Preterism

[Dr. Walter]

You are making my point - not yours. "Prince" is not a new term. It is in the preceding verse 25.



History tells another story. Josephus makes it plain that it is the Jews themselves, especially the three obstinate ringleaders, who destroy the holy place.



My position is the result of much study. It used to be the common interpretation two centuries ago. Check out Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, etc.

Which is more natural, or more encouraging to the petitioning Daniel: A message that is largely about Antichrist or Christ? Your interpretation - and, yes, it is the common one now - plays down significantly the Christological comfort of Gabriel's answer.

You are reading a different history than what I have read. This phrase has to do with the "city" not merely the "holy of holies."

Your point on the previous use of "Prince" in verse 25 is well taken but there it is joined with "Messiah" and it is the term "Messiah" that is continued in verse 26. The phrase "not for himself" has reference to the people of Messiah the Prince. History also demonstrates that Messiah's people left Jerusalem before the destruction. Israel could not be considered "the people of the Prince" because they cut him off and rejected Him as their King. In addition, Jesus makes it clear that this destruction of the city was not by the Jews but by the gentiles in Luke 21:24.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Indeed Luke 21:24 is a commentary of Daniel 9:26b concerning the "people of the prince" and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The city was not under seige by the Jews nor did the Jews take the walls apart around the temple stone by stone seeking the gold that melted.

I have Josepheus on my shelf and I have never read where the Jews destroyed the city. I have the version translated by William Whiston with a forward by William Sanford LaSor by Kregal Publications, 1981.

Any history book will reveal to you that Titus the historical "prince" and later Ceasar of the people who destroyed the city is factual history.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is a reason, BTW, for the phraseology in 26.

Verse 25 mentions "Messiah the Prince". A term with two parts. Those two closely-related aspects of Christ are each repeated, but with separate connections, in verse 26:

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the Prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The prince "who is to come" demonstrates Daniel could not be referring to Messiah the Prince who is described as alread come and "cut off" previous to the destruction of the city.

You mentioned that my interpretation emphasizes the Anti-christ more than Christ. I am curious what your interpretation of the parable of "all the trees" in Matthew 24:32-35 is?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Josepheus

"To conclude, when he [Titus] entirely demolished the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls..." Josephesus, Complete Works, Wars of the Jews, Chapter IX section 1, pg. 587

"Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would have not spared any, had their remained any other such work to be done) Ceasar gae orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple...." Ibid., chapter I, section 1, p. 589.

Now, you said, that Titus wanted to spare the Jews and tried to keep them from destroying the city but that is not the story told by Josephus above is it?

You said that the Jews destroyed the city but that is not what Josephus says above is it?

 

[asterisktom]

"To conclude, when he [Titus] entirely demolished the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls..." Josephesus, Complete Works, Wars of the Jews, Chapter IX section 1, pg. 587

"Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would have not spared any, had their remained any other such work to be done) Ceasar gae orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple...." Ibid., chapter I, section 1, p. 589.

Now, you said, that Titus wanted to spare the Jews and tried to keep them from destroying the city but that is not the story told by Josephus above is it?

You said that the Jews destroyed the city but that is not what Josephus says above is it?

I have read Josephus's War of the Jews twice through. I know for a fact that he insists that the Jews themselves destroyed their temple and city. I don't have the time to look it up now. I am fairly sure it came before the small quote you gave me.

 

[asterisktom]

You are reading a different history than what I have read. This phrase has to do with the "city" not merely the "holy of holies."

Your point on the previous use of "Prince" in verse 25 is well taken but there it is joined with "Messiah" and it is the term "Messiah" that is continued in verse 26. The phrase "not for himself" has reference to the people of Messiah the Prince. History also demonstrates that Messiah's people left Jerusalem before the destruction. Israel could not be considered "the people of the Prince" because they cut him off and rejected Him as their King. In addition, Jesus makes it clear that this destruction of the city was not by the Jews but by the gentiles in Luke 21:24.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Indeed Luke 21:24 is a commentary of Daniel 9:26b concerning the "people of the prince" and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The city was not under seige by the Jews nor did the Jews take the walls apart around the temple stone by stone seeking the gold that melted.

I have Josepheus on my shelf and I have never read where the Jews destroyed the city. I have the version translated by William Whiston with a forward by William Sanford LaSor by Kregal Publications, 1981.

Any history book will reveal to you that Titus the historical "prince" and later Ceasar of the people who destroyed the city is factual history.

Well, yes, Titus destroyed the city. But he was no more than the instrumental cause. That is not what Daniel is speaking of.

 

[asterisktom]

The prince "who is to come" demonstrates Daniel could not be referring to Messiah the Prince who is described as alread come and "cut off" previous to the destruction of the city.

No, He was still "to come" from Daniel's viewpoint and time. It is just an identifier. We do this all the time in our writing and speech.

You mentioned that my interpretation emphasizes the Anti-christ more than Christ. I am curious what your interpretation of the parable of "all the trees" in Matthew 24:32-35 is?

Let me get back to you on these Matthew verses. Other obligations are crowding in.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, yes, Titus destroyed the city. But he was no more than the instrumental cause. That is not what Daniel is speaking of.

Of course he was no more than instrumental cause as it was God's wrath poured upon Jerusalem. However, the historical data is that Titus began this seige as the real historical "Prince" of the people who actually destroyed it. This is confirmed over and over again by Josephus.

More importantly, Jesus confirms and interprets Daniel 9:26 and the disputed phrase to be the work of the "gentiles" not the Jews.

Any destruction by the Jews was minor in comparison with that of Titus and his armies. Certainly Josephus refers to the havoc caused by various Jewish leaders within the city as the seige was going on but to say that the Jews were the ones who destroyed the city in the sense that both Daniel and Christ describe it is really stretching things beyond the limits of truth.

the facts of both history and scripture PERFECTLY harmonize with the futuristic position.

 

[asterisktom]

the facts of both history and scripture PERFECTLY harmonize with the futuristic position.

Since you and I both have beliefs that we believe harmonize with the Bible why don't we just end on this harmonious note? Neither of us will convince the other.

Take care.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since you and I both have beliefs that we believe harmonize with the Bible why don't we just end on this harmonious note? Neither of us will convince the other.

Take care.

Nice chatting. You take care as well.

 

[Logos1]

We no longer live under the Old Covenant which supports the Preterist view

The bible tells us that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant so it is fulfilled and passed. We now live under the New Covenant. With the passing of the Old Covenant the Jews are no longer God's special people. The bible tells us both Jews and Gentiles are equal before God now. This has major implications for eschatology or end times studies.

Since the Jews are no longer special there is no reason to anchor your views on bible prophecy around Jerusalem or the Jews. If you thought bible prophecy was in the future then any future events would be just as likely to happen somewhere else in the world as in the Middle East. Yet everyone agrees that Revelation revolves around Jerusalem and the Jews. 70 AD was the point when the Temple was destroyed and the Old Covenant passed into history. Logically this would put the events in Revelation around 70 AD and in our past. This fits perfectly with what the apostles wrote in their epistles would happen--the Second Coming in their generation. Obviously this supports the preterist view of eschatology.

On a side note, the cyptrogram for Caesar Nero written in Old Hebrew is 666--obviously making him or by extension the Roman Empire the beast spoken of in Revelation.

 

[kyredneck]

The bible tells us that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant so it is fulfilled and passed. We now live under the New Covenant. With the passing of the Old Covenant the Jews are no longer God's special people. The bible tells us both Jews and Gentiles are equal before God now. This has major implications for eschatology or end times studies.

Since the Jews are no longer special there is no reason to anchor your views on bible prophecy around Jerusalem or the Jews. If you thought bible prophecy was in the future then any future events would be just as likely to happen somewhere else in the world as in the Middle East. Yet everyone agrees that Revelation revolves around Jerusalem and the Jews. 70 AD was the point when the Temple was destroyed and the Old Covenant passed into history. Logically this would put the events in Revelation around 70 AD and in our past. This fits perfectly with what the apostles wrote in their epistles would happen--the Second Coming in their generation. Obviously this supports the preterist view of eschatology.

On a side note, the cyptrogram for Caesar Nero written in Old Hebrew is 666--obviously making him or by extension the Roman Empire the beast spoken of in Revelation.

Excellent post!

I suggest to you that Nero was the PERSONIFICATION of the sixth head of the beast which was the Roman Empire. At the time of the writing the seventh head was yet to come, the five prior heads were past (Egyptian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Babylonian Empire, Medo-Persian Empire, Grecian Empire). Antiochus Epiphanes would most likely have been the 'personification' of the Grecian Empire (as concerning the persecution of the Woman of Gen 3:15 & Rev 12), Ahasuerus may have been the personification of the Persian Empire, Nebuchadnezzar perhaps was the personification for Babylonian Empire, Sennacherib would most likely qualify for the Assyrian Empire, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be the personification of the Egyptian Empire. The ten Germanic kings of the seventh head is anyone's guess, but I would identify Hitler as filling the bill for one of them.

 

[MB]

Preterism​

It is an ironic development - for me at least - that I have finally become
convinced of the Preterist view. I say "ironic" because, years ago, I would argue against the position, even banning the topic for awhile at ABCProphecy, a discussion group I started at Yahoo back in the 90s.

And yet there are certain scriptural sticking points that just would never get resolved otherwise. Even Amillennialism had no answer for these.

Perhaps the biggest factor that turned me towards Preterism was that my previous belief of Amill - much as I hated to admit it - just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He had told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Have you ever really thought that about Christ's prophecy to His disciple before the Transfiguration? He clearly said that "some here" (= some who were at that very time listening to Christ's words) would not see death until they see the Kingdom coming in power, Christ coming into His kingdom? When did this happen?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Mark 9:1

The Bible Gateway, I noticed, try to steer the interpretation with their
interposed and (of course) uninspired titles:

They have rendered the NKJV of Matt. 16:27 - 17:1 like this:

____________________

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Jesus Transfigured on the Mount

28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
_____________________

Where did that subtitle "Jesus Transfigured on the Mount" come from? From the editor's presupposition, that is where. By putting that title right between verses 27 and 28 they try to steer the latter verse away toward the subsequent transfiguration account.

But does it belong there? No. Not at all. I believe they are sundering
what God has put together.

Consider how lame a prediction Jesus would be making if the transfiguration was indeed the fulfillment of v. 28: "Some of you disciples will be alive still in a few days." That clearly cannot be the intent of the prophecy.

What about the fulfillment at Pentecost? That would still be too soon, merely a matter of weeks.

But neither can it be way in the future. All of the disciples Christ was
speaking to would have been long-dead. No, the only option IMO would be AD 70.

There is more to this than this one proof, but this is all I have time for now.

Postscript: I have already been asked now by a number of readers: What type of Preterism do I subscribe to? Well, I don't subscribe to any of them (Partial, Full, Consistent, Hyper, etc.). It is not good to rush to identify with certain groups that, for all I know, have serious heretical beliefs - and such is the case with some who call themselves "preterist". Of course, the same is true for every other "ism".

All I know is this: Bible evidence has fully convinced me of the validity of that main issue for which preterism is known - Christ's coming into His Kingdom within the timeframe which He had given His disciples.

Did you forget Revelation 1:7 and what it describes. John was an old man when He wrote it. He saw it in the spirit.
MB

 

[Dr. Walter]

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet. 3:8

The text above is found in the context of "the promise of his coming" (v. 3) as the object of scoffers because of long periods of time that intervene between the promise and the fulfillment.

Verse 8 is Peter's response to their scoffing at His promise to come quickly. The promise of His coming must be interpreted from the Divine perspective of time rather than the human perspective.

Peter reminds his readers that God does not "count" like "some men count" in verse 9. He had already reminded them in chapter one of the promise that Christ made to him that he would die before the Lord's return.

This is further illustrated by the familiar use of what many call the language of imminence "Looking for" in verses 12-14. Peter was "looking for" the new heavens and new earth and yet many things preceded such events (resurrection, eternal judgement; etc.).

Like the Pre-trib dispensational view point the Preterist to resolve the promise of a quick coming the wrong way.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Do you Preterist brethren believe in a future literal coming of Christ from heaven? If so, where in the Olivet discourse would you find it?

 

[asterisktom]

Did you forget Revelation 1:7 and what it describes. John was an old man when He wrote it. He saw it in the spirit.
MB

No, I just didn't include it as not being relevant. You assume that Revelation was written at a later date. I believe it was written before 70 AD. That would make a younger old man than in your scenario. Either way there is no proof here against my post above.

 

[Logos1]

Dating Revelation before 67 AD

I posted this under a thread on clues to dating Revelation--since it fits here I'll copy and paste here as well.

One verse in Revelation provides one good possible clue to the time it was written.
Rev 17:8 HCSV
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up from the abyss and go to destruction. Those who live on the earth whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present [again].

Nero ruled from 54 - 68 AD. The Roman campaign to put down the Jewish rebellion started in 67, but when Nero committed suicide civil war broke out in Rome and Vespasian who had been leading the campaign and was at Jerusalem withdrew to attend to the unsettled situation in Rome. Rome went through three rulers in a years time before Vespasian consolidated power and became the new ruler. Then he dispatched his son Titus back to Jerusalem to finish the job there.

During his departure the Zealots thought they had beaten off the Romans and were unpleasantly surprised to see them return to finish the job.

This would provide fulfillment of the "will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present [again]."

Was: The initial Roman movement against Jerusalem by Vespasian.
and is not: Vespasian's leaving Jerusalem.
and will be present again: Titus returns to finish the job

Simple, straight forward, and historically accurate interpretation for dating the writing of Revelation--This could mean Revelation was written during the lull between the Roman campaigns against Jerusalem. They were there, they are not there now and they will be there again.

Or given that all that precedes this verse in the first 16 chapters it most likely simply dates Revelation before 67 AD and John's vision was describing the coming and going and coming again of the Roman's campaigning against Judea/Jerusalem.

Thoughts any one?

 

[MB]

No, I just didn't include it as not being relevant. You assume that Revelation was written at a later date. I believe it was written before 70 AD. That would make a younger old man than in your scenario. Either way there is no proof here against my post above.

Not so. The revelation of Jesus Christ is prophetic book through and through. The first happening is Christ coming in the clouds In verse 7. I think you dismiss it's importance. The way it is writen everything in it comes in stages. The four horsemen, the seven trumpets, the seven bowls of wrath. Everything listed in sequince. When Christ comes in the clouds he gathers all believers both dead and alive to Himself. This is a picture of the rapture. He doesn't come to the earth here but only the clouds. We return with Him at the end of the trib;
1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
He can't return with all His saints unless we are already with Him when He returns.
MB

 

[RAdam]

Not so. The revelation of Jesus Christ is prophetic book through and through. The first happening is Christ coming in the clouds In verse 7. I think you dismiss it's importance. The way it is writen everything in it comes in stages. The four horsemen, the seven trumpets, the seven bowls of wrath. Everything listed in sequince. When Christ comes in the clouds he gathers all believers both dead and alive to Himself. This is a picture of the rapture. He doesn't come to the earth here but only the clouds. We return with Him at the end of the trib;
1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
He can't return with all His saints unless we are already with Him when He returns.
MB

Revelation is not written in sequence. Many of the passages are describing the same events from different perspectives. For instance, in Revelation 13 John sees two beasts, one from the sea and one from the land. The one from the sea answers to Daniel's 7th chapter as a world power or a summation of world power, a civil government. The second beast looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon, seeming to be a religious power. In Revelation 17 he describes a woman (named Myster, Babylon the Great, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth) riding a beast. This is none other than the second beast riding the first beast from Chapter 13.

 

[MB]

I posted this under a thread on clues to dating Revelation--since it fits here I'll copy and paste here as well.

One verse in Revelation provides one good possible clue to the time it was written.
Rev 17:8 HCSV
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up from the abyss and go to destruction. Those who live on the earth whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present [again].

Nero ruled from 54 - 68 AD. The Roman campaign to put down the Jewish rebellion started in 67, but when Nero committed suicide civil war broke out in Rome and Vespasian who had been leading the campaign and was at Jerusalem withdrew to attend to the unsettled situation in Rome. Rome went through three rulers in a years time before Vespasian consolidated power and became the new ruler. Then he dispatched his son Titus back to Jerusalem to finish the job there.

During his departure the Zealots thought they had beaten off the Romans and were unpleasantly surprised to see them return to finish the job.

This would provide fulfillment of the "will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present [again]."

Was: The initial Roman movement against Jerusalem by Vespasian.
and is not: Vespasian's leaving Jerusalem.
and will be present again: Titus returns to finish the job

Simple, straight forward, and historically accurate interpretation for dating the writing of Revelation--This could mean Revelation was written during the lull between the Roman campaigns against Jerusalem. They were there, they are not there now and they will be there again.

Or given that all that precedes this verse in the first 16 chapters it most likely simply dates Revelation before 67 AD and John's vision was describing the coming and going and coming again of the Roman's campaigning against Judea/Jerusalem.

Thoughts any one?

There of course is the problem of the mark of the beast, the false prophet, and the rest of revelation which doesn't line up at all with your thinking. So many wholes in it I really can't fathom how anyone could believe such a thing. One other and that is Nero didn't suffer a deadly blow from a sword and yet live on. Christ never appeard in the clouds, No trumpets, or bowls of wrath. Most importantly no apocalypse.
MB

 

[Logos1]

My Response to MB

Hello MB,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I can’t claim to be an expert on Preterism so I always like to have others think of some angle to challenge my position as a full preterist—it helps me to think, search, clarify my position, and look for any holes in it. So far I’ve found that Preterism is the only way to reconcile the entire bible without contradicting itself. Usually when I go to someone’s blog and challenge their views on the rapture, antichrist, etc after a few post they refuse to let me post any more. I need neutral ground like this to have a say.

You didn’t really challenge me very much—basically just denied what I said was right. Even for me these are simple out of hand rebuttals.

Mark of the beast—research this for yourself “Caesar Nero” written in old Hebrew—the cryptogram for it is 666—the mark of the beast.

Nero represents Rome when he died it was a blow to the head of Rome—Rome then broke out in civil war—countries wondered if Rome would survive and although it took a year a strong enough leader, Vespasian, became the new ruler and the beast (Rome) continued to rule the Mediterranean area.

Christ appearing in the clouds—Unless Jesus changed the meaning of appearing in the clouds and didn’t tell us he was changing the understood meaning of it then he did come in the clouds in 70 AD in the form of the Roman army sacking Jerusalem. This is like Isaiah 19:1 when it says the Lord rode a swift cloud against Egypt. No one saw God on a cloud but they recognized his presence in the Assyrians sacking Egypt. In all the times God’s presence is mentioned in a cloud in the Old Testament no one ever saw God. His presence was understood to be there though. Jesus said he was coming in a cloud so his audience would understand what form to expect his return and it was the same as his Father’s manifestations in the clouds.

Trumpets—Jesus was not saying an angel would blow a real loud trumpet and everyone would hear it. This too has its roots in the Old Testament. Take Isaiah 27:12 -13 for example when a trumpet sounds and a remnant of the elect are brought back to the promised land—Jerusalem/Judea. At no point did the bible change the meaning of the sounding of a trumpet. Here the dead arise to new eternal life in the presence of God in heaven. The spiritual promised land. Its language they could relate to. Christ has conquered sin death and the New Covenant provides for his elect to be reconciled back to him in the new promised land—into the presence of God—heaven.

Bowls of wrath—all the bowls of wrath were poured out on Jerusalem (Babylon in Revelation). I suggest you read Stuart Russell’s the Parousia and see how he shows through Josephus writings how all the tribulations were poured out on Jerusalem. You might like it although warning here—it could completely change the way you view eschatology.

No apocalypse!!!—I’m assuming you are using the correct meaning of the word which means an unveiling and specifically in this instance the apocalypse or revelation of Christ. Did Christ not appear in 70 AD. He said many times he was coming quickly, he said “you” to his audience when he spoke to his audience and told them they would not all perish before they saw him come. He said he was coming on the clousds—see above. Revelation goes to great lengths to describe the destruction of Babylon (Jerusalem). Just like God came against Egypt--Revelation describes how Christ came on the clouds against Jerusalem and everyone understood the manifestation of his presence in the destruction of Jerusalem. The Pharisees understood the cloud reference exactly and called it blasphemy. The apostles he was speaking to wrote that he was coming in their generation so are you saying they were wrong and thus implying that the bible is not inerrant.

Are you saying you understood this better through a translation from Koine Greek (of Jewish symbols and precedent in the language) to English than the very apostles who he was speaking to—are you saying you are more inspired than the apostles were?

I’ve answered your challenges—please tell us how you have become more inspired than the apostles and know better than they when the second coming of Christ is to be.

I thank you for your comments in advance. Due to my schedule I probably won’t get to post here again till next week, but will try to read your response. Have a great day in Christ.