(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
Oswald T. Allis
John A. Broadus
Wilhelm De Wette
Charles Homer Giblin
Johann von Hug
J, F, and Brown
Jean Le Clerc
Jack P. Lewis
Sir Isaac Newton
Dr. John Owen
William W. Patton
Rudolph E. Stier
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
John L. Bray
Dr. John Brown
Francis X. Gumerlock
J. Marcellus Kik
Ovid Need, Jr
Milton S. Terry
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st
C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any
Alan Patrick Boyd
John N. Darby
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
John N.D. Kelly
Dr. John Smith
George Fox |
Margaret Fell (Fox) |
PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM |
"His third argument he
rests on what is said respecting Christ's coming quickly, (ch. xxii, 20)
which he considers as not having reference to the second coming of
Christ to the General Judgment, but to the judgment impending over
contains prophecies with which the very persons to whom it was
sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these
prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their
death, those persons were not immediately concerned with them,
and the author would surely not have said that they were
blessed in reading prophecies of which the time was at hand,
if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the
lapse of many ages"
Dissertations introductory to the study and right
understanding of the Apocalypse (1823)
"Michaelis believes that (the Apocalypse of
John) was written in the reign of Claudius,'
who died A. D. 54. and appeals to Sir Isaac Newton, " that prodigy
of learning," whose arguments in favor of an early date he considers
as generally unexceptionable, (excepting those drawn from allusions
to the Revelation, alleged to be found in the first Epistle of
Peter, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.) "I have so high an
opinion (says he) of the divine understanding of Newton, that I
cannot flatter myself with having discovered a proof in his
positions which was undiscovered by him. It is therefore with some
diffidence that I lay before my readers some additional arguments
for his opinion, that the Revelation was written so early as in the
time of Claudius or Nero."
Jerusalem = Harlot / Babylon)
"If I could only find a single authority for calling Jerusalem by the name of Babylon, I would rather follow Cappellus and Harduin who take Jerusalem to have been the place; which was also, according to Cyril of Alexandria, meant by Isaiah when he is speaking of Babylon. For the contents of this Epistle are not so well suited to any time as to that soon after the Council of Jerusalem, whilst Peter continued in that city. It is not impossible that St. Peter might call Jerusalem by the name of Babylon after she had begun to persecute the Church; and the expression of the elected church at Babylon seems to imply a paradox which would be removed had Jerusalem itself been named. It is therefore not improbable that St. Peter might in an epistle make use of this figurative and opprobrious name to signify Jerusalem. . . . Add to this that St. Peter sends a salutation from Mark, and this Mark, who was also called John, was returned to Jerusalem, not long before the said Council (Acts 13:13) All circumstances thus concurring, and it being never more necessary to the Gentile converts that they should 'stand in the true grace of God,' it appears to me, whilst I am writing, probable in the highest degree, that this Epistle was written at Jerusalem soon after the Council, i.e., in the year of Christ 49. . . . I am the less influenced by the testimony of the ancients to the contrary, as the matter depends not upon the historical question, whether St. Peter ever was at Rome, but upon the critical question, whether he calls Rome by the name of Babylon?" ("The First Epistle of St. Peter was written at Jerusalem at the time of the first council" (See Introd. Lect. to the "Sacred Books of the New Testament," by J. D. Michaelis, § 148).
(On the Date
"I have so high an opinion of the divine understanding of Newton, that I
cannot flatter myself with having discovered a proof in his positions which
was undiscovered by him. It is therefore with some diffidence
that I lay before my readers some additional arguments for his opinion, that
the Revelation was written so early as in the time of Claudius or Nero."
(Introductory Lectures 1761. 4to. p. 389)
"If it be objected that the prophecies in the Apocalypse are not yet fulfilled, that they are therefore not fully understood, and that hence arises the difference of opinion in respect to their meaning, I answer, that if the prophecies are not yet fulfilled, it is wholly impossible that the Apocalypse should be a Divine work; since the author expressly declares (Rev. 1:1) that the things which it contains 'must shortly come to pass.' Consequently, either a great part of them, I will not say all, must have been fulfilled, or the author's declaration, that they should shortly be completed, is not consistent with fact. It is true that to the Almighty a thousand years are but as one day, and one day as a thousand years; but if we therefore explain the term 'shortly,' as denoting a period longer than that which has elapsed since the Apocalypse was written, we sacrifice the love of truth to the support of a preconceived opinion. For when the Deity condescends to communicate information to mankind, He will of course use such language as is intelligible to mankind; and not name a period short which all men consider as long, or the communication will be totally useless. Besides, in reference to God's eternity, not only seventeen hundred but seventeen thousand years are nothing. But the author of the Apocalypse himself has wholly precluded any such evasion, by explaining (Rev. 1:3) what he meant by the term 'shortly,' for he there says, 'Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein; for the time is at hand.' According, therefore, to the author's own declaration, the Apocalypse contains prophecies with which the very persons to whom it was sent were immediately concerned. But if none of these prophecies were designed to be completed till long after their death, those persons were not immediately concerned with them, and the author would surely not have said that they were blessed in reading prophecies of which the time was at hand, if those prophecies were not to be fulfilled till after the lapse of many ages" ("Introduction to the New Testament," vol. 4. pp. 503, 504).
"The First Epistle of St. Peter was written at Jerusalem at the time of
the first council" (See Introd. Lect. to the "Sacred Books of the New
Testament," by J. D. Michaelis, § 148).
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..