The Beast of Revelation (19 of 25) Dual Fulfillment Theory?

http://forerunner.com/beast/beast.html

Question:- You've made some very interesting and persuasive points. Could it be that the book of Revelation works on a number of different levels? That it was, on one level, speaking to the first century church about some things that were about to happen -- but that it could be just as precisely speaking to us today about things that are about to take place? Is there such a thing as a "dual fulfillment" of the prophecies in Revelation?

No, for at least two deadly reasons:

(1) The book itself claims the events are "near." Who are we to say, "Yes, but"? An angel commands Daniel to "seal up" his prophecy for later times (Dan. 12:4), but commands John to "not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand" (Rev. 22:10) If you adopt a dual-fulfillment view, you are doing so on the basis of theological desperation, not exegetical conclusions.

(2) Are we to believe that all of the details of Revelation occur twice? Two six sealed scrolls? Two beasts? Two groups of 144,000? Two "two witnesses"? Two Armageddons? Two Millenniums? On and on we could go.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Beast
• Revelation
• Antichrist
• Anti-Christ
• Bible
• Gentry
• eschatology
• end-times
• preterist
• preterism
• postmillennialism
• 666

[HaveUconsidered]

So, to be consistent, Gentry must be a full (hyper) preterist since he continually reminds us that the events of Revelation are near (1:3 and 22:10).

That being the case, it must be true that the second coming,the resurrection, the great white throne judgement, the new heavens and new earth also happened back in 70 A.D. because, after all, the events are near, right?

Or is Gentry, (like dispensationalists) a partial "futurist"?

[jcr4runner]

I think you know that already.

[johnchingford]

If John's Book of Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem, Ken's entire argument falls to pieces because he bases all his argument on John writing before AD70.

What do you do with the famous passage by Irenaeus, the great Church father who was alive when some of John's disciples were alive, who dates John's exile to the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, over 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

[jcr4runner]

Didn't you just watch the video prior to this (18 of 20)??

It deals with the correct translation of what Irenaeus was writing. He didn't say the Revelation ("THAT") was seen almost in our day, but John was seen.

Essentially, Irenaeus is saying that if John knew the identity of the Beast, he didn't reveal it directly.

Christians were being killed by the Emperor, so it was not a good idea to say that the Emperor Nero (or by that time, Domitian) is the Beast.

[PeterCornstalk]

If you read Gentry's book you would see that your argument does not hold water as per jcr4runner says in his reply. Also, Irenaeus was reporting others had seen John. Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus had to be 40 to 50 years old when he preached the gospel. So that was written wrong or interpreted wrong. I would not put all my eggs in Irenaeus' basket.

[jcr4runner]

We don't know what the first century Christians thought about the Beast -- or what John's disciples thought. Irenaeus was a chiliast (a premillennial futurist). He thought the Beast could be still to come.

Among the chiliasts, very early on, we find the "Nero Redivivus Legend," a popular belief that Nero would rise from the dead as the Beast.

So we know that Christians associated the Beast with Nero, but that they didn't get the audience relevance of John's letter to the seven churches.

[damildlyshreddah]

Would somewhat agree with Gentry on this but are we consistent? Many of the prophecies in the OT have their fulfilment in the immediate history but at the same time have a greater fulfilment the future like many prophecies about Christ.

Sure, John says these things will take pass shortly and they did but this doesn't mean that they can't point to a greater fulfilment and that is in the future. Who says that A.D 70 isn't just a shadow of the judgement that is to come?

[drnhawkins]

the Bible says that the Day of the Lord is near yet surely, this ha not come! Similarly, the kingdom of heaven was said to be near aswell. The Bible says that many antichrists have come. Matthew says that the last week of Daniel is in the future and will immediately precede the second coming of Christ.

[writerguy78]

@jcr4runner Unless you have stood upon the sand of the sea, then you will never know who the beast is.

[HaveUconsidered]

Yes, now that I've watched all the vids, I've gotten an answer. But, as I told my pastor, ironically, the partial-preterist is a victim to his suppossed greatest defence against dispensationalism; that being that the events in Rev must happen "soon" or "near". The irony is that part-prets don't believe all the events are happening soon either!!!!!

Concerning Revelation, both dispy's and part-prets believe part of Rev is past, part is still future.

You've into your the hole you dug for us.

[tonythatjesusloves]

what about the church letters at the start of the book do we still see these as being representative of church ages leading up to today ??

[thekingofcraps]

False Teachers

Satan has yet to be bound for 1000 yrs.

None of what is being taught is correct - it`s from a scholarly viewpoint.

[Saiaton]

It doesn't fall to pieces at all because pretending to be writing earlier than he is, John can make 'prophesies' to fit what he knows has happened. He produces his 'prophesy' like someone today faking a warning about Lenin or Hitler and wave it say "Wow, they knew what would happen"

But it could have deeper meaning. Domitian identified with Nero, so pretending to write in Nero's time could be like Soviet writers criticising the Tsar when everybody knows they mean Stalin but anti-Tsar always OK.

[vbirdieb]

Rev. 10: 11 answers that question.