighbor as himself. (Matthew 22.37-40; Deu 11:1)
What rebellious national Israel would not obey the commandments of God. (Exodus 16:28; 2 Kings 17:18) Jesus God’s Israel did. (John 12:49) What rebellious national Israel would not shepherd and feed the sheep. (Ezekiel 34:1-2) Jesus God’s Israel did. (Mark 6:34; John 10:11) When the sheep were scattered because rebellious national Israel refused to shepherd over them. (Ezekiel 33:5-10) Jesus God’s Israel gathered them. "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. " (John 10:11) Please take the time to read ((Ezekiel 33:11-15).
Whereas national Israel were law-breakers, Christ was the true law-keeper and this not for His own sake but for ours. And where the nation of Israel failed, Jesus the true Israel, and obedient Son, prevailed. When the axe was sunk through the root (Matthew. 3:7-10) of "Israel after the flesh" in AD70, all that stood was the superior eternal nation called the "Israel of God."
Does this mean God has shut out Jews from salvation? Not at all. He has placed Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing. As Paul teaches it, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Galatians 3:28)
With all this background in mind we ask the questions, "Who are Abraham's children?" The Apostle Paul argues very clearly that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3.16 says, The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," (Singular) meaning one person, who is Christ. Paul explains what he means. The promises given to Abraham were NT gospel promises. They were given before Moses and they were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus is Abraham's true Son, he is "the seed" promised to Abraham. Thus Jesus is the true Israel of God.
Jesus also made a crucial distinction between the nationalistic seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Jesus said to the Jews, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32) To which they respond by pointing out that they are physically descended from Abraham (v.33).
To this Jesus responds, "If you were Abraham's children...then you would do the things Abraham did" (v.39). This, then is our Lord's definition of a child of Abraham. One who does the things Abraham did. What did Abraham do? According to Jesus, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (v.56).
According to Jesus the Messiah, a Jew, a true Israelite is one who has saving faith in the Lord Jesus before or after the incarnation. In fact, Jesus told the Pharisees of His day, that they were sons of the devil! (John 8:44) Thus it should not surprise us to find substantially the same teaching in the Apostle Paul's theology. In Romans 4, Paul says that one is justified in the same way Abraham was justified, by grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone (Rom 4:3-8). And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:29)
Part of the confusion which surrounds God's plan in history, and therefore part of the reason Christians are so confused about God's plans for the future of his people, is the misunderstand what Jesus came to do for national Israel. He did not come to set up a national, earthly Jewish kingdom, but he did come to be their Savior and the Savior of all of God's people whether Jew or Gentile.
"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This was John the Baptist's declaration in John 1:29 upon seeing Jesus for the first time. Our Lord, before he was incarnate, identified himself to Israel through the Prophet Isaiah (43.3) as "the Holy One of Israel," their "Savior."
Later, in sermon, Peter said that God has now "exalted" Jesus "to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. Christ did not come to reinstate and fix the Mosaic theocracy or to establish an earthly millennial Jewish kingdom, but to save Jewish and Gentile sinners and to make them, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, Abraham's children.
"It is not as though God's Word has failed" (Romans 9:6). The reason that only some Jews have trusted Jesus as Messiah is because not "all Israel are is Israel. Nor because they are his fleshly descendants are they Abraham's children." Rather, Abraham's children are reckoned "through Isaac" (9:7) What this means is that "it is not the natural children who are God's, but children of the promise" (v.8). How was Isaac born? By the sovereign power of God. How are Christians born? By the sovereign power of God. Every Christian is an "Isaac" in his own way.
The fact is confirmed in Scripture, most notably by the very definition of who is Israel. The role of natural Israel was a temporal picture of God’s true Israel Christ. It is declared early in the Bible, and is maintained throughout. In Hosea we read. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. And in Matthew 2:15, we read the fulfillment of this Scripture which speaking of Jesus Christ. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
In Exodus 4:22-23 we read. Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me”…Obviously, Christ is the only begotten son of God, and his firstborn. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15) Hebrews 12:23 refers to the saved as the "church of the firstborn"
Who is the Israel of God? Christ is the true Israel of God. Notice it Paul says (those IN Christ Jesus). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians. 6:15-16).
Is God finished saving Jews? Not at all. Salvation is of the Jews, Gentiles, by God's undeserved favor, have been grafted into the true Israel of God which is Christ Jesus.
