Thank you again for sharing your concerns about Partial Preterism. Your zeal for the truth and your caution in interpreting prophecy are commendable. Let me walk with you through the three key points you raised, in a spirit of love, humility, and shared pursuit of biblical faithfulness.
1. “Kings of the Earth” = Rulers of the Land
You mentioned Revelation 1:5, where Jesus is declared “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” Since Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18), should we not always take “kings of the earth” (hoi basileis tēs gēs) universally? That’s a fair question. But how does the historico-grammatical context guide us?
The Greek word gē can mean either “land” or “earth,” with the precise meaning determined by the context. In Matthew 2:6, quoting Micah 5:2, Bethlehem is called “not the least among the rulers of the land of Judah” (tēs gēs). Clearly, gē refers not to the globe but to the covenant land of Israel. Should the book of Revelation, written within the same Jewish apocalyptic tradition, be read in the same way?
Furthermore, Revelation often addresses events “soon” (ἐν τάχει, Rev. 1:1) and “near” (ὁ καιρὸς ἐγγύς, Rev. 1:3). If these texts describe primarily global rulers across millennia, would this not conflict with the immediate temporal markers? Could “kings of the land” be a contextual limitation, especially in visions concerning Jerusalem and its covenantal crisis?¹
2. Jerusalem’s “Fornication” and the Harlot of Revelation 17
You raise a profound objection: how could Jerusalem commit fornication after the inauguration of the New Covenant? If the Old Covenant had passed away (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:13), would she not already be disqualified from covenantal unfaithfulness?
But let us ask: does covenant-breaking cease to matter once a covenant is nullified, or does the breaking itself seal the judgment? The prophets call Jerusalem a harlot precisely because she forsook her covenant. Ezekiel 16 portrays her adultery with Assyria and Babylon as historical facts of betrayal, not as a commentary on covenant continuity. Could Revelation be using the same imagery—Jerusalem’s harlotry reaching its climax in rejecting the Messiah and allying with Rome (John 19:15)?²
You also suggest that the harlot represents apostate Christianity, culminating in Rome. Certainly, church history bears witness to apostasy, and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 warns of falling away. But must we collapse every prophetic harlot into one image? If Paul speaks of future church corruption, does this nullify John’s immediate indictment of Jerusalem? Might Revelation’s harlot be Jerusalem in A.D. 70, while later history also manifests the same pattern of harlotry in other contexts?
And what of Revelation 11:8—“the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified”? Can we easily dismiss this as symbolic of Rome, when the syntax so clearly ties the reference to the crucifixion site? Would not the historico-grammatical approach insist that the plain referent—Jerusalem—takes priority before symbolic extensions?³
3. Jerusalem’s International Influence
You note that Jews were often despised and persecuted, not celebrated. That is true. But does notoriety diminish influence? Could not Jerusalem be infamous and influential at the same time?
Acts 2:5-11 tells us that “devout men from every nation under heaven” were in Jerusalem. The city’s fame was not based on imperial power but on religious centrality. Even Roman historians such as Tacitus recognized the peculiar weight of Jewish customs and their impact on the empire.⁴
Moreover, Revelation 17 describes the harlot as sitting on “many waters”—interpreted as “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” (Rev. 17:15). Does this necessarily describe popularity, or does it describe influence, whether loved or hated? Could not Jerusalem’s diaspora communities and her central role in rejecting Christ explain why she is portrayed as having an international reach?⁵
And finally, Revelation 18:24 says: “In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth.” Which city killed the prophets (Matt. 23:37)? Which city stoned those sent to her? Does this not clearly point to Jerusalem?⁶
A Closing Word
Brother, eschatology is no small matter, but it is not the foundation of our fellowship—Christ is. Still, we are called to wrestle with Scripture carefully. So let us ask together:
-
Does gē in Revelation always mean “earth,” or sometimes “land”?
-
Does harlot imagery require covenant continuity, or does it highlight covenantal betrayal?
-
Does influence require popularity, or can it also include infamy?
Let us “reason together” (Isa. 1:18) in humility, remembering that prophecy always drives us toward holiness, watchfulness, and longing for the blessed hope of Christ’s return (Titus 2:13).
Notes
-
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 202–12.
-
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 217–21.
-
J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 224–26.
-
Cornelius Tacitus, Histories, 5.2–5, trans. Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925).
-
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–52.
-
D.A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 507–9.
Former Adventists Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment