Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)



Church-State Relations and the Book of Revelation
An Introduction to The Parousia: A Careful Look at the New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Second Coming
by James Stuart Russell (1878) // Written by
Todd Dennis, Curator
 


Modern Preterism
Modern Preterism Study Archive
Study Archive

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke

Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
 

 

 

 

Babylon was not First-Century Jerusalem

By Duncan McKenzie, Ph.D.
2004

Duncan McKenzie Study Archive | The Covenant Judgments of Revelation | The Antichrist Chronicles: vol. II | J.S. Russell's Position on the Millennium, the Neglected Third Way of Preterism | A New Preterist Perspective | Was All The Prophecy in the Bible Fulfilled by A.D.70? | Revelation: The Book of Fulfillment of the Covenant Curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy | Babylon in Not Jerusalem | Premillennial Preterism | The Serious Error of the Literal Hermeneutic in the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation | A Preterist Book on the Antichrist is Coming | Revelation Chapter 12

The following article is an excerpt from a forth coming book entitled The Antichrist and the Second Coming.  The book is a systematic look at the sections of Scripture that have traditionally (and I believe correctly) been associated with Antichrist.  The book is 600 pages double spaced (that will shrink some in book form) and contains the following chapters:  By the way I am looking for editors if there are any out there with the qualifications and experience for such a large project. (please leave a note below or write)

  • Chapter 1 Introduction and Daniel 2.

  • Chapter 2 The little horn of Daniel 7

  • Chapter 3 The king of the North and the time of the end.

  • Chapter 4. The man of lawlessness

  • Chapter 5. Introduction to Revelation

  • Chapter 6. The beast from sea and the beast from the land (Rev. 13)

  • Chapter 7. The beast and the harlot (Rev. 17)

  • Chapter 8. The beast and Babylon (Rev. 18)

  • Chapter 9 The Second Coming, Millennium and new heaven and new earth

  • Chapter 10 Where are we now?

 

The title of this article was meant to be somewhat provocative.  Before any of my preterist brethren get too provoked, however, let me say that I am essentially in agreement with those who say the Babylon was first century Jerusalem.  While equating Jerusalem with Babylon is essentially correct, it does need some refinement.

 

Many conservative preterists hold the position that first century Jerusalem was the harlot of Revelation (liberal preterists tend to see the harlot as Rome).  While identifying the harlot with Jerusalem is essentially correct, it must be remembered that Revelation is dealing in symbols; the harlot was not simply the city of Jerusalem.  The symbol of a harlot-city in Revelation is being used to represent a community of people.  Johnson wrote the following on this: “John’s use of the word ‘city’ from its first occurrence in 3:12 is symbolic…A city may be [used as] a metaphor for the total life of a community of people (Heb. 11:10, 12:22; 13:14).” brackets mine Alan F. Johnson, Revelation, 112.   Just as the New Jerusalem is not a literal city (she is the bride, Rev.21:9-10) neither is Babylon, both represent a community of people.  New Jerusalem is a symbol of God’s new covenant people, the bride; Babylon is a symbol of God’s unfaithful old covenant people, the harlot.  The harlot was centered in Jerusalem in the Temple; she was destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 but she was more than just the city of Jerusalem.

Again, the image of a city in Revelation (in both the case of Babylon and New Jerusalem) is being used as a symbol of a community of people.  Babylon was not first century Jerusalem; it was a symbol of the unfaithful old covenant community that was centered in Jerusalem (in the Temple).  Saying that the harlot of Revelation is the city of Jerusalem is like saying that Uncle Sam is the city of Washington D.C.  Uncle Sam (initials U.S.) is an image that has been used as a personification of the United States.  While Uncle Sam has his seat in Washington D.C. he symbolizes all of America not just the city of Washington D.C.  So it is with the harlot in Revelation, she was centered in Jerusalem in the Temple but she represented all those of Israel who rejected Jesus, not just the city of Jerusalem.  This is similar to the usage of harlot in the book of Hosea where God accuses the whole Land of Israel (not just a given city) of harlotry, “When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: ‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry.  For the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the Lord’” Hosea 1:2.  Also consider Ezekiel 23 where Jerusalem and Samaria (Ezek. 23:4) are called the “daughters of one mother” (Ezek. 23:2).  Samaria (representing the northern kingdom of Israel) and Jerusalem (representing the southern kingdom of Judah) were two daughters of the one mother, the whole nation of Israel.  The harlot of Revelation 17 is likewise the mother (i.e. the source) of all the harlots and abomination of the Land (Rev. 17:5).

If one wants a quick identification of the harlot all one has to do is compare Revelation 17:18 with 11:8.  In Revelation 17:18 Babylon is called “the great city.”  In Revelation 11:8 we are told that “the great city” was “where also our Lord was crucified.”  The city where Jesus was crucified was of course Jerusalem but as I have said Babylon was more that just Jerusalem; it was a symbol of the unfaithful old covenant community that rejected Jesus.  When God tells his people to come out of Babylon (Rev. 18:4) He is not telling them to come out of Jerusalem (He definitely wasn’t telling them to come out of Rome either); the members of the seven churches of Revelation were already out of those cities (they lived in the province of Asia).  What God was saying was for His people to make a final break with old covenant temple system Judaism.  In this book I will variously be referring to Babylon as “the temple system,” or “unfaithful Israel.” it represents God’s unfaithful old covenant community that had rejected Jesus in favor of the offerings of the Temple.  Just as ancient Babylon had destroyed God’s Temple and persecuted God’s people, so unfaithful Israel had destroyed Jesus, God’s ultimate Temple (“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:19-21; cf. Matt. 12:6; Rev. 21:22) and was persecuting His people.

In Revelation we are shown two women (the harlot and the bride) who are two cities (Babylon and New Jerusalem).  These two women are also two wives.  While it is obvious that the bride is a wife (Rev. 21:9) it is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife, a widowed wife (Rev. 18:7); she became a widow when she had her husband (Jesus) killed.  She denies this claiming that she is still a queen (cf. Matt. 21:5), that she is still God’s wife (cf. Hosea 2:2-4).  The widowed wife (the harlot) is judged and destroyed in Revelation chapters17 and 18 and then God marries his new covenant bride in Revelation chapter 19.  There is an almost exact parallel to this in Galatians chapter 4 that deserves careful consideration.  In Galatians 4:21-31 we are told of two women who are two wives (Hagar and Sarah) who correspond to two cities (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem which is what the New Jerusalem is, Rev. 21:10).  We are told that these two women/cities are symbolic of two communities of people, those under the old covenant and those under the new covenant.

 

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewomen.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic.  For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all…But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.  Nevertheless what does the Scripture say?  Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Galatians 4:21-31 emphasis added

 

Revelation is talking about the same subject as Galatians; both books are contrasting two “cities” (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem in Galatians, Babylon and the New or heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation) that are two “wives” (Hagar and Sarah in Galatians, the widowed harlot and the bride in Revelation).  These two women of Galatians and Revelation represent two communities, those of the old and new covenants.  Notice that while the city of Jerusalem is mentioned in Galatians it is representing all those under the old covenant not just the city of Jerusalem (“which things are symbolic.  For these are the two covenants” this supports my contention that Babylon doesn’t just represent 1st century Jerusalem but all those of the old covenant who were rejecting Jesus).  In the book of Revelation, as in Galatians (4:29), one woman persecutes the other (i.e. the harlot persecutes the bride, Rev. 17:6).  Similarly in Revelation, as in Galatians, one of the two women is cast out (and destroyed Rev. 18:21) while the other woman receives her inheritance (i.e. the Lord takes her as His bride).  This explains why the very next subject in Revelation after Babylon is destroyed is the wedding of the bride (Rev. 19:1-10).  God deposes of His unfaithful old covenant wife (who irrevocably broke her covenant of marriage with God and became a widow when she had Jesus killed) and then marries his faithful new covenant bride.

 Seeing the harlot as the old covenant temple system helps to explain Revelation 18:21 (that says Babylon would not rise again).  The city of Jerusalem has risen again; the old covenant temple system has not risen again (and won’t).  By the way if you look at the merchandise of Babylon (Rev. 18:11-13) it is the items used in the building and offerings of the Temple.  The harlot city is dressed in clothes of the high priest.  Carrington said the following on the merchandise of Babylon “The long list of merchandise in [Rev.] 18:11-13 is surely a catalogue of materials for building the Temple, and stores for maintaining it.” P. Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 287.

 In summary, Revelation is communicating by way of symbols (Rev. 1:1).  Just as the New Jerusalem is not a literal city but a community of people (the bride, the new covenant community) so Babylon was not a literal city but a community of people (the harlot, the unfaithful old covenant community).  The “city” that God was telling His people to come out of was not Jerusalem (they were out of that city, they lived in Asia) but the old covenant temple system.  Again, Babylon was not simply first century Jerusalem, it was a symbol of the old covenant temple system.  While Babylon was centered in Jerusalem, its citizens were all those of unfaithful Israel that were rejecting Jesus for the temple system.

Duncan McKenzie, Ph.D.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Date:
09 Jan 2005
Time:
12:44:40

Comments

Great article. The clarification on the meaning of Babylon is very helpful. I am very much looking forward to your book! Mark


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
04:54:20

Comments

I think you are mistaken. In the first century CE, "Babylon" would be understood as a cipher for Rome, not Jerusalem -- i harmony with Rev 17. Also, it is wrong to label those who opt for an identification of "Babylon the great" with Rome "liberal preterists". There is nothing "liberal" in identifying "Babylon" with Rome! -- Augustin --


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
13:32:16

Comments

Augustin nailed both points. First, the Babylon of Revelation is first-century Rome. Second, it definitely is not "liberal" to make a correct identification of that Babylon as first-century Rome. Always - always - always the traditional preterist attempts to understand the NT without bothering to master the themes and concepts of the seven feasts of Lev. 23, which God provided as the church's spiiritual roadmap. The "wilderness" of Rev. 12 is the 40-year period AD 30-70 that fulfilled OT Israel's 40 years in the wilderness. The seven trumpets preceding that chapter describe the history and AD 30 spiritual judgment of the rebellious OT nation and in Rev. 11:8 first-century Jerusalem is clearly identified as spiritual Egypt, NOT as spiritual Babylon. The chapters after Rev. 12 deal with the spiritual judgment of first-century Rome, which is identified as spiritual Babylon because by holding the nations of the first-century world in spiritual captivity through the blasphemy of emperor worship it was the fulfillment of OT, natural Babylon which held the nations of the world in natural captivity.


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
14:38:00

Comments

Could anybody tell me how Rome fell in the first century "never to rise again" ? (rev. 18:21)--Brian


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
16:08:15

Comments

Brian: You miss the point - but at least you have lots of company. The basis for God's dealings with man is first the natural things of the OT, then the spiritual things of the NT (1 Cor. 15:46). Therefore: AFTER the 40 years in the wilderness, OT, natural Israel, with the help of God and its natural weapons, overcame the usurping NATURAL dominion of the pagans in Canaan. And in the required NT spiritual fulfillment, AFTER the 40 years AD 30-70, NT, spiritual Israel, the church, with the help of God and its spiritual weapons, overcame the usurping SPIRITUAL dominion (Dan. 7:26) of the pagans in the world, namely, first-century Rome's blasphemous, highly organized, worldwide enforcement of emperor worship, which, after the death of Domitian, was "found no more at all" (Rev. 18:21).


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
16:48:06

Comments

I am not following your line of thinking. You seem to be saying that Rome fell in some spiritual sense in AD 70. Then you talk of the death of Domitian. He died in AD 96. It is not making sense to me. Are you saying that Rome was found no more in AD 96?--Brian


Date:
10 Jan 2005
Time:
17:48:23

Comments

Brian: You're making the 1,900-year-old mistake of focusing on the NATURAL or physical or military power or dominion of first-century Rome. But that was not the problem betwee Rome and Christ and the young church. It was first-century Rome's satanic SPIRITUAL dominion that was at issue -- the blasphemous system of emperor worship instituted by Octavian when he changed his name to Augusutus ("god") - the satanic claim that the reigning emperor (not Christ) was the true god of the world. Most of the emperors didn't take that claim too seriously but the history books show that Domitian, in the last few years of his reign (the 42 months of Dan. 7:25 and Rev. 13:5), demanded that the whole world worship him as god (Rev. 13:4, 8, 12), which Nero never did. That blasphemous claim threw the imperial cult in the cities of Asia Minor, where the young church was concentrated late in the first century, into a frenzy of persecution of Christ's followers - the "great tribulation" of the young church (Rev. 7:14) - which, of course, is why the book of Revelation is addressed to the seven churches there. Domitian's death, by the sword (Rev. 13:10), in the fifth hour of the morning on September 18 in AD 96, the day and hour of Christ's parousia (Mt. 24:36; 2 Thes. 2:8), disabused the fanatical cultists of that idea and Domitian's successors removed and melted down his statues. The highly organized, worldwide system of emperor worship, by which all the nations of the first-century world were deceived (Rev.20:3), has never reappeared.


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
09:41:22

Comments

Could you, who are arguing with Brian and agreeing with me re: the identity of Babylon the great (= Rome), mail me? (augustin99@hotmail.com) For Brian: Would you say that Jerusalem/Judaism "fell in the first century 'never to rise again' ? (rev. 18:21)"? -- Augustin --


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
09:47:50

Comments

...arguing that "Babylon (the great)" = Jerusalem is like arguing that "Uncle Sam"/ "U.S." = Mexico... -- Augustin --


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
12:43:30

Comments

Augustin, That is what I find helpful about this article. Jerusalem has risen again; Temple system Judaism has not.--Brian


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
16:03:42

Comments

Further -- by their mistaken view of the spiritual events of the first century preterists have made it clear that they aren't interested in freedom of religion. Of course, futurists of both the traditional variety and the 19th-century dispensationalist variety also aren't interested in freedom of religion.


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
21:05:44

Comments

That 16:03:42 comment appears to have left them baffled and speechless. They're scratching their heads and asking themselves, I wonder what he means.


Date:
11 Jan 2005
Time:
22:46:55

Comments

Comment 16:03:42 certainly left me baffled. What left me more concerned, however, is that it could be construed as coming from me and it didn't (it came right after my last post and sounded like a continuation of it). Could people please attach a name to their posts (even if it is made up or a nickname) so we can tell who is saying what. Thank You,---Brian


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
03:30:54

Comments

Brian: You are correct in arguing that "Temple system Judaism" has not risen again. But how do you argue that, "Temple system Judaism" was 1) where our Lord was crucified (Rev 11: 8), 2) situated on seven hills/mountains (Rev 17)? As "Babylon" was a cipher for Rome, and Rome was well-known as situated on seven hills, why should we still believe that "Babylon" in the Book of Revelation was "Temple system Judaism"? By the way: The oldest (preterist) interpretation of the Apocalypse, known to us, has Babylon = Rome.


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
03:32:04

Comments

The last message (for Brian) was from me... -- Augustin --


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
10:02:37

Comments

In the first-century world there was no freedom of religion because of Rome's blasphemous system of emperor worship that was instituted before the birth of Christ by Octavian when he changed his name to Augustus (God) -- Satan's counterfeit of God's change of Jacob's name to Israel. The emperor of Rome had to be worshiped above all other provincial and tribal deities. The fact that first-century Rome insisted that its emperor -- not Christ -- was the true Son of God has never been seen as a matter of concern to 19 centuries of Bible "scholars" -- they have never cared that there was no freedom of religion in the first century world. But it was a matter of GREAT concern to the first-century Christians. They were willing to die rather than worship a mere man in the place of Christ. In keeping with 19 centuries of spiritual blindness, contemporary preterists don't see the satanic and blasphemous political leaders of Rome as a first-century, spiritual enemy of Christ and the young church. In their strange view, the satanic religious leaders of Jerusalem were the ONLY first-century enemy that had to be overcome before Christ's parousia could occur -- thus, their failure to understand that Christ's parousia occurred in AD 96, not in AD 70. Signed: NotBrian


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
10:14:50

Comments

I don't have the time for extended debate; I will make a few comments however. First Rome was certainly not the great city where the Lord was crucified. I think Duncan's point that the cities in Revelation are not literal cities but symbolic of communities of people (as in Galatians 4:21-31) is very important (or do you believe the New Jerusalem is a literal city?). Temple system Judaism and it followers rejected Jesus and brought on His blood guilt cf. Rev. 18:24; Matt. 23:29-36. This was the city (community of people) that had the blood guilt of Jesus Acts 2:36. As to the seven hills, that could refer to Rome, the harlot was seated on the Roman beast. JS Russell applies the seven hills to Jerusalem. Finally if one looks at the old testament the evidence for the harlot being Jewish (Ezek 16, 23, the book of Hosea etc.) rather than Roman (or Gentile) is pretty overwhelming. That makes more of an impression on me than what the church fathers taught. That Revelation is talking about the fall of the old covenant system rather than the fall of Rome makes sense to me. This is covenant eschatology. By the way how did Rome fall in the first century. The events of Revelation were at hand in the first century (Rev. 1:1,3).


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
10:18:29

Comments

oops, I violated my own request! The last post was from Brian to Augustine.


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
11:43:03

Comments

Brian: Did you bother to read the comments I addressed to you on 10 Jan 2005 at 17:48:23? Or are you just unable to grasp the fact that it was the satanic SPIRITUAL dominion of Rome (that pagan empire's first-century, blasphemous, highly organized system of emperor worship) that was destroyed at the end of the true first century, not its NATURAL or physical or military dominion. Satan controlled two first-century cities that were the two enemies of the gospel, namely, Jerusalem, the capital of the nation of Israel, which was spiritual Egypt, and Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, which was spiritual Babylon. (More truth from NotBrian.)


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
15:18:34

Comments

Brian: To understand the NT you have to understand the following: 1) The man Israel was a type fulfilled by Christ in the first century. Therefore, the old, natural nation of Israel (the natural offspring of the man Israel and their natural institutions) was a type fulfilled in the first century by the new, spiritual Israel, the church (the spiritual offspring of Christ the true Israel and their spiritual institutions. 2) The man Adam also was a type fulfilled by Christ in the first century. Therefore, the old, natural world (the natural offspring of the man Adam and their natural institutions) was a type fulfilled in the first century by the new, spiritual world of Rev. 21 and 22 (the spiritual offspring of Christ the true Adam and their natural institutions). Best wishes, NotBrian


Date:
12 Jan 2005
Time:
23:56:14

Comments

Brian: Just a few points for you to consider. First, I have never stated that Rome was the great city where the Lord was crucified. This city (mentioned in Rev 11:8) is Jerusalem! But this city is not "Babylon the great". If you look at the Greek text in Rev 16:19, you will se that it is quite possible that there are two terrestrial cities in the Book of Revelation -- as there were two terrestrial cities in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (ancient Jerusalem and ancient Babylon). Duncan McKenzie is, of course, quite right in arguing that the cities are not just literal cities. However, the way "Babylon" is portrayed in Rev 17-18 strongly suggests that Rome, not Jerusalem, is in the mind of John. Rev 18:24 might very well be attributed to Rome; such re-use of oracles against a city or a nation is very common in the OT/NT. Oracles against Tyre is turned against a new nation, viz. Rome. J.S. Russell is obviously wrong when he tries to relate the seven hills to some seven hills on which Jerusalem was situated. The hills are said to be part of the beast (= the Roman Empire). So, in order to have "Babylon" = Jerusalem, you have to argue that the beast is Jewish. But as pointed out by e.g. K. L. Gentry, the imagery of a woman, a beast and seven hills is paralleled in Roman art. You are quite right that in the OT, the "harlot" usually is "Jewish". But not always! Again; having "Babylon" = "Jerusalem" is only possible if one ignores all the evidence pointing to an identification of "Babylon" with Rome. It's like arguing that "Uncle Sam" (U. S.) is Mexico, not U. S. of America! Finally, Rome did not fall in the 1 century CE. But I do not believe that Rev suggests that. The Book of Revelation is about apocalyptic chronography, not chronology! -- Augustin --


Date:
13 Jan 2005
Time:
12:02:05

Comments

Augustine, Revelation being about the things that were about to happen (Rev. 1:1,3) sounds like chronology to me. What is chronography anyway and what group of people do you think Babylon is representing?--Tom


Date:
13 Jan 2005
Time:
18:59:21

Comments

Wonderful article Duncan. It makes perfect sense. Just like Galatians 4:21-31, Revelation is about two women who are two wives as well as two cities. These things are symbolic of the two covenants. It solidified the concept of covenant eschatology and the theme of Revelation for me. I thank you (and am very much looking forward to your book).--Susan


Date:
14 Jan 2005
Time:
01:57:11

Comments

Tom: As you probably know, a temporal expression can have different meanings due to the genre of the text in which it occurs. Expressions do not always have a literal meaning intended. Example: If I say: "She is a snake!", you would probably think that I was using a metaphor. Right? I hope so. All temporal expressions in the Book of Revelation should be understood in harmony with what "imminence" means in apocalyptic texts. If you do not know what chronography is, you should probably consult the following article: "Chronography in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch" by L. L. Grabbe (SBLSP 20, 1981, p 49-63). I trust you will find this article in any university library (with a collection of theological literature). I hope this helps! -- Augustin --


Date:
14 Jan 2005
Time:
08:45:43

Comments

Susan: Okay, you recognize that Gal. 4:21-31 refers to God's covenantal relationship with Israel. God's promises to the old, natural Israel were fulfilled in the spring of AD 30 by the appearance of the new, spiritual and eternal Israel (Christ and those who are in Christ). Now you must try to recognize God's earlier covenantal relationship with the world. God's promises to the old, natural world (Adam and Noah were not Jews) were fulfilled by the appearance in autumn of AD 96 of the new, spiritual and eternal world described in Rev. 21, 22 -- INTO WHICH the new, spiritual Jerusalem descended. I hope you can grasp the fact that God would not have allowed the perfect, new, spotless, wrinkle-free, spiritual Jerusalem to descend into the very imperfect, very old, very spotted, very wrinkled, natural world.


Date:
14 Jan 2005
Time:
11:11:30

Comments

Augustine--We will have to disagree on the time element; it seems clear to me (in the beginning and at the end of Revelation) that the prophecies were about to happen. So what group of people do you think Babylon is or was representing?--Tom


Date:
14 Jan 2005
Time:
20:46:05

Comments

Augustine, Let me elobarate on my response (I was at work and did not have much time). You talk of how temporal (ie time) statements are not always literal. The example you give however (she is a snake) is not a time statement. I don't know what a symbolic time statement looks like. Can you give some Biblical examples? Even if you can, I see nothing symbolic in the following from Revelation: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show his servants thing which must shortly take place...Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." Rev. 1:1,3. "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book for the time is near" Rev. 22:10. I see nothing symbolic in these time statements at all. I don't buy the idea that these statements mean the things of Revelation could happen at anytime in the next few thousand years. Second the New Jerusalem is the bride, a community of people ("people as place, not place for people" isn't that how Robert Gundry put it?). So what people is Babylon representing? In Galatians the contrast is heavenly or new jerusalem (symbolic of the new covenant community) vs Jerusalem (symbolic of the old covenant community). In Revelation we have the New Jerusalem (the bride, the new covenant community in contrast to Babylon. So what community is Babylon representing? and when was this community going destroyed?---Tom


Date:
15 Jan 2005
Time:
21:27:41

Comments

Tom: You can ignore any recommendations of Lester L. Grabbe and his ilk. His crowd consists of "experts" in ancient history. They have nothing of value to contribute to the spiritual fulfillments of the first century.


Date:
15 Jan 2005
Time:
22:14:22

Comments

Tom: On the other hand, it must be recognized that the typifying OT wedding and the fulfillment first-century wedding of Messiah involved both God's PEOPLE and THE LAND of God's people (Is. 62:4). The typifying OT, natural redemption occurred AFTER the 40 years in the OT wilderness when natural Israel overcame the usurping NATURAL dominion of the ancients pagans in their NATURAL promised land (book of Joshua) and the fulfillment NT, spiritual redemption occurred AFTER the 40 years AD 30-70 when spiritual Israel (the Holy Spirit-empowered young church) overcame the usurping SPIRITUAL dominion of the first-century pagans in their SPIRITUAL promised land. Preterists and futurists have never been able to understand that tremendous spiritual truth.


Date:
15 Jan 2005
Time:
22:57:45

Comments

"You can ignore any recommendations of Lester L. Grabbe and his ilk. His crowd consists of "experts" in ancient history. They have nothing of value to contribute to the spiritual fulfillments of the first century."------Tell me more whoever you are, I hear the voice of somebody who I would like to hear more from. I was not about to run out and find the Grabbe article because I reject ways of thinking that try to fit Biblical apocalyptic into non Biblical apocalyptic (or should I say try to equate God's Revelations with non-biblilcal apocalyptic such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.). I am not about to use 4 Ezra to help me in my interpretation of the book of Revelation.---Tom


Date:
16 Jan 2005
Time:
06:44:32

Comments

Tom: My point is that language does not always have a literal meaning intended. If you accept this, you should be able to accept the fact that imminence in the Book of Revelation could be understood in a theological, not chronological way. As to "Babylon the Great", she probably symbolises the secular world worshiping the emperor and his society rather than the only true God, YHWH and His only Son. IF John wanted to allude to Jerusalem, why did he use a cipher commonly used for Rome? Why did he use the imagery with a woman, a beast, and seven hills -- exclusively used for Rome? Instead of trying to fit the Book of Revelation into a certain preterist framework one should adjust the preterist framework according to the message of the Book of Revelation. In the Book of Daniel, the "end" is related to the end of Antiochus IV. In Revelation, the end is related to the fall of the Roman Empire. And the message is: just as Antiochus IV. and the Roman Empire fell, just as sure is the eventual fall of all evil. I have to say that I find it strange that one rejects the idea of consulting scholarly literature on the apocalyptic genre. But hey, that's juts me! :) -- Augustin --


Date:
16 Jan 2005
Time:
08:35:51

Comments

Tom: Sources outside of the Christian canon (the 39 books of the OT and the 27 of the NT) are of no help in trying to understand Christ's first-century parousia (which Bible typology proves occurred in AD 96, not in AD 70). The only exceptions are a few secular histories of the first century since they shed some light on God's TWO great, first-century, spiritual enemies, namely, the satanic religious leaders of Jerusalem (spiritual Egypt) who held the people of ISRAEL in spiritual bondage and the satanic political leaders of Rome (spiritual Babylon) who held the people of THE WORLD in spiritual captivity (enforced emperor worship). Augustin is right about the identification of first-century Rome as the Babylon of Revelation but for the wrong reasons. He's also wrong if he doesn't understand that Dan. 12 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. However, rather than focusing on my comments about Grabbe, I'd prefer to have you respond to my subsequent comments about the necessity of the first-century wedding of Messiah involving not only God's spiritual PEOPLE (the church) but also the spiritual LAND of those spiritual people in order to comply with Is. 62:4. In the typifying OT journey, AFTER the 40 years in the wilderness (which typified the 40 years AD 30-70), do you believe it would have been okay for the natural Israelites to settle down in Canaan without first triumphing over the usurping natural occupants of that natural land?


Date:
16 Jan 2005
Time:
09:27:32

Comments

Augustine---I still see nothing symbolic in the time statement of Revelation and apparently you can't come up with Biblical symbolic time statements. So in your mind Babylon was probably the secular wourld that was worshipping the empire? Is this something the churches of Revelatin were involved with that they needed to come out of? (it makes more sense to me that they needed to make the final break from Temple system Judaism). As to your point of the woman, a beast and a city on seven hills, you earlier used Gentry to support this. I had to laugh at your audacity of using Gentry (who takes the opposite position to yours, he sees Babylon was Jerusalem!) to try to support your point. As to confusing images, why would John use the harlot motiff? In the OT it is overwhelmingly used of God's unfaithful old covenant people. To use it for Rome would be very confusing indeed! The Biblical motiff of harlot is that of God's old covenant people going after the ways and gods of the Gentiles (eg Ezek. 16). Israel going after other gods was like a wife going after other lovers, it was breaking a covenant relationship. In Revelation the harlot is unfaithful Israel the beast is Rome, this fits the OT motiff of harlot. Rome throwing itself off and destroying itself does not even make sense. I dare say you are the one who is trying to fit Revelation into a preconceived framework. Our different positions show the difference between liberal preterism (which is your position, I know you don't like this label but you are at the very least strongly influenced by liberal preterism) and covenant eschatology (me). Revelation is not about the fall of Rome (which was not about to happen in the first century) it is about the fall of the old covenant system. God gets rid of His unfaithful wife and marries his new covenant bride. These were the things that were about to happen in the first century. As Duncan says in his article, the topic of Revelation, just like Galatians 4:21-31, is two women who are two wives and two cities that represent the two covenants. This fits the Bible's use of the harlot motiff and is quite elegant.---Tom


Date:
16 Jan 2005
Time:
10:26:44

Comments

Tom: Besides refusing to deal with my questions about Messiah's wedding involving both God's PEOPLE and the LAND of God's people (if you're perplexed by those questions why not say so?) you also don't understand God's separate BUT PARALLEL dealings with his first creation, the world, and his second creation, the nation of Israel. To the extent that BOTH first-century Israel and the first-century world rejected Christ as their King, to the extent that BOTH instead chose the reigning Roman emperor as their king, BOTH were harlots and BOTH were spiritually judged -- Israel in the moment of Christ's resurrection in the spring of AD 30 and the world in the moment of the resurrection of those dead people of the world who were Christ's at his parousia (his worldwide spiritual presence) in autumn of AD 96. Until preterists recognize that the book of Revelation is based on the seven feasts of Lev. 23 -- until they recognize that the wilderness of chapter 12 is the 40 years AD 30-70 (the earth swallowed the typifying natural Egypt in Ex. 15:12 and the earth, i.e., the Roman Empire, swallowed spiritual Egypt [first-century Jerusalem, Rev. 11:8] in AD 70 in Rev. 12:16) -- they won't be able to grasp the fact that chapters 13 through 19 deal with events involving the Roman Empire that occurred "in those YEARS AFTER" the tribulation of AD 70 (Mk. 13:24). The word "days" is used in its figurative sense in that verse to mean "years," just as "the days of Noah" in Mt. 24:37,38 and 1 Pe. 3:20 means "the years of Noah."


Date:
16 Jan 2005
Time:
23:24:53

Comments

Tom: You seem to be confused. (1) In the Book of Daniel, the "end of history" and the "resurrection" is related to the end of Antiochus IV. But as we know, neither resurrection nor the end of history occurred immediately after the death of Antiochus IV. If you accept that the Book of Revelation is an apocalypse it should be of no surprise for you that it uses a temporal statements in an apocalyptic, not a chronological way. The Book of Revelation (and the rest of the NT) was not written or communicated in a cultural vacuum; in order to read "koine" Greek, we have to go to extra-Biblical sources that are written in "koine". The Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures will not help you. But of course, if the use of the grammatico-historical method makes ones interpretation impossible, I can see why one would like to stick to some other strange principle of interpretation. (2) If you want to understand what "Babylon the great" symbolises, you should read Richard Bauckham's study The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Bauckham offers e.g. a whole chapter on Rev 18. Bauckham also demonstrates the problems of the seven churches and how they were related to the deceiving, seductive "Pax Romana". (3) If you were laughing when I mentioned Gentry, you only demonstrate that you have not understood what I meant or the imagery I was referring to. Let me clarify: I was only referring to the Roman imagery of the woman, the beast, and the seven hills/mountains mentioned by Gentry (in his book on the date of Revelation). I was, of course, not referring to Gentry's misunderstanding of this image! Did you really think that? According to Gentry, it is the hills, not the woman that symbolise Rome. But that's absurd! The seven hills = the seven hills of Rome. The woman = Dea Roma, the personified City of Rome. (4) True, in the so-called OT the harlot motif is usually used in oracles against Jerusalem. But not always! On the other hand, "Babylon" is never used as a cipher for Jerusalem – not ever! Not in the Bible, not in contemporary sources! Having "Babylon" = Jerusalem is, at best, wishful thinking! No wonder that most commentators have rejected it! (5) Another topic for you to consider is: what if the Book of Revelation was written later than 70 CE.? An identification of "Babylon" with Jerusalem seems to demand an early date. But it is not possible to fix a date for the Apocalypse with any certainty. As long as there is no certain date of composition for the Book of Revelation, any sound interpretation of the Book of Revelation has to cope with the possibility that Revelation was written/conceived after 70 CE. Just like "Uncle Sam" means "U.S." for you, "Babylon" would have meant "Rome" for the church in Asia Minor for which Revelation was written. -- Augustin --


Date:
17 Jan 2005
Time:
08:29:18

Comments

Tom: Here are two ways in which THE OT proves that Revelation's Babylon is Rome. 1) In the typifying OT destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, God used natural Babylon to punish Israel and then natural Babylon was naturally judged for its arrogance. And in the fulfillment first-century destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, God used spiritual Babylon (Rome) to punish Israel and then, in AD 96, spiritual Babylon (Rome) was spiritually judged for its arrogance. 2) AFTER the typifying 40 years in the OT wilderness, natural Israel had to overcome the usurping NATURAL dominion of the pagans in its tiny NATURAL promised land before it could enter into its typifying natural rest and before God's typifying natural kingdom could come in Canaan. In the NT spiritual fulfillent, AFTER the fulfillment 40 years AD 30-70, spiritual Israel, the church, had to overcome the usurping SPIRITUAL dominion of the pagans in its worldwide SPIRITUAL promised land before it could enter into its fulfillment spiritual rest (Heb. 4:9) and before God's fulfillment spiritual kingdom could come on earth (Mt. 6:10). There was only ONE first-century, usurping, worldwide, satanic, pagan, spiritual dominion and that was the blasphemous system of emperor worship instituted by Octavian when he changed his name to Augustus (God) shortly before the birth of Christ. With NATURAL Israel destroyed in AD 70, the satanic administrators of emperor worship (the imperial cult - second beast of Rev. 13) turned their malignant gaze and focus on SPIRITUAL Israel, the young church! Preterists' misunderstanding of Mt. 24:34 and Lk. 21:22 prevents them from understanding these momentous spiritual facts.


Date:
17 Jan 2005
Time:
09:44:16

Comments

Augustine--I dare say you are the one confused. You assume that Daniel was talking about Antiochus IV and the second century BC and nothing else. I think that the fact that the resurrection is shown as happening in Dan. 12 is proof that Daniel is talking about AD 70 at that point, not the second century BC. Daniel 9:26-27 talks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This did not happen in the second century BC but in AD 70. Either way there are no symbolic time statements of nearness given in Dan. 12. Dan. 12 is talking about the time of the shattering of the Jewish nation in AD 70 (Dan. 12:7); it was the time of the great tribulation and resurrection. You really should read John Evans book "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel." As to Gentry, I still do find it funny, you trying to use somebody to support your position who totally disagrees with your position and agrees with mine! It is pretty clear we are not changing each other's minds. I will let you have the last word.---Tom


Date:
17 Jan 2005
Time:
11:03:32

Comments

Tom: I see you can only respond to the comments signed by Augustin -- the others you ignore. Let me tell you something else you'll want to ignore, just as all stubbornly blind preterists do. The order of God's dealings with mankind is first the typifying natural things of the OT and then the fulfillment spiritual things of the NT (1 Cor. 15:46). Therefore, the NATURAL things involving OT, NATURAL Israel, from the slaying of the natural lambs (Ex. 12) to the final destruction of the nation in AD 70, were merely TYPES of incomparably greater SPIRITUAL things involving NT, SPIRITUAL Israel. In order for you to disagree with that statement, you'll have to claim that the slaying of the natural lambs was not a type of the slaying of Christ. And I'll bet you'll go so far as to make that outrageous claim! If you knew anything about the themes and concepts of the seven feasts of Lev. 23, you wouldn't make the ridiculous assertion that the resurrection of the dead people who were Christ's at his parousia occurred in AD 70. Preterists and futurists have always relied on mere personal opinions about the meaning of NT passages instead of relying on a correct understanding of the first-century spiritual fulfillment of the seven feasts of Lev. 23. Since you choose to spend your life duplicating their error, go ahead.


Date:
17 Jan 2005
Time:
19:34:51

Comments

Augustin---Just have to say one more thing. The covenant nature of Revelation has long been neglected. consider the following. Moses was told that God's old covenant people (again not a city but a people) would end up playing the harlot. At that time the Song of Moses would be sung as a witness against them.----Deut. 31:14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, the days approach when you must die; call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of meeting, that I may inaugurate him." So Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the tabernacle of meeting. 15 Now the Lord appeared at the tabernacle in a pillar of cloud, and the pillar of cloud stood above the door of the tabernacle. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: "Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods. 19 Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. 20 When I have brought them to the land flowing with milk and honey, of which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them; and they will provoke Me and break My covenant. 21 Then it shall be, when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify against them as a witness; for it will not be forgotten in the mouths of their descendants, for I know the inclination of their behavior today, even before I have brought them to the land of which I swore to give them. 22 Therefore Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the children of Israel."-------In Revelation what do we see? We see the harlot in chapter 17-18. In Revelation 15 we see the Song of Moses being sung as a prelude to God's judgment.-------Revelation 15:1 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. 2 And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: "Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! F83 4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested."-------I will say it one more time (even if it is falling on deaf ears). Revelation is not about the end of the world or the end of the Roman Empire. It is about the end of the old covenant and the full establishment of the new covenant. The destruction of the harlot and the marriage of the bride. Two women that are two wives and two cities that represent the two covenants, just like Galatians 4:21-31-------Tom


Date:
17 Jan 2005
Time:
21:00:08

Comments

Bravo Tom! I, for one, have ears to hear what you are sharing. Thank You.---Susan


Date:
18 Jan 2005
Time:
01:29:55

Comments

Tom: (1) I have read Evans' book on. I don not find convincing at all! (2) As you grant me the last word, I would like to thank you for the discussion. Perhaps we'll meet again... :) -- Augustin --


Date:
18 Jan 2005
Time:
04:49:10

Comments

Typology 101 for Tom and Augustin: The typifying natural judgment of the old world occurred when the flood came in the clouds in the last day and hour of a 100-year period (Noah aging from 500 to 600) that is described in Gen. 7:1 as "this generation." The fulfillment spiritual judgment of the post-flood world occurred when Christ came in the clouds in the last day and hour of a fulfillment 100-year period (the true first century) that is described in Mt. 24:34 as "this generation." The true first century (eliminating the four-year error in our calendar) consisted of the 100 years from the birth of Christ, God's true King of the world, in autumn of 5 BC to the death of Domitian, Satan's false, usurping king of the world, in autumn of AD 96.


Date:
18 Jan 2005
Time:
14:34:48

Comments

Dear Not Brian, Did it ever occur to you that people don't interact with you because you are rude and hostile?


Date:
18 Jan 2005
Time:
18:20:47

Comments

No, but it has occurred to me repeatedly that, for whatever reasons, preterists are absolutely determined to rely on their mere personal opinions about the meaning of NT passages rather than relying on the infallible OT types that God provided for the church's spiritual guidance. A person becomes a preterist by leaping to false conclusions about the meaning of Lk. 21:22 and Mt. 24:34 and from then on that person bitterly fights the OT types because the first-century fulfillments of those types disprove the notion that Christ's parousia occurred in AD 70. People who try to show preterists the truth are sometimes called "rude" -- or even "hostile."


Date:
18 Jan 2005
Time:
22:48:33

Comments

Dear Not Brian,----OK. Carry on then.


Date:
17 Feb 2005
Time:
15:06:06

Comments

Oh it's Mackenzie who's mr. "typifying holies."


Date:
17 Feb 2005
Time:
15:07:07

Comments

No, not rude or hostile. Just ignorant.


Date:
19 Feb 2005
Time:
08:48:28

Comments

Does the author of the 2-17 comments understand the critically important relationship of 2 Cor. 5:17 to first-century prophetic fulfillment?


Date:
19 Feb 2005
Time:
20:54:49

Comments

That 'Babylon' is more than merely the city of Jerusalem is a fair and critical distinction. Well spotted Duncan. Jerusalem-Babylon is not just a city-symbol. Jerusalem was the location and administrative centre of the apostate Mosaic age. Why? The reason is that the old covenant, with all its theological prescriptions and all its legal force, was IN Jerusalem, and IN the temple at Jerusalem. 1 Kings 8 and 9 explain that Solomon placed the covenant and its ark in the temple around 930 BC. (1 Kgs 8:10-21) Thus when Jerusalem was destroyed 1,000 years later, the Mosaic covenant ceased, because the temple system that supported the Mosaic age ceased to exist, prophetic evidence of Christ's Messiahship (Mtt 24) and prophetic evidence of God's promise to cut off Israel. (1 Kgs 9:6-9) Morri Lee Seoul, South Korea


Date: 05 May 2006
Time: 08:22:47

Comments:

Good article Duncan and i agree with your interpretation. It would be theolgically incorrect to label the Roman's activities of worshipping many different Gods as 'harlotry' behavior. This does not find support in the Old testament, which John is alluding to. Is Babylon or Eygpt ever considered a harlot because of their worshipping many different Gods? The answer is no. The only nation considered a harlot in the entire bible is one who is in a binding convenantal relationship (tyre and nineveh exceptions, however had been in covenantal relationships), and that is Jerusalem.


Furthermore, Jesus places the blood of his prophets and saints (future) on the heads of the Jews in Matt23 and several of the parables. Jesus doesn't condemn the Romans for their persecutions, in fact it was allowed by God for a purpose to strengthen his people.


The easiest way i've found to understand Revelation is to separate it into 7 visions, all visions dipicting the same event, each vision revealing more and introducing new characters into the plot.


Must also note that the beast with the 10 horns will hate the harlot and make her desolate, burn her with fire etc (17:16), i don't think this could refer to anything other than Rome and its armies making the temple system and its people desolate in 70AD.


Finally we are told in 19:1-2 that Gods judgment upon the harlot is "avenged on her the blood of his servants shed by her". This is a direct quote from the Song of Moses in deuteronomy 32 (verse43). This song of moses was given to the people of israel as a testament against the future harlotry behavior they would commit against God (read 31:14-). You will notice the people of God in Johns fourth vision (chapter 15) sing the Song of Moses prior the bowls of wrath are poured out upon babylon, testifying against them. How would u explain this verse holding onto the idea of babylon as Rome? You couldn't. You would be taking away from the authority of scripture, we're called as Christians to be consistant with the word of God, slight alterations will lead to larger ones. Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book. Joe


Date: 20 Feb 2007
Time: 20:05:46

Comments:

I can understand it, but: How does that tally with the fact Revelation was written in 90ad thereabouts AFTER this was supposed to have happened,yet revealtion says" I will show you things to come"?


Date: 29 Aug 2009
Time: 16:52:31

Your Comments:

Some of these guys fail to connect Babylon with first century Jerusalem. God calls His people out iin ch 18 before it is destroyed, this agrees with Luke where the lord told His disciples to flee. The point is clear as Duncan mentioned: the were to flee Judaism! This was the point of the Book of Hebrews. Please use the analogy of the faith!

 


Date: 24 Sep 2009
Time: 18:22:03

Your Comments:

It appears the city of Jerusalem is the representative of the people primarily Jews in apostasy once alligned with the Romans that were judged in 70Ad
 


Date: 18 Dec 2009
Time: 22:15:33

Your Comments:

I am saying that Judaism fell never to rise again! In the first century. Tell me when was the last time you saw unblemished sheep being brought to the temple?
 


Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com