PP12: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? Part 2

August 15, 2009February 5, 2012Adam Maarschalk 3 Comments

This is now the twelfth post in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. All the previous posts can be found here, and it’s recommended that they be read in order before reading this post:

In the previous post we entered into a two-part discussion of Christ’s non-physical return in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. That post is a definite prerequisite for this one. They are broken up for the sake of readability. This post continues that discussion, and will also address the words of Jesus declaring that His generation would not pass away until all that He had prophesied would take place.

Adam Maarschalk

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? (Part 2)

Earlier Jesus had also said to His disciples: “For the Son of Man is going to come with His angels in the glory of His Father, and then He will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28). If this statement was fulfilled in His transfiguration six days later, as some contend, in what sense did Jesus “come with His angels” then and repay each person according to what he had done (a clear picture of judgment), and why would He have done so before their lives had come to an end? Also why did Jesus say that “some” (rather than all) would not taste death before they saw this happen? None of Jesus’ disciples died during the six days after Jesus made this statement, but some were indeed martyred before 70 AD.

In the common Preterist view, then, those who were still alive in 70 AD indeed saw “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” before they tasted death. John Wesley, clearly holding to this view, said of this passage, “For there is no way to escape the righteous judgment of God. And, as an emblem of this, there are some here who shall live to see the Messiah coming to set up his mediatorial kingdom with great power and glory, by the destruction of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews” (Todd Dennis [10], 2009). Dr. Thomas Newton (1704-1782) and Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) also held this view, as does R.C. Sproul (Todd Dennis [16], 2009). Some Preterists see Matthew 16:27-28 as being identical to the prophecy Jesus gave in Revelation 22:12, revealing the purpose for His soon coming: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.”[1]

In some way, Jesus tied His coming[2] to the lives of His listeners in Matthew 16:27-28 and 26:64, though it continues to be debated whether He spoke there of His coming in judgment in 70 AD. One instance, though, where He did clearly connect His judgment-coming in 70 AD to His audience was in Matthew 24:34. Here we read the following statement concerning all He had revealed in the Olivet Discourse up to that point, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

As already noted, this very clear time marker has been taken by Dispensationalists to mean that all the things Jesus prophesied would take place in one future generation which would see them begin. This is not the historical viewpoint, however. Indeed, the question can be asked why Jesus would have meant anything different by the phrase “this generation” here than He did in Matthew 11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 17:17; 23:26; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32; 17:25 (all clearly referring to His immediate audience). Charles Spurgeon, in his 1868 commentary on this passage, remarked:

The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled” (Joe Haynes, 2001).

The reformer John Calvin, in his commentary on this verse, said, “This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation [in Jesus’ time] will not experience” (Todd Dennis [9], 2009, emphasis added). John Wesley, in 1754, stated, “The expression implies that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was; for the city and temple were destroyed thirty-nine or forty years after.”

These men were in good historical company. Clement (150-220 AD) said, “And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken” (Puritan Lad, 2008, emphasis added). Eusebius (263-339 AD) also assigned the meaning of “this generation” to those alive when Jesus spoke these words (Todd Dennis [4], 2009):

And when those that believed in Christ had come thither [out] from Jerusalem [in obedience to Matthew 24:15-16], then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men (Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Ch. 5).

Eusebius, in fact, taught that Jesus came at that time in judgment. After detailing how the other signs given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse had been fulfilled prior to 70 AD [see next section], Eusebius concluded that His predicted coming likewise had occurred (Todd Dennis [19], 2009):

[W]hen the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled” (Proof of the Gospel, Book VIII, emphasis added).

Henry Alford, an English scholar and theologian who was also Dean of Canterbury from 1857-1871, believed that Jesus’ 70 AD coming should also be apparent from His telling of the Parable of the Tenants in Matthew 21:33-45. There He identified the tenants of the vineyard as the Jews, who consistently killed God’s servants whenever they were sent to collect fruit. They finally killed God’s own Son, begging the question (verse 40), “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will He do to those tenants?” Jesus affirmed the answer of the chief priests and the Pharisees (verse 41) by stating that they would be put to a miserable death, they would be crushed (verse 44), and the kingdom of God would be taken from them “and given to a people producing its fruits” (verse 43; cf. Daniel 7:18-27). Alford notes:

We may observe that our Lord makes ‘when the Lord cometh’ coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is incontestably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage therefore forms an important key to our Lord’s prophecies, and a decisive justification for those who, like myself, firmly hold that the coming of the Lord is, in many places, to be identified, primarily, with that overthrow (Todd Dennis [19], 2009, emphasis in original).

As already noted, we have the testimony of Jonathan Edwards a century earlier (1776), saying, “Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” John Owen (1721), commenting on Matthew 24, noted the similarities between Christ’s coming in judgment in the first century and His final future coming:

That the language is similar to that in which Christ’s final coming is described, cannot be denied. But that is not strange, when we consider, as has been remarked, that the one event is typical of the other; that his coming to destroy Jerusalem is a representation, faint indeed but real, of his glorious and awful coming to take vengeance upon the finally impenitent, and that language therefore is used of it, which seems appropriately to belong to the final judgment (Todd Dennis [20], 2009).

[1] Todd Dennis again, though, does not see in this passage a direct connection to 70 AD. Instead, he says, the immediate context for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 is the subject of self-denial, persecution, and potential martyrdom, “with the attendant rewards which follow” (Todd Dennis [2], 2008). It’s a suffering/vindication motif which finds frequent mention in the New Testament (e.g. Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts 7:54-58, where Stephen sees Jesus revealed in power and glory just prior to tasting death; Hebrews 9:27-28, where judgment is said to follow death, and—in Todd’s view—there is a personal coming of Christ for each of His followers at the occasion of their deaths (in the manner of Christ saying, “I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also” [John 14:3]). The “death of the individual is where the focus lies in [Matthew 16:28],” he adds, and only some would have the privilege of seeing Him come in His kingdom before tasting death because some (i.e. Judas) would reject Him.

[2] Or “a coming of His”; Even Dispensationalists generally believe that some of Jesus’ disciples saw Him come in His kingdom before they died, albeit only three of them six days later when He was transfigured. Holding to this belief, then, they should have no logical problem believing that Christ came within the lifetime of the generation that heard Him speak, in some sense other than His Second Coming.

PP11: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? Part 1

August 15, 2009February 5, 2012Adam Maarschalk 4 Comments

This is now the eleventh post in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. All the previous posts can be found here, and it’s recommended that they be read in order before reading this post:

In the previous post we began to examine the three New Testament accounts of the Olivet Discourse, delivered by Jesus and recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. We will now enter into a two-part discussion of Christ’s non-physical return in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

I. Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? (Part 1)

At this point, a key concern alluded to earlier needs to be considered in more depth, i.e. the idea of Christ having already come in 70 AD. The Futurist position sees Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27, and Luke 21:25-27 as a description of Christ’s Second Coming at the end of the world. Partial-Preterism, on the other hand, while affirming that Christ’s Second Coming is yet future, does not see these passages as a description of that event. Instead they refer to Christ’s coming in judgment. Daly comments:

Matthew records the disciples’ question in the prophetic language of the Old Testament, which was familiar to the Jewish audience for which his gospel was written. In this language, the execution of Divine judgment was commonly spoken of as a visitation of the LORD, as either His coming or His coming in the cloud.

“Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous around him” (Psalm 50:3).

“For behold, the LORD comes out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” (Isaiah 26: 21. Cf. Mat 23:35-36 & Rev 18:24).

Most pertinent, in view of the disciples’ question, is Micah’s prophecy against the ‘high places’ – being localities of false worship,⁴ which the Temple in Jerusalem had now also become: “For behold, the LORD comes forth from his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains shall be melted under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel … What are the high places of Judah? Are they not Jerusalem?” (Micah 1:3-5).

Kenneth Gentry (1998) refers to the prophecy in Matthew 24:29-30 as a “Cloud-Coming” of Christ in judgment which, like Daly, he says can be understood in light of similar language from the Old Testament. He explains:

The Old Testament frequently uses clouds as indicators of divine judgment. God is said to be surrounded with thick, foreboding clouds as emblems of His unapproachable holiness and righteousness (Gen. 15:17; Ex. 13:21-22; 14:19-20; 19:9, 16-19; Deut. 4:11; Job 22:14; Psa. 18:8ff; 97:2; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Eze. 32:7-8). He is poetically portrayed as coming in clouds in historical judgments upon men (Psa. 18:7-15; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Joel 2:1, 2; Nah. 1:2ff; Zeph. 1:14, 15). Thus, the New Testament speaks of Christ’s coming in clouds of judgment in history at Matthew 24:30 and 26:64, [so that these passages in Matthew do not refer to] His Second Coming at the end of world history [as do Acts 1:11; I Thess. 4:13ff].

A look at several Old Testament passages announcing judgment upon other major nations indicates that it was already common for God to use the same type of language as that which appears in the Olivet Discourse: [1] Regarding Babylon: “For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light” (Isaiah 13:10). [2] Regarding Edom: “All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree…her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever…” (Isaiah 34:4, 9-10). [3] Regarding Egypt: “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord God” (Ezekiel 32:7-8; cf. Isaiah 5:30, 13:10; Jeremiah 4:14, 28; Jeremiah 13:16; Joel 2:10; Amos 8:9). When judgment came to those nations, there were no literal cosmic catastrophes affecting the entire planet. This was symbolic, apocryphal language used commonly in the Old Testament, and now appearing in the New Testament as well.

Furthermore, it’s quite possible that Jesus referred to the sun, the moon, and the stars so that His Jewish listeners would be reminded of Joseph’s dream in which “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars” bowed down to him (Genesis 37:9). Thus these would be symbols of Israel, in addition to speaking of the collapse of a political structure.

Another illustration of the Bible’s use of this type of language to denote political events can be found in Psalm 18, written by David “on the day when the Lord rescued him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.” David writes of being entangled by “the cords of Sheol” (verse 5); the earth reeling and rocking and the mountains trembling (verse 7); devouring fire coming from God’s mouth (verse 8); God bowing the heavens, thick darkness, God riding on a cherub and coming to him (verses 9-10); hailstones and coals of fire coming to the earth through the clouds (verses 12-13); God sending arrows and lightning (verse 14); and the sea being divided and “the foundations of the world” being laid bare (verse 15). There is no record, Biblical or otherwise, of any such events literally taking place during David’s lifetime. This is apocalyptic language, common throughout the Bible.

Kenneth Gentry sees the Olivet Discourse prophecies of Christ’s “Cloud-Coming” as parallel to John’s words in Revelation 1:7, which many scholars[1] believe is the theme verse of the book of Revelation: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen.” According to Gentry, “His Cloud-Coming is a Judgment-Coming that brings mourning. But upon whom? And when? And how? Fortunately…time cues exist within the theme text, and can be found in the other New Testament allusions to this same passage.”

Gentry then makes the case that, although the Romans had a part in crucifying and piercing Jesus (and in the broadest sense, all of mankind did), the responsibility for these deeds belonged to the Jews of that generation who instigated and demanded that they be done (See Acts 2:22-23, 36; 3:13-15a; Acts 5:30; 7:52; I Thessalonians 2:14-15). He quotes from Adam Clarke who, in his 1823 commentary on this verse, remarked, “By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.”

Seeing that Revelation 1:7 uses the phrase “all tribes of the earth” to indicate who would wail upon seeing Christ coming with the clouds, Gentry notes that the Greek word for “tribe” refers to the Jewish tribes when used elsewhere in Scripture, almost without exception. With his conclusion, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia agrees (Cf. Revelation 5:5, 7:4, and 21:12). The strongest indication of this association, though, can be seen in the fact that Revelation 1:7 is clearly a reference to Zechariah 12:10, a passage leaving no doubt that Israel and Jerusalem are in view: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on Me, on Him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”[2]

Another consideration regarding the language of Matthew 24:30 (and the parallel passages in Mark, Luke, and Revelation 1:7) is that it is reminiscent of Daniel 7:13-14: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.” This passage is often interpreted to be the Second Coming immediately preceding a Millennium kingdom, but the picture is actually of Christ ascending to the Father, not descending to the earth.

Jesus’ ascension took place about 40 years prior to 70 AD, of course. Yet if Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:30 do recall Daniel 7:13-14 then it is not a Second Coming-type descent which is tied to “the sign of the Son of Man” appearing in heaven, but rather His ascension. Somehow, in context, this sign would be seen in the judgment of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, i.e. this judgment would verify or point to the reality of Christ’s ascension with power and great glory. Matthew 24:31 then would be speaking of the ingathering of the harvest as God’s Kingdom is established through the Church, since the kingdom is in view in Daniel 7 (cf. John 11:51-52).[3] Kevin Daly (2009) writes regarding these things:

The appearance of a sign (verse 30) would not be necessary if the Son of Man would come visibly at this time. The sign is necessary because his coming in the clouds of heaven, in power and vindication glory, alludes once more to Daniel, who spoke of ‘one like the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven,’ to receive from the Ancient of Days ‘authority, glory and sovereign power’ so that ‘all peoples, nations and men of every language’ might worship him. The fall of Jerusalem was itself the sign (evidence) that Jesus was enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven, bringing judgment on the city.

Adam Clarke [1762-1832] comments on verse 30: “The plain meaning of this is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ’s power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion.” Since Deuteronomy 18:22 establishes the fulfillment of prophecy as the test for a true prophet, Jesus would be fully vindicated at the time that his Word was fulfilled. He is thus affirmed as the risen King, ruling from the right hand of the Father in heavenly glory, with power to execute judgment and bring salvation. The trumpet call that called back the exiles in Isaiah 27:13 would now call in the elect from the four corners of the earth. This harvest of souls to whom the gospel was sown, from far and wide for Messiah’s glory, is contrasted with the tribes of the land (Greek – της γης), who would mourn for the one they had pierced, in accordance with Zechariah 12:10.

Daniel’s prophecy was surely in view when Jesus uttered a similar statement to Caiaphas: “…I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). Some Preterists believe that this passage also has in view the judgment of 70 AD as a sign of Christ’s ascension in power. Kenneth Gentry (2002), for example says, “The Daniel 7:13 context—upon which Matt. 24:30 and 26:64 are based—refers to the Ascension of Christ to take up his kingly rule. The dramatic, historical judgment-experience or witness to the fact of his having ascended is the destruction of the Temple, which event is in view in these and related passages (p.35). Hank Hanegraaff (Todd Dennis [17], 2009), also adds:

Jesus was the One who in the Olivet Discourse made the mother of all prophecies. He said ‘not one stone here will be left upon another; every one will be thrown down.’ And He based His deity on that just like He did on the resurrection. If that prophecy had not been fulfilled, Jesus would indeed have been a false prophet. In fact, when He was before Caiaphas the High Priest, He said to Caiaphas, ‘you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds and seated at the right hand of the Mighty One.’ In other words, He said to him, ‘you will see my vindication and exaltation. And, indeed, the very court that condemned Him to death saw His vindication and exaltation when Jerusalem was destroyed. The utter destruction of Jerusalem takes places and vindicates what Jesus Christ has said.

Todd Dennis,[4] however, is one who does not connect this passage with 70 AD, with one reason being that Caiaphas likely died soon after 40 AD, and therefore wasn’t around to witness that judgment. He recognizes that some (like Hanegraaff, and also Kenneth Gentry) maintain this connection by holding to the idea that Christ’s vindication was seen, not by Caiaphas specifically, but by the court he presided over; yet he believes this explanation is too much of a stretch (Todd Dennis [1], 2008). R.C. Sproul also feels that this passage, with its open-ended time reference (“from now on”) does not demand a first-century fulfillment (Todd Dennis [17], 2009), but has a wider application to all who have lived since the time of Christ. R.C.H. Lenski, in his 1943 commentary on this passage, picked up on the phrase Jesus used, “from now on,” and gave this explanation:

[I]n the miracles recurring at the time of his death they shall begin to see, in his resurrection likewise, and thus onward in every manifestation of power, including especially the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation. But opsesthe [the Greek word for “see”] does not refer to physical or spiritual seeing but to experimental perception (Gentry, 2002, p. 35).

In the following post, this discussion will be continued…

[1] These scholars include Moses Stuart (1845), Justin A. Smith (1884), Friedrich Dusterdieck (1886), J. Stuart Russell (1887), Bernhard Weiss (1889), Milton S. Terry (1898), Donald W. Richardson (1964), and David Chilton (1987).

[2] Dispensationalists take this passage in Zechariah 12 to be yet unfulfilled. Lactantius (240-320 AD), though, is just one example of an early church writer who believed that it was fulfilled in 70 AD (Todd Dennis [19], 2009).

[3] Many Dispensationalists see this as anything but the Rapture, because it follows “the tribulation of those days” and most Dispensationalists hold to a Pre-Tribulational Rapture view. Tim Lahaye, John Walvoord, and Thomas Ice all teach that Matthew 24:31 refers to the salvation of national Israel, who are allegedly “God’s elect,” at the Second Coming.

[4] Todd Dennis is a pastor and the moderator of the comprehensive website, www.preteristarchive.com. He transitioned from Dispensational Futurism to Partial-Preterism to Hyper-Preterism (10 years), and is now what he calls a Moderate Preterist.

PP10: Jerusalem’s Destruction Foretold in the Olivet Discourse

August 15, 2009February 5, 2012Adam Maarschalk Leave a comment

This is now the tenth post in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. All the previous posts can be found here, and it’s recommended that they be read in order before reading this post:

In this post we will begin to examine the three New Testament accounts of the Olivet Discourse, delivered by Jesus and recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Adam Maarschalk

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

E. Jerusalem’s Destruction Foretold in the Olivet Discourse

Futurists and Preterists alike seem to agree that there are remarkable parallels between the revelation given to John and the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21). After all, Jesus speaks of His prophesied events as “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21) and John uses the same phrase (Revelation 7:14). One’s preconceived ideas can lead to vastly different assumptions about these details. For Futurists, the bulk of what Jesus shared in the Olivet Discourse refers to events which have not yet taken place, and this is in keeping with their view that the bulk of the book of Revelation is also not yet fulfilled. For Preterists, Jesus spoke far more in Matthew, Mark, and Luke regarding 70 AD than Futurists give Him credit for, and this is in keeping with the Preterist view that the parallel events found in the book of Revelation took place by 70 AD.

It can be noted that the Olivet Discourse, as it is recorded in Luke, is somewhat different than its parallel account in Matthew and Mark. Mike Rusten (2009 [1]), Associate Dean of The Bethlehem Institute and formerly an elder at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, observes, “Whereas in Matthew the disciples ask two questions, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen (i.e. the destruction of the temple), and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’ Luke only records the disciples asking about the time of the destruction of the temple.” He further notes that unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke does not make reference to false prophets, an increase in lawlessness, enduring until the end[1], or the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. On the other hand, Matthew and Mark do not explicitly mention Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, the days of vengeance upon Israel, Jerusalem being trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, or the Jews being led captive into all the nations.

Mike Rusten concludes that “the times of the Gentiles,” as mentioned in Luke 21:24, refer to the nearly 2000 years which have transpired since the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (Luke 21:20-24a) and the Second Coming of Christ (Luke 21:25-27), which we currently await. If this is true, though, one must still grapple with the fact that Matthew 24:4-28 and Luke 21:8-24 are parallel passages to a very large extent. In both passages readers are warned of [1] imposters claiming to be Christ [2] wars and rumors of wars [3] nations and kingdoms clashing [4] earthquakes [5] famines [6] persecution and martyrdom [7] betrayal and hatred [8] a signal indicating the need to flee to the mountains without the slightest delay [9] the difficulties for pregnant woman and those who will be nursing infants in those days [10] great distress and tribulation.

Matthew 24:29-31 and Luke 21:25-28 are parallel passages as well. The difference is that Matthew says the coming of the Son of Man would immediately follow “the tribulation of those days,” while Luke does not use the same phrase but instead refers to the slaughter and captivity of the Jewish people, the trampling of Jerusalem, and the times of the Gentiles. Futurists generally agree with Preterists that Luke indeed refers to 70 AD at this point, but they place a multi-century gap in Luke 21:24a so that verses 25-28 are yet future. Futurists can’t place any gap before Matthew 24:29, however, because Matthew uses the word “immediately.” So they consign “the tribulation of those days,” described in verses 15-28, to the future as well. They have no choice but to do so, if Matthew 24:29-31 is yet future. The Futurist interpretation then is left to explain why the above 10 warnings refer to two entirely different time periods, depending on the book in which they are found; i.e. in Luke they refer to a time period in the first century, and in Matthew (as well as Mark) they refer to a time period no sooner than the 21^st century.

This leads to a dilemma when we come to the next set of parallel verses, Matthew 24:32-35 and Luke 21:29-33. In both cases Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” For the Futurist, this means that all the things Jesus prophesied will take place in one future (or present) generation which will see them begin. At first glance, this seems to work in Matthew’s account of the Olivet Discourse because, says the Futurist, the vast majority of Matthew 24 must refer to a generation alive in the 21^st century. This line of reasoning falls apart with Luke’s account, however, because the Futurist admits that the “great distress” in Luke 21:20-24a took place around 70 AD. By any reckoning, a “generation” is far shorter than 1939 years.

Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse is interesting in this regard. After Jesus prophesies of the impending overthrow of the temple (Mark 13:1-2), Mark records the disciples asking Him only one question (verses 3-4, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”) Jesus then articulates all of the same 10 warnings which were noted above in the accounts of Matthew and Luke. In Mark’s account, verses 24-27 are parallel with Matthew 24:29-31 and Luke 21:25-28. Mark’s transition is more similar to Matthew’s use of “immediately” in that he says, “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened… And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:24, 26). This is significant because Mark is only addressing the question of the temple’s overthrow, and the signs which would show it was about to happen. We know without any doubt that it happened in 70 AD.

It may be possible to account for the different details highlighted by each author by considering the audiences to which they were writing. For example, Luke, a Gentile doctor, may have repeatedly made specific references to Jews and Gentiles because he expected his audience to be Gentile. Matthew, however, may have chosen not to do so because his audience was primarily Jewish. By this way of thinking, Luke perhaps omitted any explicit reference to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel because such a reference was less likely to resonate with his Gentile audience.

In any case, it’s even more interesting that John, in his gospel account, omits the Olivet Discourse entirely, even though he was no doubt present when Jesus spoke those things. From the Preterist viewpoint, one likely reason for this curious fact is that the book of Revelation, which he authored, actually functions as his exposition of the Olivet Discourse, albeit in a more detailed manner. Therefore, he felt no need to include the Olivet Discourse passage in his gospel account, especially if the book of John was written after the book of Revelation.

Regarding the notion that the question posed by the disciples in Matthew 24:3 is different in nature than the question posed in the other two accounts, the Preterist view is that there is no division of questions. The disciples did not ask about the end of the world, but rather the end of the age (i.e. the Jewish age) as spoken of by Daniel and other Old Testament prophets. So what appears to some to be a 3-part question is simply the disciples asking questions about the same event; i.e. the destruction of the temple, the coming of Christ in judgment, and the end of the age. Thomas Newton, in 1754, said (Todd Dennis [20], 2009), “‘The coming of Christ,’ and ‘the conclusion of the age,’ being therefore only different expressions to denote the same period with the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of the question plainly is, when shall the destruction of Jerusalem be, and what shall be the signs of it?” Kevin Daly (2009) likewise remarks:

It is Jesus’ emphatic confirmation of the Temple’s fate that leads to the disciples’ question: ‘When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’ While some argue this to be three separate questions – so that Jesus’ answer in the subsequent verses must be unraveled and applied to three different events – this is not supported by the parallel accounts in Mark’s and Luke’s gospels: ‘Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?’ (Mark 13:4); ‘Teacher,’ they asked, ‘when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?’ (Luke 21:7). What Jesus prophesied against the Temple would happen at our Lord’s coming in judgment and would also, by implication, bring about the end of that age.

[1] One could say, though, that those spoken of in Luke 21:8 are false prophets, and that Christ does speak of endurance leading to salvation in verse 19.

PP9: Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 2)

August 15, 2009September 18, 2013Adam Maarschalk 18 Comments

This is now the ninth post in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here:

We then turned to a discussion of the internal evidence for an early date. In Part 1 we discussed the inclusion of Jerusalem, the temple, Babylon the Great, and a great city in the book of Revelation. Part 2 dealt with the seven kings mentioned in Revelation 17:9-10 and the identity of the beast of the book of Revelation. Part 3 addressed Nero’s persecution of the saints and his prophesied demise. Part 4 spoke of the worship of Nero and the worship of his image even after his death. We also saw that the language used by John strongly indicates the relevance of the entire book of Revelation to the first-century Christians who were alive when he wrote this book. These posts can be found here:

[4] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp4-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-1/
[5] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp5-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-2/
[6] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp6-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-3/
[7] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp7-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-4/

We are now examining the 70-Week Prophecy given to Daniel through the angel Gabriel, in two parts. In the first part, we began to discover that the historical view did not focus on a future Antichrist, but rather the focus was on Jesus the Messiah. That post can be found here:

[8] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp8-daniels-70-week-prophecy-part-1/

In this second part we will continue that discovery. We will also consider the meanings behind some of the language used in this prophecy, and whether or not there is meant to be any gap at all between the 69th and 70th weeks.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 2)

Some Preterists believe that the “end to sacrifice and offering” took place in another sense when the temple (the place of sacrifices and offerings) was destroyed in 70 AD. Tertullian (160-220 AD), for example, writing about Jerusalem’s destruction, said, “Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place ‘libations and sacrifices,’ which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated [because the temple is gone]” (An Answer to the Jews, Chapter VIII—Of Jerusalem’s Destruction).[1]

Besides Clement and Tertullian, others who viewed Jesus as the “he” of verse 27 include John Wycliffe (1324-1384), Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Isaac Newton (1643-1727).[2] Calvin, for example, said:

For [Daniel] then said, Christ shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease. Afterwards, the abomination that stupifieth shall be added, and desolation or stupor, and then death will distill, says he, upon the astonished or stupefied one. The angel, therefore, there treats of the perpetual devastation of the Temple. So in this passage, without doubt, he treats of the period after the destruction of the Temple; there could be no hope of restoration, as the law with all its ceremonies would then arrive at its termination. With this view Christ quotes this passage in Matthew 24, while he admonishes his hearers diligently to attend to it… Without the slightest doubt, this prophecy was fulfilled when the city was captured and overthrown, and the temple utterly destroyed by Titus the son of Vespasian. This satisfactorily explains the events here predicted (Todd Dennis [9], 2009).

Any gap then, according to this view, was not a 2000-year gap between weeks 69 and 70, but a roughly 37-year gap between Christ’s ascension and the 3.5 year period of great tribulation leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD (spoken of in verse 26b and 27b).[3] This is said to have been foreseen in Isaiah 61:2, especially as Jesus chose to quote it in Luke 4:18-19. On the surface there seems to be no gap in Isaiah’s statement, but Jesus alluded to one when He stopped after stating that He had come to “proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” The part He didn’t quote then (“and the day of vengeance of our God”) He later referred to at the end of His ministry when He predicted the destruction of Jerusalem: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near…for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written…For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people…” (Luke 21:20-24). The nearly 40-year gap then served the purpose of giving Israel a generation within which to repent.

In this way Isaiah 61:2 and Daniel 9:27 refer to the same two time periods, separated by the same gap, i.e. the acceptable year of the Lord (the 3.5 year-ministry of Jesus) and the day of vengeance (the 3.5 year-siege on Jerusalem leading up to its destruction, what Jesus called “great tribulation” in Matthew 24:21). Therefore, the first half of the 70^th week (3.5 years) established the New Covenant, and the second half of the 70^th week (3.5 years) a generation later confirmed the New Covenant by completely abolishing the Old Covenant temple system. The kingdom of God, already established in heaven when Jesus ascended and being lived out among those who followed Christ, was then fully established on earth and given to the saints (Daniel 7:27). It was taken from national Israel and given to the Church, the people whom Jesus said would produce its fruits (See the ‘Parable of the Tenants’ in Matthew 21:33-45).

Some see no gap at all, contending that the last half of the 70^th week was fulfilled during the 3.5 years following Jesus’ ascension (31-34 AD). In this view the Jews were given priority in hearing the gospel, but Philip’s evangelistic trip to Samaria in 34 AD marked a time when the gospel began in earnest to go to non-Jews.[4] The “wing of abominations” then refers to the fact that after Christ’s work on the cross, every temple sacrifice was abominable and a rejection of Christ. These abominations continued for 40 years until, finding that Israel would not repent, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. This last statement reflects Calvin’s view when, referring to the phrase “wing of abominations,” he said,

I have no hesitation in referring this language of the angel to that profanation of the Temple which happened after the manifestation of Christ, when sacrifices ceased, and the shadows of the law were abolished. From the time, therefore, at which the sacrifice really ceased to be offered; this refers to the period at which Christ by his advent should abolish the shadows of the law, thus making all offering of sacrifices to God totally valueless… God’s wrath followed the profanation of the Temple. The Jews never anticipated the final cessation of their ceremonies, and always boasted in their peculiar external worship, and unless God had openly demonstrated it before their eyes, they would never have renounced their sacrifices and rites as mere shadowy representations. Hence Jerusalem and their Temple were exposed to the vengeance of the Gentiles.

It’s difficult to see from Calvin’s quote whether or not he believed there was a generation-long gap between the first and second halves of the 70^th week. For the Preterist, the idea of a gap or no gap likely depends upon whether Daniel 9:27b is thought to fulfill the last half of this week or is simply related to the final week. That is, there is no gap if what is stated in Daniel 9:27b falls outside of the 490-year timeline (Daniel 9:25-27a), but is closely related to (and is an implication of) what occurs in the final week. Ralph Woodrow looks to the fact that the seventy weeks were “decreed about [Daniel’s] people” (verse 24a) as proof enough that there is no gap and offers up an explanation for how the final half of the 70^th week concerned the people of Israel:

The first half of the “week”, the time of our Lord’s ministry, was definitely directed toward ISRAEL. But what about the second half—the final three and a half years of the prophecy—was it also linked with Israel? Did the disciples continue to preach for the duration of the remaining three and a half years (as Christ’s representatives) especially to Daniel’s people—to Israel? Yes, they did! Jesus had told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15; Mt.28:19; Acts 1:8), YET—and this is significant—after Christ ascended, the disciples still at first preached only to Israel! Why? We know of only one prophecy which would indicate that this was to be the course followed. It is the prophecy of the 70 weeks which implied that after the death of Messiah there would still be three and a half years that pertained to Israel!

Bearing this in mind, we can now understand at least one reason why the gospel went “to the Jew first” and then later to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). Peter preached shortly after Pentecost: “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant… unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:25, 26). “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you” (Acts 13:46).

In person, Christ came to Israel during the first half of the “week”—three and a half years. Through the disciples—for the three and a half years that remained—his message still went to Israel, “the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following” (Mk. 16:20). In a very real sense of the word, the ministry of the disciples was a continuation of the ministry of Christ.Then came the conversion of Cornelius which completely changed the missionary outreach, outlook, and ministry of the church. Though the New Testament does not give an exact date when this happened, apparently the time for special exclusive blessing upon Daniel’s people had drawn to a close. The gospel which had gone first to the Jews was now to take its full mission—to be preached to all people of all nations!

This time of changeover was marked by a number of supernatural events. Cornelius received a heavenly visitation. An angel appeared to him and told him to call for Peter “who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). God showed Peter a vision which caused him to know that the gospel was now to go to the Gentiles and not to Israelites only. All of these things were timed perfectly—showing that God’s hand was accomplishing a definite purpose. Returning to Jerusalem, Peter explained what had happened. “When they heard these things, they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life’ “(Acts 11:18).

The following chart illustrates the no-gap viewpoint[5]:

This graphic illustrates the same idea:

Source: Kevin Jogin (Discussionbook.com)

Zev Vilnay (1973) tells of a Jewish tradition supporting the truth that Christ’s death made the Jewish sacrificial system invalid. Under Mosaic Law a scapegoat, symbolically carrying Israel’s sin, would be driven out into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement, at which time a crimson wool thread tied to the temple would supernaturally turn white. During the last 40 years of the temple’s existence, however, according to numerous Jewish sources, this thread never turned white (pp. 115-116). If this tradition is true, it demonstrates the truth that from the time of Jesus’ death the sacrifices and offerings of the temple did nothing to atone for Israel’s sin.

James B. Jordan (1988) says the imagery behind the phrase “wing of abominations” probably goes back to Numbers 14:37-41 where all Israelites “throughout their generations” were to wear blue tassels on the wings (corners) of their garments to remind them to stay on the path of holiness. An apostate Israel, though, he says would naturally not have “wings of holiness” but would be symbolically marked by “wings of abominations” (cf. Matthew 23:38, where Jesus said Jerusalem was a house left desolate).[6] Considering then what happened leading up to 70 AD, especially with the installation of a false high priest in 67 AD, Jordan suggests that Daniel 9:27b can be viewed in this way: “And on the wing of abominations [apostate Judaism and priesthood] will come one who makes desolate [the apostate High Priest], even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate [at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70].”

Aside from Clement, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, and Newton, others who taught that Daniel’s 70-Week prophecy is already fulfilled (gap or no gap) include the following:

[1] Origen (185-254 AD): “The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.” [2] Eusebius (314 AD): “When the captivity of the Jewish people at Babylon was near its end, the Archangel Gabriel [told Daniel that Jerusalem would] be destroyed, and that after the second capture and siege it will no longer have God for its guardian, but will remain desolate, with the worship of the Mosaic Law taken away from it, and another new Covenant with humanity introduced in its place… ‘For ending disobedience, and for completing transgression [Daniel 9:24].’ I think that our Saviour’s words to the Jews, ‘Ye have filled up the measure of your fathers [Matthew 23:32],’ are parallel to this… [T]here follows the prophecy of the new Covenant announced by our Saviour. So when all the intermediate matter between the seven and the sixty-two weeks is finished, there is added, ‘And he will confirm a Covenant with many one week,’ and in half the week the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and on the Holy Place shall come the abomination of desolation, and until the fullness of time fullness shall be given to the desolation. Let us consider how this was fulfilled.” [3] Augustine (354-430 AD): “Daniel’s weeks…had to be completed afterwards in the end of all things, for Luke most plainly testifies that the prophecy of Daniel was accomplished at the time when Jerusalem was overthrown.” [4] Theodoret (430 AD): “And so [begins] the last [70^th] week at the baptism of Christ.” [5] William Hales (1747-1831): “During this one week, which ended about A.D. 34 (about the martyrdom of Stephen,) a new covenant was established with many of the Jews, of every class; in the midst of which the Temple sacrifice was virtually abrogated by the all-sufficient sacrifice of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the [repentant and believing] world” (Todd Dennis [14], 2009).

[1] Sam Storms, Meredith Kline, and others believe that the final week is not a literal seven years. The first half, they say, extends from Christ’s ascension until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The second half extends from 70 AD until Christ’s Second Coming. This is based in part by combining Daniel’s prophecy with the details in the sign of the woman and dragon in Revelation 12:5-6.

[2] An interesting analysis of the 70-Weeks prophecy, drawing parallels between the numbers used in this prophecy to identical numbers found in periods of Israel’s redemptive history, can be found here. For instance, 62 weeks after the Israelites received the Law at Mount Sinai, that generation was deemed unworthy to enter the Promised Land. In Daniel’s prophecy, it was 62 prophetic weeks (62 x 7 = 434) after Ezra reinstated the Law that Israel rejected its Messiah. “Both events led to the destruction—within 40 years—of the faithless generation.”

[3] Regarding verses 26 and 27, Sam Storms (2006) makes the helpful point that they “are not relating events that are sequential (i.e., A B C D) but rather parallel (i.e., A B A B).” In other words, Christ is spoken of in the beginning of verse 26 and again in the beginning of verse 27 (Sam Storms affirms that the “he” there speaks of Christ). Likewise, the Roman Empire, which presided over Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD, is spoken of in the latter parts of both verse 26 and 27. The Dispensational view is that 70 AD is spoken of in verse 26b, but that the world has not yet seen the desolations spoken of in verse 27b.

[4] Philip was only one of many who were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, preaching the word, as a result of the great persecution which arose the day Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 8:1-5). This viewpoint sees the 490 years as literal and without interruption, after which (unlike in typical Dispensationalist thought) the Israelites would cease to be God’s chosen people. Instead, Jews and Gentiles alike could only be saved on an individual basis, making up the Church in which there is no Jew or Gentile (Galatians 3:28; cf. Acts 10:45, 11:18, 13:46, 14:27, 15:9, 18:6, 22:20-22).

[5] This chart is based on the idea that Artaxerxes, in his 7^th year (Ezra 7:7), made a detailed decree allowing Jerusalem to be rebuilt and restored (Ezra 7:11-28). This occurred in the year 457 BC, according to Ptolemy’s chronological system. However, Philip Mauro (Todd Dennis [21], 2009), who believed that there is no gap in Daniel’s 70 Week-prophecy, wrote in 1921 that Ptolemy’s system was one of guesswork when it came to the period between Cyrus and Alexander. He points out that Martin Anstey’s Bible Chronology, published in 1913, shows that Ptolemy assigned to the Persian Empire a period that was about 80 years too long. The decree, in any case, spoken of in Daniel 9:25, came from Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28-45:13; II Chronicles 36:22-23, Ezra 1:1-3). Mauro therefore cautions against preferring “the guesses of a heathen astronomer (who had no means of knowing the facts which occurred over five hundred years before his time) to the evidence of Scripture” (Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, pages 5-9). One source (whose Historicist conclusions I don’t agree with) makes the following note, apparently based on the dates given by Ptolemy:

– There were actually four commands issued that can be located in scripture and must be considered:

(1) Ezra 1:1-14, 1st year of Cyrus, dated to 537 B.C.
(2) Ezra 6:1-12, 2nd year of Darius dated to 520 B.C.
(3) Ezra 7:1-27, 7th year of Artaxerxes dated to 457 B.C.
(4) Neh 2:1-8, 20th year of Artaxerxes dated to 444 B.C.

DECREE	DATE	69 WEEKS 483 YEARS	70 WEEKS 490 YEARS
Ezra 1	537 B.C.	54 B.C.	47 B.C.
Ezra 6	520 B.C.	37 B.C.	30 B.C.
Ezra 7	457 B.C.	27 A.D.	34 A.D.
Neh 2	444 B.C.	40 A.D.	47 A.D.

Chart Source

[6] Note that Jesus referred to Jerusalem as “your house” (speaking to the Jewish people), instead of “My house.”

PP8: Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 1)

August 14, 2009February 5, 2012Adam Maarschalk 11 Comments

This is now the eighth part in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here:

[1] Part 1: Brief introduction to partial-preterism
[2] Part 2: Reference page
[3] Part 3: External evidence of Revelation’s early date

We then turned to a discussion of the internal evidence for an early date. In Part 4 we discussed the inclusion of Jerusalem, the temple, Babylon the Great, and “a great city” in the book of Revelation. Part 5 dealt with the seven kings mentioned in Revelation 17:9-10 and the identity of the beast of the book of Revelation. Part 6 addressed Nero’s persecution of the saints and his prophesied demise. Part 7 spoke of the worship of Nero and the worship of his image even after his death. We also saw that the language used by John strongly indicates the relevance of the entire book of Revelation to the first-century Christians who were alive when he wrote this book. These posts can be found here: [Part 4], [Part 5], [Part 6], and [Part 7].

We will now examine the 70-Week Prophecy given to Daniel through the angel Gabriel, in two parts. In this first part, we will begin to discover that the historical view did not focus on a future Antichrist, but rather the focus was Jesus the Messiah.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 1)

Earlier we saw that Clement’s statement regarding John’s banishment to Patmos makes it difficult to determine when he believes the book of Revelation was written. However, there is no doubt that he saw in the events of the Roman/Jewish War the fulfillment of the final week of Daniel’s 70-Week prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27). Dispensationalist Futurists hold that this final week (seven years) is still unfulfilled, and that the book of Revelation foretells the events which will take place during those seven years. Clement saw it differently:

From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: [Here he quotes Daniel 9:24-27 in its entirety.] …And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those “sixty and two weeks,” as the prophet said, and “in the one week,” was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius [were also taken away]. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said (Puritan Lad, 2008).

In his mind, Clement may or may not have tied the final week of Daniel’s 70-Week prophecy to the book of Revelation, as is often done by Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists alike. If he did, though, then by definition he was an advocate for Revelation’s early authorship, i.e. before 70 AD, because he clearly taught that Daniel 9:24-27 was entirely fulfilled by the end of the Roman/Jewish War. In any case, his view of Daniel 9 was certainly Preterist and, as we will see, so also was his view of Matthew 24 and other passages thought by Futurists to be unfulfilled.

It can be noted that nowhere in the book of Revelation is a 7-year period indicated, but a period of 3.5 years can be seen. The basis for a future 7-year Tribulation period within Dispensational thought is taken only from Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. Sam Storms (2006) speaks of the importance of this passage to Dispensationalist and Futurist theology when he says, “One could conceivably make an argument that apart from the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9, these and related prophetic doctrines would lack substantial biblical sanction.”

The final week (i.e. seven years) will be initiated, Dispensationalists say, when the Antichrist makes a covenant with Israel. This is the current popular interpretation of verse 27, which states: “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering…”). For this to happen, we are also told, the Jerusalem temple must be rebuilt and the sacrifices and offerings resumed. John Hagee, Benny Hinn, and others are willing to raise millions of dollars to see this happen, despite the blasphemous nature of such a venture in light of Christ’s work on the cross and also what happened in 70 AD.

This viewpoint does not appear to be the historic one. A number of the early church writers (like Clement) and also some of the reformers, in fact, did not see the “he” of verse 27 as referring to the Antichrist, but they insisted that this was a reference to Jesus. The covenant in view, then, was the New Covenant, made with many (Matthew 26:28, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24). The first half of the final week was fulfilled in Jesus’ 3.5 year earthly ministry. The “end to sacrifice and offering” was achieved by Christ’s work on the cross, which was the ultimate sacrifice. Philip Mauro, a brilliant lawyer who spent years on the bar of the US Supreme Court, spoke of the centrality of Christ’s work on the cross in Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy in his 1921 book, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation:

No one will dispute that, when Christ suffered and died on the Cross, thus offering “one sacrifice for sins forever,” he then and there caused the sacrifice, and oblations of the law to cease as a divine appointment… Neither can there be any question that the removal of those sacrifices (which could never take away sins) was a great thing in the eyes of God, a thing so great and well-pleasing to Him, to warrant its having a prominent place in this grand Messianic prophecy. In proof of this important point we direct the attention of our readers to Hebrews, chapters 8, 9 and 10… The great subject of this part of Hebrews, as of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, is the Cross… And when we find, both in the prophecy (Daniel 9:27) and in Hebrews 10, that this setting aside of the sacrifices of the law is connected directly with the confirming of the New Covenant, we are compelled to conclude that the passage in Hebrews is the inspired record of the fulfillment of this Prophecy… This gives to the last week of the seventy the importance it should have, and which the prophecy as a whole demands, seeing that all the predictions of verse 24 depend upon the events of that last week. On the other hand, to make this last Week refer to a paltry bargain between Antichrist (or a supposed Roman prince) and some apostate Jews of the future, for the renewal (and that for a space of only seven years) of those sacrifices which God has long ago abolished forever, is to intrude into this great scripture a matter of trifling importance, utterly foreign to the subject in hand and to bring the entire prophecy to an absurdly lame and impotent conclusion (pages 30-32, emphasis added; Todd Dennis [21], 2009).

Ralph Woodrow in 1971 pointed out the significance of Christ’s ministry being 3.5 years long, in relation to the prophecy in Daniel 9:27a (Todd Dennis [22], 2009). He notes that Augustine and Eusebius recognized that Daniel had defined the exact length of Christ’s ministry, with Eusebius saying, “Now the whole period of our Saviour’s teaching and working of miracles is said to have been three-and-a-half years, which is half a week. John the evangelist, in his Gospel makes this clear to the attentive [by the mention of four Passovers during His ministry; John 2:13, 5:1, 6:4, 13:1].”

Understanding this, we can now see real significance in certain New Testament statements which also speak of a definite established time at which Jesus would die. For example, we read: “They sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come” (John 7:30). In John 2:4, Jesus said, “Mine hour is not yet come.” On another occasion, he said, “My time is not yet come” (John 7:6). Then just prior to his betrayal and death, he said, “My time is at hand” (Mt. 26:18), and finally, ‘”the hour is come” (John 17:1; Mt. 26:45).

These and other verses clearly show that there was a definite time in the plan of God when Jesus would die. He came to fulfill the scriptures, and there is only one Old Testament scripture which predicted the time of his death—the prophecy which stated that Messiah would be cut off in the midst of the 70th week—at the close of three and a half years of ministry! How perfectly the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ!

But those who say that the confirming of the covenant and causing sacrifices to cease in the midst of the 70th week refers to a future Antichrist, completely destroy this beautiful fulfillment and are at a complete loss to show where in the Old Testament the time of our Lord’s death was predicted.

