Orthodox Preterism
In the past, as a Reformed Protestant, I had leaned toward a preterist view of eschatology-- that is to say, I believed that most of the events described in St. John's Revelation have already been fulfilled in the Temple's destruction (and related events) A.D. 70. The Preterist view takes a very straight forward, and quite simple interpretation of Revelation. It basically takes John at his word..."these events are at arms' length"-- meaning, these prophecies are going to happen SOON.
The Preterist view does not see John as giving these prophecies to the seven churches only for them (the prophecies) to be fulfilled thousands of years later... but rather, says the Preterist, the prophecies proclaimed by John are understood and are fulfilled in the lifetime of those individuals who first received John's letter.
With that short background one will see why I was very happy to read an article by Fr. Steven Tsichilis (the head Priest at St. Paul's Orthodox Church) concerning the Orthodox view of Revelation: The Apocalypse. I was very excited to read that what I believed as a marginalized Protestant (few Protestants comparatively are Preterists) is indeed the general view of the Orthodox.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Preterist view (a view held by Protestants such as R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry) One of the most poignant little tidbits of the Preterist view is the understanding that the "Beast" in Revelation was a man who already lived and died...not the Popes (as Westminster would exclaim), not Hitler (as some believed in years past), not Gorbechav (as some believed in the 80's), not even Marilyn Mansion, nor Sadam Hussein (as some believe this very day), but that the Beast was Nero Caesar in particular, and the Roman Government in general. Consider Fr. Tsichilis' own words:
For example, a ferocious beast in the apocalyptic literature of the Old Testament usually represents a major political power (as in Daniel 7). The Beast of Revelation had seven heads - which are seven mountains on which a whore called Babylon is seated (Revelation 17:9). Ancient pagan writers like Virgil called Rome the City of the Seven Hills. The Jews, after their failed revolt of 66-70AD, called Rome “Babylon” because it had destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem just as the real Babylon had done in 587 BC.As I wrote in an email to Wayne: the more I search into Orthodoxy the more I see that I didn't "give up" anything (moving from Protestantism to Orthodoxy), but rather I've gained so much. And, as we've seen here, I have even been able to hold onto many of what I considered to be just "common-sensical" interpretations of Scripture. Posted by at June 8, 2002 12:17 AMIf you’re clever, John tells his contemporaries, you’ll figure out who the Beast is: “This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the Beast, for it is a man’s number” (Revelation 13:18). Both Greek and Hebrew used letters of the alphabet as numbers, so every word had a numerical value. Modern scholars have noted that the name Nero Caesar, in Hebrew, adds up to 666. Nero (reigning 54-68AD) was the first emperor to slaughter Christians, after blaming them for the great fire in Rome in 64 AD. The apostles Peter and Paul died in his short, vicious persecution. Nero kicked his pregnant wife to death, “married” a boy named Sporus, delighted in being worshipped as a god, murdered his own mother and committed suicide after the Senate pronounced him insane. Nero was the epitome of everything that was wrong with a corrupt empire.
In fact, it was Rome’s insistence on actual worship of the emperor as a god that would prove to be the flash point of conflict between empire and church. Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor, began his rule in 29 BC and succeeded in uniting “all the world” (Luke 2:1). Some of Rome’s subjects in the east decided that Caesar Augustus was divine, a god to be worshipped. The provincial council in the area of the seven churches established a religious center at Pergamum in 29 BC to honor Roma and Augustus. John called this regional seat of idolatry the place “where Satan’s throne is” (Revelation 2:13). Roma was the goddess personifying Rome and John casts her as a whore in Revelation 17. Augustus was even deemed the “son of a god” because his adopted father, Julius Caesar, was thought to have become divine at his death. By the time John was writing Revelation, at least 35 cities in the province had climbed on the emperor-worship bandwagon. At Ephesus, the emperor cult had expanded to the point that in 89-90 AD, the city erected a magnificent new temple to the reigning emperor, Domitian, complete with a 25 foot tall statue for worship.
The following inscription served as the ultimate pledge of allegiance that members of the empire were called upon to make: “I swear by Jupiter, the earth, the Sun, by all the gods and goddesses, and by Caesar Augustus himself that I will be loyal to Caesar Augustus and to his children and descendants all my life in word, deed and thought…”
On the emperors birthday and other empire-wide celebrations, people in all the provinces worshipped their ruler with processions, decorated houses, choral performances, prayers, incense and sacrifices. Pressure for Christians to participate would come not only from Roman officials but from friends and neighbors, as well
Christians would clearly have to choose. Was their loyalty to Christ or to the Beast? This is the choice which John puts before his readers, whether ancient or modern.
"As I wrote in an email to Wayne..."
I deny all such correspondence with this heretic :-).
This is a great post and truly a fascinating topic for study and discussion. Not too long ago I was studying this very topic with the help of some of the authors you mention and found myself falling into a preterist view - I should pick things up again one day soon (yeah right - as that will ever happen).
Posted by: wayne at June 10, 2002 03:30 AMThanks Wayne oh.
Advice from a brother in Christ: for the love of God, DO NOT PICK UP ANOTHER "BOOK/SUBJECT"! :-) First finish reading the 37 other books you are currently reading! lol just teasing wayne oh.
In truth, the Preterist view is truly a very persuasive interpretation of Revelation; one must wonder, if the view were better disseminated, whether or not Dispensationalism would have such a strong hold on modern Evangelicalism as it does currently?
Posted by: jeremy at June 10, 2002 06:35 AMThis whole thing is so interesting to me. I know so little about the Orthodox Church I guess I expected them to hold some bizzaro interpretation of Revelation. Glad they don't.
At the same time, I find it fascinating that an ex-Protestant is glad to find common beliefs between his new denomination and Protestantism. I haven't figured out why this is yet (my fascination that is) but it hit me in your post on original sin and again in this one.
A silly notion that has been rolling around the back of my head. What if Jesus is beginning to call some of His people out of the evangelical church on purpose? Most that I know that have gone on to non-evangelical churches still carry a lot of their evangelical convictions with them (i.e. a high view of scripture, a high view of Christ, a belief in evangelism, a lot of scripture knowledge, etc.) Perhaps Jesus is doing this to shake up the evangelical church and the spread some of their light to other part of His Church.
As an evangelical, I know that we hold some of our views "just cause that's the way it is." I am sure we need a bigger view of the Church than just our Reformed or Dispensational or Pentecostal (or whatever) ghettos. It may be that this is just the beginning of a revival of the Church.
So, am I nuts? Did I just insult you and Wayne? Have I got my head wedged in my belly button to the point that I think too highly of evangelicalism?
Posted by: Tim Etherington at June 10, 2002 08:31 AMBravo for showing an open mind and independent thinking on the study of prophecy! Keep up the studying, and for new and fresh articles, feel free to visit http://planetpreterist.com
Posted by: Virgil at October 23, 2002 07:20 PMThe emperor worship of the first century, under which the whole world groaned (Ro. 8:22), is the overlooked key to understanding the NT. Domitian, the 11th first-century emperor, was the 11th horn of Dan. 7, the man of sin of 2 Thes., the counterfeit white-horse rider of Rev. 6:2 (which describes a few highlights in his career), and the first beast of Rev. 13 (the second beast was the imperial cult, Satan's false, first-century church), whose renewed persecution of the Christians made him look like Nero brought back to life (Rev. 13:3) -- a counterfeit resurrection for Satan's counterfeit Messiah. He was killed by the sword (Rev. 13:0) in the fifth hour of the morning on September 18 in AD 96, the day and hour of Christ's parousia (Mt. 24:36), thus fulfilling 2 Thes. 2:8. The 66 years and 6 months from Christ's resurrection in the spring of AD 30 to the death of Domitian in autumn of AD 96 were the true 666. The spiritual judgment of the world at Christ's parousia fufilled the natural judgment of the world by the flood (both came in the clouds). The 100 years from the birth of Christ, God's true King, in autumn of 5 BC to the death of Domitian, Satan's false, usurping king, in autumn of AD 96 fulfilled the last 100 pre-flood years of Noah. Christ's "coming (verb) in the clouds" was a multi-year process (fulfillment of Dt. 7:22,23) that culminated in the moment of his parousia (noun). That process involved the gradual triumph of the gospel preached to all the world by the young church (equating to the OT "great CLOUD of witnesses," Heb. 12:1) over the usurping spiritual dominion (Dan. 7:26,27) of first-century Rome (spiritual Babylon), the blasphemous worldwide enforcement of emperor worship. The 70 years from Christ's anointing as King (his baptism) in autumn of AD 29 to the death of Domitian in autumn of AD 96 fulfilled the 70 years of natural captivity in Babylon. Preterists misunderstand Lk. 21:22.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2002 08:51 AMDear Friends,
There are some aspects of the Orthodox system which have been attractive to me... namely, that the history of the Faith is not absent a connection between the preaching of the Apostles and the subsequent generations of Christians.
