Why I am Not a Preterist — Part 2
Why I am Not a Preterist: Part 2
Preterists often use Revelation 17:10 as a proof-text that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero (AD 54-68); Nero being the king that “now is” and Galba who reigned only for six months: June AD 68-January AD 69, as “the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.”
Revelation 17:10
“They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.”
For context Revelation 17:7-10 7 “But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.11 And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.””
Let’s look at this scripture in view of 1. History and 2. Does this fit?
1. First of all, this only fits if Julius Caesar (49-44 BC) is the first king mentioned in Revelation 17:10.
“King” from Strong’s: 935. βασιλευς̀̀ basileus bas-il-yooce’; probably from 939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively, or figuratively): — king (always translated as “king”).
Julius Caesar was never formally the emperor or king of Rome. He was Rome’s leader, but never in the definition of “basileus” above, ie “king”. There were actual Roman kings before Julius Caesar, and emperors after him.
If you so decided Julius Caesar can fit as the “king,” since he was the leader, then the five who had come 1st is Julius Caesar, 2nd Augustus, 3rd Tiberius, 4th Gaius, and 5th Claudius. The one who “now was” in power—Nero, and one had not yet come—Galba, who only remained a little time (six months), fitting “he must continue a short time”.
2. However, does this fit with the rest of the context?
The following scripture, Revelation 17:11 says, “And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.”
The 8th in the list was Marcus Otho Caesar Augustus. Ortho, when compared to Nero or Titus or Domitian, would he be considered the “one going to perdition”? But, he is supposed to be the 8th (if flowing with the logic—“going to perdition” —Nero, who light up Christians as human torches for his garden, or Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem, or Domitian (brother of Titus), who was self-proclaimed “Lord and God,” ruthless, and the banisher of John to Patmos, assuming the authorship of Revelation is in the 90’s A.D.
Perdition (Strong’s): 684. απωλειὰ̀ apoleia ap-o’-li-a; from a presumed derivative of 622; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal): — damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.
Referring back to verse 8: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”
Did Ortho have such a reputation–more than his predecessors–that would warrant such a definition as the man to have come out of the “bottomless pit” and cause the earth to marvel…when they see him?
Also, historically, there were many many emperors of Rome, yet Revelation 17 only talks of 8. And remember, Julius Caesar was not king or emperor (he could not have been the 1st). Any of the web searches I checked did not list Julius Caesar in this line of emperors or kings. He was always listed apart from the rest, yet Revelation says the 8th is “of” (a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds)) the 7.
The Preterist view of Revelation 17 just doesn’t seem to fit in history or context.