The prophecy of Daniel 9 stated that Messiah would confirm the covenant (or would cause the covenant to prevail) with many of Daniel’s people for the “week” or seven years. We ask then, when Christ came, was his ministry directed in a special way to Daniel’s people —to “Israel ” (Dan. 9:20)? Yes!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

A good article on the subject of Daniel’s 70th Week, which I didn’t reference here, is this one by Peter Cohen of Messianic Good News. Cohen focuses on how this prophecy concerned Christ’s incarnational ministry and work on the cross during His first coming, and notes the implications of saying that what Daniel prophesied will yet be fulfilled through some means other than the cross.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

A chiasm is a literary structure long recognized as a way to emphasize ideas or concepts by placing them into a symmetric pattern, as they are recorded in a given literary work. Where they appear in the Bible, some have referred to them as the “fingerprints of God.” The chiastic structure of Daniel 9:25-27 is very interesting, as it makes clear that the Messiah is the “he” who confirms the covenant. William H. Shea, a historicist, notes the following chiasm in Frank Holbrook’s work*, “The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy“:

Another helpful chiasm of this same passage, including verse 24, can be seen here. It is shown as follows:

Daniel 9:24-27

24 ” 7.) Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city,

6.) To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness,

5.) To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

25 4.) “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem

3.) Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

2.) The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

26 1.) “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

2.) And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

3.) The end of it shall be with a flood,

4.) And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 5.) Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

6.) And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,

7.) Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

RED – The center of the chiasm , the apex of eternity , the cross.

GREEN – Above – God uses gentiles (Cyrus) to liberate nation for rebuilding city

Below – God uses gentiles (Romans) to decimate nation and destroy city

VIOLET – Above – Announces arrival of Messiah in Blessing

Below – Announces departure of Messiah in Judgment

BLUE – Above – Restoration commanded by God through man

Below – Desolation Determined by God through Messiah

PINK – Above- Anoint the High Priest who would be the sacrifice and offering.

Below – End sacrifice and offering

ORANGE – Above – Christ brings in everlasting righteousness and reconciliation

Below – Christ makes the city of the abominable unrighteous, desolate.

DARK RED – Above- 70 weeks of years determined for rebuilding and life

Below – The consummation of judgments determined for rejection.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

In the following post, we will consider whether or not there was meant to be any gap at all between the 69th and 70th weeks in Daniel’s prophecy.

All parts belonging to this term paper on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD can be found here.

*William H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27”, in Holbrook, Frank. ed., The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, 1986, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, Vol. 3, Review and Herald Publishing Association; shown on Wikipedia in the following entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_weeks_prophecy

PP7: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 4

August 14, 2009April 26, 2013Adam Maarschalk 3 Comments

This is now the seventh part in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here:

Part 4 will speak of the worship of Nero and the worship of his image even after his death. We will also see that the language used by John strongly indicates the relevance of the entire book of Revelation to the first-century Christians who were alive when he wrote this book.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

II. Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Part 4)

Interestingly, Vitellius, the ninth emperor, was even more devoted [than the Roman Emperor Otho–see previous post] in his worship of Nero. It is said that he “greatly pleased the public by offering sacrifices to Nero’s spirit in the Campus Martius [Latin for Field of Mars, a 2 sq km public square in Rome], making all the priests and people attend.” These were his “funerary offerings to Nero” and this left “no doubt in anyone’s mind what model he chose for the government of the State” (Suetonius, Vitellius 11:2). The actions of Vitellius appear to fulfill what was written in Revelation 13:11-12 of a second beast, referred to later as the false prophet. This text states: “Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence [or on its behalf], and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed.” Vitellius had such a rabid fascination with Nero that Vespasian had to “make a determined effort to check the growth of the Nero cult when he came to power.”

Paul Kroll (1999) writes the following about the prospect of Vitellius, or someone like him, fulfilling the role of the false prophet in Nero’s time:

The false prophet sends out a universal order to “set up an image in honor of the beast” (verse 14)… Strangely enough, the false prophet gives the inanimate image breath so that it can speak. Thus, the second beast has power to animate the image of the first beast. In the time Revelation was written, this was not an alien idea. The ancients believed that statues spoke and performed miracles. It was thought that the gods and demons used statues as conduits to communicate with humans and work miracles. For example, the heretic Simon Magus is said to have brought statues to life (Clementine Recognitions 3.47; Justin, Apologia 1.26; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23). In ancient times, that was precisely the point of having idols. People thought that the life of the person or being was actually in the idol.

In their book, Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World (1999), the authors (Brown, Bowersock, Grabar) write about the common sight of images of Roman emperors in the third and fourth centuries. These images took prominent places throughout the empire and were literally worshipped. This was ordinary in the first century as well:

Those who beheld Constantine in his golden raiment were said by Eusebius to be “stunned and amazed by the sight—like children who have seen a frightening apparition.” But away from court and capital, emperors rarely appeared in person. In the provinces, their presence was represented by statues and other images. Municipal squares were dominated by imperial statues; the portraits of emperors hung in official buildings, shops, theaters, and public porticoes… In their range and variety, imperial images made emperors omnipresent…the crowd applauded not only the emperor but also his image as it was paraded around them, surrounded—like the emperor himself—by the imperial bodyguard… These mirror images of majesty not only made permanent the transitory messages of imperial ceremonial, but were designed to blur the distinction between emperors and their representations… [There was] a rigid insistence on the performance of the same rituals and ceremonies before imperial images as before the emperor himself. Those approaching an emperor’s statue were required to prostrate themselves “not as though they were looking at a picture, but upon the very face of the emperor.” A proper atmosphere of sanctity was to be maintained at all times (pp. 173-174).

As expected then, statues of Nero’s likeness already existed in the Roman Empire during his lifetime, even from early in his reign. In 55 AD, the second year of his reign, the Roman senate erected a statue of Nero in the Temple of Mars that stood between 110 and 120 feet high. “The emperor’s brow was crowned with rays, suggesting a comparison or identification with the Sun-god” (Kenneth Gentry, 2002). His portrait appeared on coins at the time as Apollo playing the lyre. “He appears with his head radiating the light of the sun on copper coins struck in Rome and at Lugdunum.” Even his mother, Agrippina, was hailed by provincial coins “as goddess and the parent of a god.” Inscriptions found in Ephesus called Nero “Almighty God” and “Savior,” and inscriptions found in Cyprus called him “God and Savior” (pp. 80-81). The behavior of the highly-revered Augustus Caesar (27 BC-14 AD) was very modest compared to the worship Nero demanded for himself. Dio Cassius writes of an incident in which a regional king was compelled to worship both Nero and his image. This occurred in 66 AD when Tiridates, King of Armenia, paid Nero a visit:

Indeed, the proceedings of the conference were not limited to mere conversations, but a lofty platform had been erected on which were set images of Nero, and in the presence of the Armenians, Parthians, and Romans Tiridates approached and paid them reverence; then, after sacrificing to them and calling them by laudatory names, he took off the diadem from his head and set it upon them…Tiridates publicly fell before Nero seated upon the rostra in the Forum: “Master, I am the descendant of Arsaces, brother of the kings Vologaesus and Pacorus, and thy slave. And I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras. The destiny thou spinnest for me shall be mine; for thou art my Fortune and my Fate” (Gentry, p. 82).

“By this action this king actually worshiped ‘the image of the Beast’ (Rev. 13:15),” says Gentry. One senator, though, failed to worship Nero and his “Divine Voice,” and Dio Cassius records that he was executed: “Thrasaea was executed because he failed to appear regularly in the senate…and because he never would listen to the emperor’s singing and lyre-playing, nor sacrifice to Nero’s Divine Voice as did the rest.” Nero was even deified in Greece, where he spent a significant amount of time in 67 AD as a musician and actor in the Grecian festivals. There he was proclaimed as “Zeus, Our Liberator,” and his statue was set up in the temple of Apollo where he was called “The new Sun, illuminating the Hellenes.” When he returned to Rome in early 68 AD, the entire population was made to come out and greet him with these words: “Hail, Olympian Victor! Hail, Pythian Victor! Augustus! Augustus! Hail to Nero, our Hercules! Hail to Hero, our Apollo! The only Victor of the Grand Tour, the only one from the beginning of time! Augustus! Augustus! O, Divine Voice! Blessed are they that hear thee” (Gentry, p. 83). Richard Anthony (2009) speaks further of the allegiance required by Nero during his lifetime:

All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, “Caesar is Lord”. Upon compliance with this law, the people were given a papyrus document called a “libellus”, which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace, increasing the difficulty of “buying or selling” without this mark (emphasis added).

If Vitellius was indeed the second beast who compelled the Roman world to be marked with the name or number of the first beast (Revelation 13:16-18), then the practice described by Anthony above would have continued during his 8-month reign. Scripture seems to indicate that it would have been taken to an even more oppressive level. No doubt he also would have carried on Nero’s practice of putting to death those who would not worship the images of Nero, which in Nero’s day were considered to be divine.

John revealed the identity of the beast to his readers in a coded manner, Richard Anthony (2009) says, using the system of Gematria which assigned numerical values to the alphabet: “John used this puzzle to reveal Nero without actually writing down his name. Remember, the early churches were being persecuted during this time—not only from the Jews, but also from the Romans.” The following chart shows the Hebrew letters in ‘Nero Caesar’ (NRWN QSR):

Nero's Name

John wrote to seven historical churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4, 11) which were going through a time of great trouble and tribulation, just as he was (Rev. 1:9, 2:3, 2:9-10, 2:13, 3:10). What better candidate was there for such an intense time of trouble than the first and greatest imperial persecution of Christianity initiated by Nero from late November 64 AD until his death in early June 68 AD?[1] Kenneth Gentry (2002) poses this question for those who hold to the Futurist position: “Put yourself in first century sandals: Would you think John might be speaking of events occurring untold centuries after the collapse of the Empire which was presently persecuting you? Would you surmise that he was not really relating a message about Imperial Rome?”

John wrote the book of Revelation in such a way that the subject matter of the entire book, not just his letters to the churches, was urgent for and relevant for those churches. At the end of the book, Jesus said, “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:7). God, speaking in terms that man would understand, spoke through John saying, “The Revelation of Jesus, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place…Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near” (Revelation 1:1-4). We see that the seven churches who received this writing were encouraged to read the entire book aloud in their assemblies, and to keep what was written in it. We can also note that the Greek word used for “soon” here is the same one Jesus used when He said His time to be crucified was “at hand” (Matthew 26:18), and when John said “the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand” (John 7:2), events that no doubt were literally near. Four times Jesus said, “Behold, I am coming quickly” (Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20). In some translations, “soon” is used instead of “quickly.”

It’s noteworthy that Daniel was told that the prophecies he received referred “to many days from now” (Daniel 8:26), and were for the time of the end and thus they were to be “shut up and sealed” (Daniel 12:4, 9). Yet John in his time, as pointed out by both Kenneth Gentry (2002) and David Lowman (2009 [4]), was told not to seal up the prophecies he received because the time of their fulfillment was near (Revelation 22:10). If their fulfillment has still not come in our day, how do we account for these different instructions, when one set of prophecies was given about 2550 years ago and the other set about 1950 years ago?

Dispensationalism assumes that when Daniel mentioned “the time of the end,” he was referring to the end of the world. However, the context itself contains other constraints, and it should be noted that the phrase “the end of time” is never used in these prophecies. Daniel had already been told that his visions concerned his people (e.g. 11:14). Again he was told that “at the time of the end” (11:40) Michael, “the great prince who has charge of your people,” would arise. There would be a time of trouble, “such as never has been since there was a nation till that time [cf. Matthew 24:21]. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book” (Daniel 12:1).

Whose “time of the end” was God referring to? From the language used, it’s evident that these things directly concerned the nation of Israel rather than mankind in general. Daniel asked for a more specific time marker (12:6), and he was given one: “…it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished” (12:7). The utter destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and more than a million Jews in 70 AD did accomplish this. Daniel’s writings will be examined in more detail later.