There have been some concerns, which are not different in nature than the Roman Catholic view of institutional exclusion, often presented in a manner which seems to me to subject the holy Word of God to the Church Fathers, in a way which forces a bondage on the freedom of the Word to produce true faith in Jesus, apart from the particular institution.
Help me out on this. I am a preterist holding to the general principles of Calvinistic and Covenantal Reformed Presbyterian theology. As a preterist, however, I do not buy into the WCF idea of the Pope as the prophesied "man of sin". Like all classical Protestants, I reject the office of Pope as unscriptural.
God bless,
Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
dadprs@hotmail.com
Waxahachie Texas
This is amazing! I begann my journey into preterism about three years ago under "persecution" and have been entirely blessed in my walk with Christ because of it. I now am beginning a search of orthodoxy and am seeking those reformed-preterist brothers and sisters who have gone before me, to share their experiences concerning their journey into orthodoxy. I have many questions especially regarding central doctrine such as "Diefication" and the historical facts surrounding the dual-authority position. Although I agree that scripture should be interpreted within the context and tradition of the church, the resources that allow for this are available to a growing number of believers in the Invisible Church (and are being utilized). It seems that the E.O. church places an equal or greater importance on the visible aspect of the Church rather than the invisible, which is the greater and truer reality. Also, can the visible church (E.O.)define and declare what I believe only One who is omniscient can see (the invisible church)? I also get lost in the orthodox doctrine which is rich and full of monastic influence, but lacks the beauty that the simplicity of Christ's atonement communicates to the simple minded and the scholar alike. In my own reasoning I also have to wonder how consistent it is to believe that the kingdom of Christ is here, and expanding and yet hold to the idea that the early, orthodox church was somehow meant to forever define the body and church of our Lord Jesus. I may just not be wise or intellectual enough to grasp this cultural afrontal, but praise God I am a dumb sheep who has a Shepherd, and a child who has an "Abba", and I cling to the words of Christ..."I thank you Father that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes..." (Matt.11:25) I am open and eager for any communication on these subjects.
PAX,
Vanessa
my brother in law and sister are both members of the orthodox church. We share very much in common with our recognition of the errors and false ways found within the protestant church. I also live in close proximity of an orthodox monostary at which I regularily engage the monk in conversation.
My problem with orthodoxy comes with the founder, or should I say the man responsible for the legalization of the "christian" orthodox church: Constantine; and the methods utilized in doing so. I have a real problem believing that the same savior who came and spilled his blood for mankind in order to save them, would turn around and tell this man (Constantine) to shed mankinds blood and use His cross as the sign to conquer with and establish His Church with.
Also there is the issue of the adoration of Mary as the "eternal virgin". I find no evidence in the Bible in which this can be established, and the only reference I find to this form of adoration is in regards to wicked women. None of the early church fathers spoke about Mary, we have tradition, but no hard evidence like we have for Christ.
The claim that the Orthodox church makes of an unbroken chain of apostolic succession is also based on the traditions of the church.
In conclusion, I personally believe that the church and all the early fathers were taken away at the time of the Lord's appearing and judging of Israel, and this is why the church between the years of 70ad-150ad are silent. Yes, even John was gone in Domitian's (nero's) reign;his letter predated the fall of Jerusalem, if this wasn't the case and John had written his letter at the time that church tradition places it, why didn't he identify Nero as the anti-christ? Why didn't he speak of the fall of Israel? Why are all the church fathers silent over the fall of Israel? Jerusalem was central to the teachings of Christ to them, certainly they wouldn't ignore this important fulfillment of Christ's judgement on Jerusalem.
Posted by: billy kidd at March 25, 2003 02:52 PMYO Bro!! Yes the actual view of "partial preterism" is what R.C.Sproul is talking about when you actually read his books on the subject. I have looked into this rather with an open mind and have read both points of view and have come to the conclusion that the "full preterist" view is way off base. It just serves as a disstraction to the ones that do not want to really study the scriptures. I just read this web site: thingstocome.org and it puts into proper perspective the "full preterist" aguement.
Take a look and see if you don't agree.
Be a witness for Jesus not a disstration in all that you say and do.
Love in our Lord Jesus Christ
highest quality replica jewelry Rolex watch, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com
Posted by: Rolex Replica at November 7, 2004 07:21 AM