We’ve seen some of the flaws associated with dispensational Futurism which thinks the majority of Revelation is still future, yet in now beginning to examine Preterism, it’s the complete opposite end of the spectrum which believes some or all of the prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. By necessity, they believe the book of Revelation must’ve been written before 70 AD and had predicted those events.
On a positive note, it should be admitted that modern Preterists such as Steve Gregg at The Narrow Path have done an admirable job of pointing out the Biblical significance of 70 AD, and some of their teaching is accurate and should be embraced. Even though their system doesn’t have exclusive rights to those interpretations, it’s critically important for everyone to realize that Daniel 9 was a Christ-centered prophecy, as well seeing that it’s entirely possible that Matthew 24 up to verse 35 was also exclusively focused on 70 AD. The definitive statement to support that belief was when we were told:
“Assuredly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will by no means pass away till ALL THESE THINGS TAKE PLACE,” (Matthew 24:34).
Each and every other time we see the word “generation” used in the Gospels, it always referred to the contemporaries who were living at that time, and not some future generation or a continuation of multiple generations or merely just a particular race of people.
Furthermore, that generation was told that when they saw those events begin to take place, they should escape from Jerusalem and flee to the mountains. Obviously, if it was referring to a global great tribulation at the End, then merely leaving the city of Jerusalem wouldn’t provide safety from a global catastrophe. As the historian Josephus recorded, fleeing Jerusalem was exactly what the Christians did when they saw the Roman army, because they specifically knew Matthew 24 was being fulfilled. They fled Jerusalem and were saved from that particular great tribulation, and it should be undeniable that a time of great tribulation truly did occur in 70 AD when God used the Roman army to brutally destroy Jerusalem and its now obsolete physical Temple which has already been replaced by the greater worldwide spiritual Temple.
The hopeful aspect of Preterism is in believing that nearly everything has been fulfilled, and therefore nothing to fear since Jesus could come back any day and nothing is preventing His return. Most Preterists believe that Nero was the Antichrist, and it sure is nice to think there’s not going to be an evil, super-powerful, superhuman global villain. That’s quite appealing, however, that too is not a view that’s exclusive to Preterism. Even though they didn’t think Nero might’ve been the Antichrist, what had once been the unanimous system of our ancestors had informed us there isn’t a future villain who might rise up. They instead taught that had already begun to occur shortly after the fall of the pagan Roman Empire, and that it’s simply a position of authority attempting to rule over the Church rather than a fascinatingly superhuman individual.
As mentioned, the system of Preterism doesn’t have exclusive rights to all of those teachings about 70 AD, because other systems had also pointed out its significance, and in particular, the system which our ancestors had thoroughly documented for us had explained all of that before Preterism was ever even created.
Even Preterists admit their system was created during the Counter-Reformation of the 1500’s. Aspects of Preterism were first proposed by the Roman Catholic Henten Gumerlock in 1545, and then followed up more elaborately by the more well known Roman Catholic Jesuit, Luis De Alcazar. It’s undeniable that its foundation was created with an agenda which was to block the rising influence of the Protestant Reformation. This is why for the first 300 years after Preterism was created, Protestants rejected it because of its obvious agenda.
Unfortunately, their agenda has currently been quite successful and the enemies of our ancestors have been victorious in blinding us to what had been so blatantly obvious even just a few centuries ago. Now, what our ancestors had previously been able to see so clearly has currently been misunderstood, therefore misrepresented, and strawman arguments made against it.
Since Preterists can’t prove Revelation was written before 70 AD, they have to switch to postulating there might be internal evidence in it which would imply it was about 70 AD. However, again, what our ancestors documented for us fits better, especially since they were able to accurately know where they were on the timeline in Revelation. In knowing precisely where they were in the course of human history according to Scripture, they were able to accurately anticipate what would happen next and make predictions that actually came to pass. Not only that, but our ancestors were even able to accurately declare in advance the precise years in which those events occurred. Only someone “rightly handling” the Word of God is able to do something like that.
The first step in seeing how Preterism is a false theory created with an agenda is to note that the majority of theologians have held to the later date of Revelation (that it was written around 95 to 96 AD) because of documentation from early Church theologians such as Irenaeus who wrote that Revelation was written “toward the end of Domitian’s reign.” John MacArthur declared, “evidence for the earlier date is almost nonexistent… The testimony of the early Church that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign is difficult to explain if it was actually written during Nero’s reign.” Not only was Irenaeus the first to tell us about the later date, but early Church theologians Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome also affirmed that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign.
Preterists naturally go to great lengths to question the credibility of Irenaeus who was the first to specifically declare that Revelation was written towards the end of Domitian’s reign, as if he had been the only one who originally had that idea and others might’ve just copied him. However, early Church theologians from entirely different regions, independent from Irenaeus and independent from one another also taught the same. Aside from Irenaeus, the commentary by Victorinus is the earliest, and it twice stated that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, such as: “…when John said these things, he was in the Island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian,” (Key to the Apocalypse, Guinness, p.14).
Eusebius, who lived from 260-339 AD and is the most widely consulted reference next to Josephus on the early church, is known as “the father of church history” due to his classic work Ecclesiastical History. Much of our knowledge of the first three centuries of Christianity come from the writings of this historian. Eusebius had documented, “after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that DOMITIAN’S HONORS SHOULD BE CANCELED, AND THAT THOSE WHO HAD BEEN UNJUSTLY BANISHED SHOULD RETURN to their homes and have their property restored to them… It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus,” (Church History, Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 20). Furthermore, Eusebius wrote, “At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island,” (Church History, Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 23). Also see confirmation here.
But was the Apostle John the same John who wrote Revelation? If so, then the late date would be undeniable: “The author identifies himself in the opening line, stating, ‘The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John’ (Revelation 1:1). John further emphasizes his authorship within the text (Revelation 1:4, 9; 22:8). Additionally, early church figures like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria attribute Revelation to the apostle John. John penned the book of Revelation around AD 95 while on the Island of Patmos. According to Christian tradition, John was the only disciple not martyred. After unsuccessful attempts to kill him, he was exiled to the island,” (original source here).
Therefore, if the early Church documented that the apostle John wrote Revelation on Patmos during the end of the reign of Domitian rather than Nero, and if those who were “unjustly banished” by Domitian were returned, which specifically included the apostle John who went to Ephesus after being held captive on Patmos, then it becomes virtually impossible for John to have written Revelation before 70 AD.
We see of all the early Church theologians who held that same late dating of Revelation, “They belong to the most different and widespread regions of the Church — to Gaul, Alexandria, the proconsular province of North Africa, Pannonia, Syria, and Rome. They are thus in a great degree independent of each other, and they convey to us the incontestable impression that for at least the first four centuries of the Christian era, and over the whole extent of the Christian Church, it was firmly believed that St. John had beheld the visions of the Apocalypse in the days of Domitian, and not of Nero,” (Key to the Apocalypse, Guinness, p.14).
Instead of believing Revelation might’ve occurred before 70 AD as Preterism postulates, it was blatantly obvious to the early Church precisely what was going to happen when the pagan Roman Empire fell, which we’re about to see. But first, a passage that’s a problem for Preterism is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. They believe “the man of sin” was Nero, yet that passage lets us know that Jesus won’t return until a falling away from the faith occurs and a leader within the Church rises up and seeks the place of God. That couldn’t be Nero, because in the New Testament we learned that the current “Temple” of God is the Church, and Nero wasn’t the head of the Church in any way, and the full “falling away” hadn’t occurred before 70 AD.
Furthermore, Ignatius and Polycarp, both of whom who were disciples of John the Apostle, wrote epistles (Seven Epistles Of Ignatius, Ignatius Letter To Polycarp, Ignatius Letter To Smyrna, Polycarp To The Philippians, the Epistle of Polycarp), yet there wasn’t even a hint in them that the prophecies in Revelation might’ve been fulfilled in the first century or that Nero might’ve been the antichrist or “the man of sin.”
Justin Martyr, who died around 165 AD, speaks of the appearance after 70 AD of the “man of apostasy” who would speak “strange things against the Most High” and venture to “do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians,” (Dialog with Trypho, chapter 110). Also, “He whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for ‘time and times and a half is already even at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High,” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 32).
Moving on to the next verses in 2 Thessalonians 2, we see the introduction of the “Restrainer.”
2 Thessalonians 2:7–8 (NKJV): “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed….”
Many of us have probably been taught by dispensational Futurists that the “restrainer” is the Holy Spirit, and He will supposedly be removed in the future to allow a superhuman villain to rule the world. However, Paul wrote that he had explicitly taught the early Church precisely who the restrainer was. Wouldn’t it therefore be wise to search the writings of the early Church theologians rather than rely on the imaginations of dispensational Futurists? Have they made things more complicated than they should be? Oftentimes the simple Truth isn’t fascinating and sensational enough for them. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it should be noted that before the 1500’s, not even one commentary had ever hinted that the restrainer might’ve been taken away before 70 AD or for the “Little Horn” to have arisen before then. Not one commentary had imagined it might’ve been fulfilled before 70 AD. However, the following commentaries from the early Church will begin to disprove not only Preterism, but also Futurism, and will begin to shine the light on what actually happened during Church history.
And now this shocking statement by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-6:
“Do you not remember that when I was still with you I TOLD YOU THESE THINGS? And now YOU KNOW WHAT IS RESTRAINING.”
Clearly, the best authority to turn to for the identification of the “restrainer” would be our earliest theologians that Paul had directly instructed. This wasn’t an unknown mystery presented to the early Church for them to have to figure out. It wasn’t something they could’ve misunderstood with diverse opinions. Instead, the early Church, the ones directly taught by Paul about the precise identity of the “restrainer,” clearly and unanimously communicated to us who it was. As it turns out, the early Church declared that the “restrainer” was THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPIRE with its emperors who restrained. They also wrote that when the Roman Empire fell (which happened in 476 AD as it broke into 10 kingdoms), a position of authority would rise up over the CHURCH (and as it turns out, by 538 AD, 3 of those 10 kingdoms were crushed by a certain position of authority over the Church in fulfillment of Daniel 7 and certain passages in Revelation).
There was no reason for Paul to be secretive if he were referring to the Holy Spirit, however, there was every reason in the world for Paul to not be caught talking about the downfall of the Roman Empire lest the Empire view Christians as plotting its fall, and for Christians to be even more brutally and totally wiped out.
Here’s what our early theologians wrote:
Tertullian (160-240 AD):
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the ROMAN STATE, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist.” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563)
In yet another comment, Tertullian states: “There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth–in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the ROMAN EMPIRE. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.” (“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).
A little later Lactantius (250 – 325 AD) in the early fourth century, wrote: “The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of ROME remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen… It is that city [Rome], that only, which still sustains all things.” (“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).
Also early in the fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 AD) had this to say: “But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the ROMAN EMPIRE shall have been fulfilled… There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the ROMAN POWER; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.” (Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108 [New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895]).
Ambrose (died in 398): “After the falling or decay of the ROMAN EMPIRE, Antichrist shall appear.” (Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)
Chrysostom (died in 407): “What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the ROMAN EMPIRE, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because IF HE MEANT TO SAY THE SPIRIT, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SPOKEN OBSCURELY, BUT PLAINLY… BUT BECAUSE HE SAID THIS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, HE NATURALLY GLANCED AT IT, AND SPEAKS COVERTLY AND DARKLY. FOR HE DID NOT WISH TO BRING UPON HIMSELF SUPERFLUOUS ENMITIES, AND USELESS DANGERS… When the ROMAN EMPIRE is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon THE GOVERNMENT BOTH OF MAN AND OF GOD,” Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389 [New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1905].
AUGUSTINE (345 to 430 AD)
In his famous “City of God,” Augustine wrote: “as for the words, ‘And now ye know what withholdeth,’ … they show that he was unwilling to make an explicit statement, because he said that they knew… Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the ROMAN EMPIRE, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal… But others think that the words, ‘Ye know what withholdeth,’ and ‘The mystery of iniquity worketh,’ refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are IN THE CHURCH [Temple], until they reach a number so great as to furnish Antichrist with a great people, and that THIS IS THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY” (book 20, chapter 19, paragraphs 1-3). Could both of those be true? It’s certainly possible that the “restrainer” was the Roman Empire, and “the mystery of iniquity” was then to be found within the Church.
E B Elliot summarizes the “restrainer” of 2 Thessalonians 2 this way: “we have the consenting testimony of the early Fathers, from Irenaeus, the disciple of the disciple of St. John, down to Chrysostom and Jerome, to the effect that it was understood to be the imperial power ruling and residing at Rome.” (Horae Apocalypticae, III, p. 101).
We then see from the Catholic historian, Cardinal Manning: “Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded… was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order… And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, THE CHAINS FELL OFF [no longer restrained]… no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.” (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).
Christian historian William Lecky documented in 1865, “That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind will be questioned by no Protestant who has a complete knowledge of history.” (History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Vol. 2).
Again, the precise things that would happen after the Roman Empire fell were blatantly obvious to the early Church, yet why are we now completely unaware of our past? Preterists tell us it all occurred by 70 AD, while modern-day dispensationalists, rather than telling us about Church history, try to instead teach that the Roman Empire will have to rise up again to fulfill the prophecy found in Daniel 7. Apparently this future revived and rebuilt Roman Empire will again have to be made of 10 kingdoms in order for 3 of them to be crushed by a “Little Horn.” But has all of that already been completely fulfilled and will not happen again? And if these things have been fulfilled, then what’s the significance? What did our ancestors teach regarding those 10 kingdoms of the former Roman Empire? And does the Bible tell us anything more about the fall of the Roman Empire? Also, what type of very specific and undeniable details does the Bible provide for us that describes the power that would rise up in the Church? Our ancestors had a lot to say about all of that in their commentaries.
Once upon a time this was all fairly simple and easy to comprehend, yet apparently our modern theologians have made things unnecessarily complicated with their theologically derived ideas while completely ignoring the valuable works of our ancestors and their verifiable fulfilled prophecies. The commentaries of our ancestors have never disproven or debunked, but rather have instead simply been pushed aside by newer and unverifiable opinions.
As was already mentioned in the study on Daniel 9, “For more information on the Traditional Interpretation of our ancestors, go to www.studylight.org/commentaries to read free commentaries on Daniel 9, and Revelation 17 and 18 by Albert Barnes, John Calvin, Adam Clarke, Thomas Coke, the Geneva Bible, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Charles Spurgeon, John Trapp, John Wesley, David Scott Clark, Walter Scott, Joseph Benson, James Burton Coffman, etc. Also see the well respected works by E. B. Elliott, Robert Fleming, E. P. Cachemaille, and Henry Grattan Guinness.”
“Helping People See Jesus and Exploring All That He Has Fulfilled” 