Another intriguing detail in the book of Revelation is that twice in the letters to the seven churches (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9), Jesus spoke of Judaizers who were persecuting the churches, saying they were “of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not.” After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD this type of persecution faded, but it was certainly a significant factor in the Church prior to that event. Therefore, it would make far more sense for this remark to have been written while Jerusalem and the temple still stood.

Other examples of internal evidence for an early date will be shown, whether explicit or implicit, in the section on actual historical events during the Roman/Jewish War.

[1] John’s participation in this persecution means that it was imperial, coming from Rome, as only Rome had the authority to banish individuals to Patmos, its own prison island. If the early date is true for Revelation’s authorship, John then wrote no earlier than November 64 AD because this is when the first imperial persecution began.

PP6: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 3

August 14, 2009April 26, 2013Adam Maarschalk 1 Comment

This is now the sixth part in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here:

Part 3 will address Nero’s campaign of persecution against the saints, as well as his prophesied demise.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

II. Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Part 3)

In what sense might Jerusalem have sat on the beast with seven heads (mountains), the beast that would ultimately turn on her and destroy her (Rev. 17:3, 9, 16-18)? Israel had enjoyed a good relationship with Rome until the Jewish revolt began in 66 AD, and Judaism was recognized as a valid religion within the Roman Empire. Josephus wrote of this relationship, “It seems to me to be necessary here to give an account of all the honors that the Romans and their emperors paid to our nation [Israel], and of the leagues of mutual assistance they have made with it” (Antiquities, 14.10.1-2). The Jews frequently took advantage of this relationship to induce persecution against Jesus and His followers (Luke 23:2; John 18:28-31, 19:15; Acts 4:27, 16:20, 17:7, 18:12, 21:11, 24:1-9, 25:1-2).[1]

Prior to Nero’s persecution, writes Kenneth Gentry (2002), persecution against Christians had come largely from the Jews. Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, which was a “legal religion.” Gentry notes, “Earlier Paul had safely appealed to Nero Caesar (Acts 25:11-12; 28:19) and in A.D. 62 had been acquitted and released.” Herbert Workman, in his 1906 work, Persecution in the Early Church, said that Rome didn’t make a clear distinction between Christianity and Judaism until 64 AD (pp. 62-63).

Kenneth Gentry takes note of the testimonies of early historians regarding Nero’s campaign of persecution against Christians (pp. 54-55, 64-66). Clement of Rome (30-100 AD) said that it targeted “a vast multitude of the elect…through many indignities and tortures.” Eusebius (260-340 AD) pointed out that Nero was “the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion,” and Lactantius (240-320 AD) agrees by saying of Nero, “He it was who first persecuted the saints of God.” Sulpicius Severus (360-420 AD) said that he was “the basest of all men, and even of wild beasts, [showing himself] in every way most abominable and cruel…he first attempted to abolish the name of Christian.” Sulpicius devoted two chapters to Nero’s reign of terror in his Sacred History, but only three sentences for Domitian. In 1854 church historian John Laurence von Mosheim added these thoughts:

Foremost in the rank of those emperors, on whom the church looks back with horror as her persecutors, stands Nero, a prince whose conduct towards the Christians admits of no palliation [minimizing], but was to the last degree unprincipled and inhuman. The dreadful persecution which took Diace by order of this tyrant, commenced at Rome about the middle of November,[2] in the year of our Lord 64. This dreadful state of persecution ceased with the death of Nero. The empire, it is well known, was not delivered from the tyranny of this monster until A.D. 68, when he put an end to his own life.[3]

Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 56-117 AD, wrote in detail of Nero’s move to persecute the saints soon after the fire that raged through Rome, destroying 10 out of 14 city divisions:

But by no human contrivance, whether lavish contributions of money or of offerings to appease the gods, could Nero rid himself of the ugly rumor that the fire was due to his orders. So to dispel the report, he substituted as the guilty persons and inflicted unheard-of punishments on those who, detested for their abominable crimes, were vulgarly called Christians…wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when the darkness fell they might be burned to illuminate the night (Tacitus, Annals 15:44).

The most remarkable detail about Nero’s campaign of persecution is that it lasted just over 42 months, which Revelation 13:5-8 records is the length of time that would be given to the beast to war against and conquer the saints. The persecution ended when Nero died on June 9, 68 AD. In this context, Revelation 13:10 was a comfort to the saints. Not only were they already told that the beast would only be allowed to persecute them for 3.5 years, but they were also told how their persecutor would be removed: “…he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints.” Nero ended his life by thrusting his sword through his own throat, with the help of his personal secretary, Epaphroditus, when he realized that his popularity had waned and that a coup was in the making.

Upon Nero’s demise, the Roman Empire immediately fell into chaos and civil war, and rooting out Christians became less of a priority for Rome. What followed was the “Year of the Four Emperors,” the reigns of Galba (six months), Otho (four months), Vitellius (eight months), and Vespasian (beginning in December 69 AD). When the empire stabilized more than a year later under Vespasian, Nero’s successors did not carry on his campaign of religious persecution. As The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary notes, “There is no solid evidence that Christians suffered persecution by the Roman state under Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian” (p. 67).

Nero’s death by the sword is the type of mortal wound that John said the beast would receive (Revelation 13:10, 12, 14). Richard Anthony (2009) and Kenneth Gentry (1998) postulate that the healing of this wound can perhaps be seen in what took place in the Roman Empire immediately following Nero’s death. Upon his death, the Roman Empire’s founding family suddenly had no representative. “The blood line that had given birth to, extended, stabilized, brought prosperity to, and had received worship from the Roman Empire was cut off forever” (Gentry, p. 311). The “Julio-Claudian House” became extinct. The empire was plunged “into civil wars of horrible ferocity and dramatic proportions” and Rome appeared ready to topple.

The general Vespasian pulled back from the wars he was committed to, including the siege on Jerusalem, because of the turmoil on his own home front. Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius all recorded that Rome at this time was brought near to utter ruin, with Josephus saying that “every part of the habitable earth under them [the Romans] was in an unsettled and tottering condition” (Wars 7.4.2). It wasn’t until Vespasian took the throne in December 69 AD, initiating the Flavian Dynasty, that stability was restored. He was the one who oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem the following year. Perhaps in this sense the beast’s “mortal wound was healed,” i.e. the beast as corporately considered.

Herbert W. Benario (2006) and others show how this question might also be viewed from an additional angle. Benario writes, “Nero’s popularity among the lower classes remained even after his death. His close friend, and successor to Galba, Otho paid him all public honors.” The historians Tacitus, Suetonius, and Zonaras affirm that after Nero’s death proclamations continued to be published in his name as if he was still alive, and that his image was frequently placed upon the rostra (large speaker’s platforms in Rome) “dressed in robes of state.” Even Jewish and Christian writers began to foretell that Nero was back from death as the dreaded Beliar demon. Paul Kroll (1999) adds the following details:

Nero committed suicide in June of AD 68. However, a rumor arose and persisted that he had not died but had fled across the Euphrates river to Rome’s arch-enemy, Parthia. It was said that one day Nero would return at the head of Parthian armies to destroy Rome. This became the so-called “Nero redivivus” myth. In fact, during the decades following Nero’s death, several pretenders did come forth claiming to be Nero (Tacitus, Histories 1.78; 2.8; Suetonius, Nero 57). By the turn of the first century a further twist was added to the Nero legend. It was said he would actually rise from the dead, return to Rome and seize the empire… This myth of Nero’s return so captured the popular fancy that it found its way into Jewish and Christian apocalyptic writings. Here the triumphant Nero was sometimes even pictured as the antichrist (Ascension of Isaiah 4:1-14; Sibylline Oracles 4:119-124; 5:137-154, 361-374)…

With these details, we can begin to see how Nero could have fulfilled what was written of the beast in Revelation 17:11. This text states: “As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.” Kenneth Gentry (1998) notes the following about Otho, the eighth emperor of Rome:

Upon presenting himself to the Senate and returning to the palace, it is said of Otho: “When in the midst of the other adulations of those who congratulated and flattered him, he was hailed by the common herd as Nero, he made no sign of dissent; on the contrary, according to some writers, he even made use of that surname in his commissions and his first letters to some of the governors of the provinces” [Suetonius, Otho 7]. Tacitus, too, speaks of Otho’s predilection for Nero: “It was believed that he also brought up the question of celebrating Nero’s memory with the hope of winning over the Roman people; and in fact some set up statues of Nero; moreover on certain days the people and soldiers, as if adding thereby to Otho’s nobility and distinction, acclaimed him as Nero Otho.” Dio Cassius mentions the same idea: “But men did not fail to realize that his rule was sure to be even more licentious and harsh than Nero’s. Indeed, he immediately added Nero’s name to his own” (pp. 308-309).

Gentry adds that Otho reinstated Nero’s procurators and freedman to the offices they had vacated during Galba’s 6-month reign, and a court historian claims that Otho even used Nero’s title and name in official dispatches to Spain. So Otho, in many ways, took on the persona of Nero, and perhaps in this way Nero was “an eighth” king who also belonged to the seven kings (Revelation 17:10-11). Gentry, though, leans even more to the idea that the revived Roman Empire, under the new dynasty initiated by Vespasian, could be what is meant by the beast that “is an eighth” but also belongs to the seven.

[1] W.H.C. Frend even writes that “the promptings of orthodox Jews in the capitol had something to do with” Nero’s decision to begin persecuting Christians in 64 AD (The Rise of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 109; quoted in Kenneth Gentry, 2002, p. 63).

[2] Moses Stuart (1845), a historian contemporary to von Mosheim, wrote that this persecution began at the end of November.

[3] I Clement 6:1; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:25:2-3; Lactantius, On the Death of the Persecutors 2:2; Severus, Sacred History 2:29; John L. von Mosheim, History of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (New York: Converse, 1854) 1:138-139.

PP5: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 2

August 14, 2009April 26, 2013Adam Maarschalk 1 Comment

This is now the fifth segment in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here:

We have now turned to a discussion of the internal evidence for an early date. The previous post (Part 1) was a discussion of Jerusalem, the temple, Babylon the Great, and a great city as they are mentioned in the book of Revelation. We discovered that they are all related. That post can be found here:

[4] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp4-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-1/

This part of the discussion (Part 2) will deal with the seven kings mentioned in Revelation 17:9-10, as well as with the identity of the beast of the book of Revelation. Again, it’s recommended that all the previous posts in this series be read in order before reading this one.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

II. Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Part 2)

More compelling evidence for an early date is found in John’s reference to seven kings in Revelation 17:9-10, which states, “This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.” This description of the seven kings lines up well with historical data showing the emperors who reigned in the Roman Empire up until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which is as follows:

Order of Emperors	Name of Emperor	Length of Reign	Notes/Details
#1	Julius Caesar	October 49 BC – March 44 BC	“Perpetual Dictator”
#2	Augustus	January 27 BC – August 14 AD	-time of Jesus’ birth
#3	Tiberius	August 14 AD – March 37 AD	-time of Jesus’ ascension
#4	Caligula	March 37 AD – January 41 AD	Murdered
#5	Claudius	January 41 AD – October 54 AD	Assassinated
#6	Nero	October 54 AD – June 68 AD	Committed suicide
#7	Galba	June 68 AD – January 69 AD	Murdered
#8	Otho	January 69 AD – April 69 AD	Committed suicide
#9	Vitellius	April 69 AD – December 69AD	Murdered
#10	Vespasian	December 69 AD – June 79 AD	Destroyed Jerusalem

Some historians do not consider Julius Caesar to be one of the emperors, and rather designate him as one who played a key role in transforming the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), however, was one who did, and the above list reflects his own list in his writing titled Antiquities of the Jews (Books 18 and 19). Numerous Roman historians contemporary to Josephus agree. Among these were Dio Cassius and Suetonius (70-135 AD), who wrote Lives of the Twelve Caesars and De Vita Caesarum. Julius Caesar was appointed as “perpetual dictator” in 42 BC, so his inclusion in such a list would not have been strange.

According to the above list, then, Nero was the “king” of whom John said “one is” (i.e. “he is reigning now”), and Galba was the one who had “not yet come.” Galba reigned only six months, making him a good candidate to be the one who “must remain only a little while.” This would place John’s authorship of Revelation sometime before Nero’s death in June 68 AD (and after November 64 AD because, as already noted, John was in Patmos as a result of imperial persecution, and no such persecution existed before Nero initiated his).

Numerous church fathers and leaders during the first several centuries identified Nero as the beast of the book of Revelation, or speculated that it was he. These include Tertullian, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome who stated the following in his commentary on Daniel 11:27-30:

As for the Antichrist, there is no question but what he is going to fight against the holy covenant, and that when he first makes war against the king of Egypt, he shall straightway be frightened off by the assistance of the Romans. But these events were typically prefigured under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that this abominable king who persecuted God’s people foreshadows the Antichrist, who is to persecute the people of Christ. And so there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity (Todd Dennis [7], 2009).

C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines Jr. (1995) point to historical details from the reign of Nero to show how he fit the Biblical description of the beast introduced in Revelation 13 (pp. 41-42, emphasis added):

The blasphemous worship demanded by the beast distinctly reminds one of the imperial cult of the first century, and the war the beast wages on the saints cannot help but recall the intense persecutions Nero, and later Domitian, inflicted on Christians because they did not worship Caesar. Nero’s persecution of Christians from November AD 64 [when he blamed the Christians for the massive fire he started] to June AD 68 could account, in part, for the forty-two months (or 3 ½ years) of oppression mentioned in Rev. 13:5. The reference in Revelation 13:11-15 to the beast of the land securing worship for the beast from the sea (Rome was across the sea from the place of the writing of the Apocalypse, Asia Minor) reminds one of the local priests of the imperial cult in Asia Minor whose task was to compel the people to offer a sacrifice to Caesar and proclaim him Lord. Megalomaniac that he was, Nero had coins minted in which he was called “almighty God” and “Savior.” Nero’s portrait also appears on coins as the god Apollo playing a lyre. While earlier emperors were proclaimed deities upon their deaths, Nero abandons all reserve and demanded divine honors while still alive (as did also Caligula before him, AD 37-41). Those who worshipped the emperor received a certificate or mark of approval – charagma, the same word used in Revelation 13:16 [the famed mark of the beast].

Richard Anthony (2009) shares more details about Nero’s life and character, all of which is substantiated by Suetonius (in his book Nero) and other historians who lived during the first two centuries:

According to Suetonius, he [Nero] murdered his parents, wife, brother, aunt, and many others close to him and of high station in Rome. He was a torturer, a homosexual rapist, and a sodomite. He even married two young boys and paraded them around as his wives. One of the boys, whose name was Sporus, was castrated by Nero. He was truly bestial in his character, depravity, and actions. He devised a kind of game: covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound at stakes. He also initiated the war against the Jews which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

At one point, writes Kenneth Gentry (2002), Nero divorced his first wife, Octavia, in order to marry Poppaea, his mistress. Poppaea then gave orders to have Octavia banished to an island, where in 62 AD she was beheaded. Three years later, when Poppaea was pregnant and ill, Nero kicked her to death. For entertainment, according to the Roman historian Suetonius, Nero “compelled four hundred senators and six hundred Roman knights, some of whom were well to do and of unblemished reputation, to fight in the arena.” The Roman historian Tacitus (55-117 AD) knew Nero as the one who “put to death so many innocent men,” and Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD) called Nero “the destroyer of the human race” and “the poison of the world” (p. 52).

Kenneth Gentry (1998) writes that the beast in Revelation is sometimes spoken of as an individual (specific sense) and sometimes as a kingdom (generic sense). For example, John’s readers are told to “calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man” (Revelation 13:18). Earlier in that same chapter John saw “a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads” (Rev. 13:1), and John later identified these seven heads as both “seven mountains on which the woman [harlot] is seated” and “seven kings” (Rev. 17:9-10).[1] It’s not surprising that the beast is interchangeably an individual and a kingdom, if ancient Rome is in view here. Regarding the emperor Augustus, the Roman poet Ovid (43 BC-18AD) wrote, “The state is Caesar.” Gentry also adds, “Scholars as widely divergent as dispensationalist John Walvoord, anti-dispensationalist Philip Mauro, and critical scholar R. H. Charles agree that the Beast in Revelation has both a generic and a specific reference. Thus, he represents both a kingdom and an individual.”

[1] Interestingly, Gentry notes, the Coin of Vespasian (emperor of Rome from 69-79 AD) discovered by archaeologists pictures the goddess Roma as a woman seated on seven hills. Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, is the one city in history famous for its seven mountains. First-century Rome used to celebrate a feast called Septimontium, the feast of “the seven-hilled city.”

PP4: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 1

August 14, 2009April 26, 2013Adam Maarschalk 21 Comments

This is now the fourth segment in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page, and the third segment was a discussion of the external evidence for an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. These segments can be found here, and again it’s recommended that they be read in order before reading this current post:

We will now turn to some of the internal evidence for an early date. This was a rather long section in my paper, so I’m going to break it up into several parts. Among other things, this first part will deal with references to Jerusalem, a temple, Babylon the Great, and a great city in the book of Revelation.

Adam Maarschalk

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

II. Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Part 1)

The reality is that if an early date for the book of Revelation is valid, this leaves room for the possibility that many of the events in this book were also fulfilled during the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the Roman/Jewish War of 66-73 AD. Even more telling than the external evidence (e.g. quotes from early church fathers and historians), though, is the internal evidence from the text when it is compared with other passages of Scripture and also with what historically happened during the Roman/Jewish War.

Kenneth Gentry (1998), a former Dispensationalist, discovered in his reading of “The Jewish War” by Josephus a number of accounts which seem to reflect the descriptions of the plagues and judgments in Revelation. For example:

Regarding the blood flow to the “horses’ bridles” [Revelation 14:20], Josephus’ comments on the battle scenes during the Jewish War are enlightening. At one point a naval battle produced a “lake all bloody and full of dead bodies” (Wars 3:10:9). Later he reported that “the whole of the country through which they had fled was filled with slaughter, and [the] Jordan [River] could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the lake Asphaltitis was also full of dead bodies” (Wars 4-7:6). Surely such carnage and bloodshed are suggested by John’s imagery (p. 245).

John also refers to a time period of 42 months in Revelation 11:2-3, which is significant in light of history. John is told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months…” During the Roman/Jewish War, as will be seen, it did take Rome 3.5 years, or 42 months, to overcome Jerusalem and trample it. This occurred from the time Nero dispatched his general Vespasian to advance on Jerusalem in early spring 67 AD until Jerusalem and the temple were demolished and laid level by the end of September 70 AD.

John’s words echoed the words of Jesus given earlier. In Luke 21:24, Jesus, clearly speaking about Jerusalem’s pending destruction (Luke 21:5-7), said, “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Dispensationalists interpret the phrase “times of the Gentiles” to be the entire Church Age. However, is it not possible that the “times of the Gentiles” is what John wrote about in Rev. 11:2-3?

In this Revelation 11 passage, John is told to measure a temple which apparently still existed. If he wrote this in 95-96 AD, the temple would have met its destruction 25 years before, and one could wonder why John did not raise a question when given this command or even mention the recent destruction of the temple at all in his book. Its absence after 70 AD was no small thing, not only because of its most central significance to Judaism, but also because of its magnificence and physical stature. After a grand renovation project at the hands of Herod around 20 BC, it was widely acknowledged as one of the most beautiful structures in the world [The use of the phrase “temple of God” quite possibly indicates that the Church is also being referred to here (cf. Eph. 2:11-22; II Cor. 6:16; I Cor. 3:16, 6:19). Therefore it may be that John was (symbolically) measuring the Church which would be trampled (persecuted) for 42 months (see Rev. 13:5-7; this passage will be discussed later). Given the similarity between this passage and Luke 21:24, the physical temple was also probably being alluded to. It may be that both ideas were being spoken of in this case.]

On the other hand, if the temple John measured is still future, as Dispensationalists teach, on what grounds could a future physical temple be referred to as “the temple of God”? Such a temple would be blasphemous in light of Christ’s work on the cross which has created a new, non-physical temple (e.g. Ephesians 2:13-20). The reinstitution of sacrifices would be an even greater insult (See Hebrews 7:11-10:18).

The description of the woman in Revelation 17 offers further internal evidence for an early date. This woman, who rode the beast, was said to be “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (verse 6). She is a great city (verse 18), and is hated by the beast and the 10 kings who desolate her and burn her with fire (verses 16-17). More specifically, it is said that “in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth” (18:24), and the “saints and apostles and prophets” were told to rejoice over her destruction (18:20).

Who was responsible for shedding all the blood of the prophets and the saints, according to Jesus, and who would receive judgment as a result? The answer can be found in Matthew 23, as David Lowman (2009 [3]) so aptly points out:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets’” Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate (Matthew 23:29-38, emphasis added).

Is it a coincidence that the word “desolate” is used here, just as it is used in Revelation 17:16; 18:17, 19, not to mention Daniel 9:27 and Luke 21:20? No, Jerusalem was the prophetic “Babylon the Great” in the book of Revelation. The generation which heard Jesus speak these things also saw them happen, just as He said they would, in 70 AD. The third bowl judgment, rivers and springs of water becoming blood (Revelation 16:4), also is directly linked to those who had shed righteous blood (verses 5-6): “And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, ‘Just are You, O Holy One, who is and who was, for You brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!’” As we will see later, Josephus and others recorded that the rivers and springs of Jerusalem and its surroundings were filled with blood during the Roman/Jewish War. Again, Jesus said that it was the generation that would crucify Him that would be held responsible for the blood of saints and prophets (cf. Matthew 21:33-45), not a generation in the 21^st century or beyond, and that Jerusalem would experience this wrath.

Jerusalem receives specific mention in Revelation 11:8, where she is clearly identified by the description “the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where [the] Lord was crucified.” It’s worth noting that “Revelation 11:8 suggests that Jerusalem’s streets were intact at the time of John’s writing” (Kenneth Gentry, 1998, p. 236) because the dead bodies of the two witnesses were to lie there for several days. If John wrote this in 95 or 96 AD, Jerusalem would have been a wasteland. As Kathleen M. Kenyon remarked, “It was two centuries or more [after 70 AD] before human activity began once more to make its mark in the whole area of ancient Jerusalem.”[1] It’s also significant in Revelation 11:8 that Jerusalem is called “the great city.” This is the same title given to Babylon the Great on at least six occasions (17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21).

To be called “Sodom,” of course, is not a compliment. When Isaiah was instructed to prophesy against Judah and Jerusalem (Isaiah 1:1), he called the Israelites by the same name because of their apostasy. It would make sense for John to speak of apostate Jerusalem, once known as the holy city, as Sodom, Babylon, and a harlot. Todd Dennis writes, “The image of the unfaithful wife, the harlot, was often used of Israel in the OT. Israel is repeatedly called the wife of God (Jer. 2:2, 3:14, Is. 54:5). But she was an unfaithful wife (Jer. 3:20, Hos. 1:2, Ez. 6:9, Ez. 16, Is. 50:1) behaving as a prostitute (Jer. 3:1-2). In the context of Jerusalem’s designation as a prostitute, Is. 1:21 is especially noteworthy: ‘See how the faithful city has become a harlot’” (Todd Dennis [25], 2009). Rome in John’s day or a secular city/state in our day could not be said to fornicate against God in the way that Jerusalem was able to. Kenneth Gentry (1998, p. 241) also writes that there “is an obvious contrast between the Harlot and the chaste bride (cp. Rev. 17:2-5 with Rev. 21:1ff.) that suggests a contrast with the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above (Rev. 21:2; cp. Gal. 4:24ff; Heb. 12:18ff.).”

Dennis adds that the description of the harlot’s attire (purple, scarlet, gold, jewels, and pearls) was nearly identical to the ephod worn by the high priest (Revelation 17:4; cf. Exodus 28:5-21). The golden cup she held was likely symbolic of the temple vessels, the greatest part of which were gold and silver, according to the Jewish historian Josephus (Wars 5.4.4). On Aaron’s forehead was the inscription “Holy to the Lord” (Exodus 28:36). The harlot’s forehead, on the other hand, bore the title “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations” (Rev. 17:5).

[1] Kathleen M. Kenyon, Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History, 1967, p. 185.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

The Bible study group I belong to has posted fairly comprehensive chapter-by-chapter studies on the book of Revelation. They can all be found here.

PP3: External Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)

August 13, 2009April 26, 2013Adam Maarschalk 4 Comments

This is now the third segment in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. The first segment included the Title Page, Outline, Introduction, and a brief introduction to Partial-Preterism. The second segment consisted of the References page. These segments can be found here:

[1] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/brief-explanation-of-partial-preterism/
[2] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/pp2-references/

We will now move on to a consideration of the date in which the book of Revelation was written. This segment will consider the external evidence for an early date (likely 64-68 AD) as opposed to a late date (95-96 AD). This will be followed by several posts in which we will consider the internal evidence for an early date. Although this post happens to come first, it’s the internal evidence (what Scripture has to say) which is more important.

Adam Maarschalk

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

C. The Book of Revelation: Early or Late Authorship?

In the Dispensational Futurist view, the events leading up to Jerusalem’s downfall in 70 AD are foretold mainly in (a sizeable portion of) Luke 21, and are briefly mentioned at the very beginning of Matthew 24 and Mark 13. The book of Revelation doesn’t even enter the discussion regarding 70 AD, in the Dispensationalist view, because it is said to have been written about 25 years later and must therefore be speaking about events beyond the first century. However, there is not as much historical consensus on this idea as one might be led to think. In fact, according to the Preterist view, which preceded the Dispensational view in Church history by many centuries, the book of Revelation speaks in great detail about Jerusalem’s impending destruction in 70 AD.

I. External Evidence for an Early Date

Naturally, in order for this to be true, it must be established that the book of Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. Otherwise this book could not foretell Jerusalem’s destruction. An early date is not possible, Dispensationalists say, because of the testimony of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who is said to have been a disciple of the apostle John. The following statement made by Irenaeus (120-202 AD), and quoted later by Eusebius (263-339) and others, is often seen as the foundation for the “late date” theory which holds that the book of Revelation was written in 95-96 AD:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign (Grant Jeffrey, 2001).

At face value, it could appear that Irenaeus said John received his vision during the time of Domitian, who reigned from 81-96 AD and was the last emperor of the Flavius Dynasty. However, a number of objections have been made against this conclusion. Among these are the following, articulated by Richard Joseph Krejcir (2009 [1]), who at first set out to prove through research that Revelation was written around 95 AD but changed his stance as he viewed the evidence: [1] This is a second-hand quote, a paraphrase of a statement originally made by Polycarp. [2] It is not entirely clear what Polycarp meant when he said “that was seen.” (The original manuscript of Irenaeus’ work, in ancient Latin, no longer exists in any legible condition, and those who first translated it complained at the time about the poor condition of the manuscript evidence of his work. Some translators contended that the phrase should have been translated “he was seen,” meaning that Irenaeus was referring to John, rather than his apocalyptic vision, being seen during Domitian’s reign.) [3] The writings of Irenaeus suffer from credibility and textual issues. For example, in the same publication from which this quote comes, Irenaeus stated that Jesus ministered for more than 15 years and was crucified at the age of 50.

Kurt Simmons (2009 [1]) cites the following opinion given by Robert Young, the author of Young’s Analytical Concordance, in his commentary on Revelation written around 1885:

It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (1998) records the following quote from the Muratorian Canon (written around 170 AD): “[T]he blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name…John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all” (pp. 93-94). By calling John the predecessor of Paul, and saying that Paul followed John’s rule, the writer of this canon clearly taught that John wrote to the seven churches (Revelation 2-3) before Paul finished writing all of his epistles. The ‘Monarchian Prologues,’ dating back to 250-350 AD, make the same claim. It’s universally agreed that Paul died in 67 or 68 AD.

Other sources during the first several centuries after Christ also refer to an earlier date for the writing of Revelation, even explicitly. Krejcir (2009 [2]) cites statements from three sources: [1] The ‘Muratorian Fragment,’ dating back to 170-190 A.D., overtly states that the book of Revelation was written during the reign of Nero (who reigned from 54-68 AD). [2] The ancient ‘Syriac version’ of the New Testament, dated in the sixth century or earlier, echoes this statement that “Revelation was written during the reign of Nero.” [3] “The ‘Aramaic Peshitta’ version [which had become the standard Aramaic/Syriac translation by the early 5^th century] has a remark that places its date prior to 70 A.D.”

Tertullian, an early church father who lived from 145-220 AD, seems to place John’s banishment to Patmos at the same time as the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, who we know were killed during the reign of Nero prior to his own death in 68 AD. In his writing, “Exclusion of Heretics,” speaking of the history of Rome, he had this to say (Dennis Todd [6], 2009): “…on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”

Jerome (340-420 AD) and others confirmed in their writings that it was Nero who had John plunged into boiling oil. So based on their testimony, and taken together with this quote from Tertullian, it was also Nero who had John banished to Patmos (Of course, the possibility exists that John was banished twice to the island of Patmos, i.e. during Nero’s reign and again during the reign of Domitian). Eusebius (263-339 AD), whose own writings echoed Irenaeus’ controversial statement, wrote that both Nero and Domitian were known for banishing individuals to various islands, but that Domitian showed more mercy and restraint. Quoting from Tertullian, Eusebius said, “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter [Nero] did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished” (Dennis Todd [4], 2009). L.L. Thompson (1990) writes that any campaign of terror during Domitian’s reign was rather selective and (unlike in Nero’s time) was generally aimed at influential members and even members of his family suspected of political conspiracy, rather than toward Christians (p. 95). As far as these testimonies are reliable, then, John found himself on Patmos during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD).

A number of late-date proponents (i.e. those who believe Revelation was written around 96 AD) admit that it’s very difficult to find evidence that Christians were undergoing any significant persecution from Rome in that decade. Therefore, it’s not easy to imagine why John would have been banished to Patmos at that time, something that only Rome could do. George Eldon Ladd (1987), a prominent New Testament scholar who teaches that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign, nevertheless had this to say (p. 37): “The problem with this theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church.” Kenneth Gentry (2002, p. 63) records similar statements from the following late-date authors: Michael Grant (1973), Leon Morris (1969), Reginald Fuller (1971), Donald B. Guthrie (1990), D.A. Carson (1992), Douglas Moo (1992), G.K. Beale (1992).

Andreas, writing in the year 500 AD, said regarding Revelation 6:12-13, “There are not wanting [i.e. it is not hard to find] those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.” A few centuries later, Arethas of Caesarea (850-944 AD), a Byzantine scholar and deacon in Constantinople, said the following in his commentary on Revelation 7:1 and 7:4: “Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ; When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans” (Dennis Todd [5], 2009). So Arethas, being only one example of this viewpoint in his time, clearly believed that John wrote Revelation before 70 AD and that what it contained was a prophecy of those events.

Clement of Alexandria, an early church father who lived from 150-220 AD, wrote of John’s release from Patmos, from where he went to Ephesus to appoint bishops and other leaders. Clement places John on the island of Patmos during the reign of one known as “the tyrant,” but it continues to be debated to whom Clement gave this title:

And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?).

Grant Jeffrey (2001), a Dispensationalist author, seizes upon this quote as proof that Revelation was written in 96 AD. He notes that the tyrant in view here could either be Nero or Domitian, but assumes that it must be Domitian because Clement elsewhere described John as “old and infirm” at some point beyond his days on Patmos, and therefore he must have been more than 90 years old and a contemporary of Domitian. If “the tyrant” was instead Nero, says Jeffrey, then John could hardly have been described as old, because he would have been only about 60 years old. However, this is nothing more than Jeffrey’s own opinion regarding what it means to be “old,” especially when also noting that the apostle Paul once referred to himself as “Paul, an old man” (Philemon 1:9). Paul was likely around 60 years old when he made this statement, and he was in a much better position than Jeffrey to say what it meant to be “old” in the first century AD. Based on multiple testimonies, John did indeed live until nearly the age of 100, but there is nothing to say that John couldn’t have lived and ministered for more than 30 years after his release from Patmos rather than just 2-3 years, unless clearly proven otherwise.

Clement also wrote that after John’s release from Patmos, he once mounted a horse and chased down a backslidden believer, apprehending him and leading him back to the faith. Jeffrey might do well to ask whether John was more likely able to do this at the age of 60 or at the age of 90. Jerome (342-420), a contemporary of Augustine, said that John was seen in 96 AD “and was so aged and weak and infirm that he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people” (Simmons, 2009). It’s not clear what source Jerome was citing, but if this testimony is true it’s hard to imagine John writing the book of Revelation in that same year, let alone appointing multiple bishops throughout Ephesus and overtaking someone on horseback.

Regarding the title “the tyrant,” it is true that this term was applied on more than one occasion to Domitian. However, the same is true for Nero, who certainly fit the title with his reputation as a ruthless, self-centered dictator whose brutality seemed to know no bounds. Apollonius of Tyana (15-98 AD), a Greek philosopher who outlived both Nero and Domitian, clearly found Nero to be much more of a tyrant than Domitian was (Robinson, 1976):

In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many, many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs. …And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mothers, but Nero has gorged himself on this diet.

———————————————————————————————————————

The discussion of the internal evidence for an early date begins here.

The Bible study group I belong to has posted fairly comprehensive chapter-by-chapter studies on the book of Revelation. They can all be found here.

	Kuudere-Hime on Christian Zionism
	totallyrunaway270561… on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	Adam Maarschalk on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	totallyrunaway270561… on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	marcus on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	Adam Maarschalk on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	Adam Maarschalk on II Thessalonians 2 and the Man…
	Adam Maarschalk on The Early Church Fathers and t…
	Kuudere-Hime on The Early Church Fathers and t…
	Adam Maarschalk on The Early Church Fathers and t…
	Kuudere-Hime on The Early Church Fathers and t…
	Adam Maarschalk on The Early Church Fathers and t…

Pursuing Truth

Eschatology studies, preterism, and more

70 AD

PP12: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? Part 2

PP10: Jerusalem’s Destruction Foretold in the Olivet Discourse

PP9: Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 2)

PP8: Daniel’s 70-Week Prophecy (Part 1)

PP7: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 4

PP6: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 3

PP5: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 2

PP4: Internal Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)-Part 1

PP3: External Evidence for an Early Date (Revelation)

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: