Revelation & Second Thessalonians (In Brief)
Mr. Gore once again provides a fine video lecture. He appears to embrace a largely preterist approach.
From my archives
Antichrist 2008
Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41). Mounce explains that a major problem with this position is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).
The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient. The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context. The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealitic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).
---
Mounce explains that a major problem with this position is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).
Agreed. This problem is echoed in 2 Thessalonians:
Here 2 Thessalonians 2: 7-10...
7 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. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.
Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming;
I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language.
But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future. In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language.
Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.
Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.
Biblically and historically, this has not yet occurred.
Peter E. Cousins opines that the Apostle Paul here is not providing a time table for these events in 2 Thessalonians. (1470). Instead the focus is the victory of Jesus Christ and God. (1470). This would allow for my view that this event is yet to some.
Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient. The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context. The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44).
Reasonable and well-stated from Dr. Mounce. I do find the preterist view quite agreeable on many points.
COUSINS, PETER E (1986) 'First and Second Thessalonians' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 |
| Sicily, Google+ |
