Introduction

The following collection of thoughts are selected edits and quotes from our e-mail discussions on our mailing list regarding the unnecessary "controversy" over "Preterism."

As some of you may know there have been a few Identity leaders who have published articles concerning "Preterism." Some have been skeptical and others outright hostile. This letter is being sent out in the hopes of getting people to start thinking critically and break out of the emotionalism by trying to focus the discussion back on the issues and away from personalities.

The last letter we sent out attempted to get us to the bigger issue by trying to show that Identity and "Preterism" are MOVEMENTS and not the last stop in understanding our Bibles. We tried to show how they are complimentary schools of thought because they are both after the truth of God's Word. The two are merely specialized schools of thought trying to answer one of many important hermeneutic questions that need to be "indexed" to properly understand God's Word. (e.g. Identity focuses on the question of "Who" the Bible and Covenants were written to while "Preterism" focuses on the question of "When" to establish the time contexts.)

Identity, Preterism and Presuppositions

Some people seems to want to judge a new belief by their established presuppositions. This is really unfair and will always lead to misunderstandings. So what are pre- supposed positions? " A Presupposition is an elementary assumption, basic commitment, or foundational perspective in terms of which particular experiences and events are interpreted." - War of the Worldviews, by Gary DeMar

Some people are using their "elementary assumptions" regarding what the Bible is about. Our "basic presuppositional commitments" are to a mixture of Identity and/or Judeo- biases, while using that "foundational perspective" to judge the imperfect understandings of Preterism by our own incomplete knowledge. The way to cure this lack of knowledge is not to fear the investigation of new facts but rather compare them to the whole council of God.

Maybe we can learn one of these days to understand that none of us are perfect and nobody has all truth? Maybe then we will understand the wisdom in what Paul said in I Corinthians 8:2, "If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not known as he ought to know."

We all have our own unique presuppositions which we've acquired from our own unique life experiences and the limited information we have been exposed to. When new ideas come down the pike, how open-minded are we and how do we deal with them?

If we don't first make the attempt to show we understand the established presuppositions of a new view CORRECTLY before we are so bold to criticize the new ideas can we honestly expect to be believed when we claim we are being open-minded? Open-mindedness requires a willingness to understand something completely before indulging in criticism.

I would believe someone truly has taken the time to understand the presuppositions of the Preterists correctly when they can present them CORRECTLY before indulging in criticism. We should then hope to see the evidence and Scriptural arguments that might bring about the need to reform the position to better line up with God's Word. This would be productive because the ultimate goal is to find God's truth rather than prove *our* ideas or beliefs. The Christian seeking Christ's glory will allow for error on the side of men so that God can be true above all.

I've heard many Judeo-Christians use the same type of arguments against the "Identity" message that are now being used by many "Identity" Christians against the Preterist message. They say,

"Well, I've studied it for months and months objectively and with a very open mind, and about the same time I was about ready to say that Identity was a bunch of contradictions when out came Oral Roberts confirming my beliefs that the "Jews" really are God's chosen people."

What they are doing is judging Identity by there already established presuppositions. In other words they are trying to understand "Identity" with their established commitment to the idea that Israel = Jew. They have a mental block to understanding Identity because of this pre-supposed position.

This mental block keeps them from simply reading the Scripture. They don't want to study it out nor share those things they can't figure out or don't want to accept. They would rather take comfort in the conclusions of some minister they respect as having "dealt with it" and thus they don't have to "search the Scriptures to see if these things are so."

Are we being as noble as the Bereans or are we allowing the Scribes and Pharisees to tell us what to believe? We are all accountable individually to God to be a good witness of His Gospel. We need to be ready in season and out of season to give defense of His Way, not "ours." Let's not be slack now and indulge in posturing and ridicule but rather let the Word reveal itself to those of us who simply want God's Truth.

The Pisser of Preterism

(This is a response to someone who complained about the "Preterism Pissing Contest." The real objection was over the emotional ugliness of how hostile some people were getting over this issue. Some could compare this hostility to trying to share the Identity message with a Judeo-Christian for the first time. The message was helpful in inspiring a renewed respect, love, and understanding between the participants that we are all brothers seeking after God's Truth)

First, of all I'd just like to make an observation. Preterism to me is like Identity was when I first heard of it. Identity had a whole new way at looking at Scripture. It forced me to re-examine my beliefs. If I was not willing to do that I would have rejected Identity before I had an opportunity to hear it.

Preterism is much the same way. It is a whole new way of looking at the Scripture. We have to re-examine our views on how we have been previously taught to look at the "end times" verses. Most everyone in Identity had to do this once before when they first were introduced to the Identity message, so why are they against doing it once again? Could it simply be a fear of change or simple laziness?

Maybe preterism is "sweeping Identity" because those who first came into Identity had a propensity for following where the Scriptures and Spirit led and sought the truth wherever it led? Has this spirit died within Identity or have some people merely given up the march up the next hill after reaching only one plateau?

The following quoted items ">" are comments from another participant on the Identity mailing list:

> Let me tell you all how I'm thinking about this whole
> Preterism pissin' contest. I have not yet been convinced
> that the Creator, who instructed our fathers on
> everything from how to worship to how to bury their
> doody, would leave his children without a clue as to
> where they were or what they could expect for almost
> 1900 years.

You need to convince yourself, nobody is going to do it for you. The question is, are you going to let your presuppositions blind you to new understandings concerning the Word or weigh the new ideas against the whole context of Scripture and see which fit together better within the big picture?

> When I get answers to:
> *The Roman Catholic Church's role in History.

Perhaps it was simply the organized "universal" Christian church until it became an institution of men who in many ways became a new pharisee class interested in only maintaining power. We don't need Revelation to see this. The Gospels concerning the Pharisees are sufficient.

Do we need to condemn the Catholic church to hell or rather preach the truth in love? Maybe they still have some truth that we lack? When you start condemning others who follow Christ are you not condemning yourself? Is anyone perfect? No, not one.

> *The Jesuits role in making up both the future and totally
> fulfilled view of prophecy. This was done to take the
> heat off the Papacy.

I'd still like to see this accusation documented. I'm getting tired of hearing it as absolute "fact" without having the privledge of seeing the evidence.

Does the fact that the Jesuits promote Jesus Christ make Jesus Christ a heresy? The logic used that the Jesuits started a form of preterism and dispensationalism doesn't make either in themselves false or totally incorrect. The Word of God is the last Word, not whether the Jesuits "used" such teachings.

> *The communist role.

The dogs will forever be outside the Kingdom of God. There is only one way in and that is through Jesus the Christ. He is the only door.

> we can go on to other things, I've always said you
> might be right. It's like walking into a store and asking
> to see a toaster, the salesman says "sure thing" and
> takes you to the refrigerators.

Maybe some other salesman has sold you on the need for a toaster when you really need a refrigerator? Ever think of that? Again this is a problem of presuppositions. Our previous programming making us look for things that we may not really need.

> Another thing, please don't call me a Preterist by
> default because I ascribe to many of the Preterist
> views. Would any enjoy being labeled "Baptist"
> because we believe in immersion?

Exactly. Some seem to have a problem understanding that "preterist" is not a denomination nor necessarily an anti-Identity term, but rather talks about the same Bible and Jesus the Christ we do. Both MOVEMENTS are seeking His greater Truths but are just focused on two different areas. (Identity the "Who" and Preterists the "When" of the Bible)

> This has been kinda long and I don't want to anger
> anyone.

At least your heart is in the right place, and for this I commend you. Your example is a light for me and hopefully others to emulate.

Removing Pharisaism from Identity

(There still is a lot of "pharisaism" in Identity because of the many hang-overs from dispensational theology that is still within the movement. Some have called it Jewish Millennialism (Pre-Millennialism) and we shall see in this message how they came to that conclusion. These are mainly to do with the nature and reality of the New Covenant as it is presented in the Bible.)

Preterism is again an answer to purging yet another element of pharisaism/dispensationlism from Christianity. This movement has made a lot of progress in understanding the nature of the New Covenant and putting it into the correct time reference. Like all unorganized organic movements there are many individuals involved and thus many wild theories and doctrines of men. So we must continue to hammer out what is true by comparing all claims against the whole council of God by searching the Scriptures in the never-ending quest to seek after His truth.

The question isn't hopeless if we believe God's Word is true and that He guides those into wisdom and understanding who truly hunger for it.

This is from an on-going discussion about the need to purge the last remnants of Scofieldism/dispensational/pre- millennialism from the Identity movement. Remember that "Identity" has the "who" of the Bible figured out historically but now it is time to expand into the questions of the "how" and "when" of the Kingdom.

(The following quoted ">" comments are from a Christian who has studied a lot of conspiracy theories and concluded that the Identity movement is part of the NWO scheme. He correctly sees the (Jewish) Pre- Millennialism from British Israelism (B.I.) within the Identity movement and concludes it must be a part of the Anglo-Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. He is understandably hostile against Jewish doctrines which makes his points worth considering. My comments follow after the quoted items.)

> You look upon the differences between B.I. and
> Identity and apparently believe that Identity as it is
> now, removes it from this scheme of promoting the
> NWO.
> I believe you do not have a complete understanding
> of what the B.I. scheme is. or if you have known the
> facts decided not to believe them.

Well, this is your belief. Far be it from me to question your beliefs...but I would like to persuade you otherwise if you would consider what I have written in the past concerning the need to separate the Jewish doctrines within B.I. out of the Identity movement.

> All I can say if you have read "Defenders of the U.S.A.
> Republic" by Helen Peters, The Empire of the City, by
> Knuth, and The Union Jack, by anonymous and still
> don't think believe, nothing I can say, would convince
> you. There are other small pamphlets that are
> helpful but the three above should be adequate.

Yes I've read them. I got them from my former roommate who has also read them. He used to believe the same way you do years ago, until he read more and had a chance to evaluate what he read in light of what has happened in the Identity movement the last 10-20 years since these books first were printed.

I also have had the opportunity to read hundreds of books, newsletters and pamphlets from "Identity" people since these out-dated books were published. I can tell you H. Peters, Knuth, and the Union Jack are out-dated and no longer represent the total "truth" today.

Why? Because lies and falsehood never stand while God's truth survives forever. How has this changed "Identity"? People have read their Bibles and have slowly dumped many of the Jewish doctrines in British Israelism. Unfortunately many still cling to one of the more damaging ones (pre-millennialism) that B.I. helped popularize.

The Bible easily destroys falsehood when we read it in CONTEXT. Did you catch what I posted to the list (and the last Melchizedek Vigilance letter) on Indexing? They were called the ABC's of Interpreting the Bible and "The Social-Political Context." (They were on the necessity of Indexing the Who, What, When, Why, How, etc of the context when interpreting the Bible.) What did you think of these?

> (Pastor Earl) Jones came a long way from covering
> the subject of the founding of B.I. The cornerstone
> of B.I. (Identity) belief is the white race is Gods chosen
> people. That is Identity. That is B.I. Only that B.I.
> says under British royalty. The crowd there listening
> to Jones believed it as a materialistic thing. You could
> tell that from their reaction. Jesus said his kingdom
> was not of this world. It was spiritual.

You must have missed it then. Jones presents (in his tape (Christian Israel or British Israel) the fact that B.I. is not the "cornerstone" of "Identity".

B.I. came along and decided to start the first Judeo- Christian ethic by making the Pharisees co-inheritors of the Kingdom with Christians. They wanted to make white Christiandom only the northern 10 tribes and the Khazar "Jews" the house of Judah. What B.I. did was give a religious justification for allowing the money-changers back into England by calling them "Judah" and making them our "brothers." The result was an attempt to end the centuries long battle between the Pharisees and Christianity for the "birthright" or "elect" status as God's "chosen." The fruits of this first attempt to create a "Judeo- Christian" coalition were devastating.

It is a fact as Pastor Jones proves on his tapes, "The Judeo-Christian Ethic" and "Ancient Pharisaism Unchecked," that the white race was Israel in history and pre-dates the founding of British Israelism.

The Church's reaction was two fold to the challenges of Pharisaism. The Church never surrendered their claim of inheritance of the Kingdom of God from the pharisees, but they did surrender the idea that there was any physical "inheritance" by race and along with it their history and understanding of the white race. But their spiritual extremism became racial nihilism and allowed liberalism to start the systematic destruction of white history.

Identity believes that we must understand the WHO of the Bible. Who was the Bible written to, and WHO are the inheritors of the Covenants? They are to Israel. Well who was/is Israel today? The physical descendants of Israel today are the white race. This is an historical fact. The "Jews" of today are descendants of Mongolian-Turkish people known as Khazars and have NO Semitic blood in them.

BUT today under the new Covenant it takes more than just being a white person to be known as "Israel" today. There must also be a spiritual conversion - repentance, belief and baptism - to Christ's inheritance of the promises, the dominion and sovereignty in ALL things. This change of heart is what makes one an "Israelite" today, and the flesh is no longer the only determiner. Salvation comes only from Christ, and it is a gift He bestows on those who have a change of heart (repent) and follow His plan of redemption. In other words, it is no longer just law but law + grace. It is no longer just race but race + faith. White people are still the only descendants of Adam because it is impossible for two people of any race to give birth to any other race. God's created order established the laws of biology and it can be no other way. Adam was white and so was his descendants. But Adam failed his spiritual mission which made it necessary for a Savior. Christ became the second Adam by doing what Adam and his descendants failed to do -- keep the law perfectly. To do this Christ also had to be white, born from a descendant of Adam to redeem His people because the Law of redemption required a member of the family to be the "redeemer."

> I believe Identity is just B.I. in another form. That
> Identity beliefs are not unique to Identity. B.I. is
> promoted by the leaders of Identity who want to
> delude Identity believers.

Understanding what Christianity is about is the only way you can know what is evil. You can't know what is "evil" without knowing what is good.

Identity is a reform movement that is working to re- established the historic truth of who the Bible was written to in history. It is a purifying element that is intent on removing all Judeo-pharisee influences that have corrupted both the Protestant and Catholic faiths. It is laughable to equate "Identity" with B.I. UNLESS those who call themselves "Identity" don't understand the New Covenant. Unfortunately many "Identity" people have proven they don't understand the differences, but this will not last as an eternal state because God's truth continues to march on and will ultimately prevail.

> All this came about since I told you a couple of
> months ago that I had some questions on Identity.
> I have been sincere in everything I did and said the
> past two years or so. I thought there was something
> to Identity for a while. But now I think it just a
> religious con.

What did you find about "Identity" before that "had something to it?" The fact that the "Jews" of today are Khazar (Mongolian-Turkish) people who never came from the Mideast but rather Asia? The fact that only the white race fits all the identifying spiritual marks of "Israel" throughout history and the Khazar pretenders of today do not? These are all historical facts.

What are your "New" objections to identity? Are they not merely theological ones? Questions regarding the New Covenant, the Millennium and the Kingdom? These are legitimate criticism of the "Identity" movement today and ones I share. In this we agree in part, though I think we may have slightly different understandings of how these things should be looked at.

> I presume you are sincere in your beliefs. But that
> can't change the fact that Identity is promoting the
> Jewish Pharisee religion. You will never understand
> it if you insist on beginning with the old Testament.
> Begin with the New Testament.

This isn't quite right. Your charge that "Identity is promoting the Jewish Pharisee religion" is only partially correct. The only areas in which some do this is their understanding of Law and misunderstandings regarding the New Covenant. In many ways "Identity" condemns and promotes just the opposite of the Jewish (Pharisee) religion but in other ways they DO promote it without realizing it. (e.g. Prophecy, Millennialism, and a future "coming" of the Kingdom.)

For example, Pre-Millennialism is Jewish. "It [premillennialism] is a Jewish doctrine. The principles adopted by its advocates in the interpretation of prophecy, are the same as those adopted by the Jews at the time of Christ; and they, have led substantially to the same conclusions. The Jews expected that when the Messiah came He would establish a glorious earthly kingdom at Jerusalem; that those who had died in the faith should be raised from the dead to share in the blessings of the Messiah's reign; that all nations and peoples on the face of the whole earth should be subject to them; and that any nation that did not serve them should be destroyed. All the riches and honours of the world were to be at their disposal. The event disappointed these expectations; and the principles of prophetic interpretation on which those expectations were founded were proved to be incorrect." (Charles Hodge, D.D., Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 862)

A second witness, "The Augsburg Confession affirms one general resurrection and judgment and expressly condemns the 'Jewish opinion' that 'before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world' (Article XVII)." (James E. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord: Will It Be Premillennial?)

> We can agree to disagree and keep on other
> subjects. I enjoy and benefit from your postings on
> other subjects.

Thank you. I find much of the info you have come up with valuable as well. Just be careful of what sort of wacko conspiracy stuff that you read. Find out who the writers are, what are their qualifications and background. Find out what others have written about them and who endorses them. And primarily find out how closely aligned they are with Scripture. There are many self-proclaimed guru's out there and if they are not thoroughly grounded in the Bible FIRST as their primary focus they are less likely to be close to the truth. There is no truth that contradicts the Bible, if anyone believes there is then they are a fool.

Daniel, Ezekiel, & Date of Revelation

(This message brought up some interesting questions regarding the date of Revelation, the 70 weeks of Daniel, Ezekiel. and how it relates to Revelation.)

> Mr. Chilton says on pg. 4 of Days of Vengeance that
> Domitain temporarily banished some Christians,
> wereas Nero is credited with massacring an immense
> multitude. That sorta points to John's banishment from
> Domitian rather than banishment by Nero.

(Note: Domitian is dated around the 96 A.D. date and Nero pre 70 A.D.)

I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement. The many other internal references within Revelation does not support Domitian because the socio- politica context of his reign doesn't fit the other requirements of the events described in Revelation.

What made me lean toward the 70 A.D. date was the arguments in the book by Dr. Kenneth Gentry called The Beast of Revelation - 666. He demonstrated that no other date can be supported by the internal demands of the book of Revelation itself. No other period of history measures up to the events described in Revelation like pre 70 A.D. Judea does.

> Regarding the Seventy Weeks finding fulfilment in
> the fall of Jerusalem. The context of Dan 9:24, does
> not allow it. The"seven sevens"= 49 years, The
> three score and two sevens is 434 years. So this is
> 483 years. Depending on which chronology one uses,
> from 545bc to 445 bc does not allow the seventy
> weeks to end in 70 ad.

I thought Daniel spoke of 70 weeks in Dan. 9:24? Jer. 25:11 speaks of their captivity in Babylon as 70 years. But, let's back up a bit first.

In Days of Vengeance on page 20-21 it has an interesting chart comparing Ezekiel to Revelation. It shows how "Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel." According to Chilton, "St. John does more than merely make literary allusions to Ezekiel. He follows him, step- by-step." What does this mean? It means that Revelation "revealed" the final working out of the events first prophesied of in Ezekiel.

If you just look at the chapters after Ezekiel. 38&39 you will see a picture of the New Jerusalem (New Covenant). Revelation mirrors Ezekiel almost completely, which will make sense after we look at Daniel.

You mentioned Daniel. Dan 9:24 talks about "to seal up the vision and prophecy". Wasn't John told in Rev. 22:10, "Do NOT seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near?" What does this mean to you? It seems to tell me that the events Daniel was speaking about and told to seal were "near" to John so they were to be REVEALED in a "Revelation" by making it known. Why do you suppose the book of Revelation was called a "Revelation?" It wasn't to conceal, but to reveal because these things "must shortly take place." (Rev. 22:6)

To seal a document showed that it was genuine (Jer. 32:10; I Kings 21:8). Christ sealed up the Old Testament by doing what it said He would do! It has also been sealed-up in the sense that it is a closed book (at this time) to the "Jewish" people (Pharisees) who have rejected Christ. (I John 2:22,23)

Dan. 9:25 talks about a "threescore and two weeks" in addition to the 7 weeks (years). The prophetic clock started ticking when Cyrus, King of Persia, came to power and decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Isa. 45: Ezra 1). It took 7 "weeks" of years - 49 for the rebuilding to be completed due to the difficulty of the work and interference from hostile neighbors (Ezra 4:1)

Dan. 9:26 talks about Messiah being cut off, but not for himself. (Christ died for the sins of His people), When did Messiah come? When was He "cut off" (crucified)?

Dan 9:27 says "and He (Christ) shall confirm the Covenant with many for One week and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. (Did this happen? When did Christ stop the animal sacrifices? By His sacrifice perhaps? see Heb. 7:27; 9:11- 15; 10:10-14)

Dan. 9:26,27 also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. They don't happen within the 70 weeks. Christ first confirmed His covenant and redemption within the 70 weeks. It is not surprising that a strong reminder is then given to Israel of the future consequences of their national covenant violation. Jesus in the New Testament goes into great detail about this coming judgement in Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

It is interesting that each one of these texts starts shortly after:

• Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem
• Christ's purging of the temple
• Christ's exiting the temple for the last time
• Christ's scathing rebuke of the leaders.

In each account Christ states that "Not one stone of the temple will be left standing."

This was fulfilled in 70 A.D. The Romans leveled the Temple. Not in 96 A.D. but in 70 A.D. Revelation still speaks of the temple as standing which makes it impossible for the A.D. 96 date.

More Thoughts on the 70 A.D. Date
From the conclusion of Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book -The Beast of Revelation - 666

The Importance of the Questions

The proper identity of the Beast and the proper dating of the book of Revelation are not simply trivia questions. Large issues hang in the balance. If the views I have presented in this book are correct, then Revelation was written about a terrible Beast that would afflict the people of God before and in anticipation of the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

That being the case, then, we do not have the Beast and a "Great Tribulation" to look forward to in our future. The Beast - ancient Rome (generically) and Nero Caesar (specifically) - has already lived and the Tribulation has already occurred, as Scripture said it would , in the first century "birth pangs" of Christianity (Matt. 24:8,21). Revelation, then, does not leave us with biblical warrant to view earth's future as a "blocked future" of despair. The woes of Revelation have already occurred!

If these views are correct - and I am convinced beyond any doubt that they are -- then Revelation was given as God's divinely inspired and inerrant pre-interpretive Word on the destruction of the temple order and the divorce of Israel as God's wife under the Old Covenant. We have God's Word that this was brought about in the first century by the decree of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Revelation we have a biblical explanation of the catastrophic events of the A.D. 60s. The important events of that era included: the outbreak of the first, precedent- setting imperial persecution of Christianity; the death of Christianity's first and most heinous Roman persecutor, Nero Caesar; the subsequent near collapse of Rome, followed by its revival under the non-persecuting emperors (Vespasian and Titus); the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; and the hope for the increase throughout the earth of God's New Creational salvation. (Cp. Rev. 21-22 with 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Matt. 13:31ff.; 2 Cor. 5:21ff.)

The Evidence for Our Answers

Our convictions regarding the identity of the Beast and the date of Revelation's composition have not been demanded merely by our theological perspective or sociological outlook. The relief we may experience regarding the vanished prospect of sending our children into such a dismal future is a happy side-effect of our inquiry. Now that we have looked rather carefully at the evidence for the date of Revelation, I believe we are compelled by historical and exegetical evidence to assert that Revelation was written in the A.D. 60s - not in the A.D. 90s.

It is my deep conviction that much of the decline of the influence of orthodox Christianity on our culture today is due to a pervasive, pessimistic eschatology. As dispensationalist R.A. Torrey loved to say at the turn of the century: "The darker the night gets, the lighter my heart gets." (Cited in Dwight Wilson, 'Armageddon Now!") If Christians refuse to be the light of the world, no wonder the nights get so dark! And what is the point of attempting to scatter the darkness if the darkness is a sign of the Lord's soon return? As Hal Lindsey has told tens of millions of Christians in our era: "We should be living like persons who don't expect to be around much longer" because Jesus is coming soon to snatch us "out of the world as it plunges toward judgment." Why should Christians engage themselves in slow, longterm cultural reconstruction if we're soon to vanish from earth?

Too often pessimistic eschatology is demanded by a wrong approach to Revelation, which sees the Beast as looming in our future. And a wrong approach to Revelation is often encouraged by a misconception of Revelation's date. But Revelation is clear: Its prophecies were to occur soon after John wrote, not millennia later (Rev. 1:1,3,19; 3:10; 22:6ff). The events symbolized in Revelation were earth shaking, but they are now past events.

Summary of Evidence for the Beast

Perhaps the most important evidence that begins drawing the line to the Roman Empire (generically considered) and Nero Caesar (specifically considered) is that of the relevancy of the Beast. John clearly and emphatically expected the events of Revelation -- a number of which were associated with the Beast -- to begin coming to pass "soon" (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6ff). (see chapter 2). Such an anticipation clears away 99.9% of the modern suggestions regarding the identity of the Beast, suggestions demanding hundreds and thousands of years for accomplishment.

But this evidence alone, of course, does not demand Nero Caesar as the specific reference, although it would strongly indicate the Roman Empire as the generic reference. When we calculate the number 666 and discover that it adds up to the Hebrew spelling of Nero's name, however, we are getting somewhere. (See Chapter 3). And when the character of the Beast is matched to Nero's infamous conduct, we become more confident still. (See Chapter 4). Nero was clearly a beastly character possessed with a horrendously sinful will to evil and great power to unleash his base desires.

In addition we noted the remarkable correspondence between the war of the Beast with the persecution of Christians by Nero (See Chapter 5). This correspondence involved event he detail of time equations: 42 months, according to Revelation; November, A.D. 64, to June, A.D. 68, according to history. Filling out the evil character of the Nero-Beast was Nero's encouragement of emperor worship, which John alluded to in Revelation 13 (See Chapter 6). And then to top it all off, one of the most unusual features of the Beast -- his death and "resurrection" -- finds remarkable fulfillment in the events of the A.D. 60s after the death of Nero. Rome was buckling to its knees, fainting to its death, with the demise of its sixth head, Nero, in the Civil Wars of A.D. 68-69. But the empire -- the Beast generically considered -- was revived under Vespasian, to the "wonder" of the world. (See Chapter 7).

The Beast is clearly the Roman Empire, particularly expressed in its most evil head, Nero Caesar. This Beast has lived and died, according to the infallible prophecy of Scripture. But, of course, all of this evidence for the identity of the Beast depends on the date of Revelation's composition. For it were written almost 30 years after his death, the whole theory would fail. So, I presented the case for the early date of Revelation in the pre-A.D. 70 era.

Summary of Evidence for Revelation's Date

The evidences for Revelation's early-dating, during the reign of Nero Caesar, are multiple, varied, clear, and compelling. In addition to all the positive evidence for Nero Caesar as the Beast (which itself is indicative of a pre- A.D. 70 composition), there are additional compelling evidences.

The Evidence from Within Revelation

The thematic evidence in Revelation 1:7: (see Chapter 9): Revelation insists upon the soon coming of certain events that would indicate a judgment-coming of Christ. That judgment-coming necessarily involved the destruction of the temple and the punishment of the first-century "Jews", the crucifiers of Christ. This had to be the final destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the devastation that accompanied it in A.D. 67-70. Jesus clearly prophesied it (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), and so did John (Revelation).

The political evidence (see chapter 10): There is a clear statement of Revelation that the sixth emperor of Rome was living at the very time John wrote (Rev. 17:9,10). Historically, Nero was the sixth emperor of Rome, which corresponds perfectly with our interpretation of the Beast. In addition, he was followed by a seventh ruler who reigned but a short while: Galba (Rev. 17:11). These political statements regarding imperial Rome's rule are objectively datable.

The architectural evidence (see Chapter 11): One of the great examples of architecture of the ancient world was still standing as John wrote -- the temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1,2). The destruction of this structure is datable from both documentary and archaeological evidence. It was destroyed, never to be built again, in August, A.D. 70, by General Titus of the Roman Empire.

The ecclesiastical evidence (See Chapter 12): The Christianity in John's day was at an early stage of development. Christians were obviously still intermingling with the Jews and presenting themselves as "true Jews" (Rev. 2:9: 3:9). Christianity is portrayed as the fullness of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rev. 7:4). The language of Revelation has a strongly Hebraic cast.

The Evidence from Church History

Despite much of current opinion, neither is the evidence from church tradition capable of overthrowing the self- witness evidence. The strongest witnesses for Revelation's late-dating are fraught with interpretive difficulties (Irenaeus) or are ambiguous (Clement of Alexandria and Origen). Or they are internally contradictory (Eusebius). Another involves improbable actions (Victorinus). Still another seems to confuse both traditions into one (Jerome). (See Chapter 14).

Although the early date view prefers Revelation's own self-witness, it easily discovers evidence from tradition, as well. One late-date witness even has an observation that demands all revelation ceased under Nero (Clement of Alexandria). The contradiction in one witness provides a statement supportive of the early date (Eusebius).

But beyond these we find clear statements demanding a pre-A.D. 70 date for Revelation in a number of early witnesses (Muratorian Cannon, Epiphanius, Syriac writers, Arethas). In addition there are strong implications of an early date in still others (Papias, Shepherd of Hermas, Tertullian). (See Chapter 13)

A Plea for a Hearing of the Evidence

I do hope from this inquiry that thinking Christians will reconsider the issues. At the very least I trust that any hasty dismissal of the identity of the Beast and the early date for Revelation, which I have proposed, will be pre- empted. Discussion of the matter of Revelation's date should not be closed with a "thus saith current opinion!"

Not all scholars hold to the futuristic identity of the Beast or Domitianic date of Revelation. Nor is there anything approaching a unanimity of opinion in ancient church history in either direction. Nor may we dismiss the self-witness of Revelation as obscure or inconsequential.

Revelation was written after the initial outbreak of the Tribulation, for John was already enmeshed in it (Rev. 1:9). The Tribulation began with the Beast's "war against the saints" (Rev. 13), which started with the Neronic persecution in November, A.D. 64. Revelation anticipates the destruction of the Temple (August, A.D. 70) in Chapter 11, the death of Nero (June, A.D. 68) in Chapter 13, AND the formal imperial engagement of the Jewish War (Spring, A.D. 67) in Chapters 6-7. Hence, Revelation was written sometime between November, A.D. 64 and Spring, A.D. 67 -- probably in A.D. 65.

The evidence is there. It has always been there. We have simply been letting the blind lead the blind, causing both to fall into the ditch. Or should we say they both fall into the same old rut? For much of late-date advocacy is simply a rehearsing of time-worn but unconvincing arguments.

N.T Written Before 70 A.D?
From pg 15 of "What Happened in 70 A.D.? by Edward Stevens

We have discussed the idea that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. And, tradition dates most of the New Testament books before 70 A.D. There are a few books which everyone likes to place after 70 A.D, but nothing more than uncertain tradition or personal preference influences this placement. None can produce reliable evidence to absolutely establish a post-70 date for any N.T. book. It is mainly guesswork and subjective reasoning which determines the date (along with some study of the historical fabric of the New Testament)

Dr. John A. T. Robinson, a noted "liberal" theologian, recently shocked the theological world by writing a book devoted to supporting the idea that ALL the New Testament books were written before 70 A.D. This is a strikingly conservative position, since most liberals date much of the New Testament after 70 AD! He says he began the research for his book because he noticed that NONE of the N.T. books mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. He calls the destruction of Jerusalem, "the single most datable and climactic event of the period," and he constantly stresses the fact that such an important even could not have been ignored by the writers of the N.T. if it was past when they wrote. In his book, Redating the New Testament, p. 13, he says, "One of the oddest facts about the N.T. is that ...the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D....is never once mentioned as a past fact." How could any N.T. writer after 70 AD fail to comment on the incredible accuracy of Jesus' predictions (Matt. 24, et al)? Even if they had no direct references to the destruction, surely there would be subtle reflections of post-70 conditions in their writings which would betray a post-70 date. Dr. Robinson says that the absence of all mention of 70 AD by the N.T. writers is "as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark" (p. 13). The N.T. writers did not mention 70 AD because it had not happened yet!

Several in the religious world today have written books presenting the idea that the miraculous gifts ceased at 70 AD. J.S. Russell, Cornelius Vanderwaal, George E. Gardiner, Franklin Camp, Guy N. Woods, and Max King are just a few. This is a staggering idea, especially regarding the implications it holds for the dating of the N.T. books. If miraculous gifts ceased at 70 A.D., then writing by inspiration, which was one of those gifts, must have ceased at 70 AD also! This means that ALL N.T. books (including Revelation) must have been written before the cessation at 70 AD!

Conclusion

There is so much more that could be shared but that can be saved until next letter. Thanks to those who offered feedback and encouragement on the last letter. Hopefully these letters will reach those who are more interested in what the truth is rather than arguing "preterism" vs "Identity" or personalities. Toward that end I labor so that love and truth may prevail!

Sincerely because Christ is King now and forever!

Rick Savage