As I was working on my Ph.D. thesis at Purdue
University, analyzing the Book of Revelation from a Burkean standpoint, a
scholar asked me: “Surely [in this day
and age], you don’t still believe in predictive prophecy, do you?” The answer is: Yes, I do. This fifteenth blog post in this series is
focused on demonstrating that Revelation’s prophecies have been and are coming
true.
As I point out in my book
ArguMentor, “
Miracles and fulfilled prophecies are proofs that do not
necessarily rely on ethos [and,
hence, are logical, relying on logos]. However, ACCOUNTS of miracles, absent
substantiating evidence, do again rely on ethos. It is generally advisable in argumentation
not to rely excessively on ethos,
unless both parties in the dispute are willing to stipulate that the individual
(or individuals) being relied on for ethos
is in a position to know the truth of a matter.” How would one go about proving that Paul met
Jesus via a Bat Qol, on the road to Damascus?
How would one prove that he survived a venomous snakebite
unscathed? How would one prove that
Peter miraculously escaped from prison?
How would one ever prove that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that he
walked on water, changed water into wine, fed 5000 with two fish and five
loaves of bread, raised Lazarus from the dead, and performed numerous
healings? Conversely, how would one ever
disprove those things? One just has to
TRUST the person/s relating the account.
Of course, in the case of the gospel accounts of miracles, apostles and
eye witnesses were willing to die instead of recanting their testimonies—if one
believes the “accounts” of their deaths.
How would one prove (or disprove) these accounts?
Prophecies, on the other
hand, can be tested; they are not substantially reliant on ethos. We have alluded to
some of the prophecies from the Old Testament that point to the coming
Christ/Messiah—prophecies that helped to prove Jesus’ messiahship. We argued, in the post entitled The Logic of Christianity 14: The Parousia is True until Proven False, that Jesus’ own major prophecy regarding the
Parousia should be given the presumption of truth. So, we now turn to the major book of prophecy
in the New Testament to see if it may be given the same presumption of
truth. In Revelation, John
predicted: the Parousia, a seven year
war between the Beast and the harlot Babylon divided by two periods of 3 ½
years (“time, times, and half a time”) each, the Fall of Babylon, the Battle of
Armageddon, Casting the Beast and False Prophet into the Lake of Fire, Casting
the Dragon—chained—into the Abyss for 1000 years, a corresponding 1000 year
Reign of Christ and his Followers on Earth, the Release of the Dragon after the
1000 years, the Rise of Gog and Magog, the Battle of Gog and Magog, Casting the
Dragon into the Lake of Fire, the Destruction of the Old Heavens and Old Earth,
and the Creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth, inhabited by the New
Jerusalem.
INTERNAL SUMMARY:
Before I begin to discuss the fulfillment of these
prophecies, I begin with an internal summary of the syllogistic chain I have
called the Logic of Christianity. We are
nearing the conclusion of our presentation of the Logic of Christianity. If as:
1. The
Logic of Christianity 1 observes, “faith” is a logical continuum,
stretching all the way from believing that something is “barely possible” to
the firm conviction that something is “almost definitely” true, and as:
2. The Logic of Christianity 2 argues
that, in order to build “faith,” we build (rhetorical/logical) arguments in
terms of what Aristotle calls a “syllogistic chain,” with one argument built on
top of another, and as:
3. The Logic of Christianity 3
argues, there have been four logical explosions in the history of man, and the
Renaissance was the one that began to undo faith in Christianity—culminating in
Modernism, which taught us to “doubt” everything (thus, opposing all religious
faith)—but that Postmodernism (around 1950) taught us to “doubt” Modernism, thus,
leaving us with “faith” in probable truth (and reviving the possibility of
religious faith), and as:
4. The Logic of Christianity 4
argues (as the 4th link in the syllogistic chain), the universe
exists as a result of the “action” of an “agent,” and as:
5. The Logic of Christianity 5
argues, that agent acted using the agency of LOGOS in the formation of the
universe, being motivated by both a self-actualization purpose and a social
purpose, and as:
6. The Logic of Christianity 6
argues, the most “logical” contemporarily viable candidate for the agent who
formed the universe is the one single
god who is acknowledged as God by the world’s three major world
religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the God of Abraham, and as:
7.
The
Logic of Christianity 7 argues, Christianity (of the three
religions) best meets the Koranic suggestion
that Abraham’s son (whom God asked to be sacrificed) is to be replaced with a
“great sacrifice,” encompasses Isaiah’s view that God has “no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs
and goats,” and further presents Jesus as Isaiah’s suffering servant who was
led to the slaughter like a lamb, and as:
8.
The
Logic of Christianity 8 argues, Jesus’ Transfiguration in
the presence of at least one Immortal (Elijah) answers the logical need for
proof that Jesus was perfect, and not punishable by death (the wages of sin),
but by subsequently dying anyway, he paid the price for the sins of all of
Adam’s children, and as:
9.
The
Logic of Christianity 9 argues, Jesus’ Crucifixion was
maximum justice for any sin known to mankind, not for Jesus’ own actions, but
for the actions of any human that has ever lived, and as:
10. The
Logic of Christianity 10 argues, Jesus’ Resurrection completes the cosmic
circle of the logic of eternal life that began with the very first man, Adam,
and as:
11. The Logic of Christianity 11
argues, there are no credible proofs that the Resurrection never happened, and
as:
12. The Logic of Christianity 12
argues, the most credible communication God ever made with man—in His own
handwriting (the Ten Commandments)—claims that God created the universe, and
as:
13. The Logic of Christianity 13
argues, presumption demands that Creation is true until proven false, and as:
14. The Logic of Christianity 14
argues, since Jesus is God’s Son, and must not be capable of making errors in
his own prophecies, presumption demands that his prediction of the Parousia is
true until proven false, then we may turn to the rest of the Bible, to
establish that the other parts are also true until proven false, and to
establish that Christianity is a logical worldview.
So, now, we turn to the prophecies included in the
major book of prophecy in the New Testament, Revelation. Did John, the author of Revelation, make huge
mistakes, as some claim? Among the important
Revelation scholars, Adela Yarbro Collins (Crisis
and Catharsis: The Power of the
Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) views Revelation
historically as "something less than absolute bedrock." She tries to present Revelation as a
"perceived crisis" discussion.
She writes: "It is not
because I believe that the author of Revelation was intentionally deceptive or
that he was a psychopathic personality.
It is rather because he was a human like the rest of us." Her historical quest leads her to a quite
difficult position--an inconsistency. On
the one hand, she cites external evidence for "a date [of writing] of
about 95 or 96" under the reign of Domitian. On the other hand, she knows that
"[t]here is insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that Domitian
persecuted Christians as Christians." She points out that many interpreters see
Revelation as a response to this situation:
Domitian was persecuting Christians, even forcing them to worship the
emperor. She says this entire scenario
is false. Yarbro Collins claims the
crisis addressed in Revelation is more perceived than real. This is frustrating. A more elaborate dramatistic analysis is
possible if, as I suggested in the previous post, scholars revisit the dating
of Revelation. More historical
consistency may be found by dating the writing in 69 A.D. (which the Book of
Revelation, itself, claims as a date of authorship). A more consistent and elaborate dramatistic
analysis of Revelation is what my book (Revelation: The Human Drama) attempts to accomplish.
1.
John’s
Own Dating of the Book of Revelation. Virtually
every Revelation scholar weighs in on the claim that the seven or eight-headed
beast of Revelation is Rome. The heads
are kings. Five have fallen. In terms of dating the book, the book claims
to be written during the reign of the sixth head. Hence, calculations ensue to determine the
date of the book. It is difficult to see
how the head count could begin before Julius Caesar. If Julius were head one, head six would be
Nero who died in 68 A.D. Since Julius
was never officially an emperor, it seems more likely that Augustus is head
one, and that Galba who reigned only in 69 A.D. is head six. Since Tiberius was the first Emperor
following Jesus birth, he might be head one in which case Otho who reigned only
in 69 A.D. is head six. Skip Tiberius as
head one and you have Vitellius who reigned only in 69 A.D. as head six. How many heads may be skipped before this
clue of John's becomes meaningless? It
appears that John is claiming that the book is being written around 69
A.D. There certainly are elaborate ways
of making Domitian equal head six, but it seems much easier to conclude that 69
A.D. is the date John claimed to write.
Yarbro Collins is incorrect in dating the writing of Revelation in 95 or
96 A.D., according the Book of Revelation.
She relies on the speculations of individuals who wrote much later than
the cataclysmic events that Revelation predicts.
2.
The
Parousia. Among the
prophecies Revelation advances, this one has already been considered somewhat. I commented in a previous post, “John, the
author of Revelation, writing in 69 A.D., (within the ‘lifetime’ of some who
heard Jesus’ prophecy), indicates that the time is ‘near’ or ‘short’ for the
fulfilling of the apocalyptic prophecies (Revelation 1:3, 12:12). Jesus repeatedly states: ‘I am coming
(ERCHOMAI) quickly’ (Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 12, and 20). If John wrote Revelation in 69 A.D., and
Jesus’ Parousia occurred sometime between 70 and 73 A.D., then the fulfillment
of Jesus’ Coming/Parousia being near/short/quickly, from John’s perspective, would
be accurate indeed!
3.
Revelation
and Daniel. What
I did not mention in the earlier post regarding Revelation and the Parousia was
the extent to which Jesus’ own prophecies and John’s Revelation prophecies tied
themselves to the prophecies of Daniel. Revelation
certainly has elements that are prophetic in the tradition of the Old Testament
prophets. Jonah and Haggai may be the only
Old Testament prophetic books not cited or alluded to in Revelation. John refers most frequently to the books of
Daniel and Ezekiel, followed closely by Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Jesus is quoted in the gospels as alluding to
a prophecy of Daniel concerning an "abomination of desolation" that
would be in control of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Gospel of Luke interprets the prophecy as a promise that armies
would surround Jerusalem before the (then present) generation passed
away." In the view of R. H. Charles,
the first Beast of Revelation 13 “is the Roman Empire" which he equates
with the fourth beast of Daniel. He
further finds in a survey of Jewish and Christian exegetes from the Hellenistic
period that "from 30 A.D. onwards Jewish exegesis universally and
Christian exegesis generally took the Roman Empire to be the fourth kingdom in
Daniel."
a. Daniel
9:24-27 speaks of seventy weeks of years pertaining to the coming of the
Messiah/Christ. During the first
sixty-nine weeks of years (483 years) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, the
city--including its walls--would be rebuilt (9:25) and the messiah prince would
be "cut off" (9:26). [A couple
of such decrees to rebuild Jerusalem, recorded in history, are mentioned here, but there are other possibilities.] 1. If
the starting point of Daniel’s prophetic calculation was the decree of Cyrus
recorded in Ezra 1:1-4, which occurred in 536 B.C., 483 years brings us to 53
B.C. 2.
If the starting point was the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Nehemiah
1 and 2, which occurred in 457 B.C., 483 years brings us to 26 A.D. Both of these dates approximate the lifetime
of Jesus, so when Jesus (in Matthew 24:15), at approximately the year indicated
by the Artaxerxes calculation, speaks of Daniel’s “abomination of desolation”
occurring in the future, he is effectively arguing that the Daniel prophecy is in
the process of being fulfilled within the lifetime of his audience. In (Daniel 9:27) the last week of years,
"a desolator on the wing of abominations" would come--a figure which
Mark 13:14 identifies with Jesus' prediction of the fall of Jerusalem within a
generation (Mark 13:30). In the
"middle" of that last week (the final seven years), the desolator (?)
"shall cause the offering and sacrifice to cease" (Daniel 9:27). Dividing the final seven years in the
"middle" leaves two periods of "three and one-half years"
each--one before the cessation of sacrifice and one following the cessation of
sacrifice. Daniel concludes in 12:11
with the words: "And from the time
the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes
desolate set up, a thousand two hundred ninety days [= roughly, three and
one-half years]," after which will come qeytz (a word which means "end" but is easily associated,
for plays on words, with the verb "to awaken," cf. Ezekiel 7:6). The various interpretations of Daniel by Old
Testament scholars need not be traced in this instance. The early church clearly interpreted Daniel
in terms of the fall of Jerusalem. Thus,
the reference to something happening in the middle of the last week of the
seventy weeks of years is tantamount to the ultimate brink of the end (the
Parousia?). If the "great city
which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their lord was
crucified" (Revelation 11:8) is an unmistakable reference to Jerusalem, as
several scholars believe, the identification of the significance of Jerusalem's
doom for John's audience is supported.
Syncretistic tendencies have been
identified by Revelation scholars as the porneia
(fornication) of which John accuses Jezebel and Babylon. Perhaps syncretistic tendencies are an
important rationale in John's choosing "Babylon" as the name of the
harlot. John appears to be greatly
influenced by the book of Daniel. The
heroes of Daniel are the young men who resist syncretism, once they have been
carried away into "Babylon."
They refuse to eat Babylonian food (Dan. 1:8) on the grounds that they
would be defiled (summolunô in LXX)
by (the syncretistic? act of) eating the king's food. This is possibly the verse that John had in
mind when he spoke in 14:4 of the "virgins" who were not
defiled. John uses the cognate molunô (defiled). The Babylonians attempt to assimilate the
young men into their religion by renaming the young men with Babylonian names,
often associated with Babylonian deities. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are
renamed respectively Shadrach, Meshach, and Aved Nego (Abednego). Daniel is renamed Belteshazzar. Daniel is determined to resist the law
outlawing prayer to his God, even if it means incarceration with lions. The other three young heroes are determined
to resist pagan worship, even if it means death in a fiery furnace. These heroes are models of
anti-syncretism. Even John's literary
style in many ways imitates this thoroughly anti-syncretistic book. (Incidentally, Belteshazzar is a name that
philologists cite as evidence for a later date for the book of Daniel, because
the "t" should not be in the spelling. However, if the Jewish scribes who resisted
syncretism added the "t" to the name Belshazzar in order to avoid the
association of the hero Daniel with the Babylonian god, Bel, in the same way
that the scribes added an extra "y" to Jerusalem, making it
Yerushalayim, thus avoiding a pagan deity association, then the misspelling of
Belshazzar is further evidence of an anti-syncretistic sentiment related to the
book of Daniel.)
4.
Daniel
and Revelation’s Seven-Structure (“Time, Times, and Half a Time”). The language in
Revelation 11:2-3, related to the "forty-two months" = "a
thousand two hundred sixty days" (= three and one half years) corresponds
to Daniel 9 and the times of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In fact, the "three and one-half
years" of the testimony of the Witnesses (11:3) and the "three and
one half years" of the trampling of the city by the Gentiles (11:2) have
overwhelming significance themselves.
They appear to be either one or both halves of the "last week of
years" described by Daniel in chapter 9.
The historical fact that the Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 A.D. lasted
an exact SEVEN YEARS (or in Daniel’s terminology a final “week of years”) which
occurred within the same generation as Jesus’ audience, when he predicted the
Parousia, and which was constantly filled with “wars and rumors of wars” (Mark
13:7), and which concluded in two segments of “time, times, and half a time,”
from John’s Revelation prophecy, there is stunning accuracy to support the
prophecies of Daniel, Jesus, and John.
5.
Babylon
(Jerusalem) is Fallen!
Yarbro-Collins is wrong, not only in her dating the writing of
Revelation, but also in her identification of Babylon as Rome. The execution of Jesus had been accomplished
by means of an alliance between the Jewish High Priestly party and the local
representatives of the Roman Empire--Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate. It was common knowledge among Jewish leaders
that the High Priestly family was indebted to Herod's family for its prestige
and power. Antipas' father, Herod the
Great, had deposed the then-current (Hasmonean) High Priestly family in the
years preceding Jesus' birth. In its
place Herod (the Great) had installed a High Priest from among the Jews of the
Babylonian Diaspora (those Jews who had been "carried away" into
Babylon in the sixth century B.C. and who had not yet returned to
Palestine). It is probable that the term
"Babylon" in Revelation and I Peter is a code word for this High
Priestly family and/or Jerusalem, the city controlled by the (Babylonian?) High
Priestly family. Yarbro Collins argues
that John's use of the term Babylon provides evidence for a later date. Unfortunately, her reasoning is
circular. She points out, "Most
commentators agree that 'Babylon' . . . is a symbolic name for Rome." This is circular reasoning since most
commentators also place the date of writing at 96 A.D. To her credit, Yarbro Collins observes: “Most of the occurrences of Babylon as a
symbolic name for Rome in Jewish literature are in the Apocalypse of Ezra . .
., the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch . . ., and the fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles. . . . [T]he context makes it abundantly clear
. . . Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an
earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.” This is an interesting and valuable
observation which pertains to the interpretation of the term Babylon. But, in her greatest use of circular
reasoning, Yarbro Collins concludes, "It is highly unlikely that the name
would have been used before the destruction of the temple by Titus. This internal evidence thus points decisively
to a date after 70 C.E." Has Yarbro Collins completely missed the point
(she personally implied) that since Babylon is never associated in Revelation
with "destroy[ing] the temple and Jerusalem," Babylon in Revelation
is not Rome? Babylon in Revelation is
called a harlot. J. Massyngberde Ford
points out, "The harlot . . . is also a Jewish OT theme depicting Jerusalem
. . . and there is no clear indication that Babylon is Rome as in the Christian
Sibyllines." If, as Ford
understands, the harlot Babylon is faithless Jerusalem, John is continuing his
rejection of the villains' nomenclature.
Thus, he renames "the holy city" (11:2) in which the
"Lord was crucified" (11:8), "Sodom and Egypt." If he refers to Jews who dwell in Judea, he
calls them the "inhabitants of the land" and leaves off the words
"of Israel" (in the same way that the “inhabitants of the land” in Genesis
34:30, 50:11, Numbers 14:14, 32:17, 33:52, 33:55, Joshua 2:9, 7:9, 9:24, Judges
1:33, etc., refers not to the Israelites, but to the pagan inhabitants of the
land of Israel).
·
Revelation
17:6 identifies Babylon as being "drunk from the blood of the saints and
from the witnesses [martus] of
Jesus." Revelation 18:24 claims
that "in her was found the blood of the prophets and of the saints, and of
all those having been slain on the earth/land." The only specific city accused elsewhere in
the New Testament of "killing the prophets" is Jerusalem (Matt.
23:29-39; Lk. 11:47-51; 13:33-34). In
the Old Testament, Ezekiel 22:2ff. calls Jerusalem the "city of
bloodshed" who "brings on herself doom by shedding blood."
·
Ezekiel
16:13 calls Jerusalem "a queen." In Revelation 18:7, Babylon calls herself a
"queen." Both are actually
harlots, according to their respective "prophets."
·
Isaiah
50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8 speak of God giving Jerusalem/Israel/Judah a certificate
of divorce. Ford sees the scroll with
seven seals as a specific type of bill of divorce (Ford, 92-94). The progressive opening of these seven seals,
as God progressively moves towards divorcing Babylon/Jerusalem is described in
Revelation chapters 5-11.
·
In
Ezekiel 16:29, Jerusalem increased her harlotry to "Babylonia, a land of
merchants." In Revelation 18:3, the
kings of the earth/land commit porneia
with Babylon and the merchants of the earth became rich with her.
·
Jeremiah
4:16 speaks of armies coming to destroy Jerusalem. Jeremiah 6:1 urges people to "Flee from
Jerusalem." In Revelation 18:4,
God's people are warned to "come out of her."
·
Ezekiel
16:37ff. warns Jerusalem the harlot that all of her lovers will gather against
her and strip her naked. Revelation
17:16 reports that the ten horns of the beast "will hate the harlot and
will make her desolated [erêmoô] and
naked and will eat her flesh and will burn her with fire."
·
Not
only will Babylon be left desolated in the previous verse, but also in 18:16
and 19. Likewise, the Septuagint/LXX of
Daniel 9:27 leaves Jerusalem "desolated," and Matthew 24:15,
predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, refers to Daniel's abomination of
desolation, at which point Jesus urges those in Judea to "flee."
6.
The
Battle of Armageddon. During
the years immediately preceding the destruction of the temple, John refers to
Jerusalem as "Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified"
(Revelation 11:8). In this period, John
writes of "the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are
a synagogue of Satan" (2:9). At
this time, John calls Jerusalem "the harlot Babylon" (as J. M. Ford
interprets) and exults in her gory destruction.
Since John cannot refer to the Battle of Jerusalem, he gives the battle
a new name: Armageddon. The word Armageddon is translated into the
Greek from the Hebrew har məgiddô (הר מגידו). The word Har is translated into English as
“mountain.” The word məgiddô is spelled in the Greek translation (LXX)
of II Chronicles exactly as it is spelled in Revelation. Here is the account of the Battle of Megiddo
from II Chronicles 35:20-25: “After all this, when Josiah had set the temple
in order, Neco king of Egypt came up to make war at Carchemish on the
Euphrates, and Josiah went out to engage him. But Neco sent messengers to him,
saying, "What have we to do with each other, O King of Judah? I am not
coming against you today but against the house with which I am at war, and God
has ordered me to hurry. Stop for your own sake from interfering with God who
is with me, so that He will not destroy you." However, Josiah would not
turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to make war with him; nor
did he listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, but came to make war
on the plain of Megiddo. The archers shot King Josiah, and the king said to his
servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants
took him out of the chariot and carried him in the second chariot which he had,
and brought him to Jerusalem where he died and was buried in the tombs of his
fathers.” Note, however, that Megiddo is
not a mountain—but a plain. The only
mountain associated with the Battle of Megiddo is Mount Zion (or Jerusalem)
where Josiah died. John is continuing to
refuse to refer to Jerusalem as Jerusalem or Mount Zion (a term he uses to
refer to the 144,000 Christians). So he
refers to Mount Zion as Mount Megiddo.
The Battle of Armageddon took place from 66 to 73 A.D. Jerusalem was annihilated (in the same way
that Josiah was killed and his kingdom was destroyed in 609 B.C. Revelation is true in it’s prediction in 69
A.D. that Babylon the Great (understand: Jerusalem) would fall near/short/quickly.
7.
The
Destruction of the Beast and the False Prophet in the Lake of Fire. What is the Lake of Fire? For many individuals, it is just a synonym
for Hell. But, most don’t realize that,
before Revelation, no one ever spoke or wrote of a Lake of Fire. John coined the phrase. For John, as for other Jews of his
generation, a concept of a whole from which parts spring up and to which they
return is the concept of the Nehar di-Nur (the "stream of
fire"). This is not quite yet,
however, a “lake of fire.” Louis
Ginzberg states: "Thus there are
angels who spring up daily out of the stream Dinur (='stream of fire'; comp.
Dan. 7.10); they praise God, and then disappear. Out of every word uttered by God angels are
created." Is John familiar with the
"stream of fire"? He does not
mention this stream, but he describes a "lake of fire" into which the
Devil and his angels are thrown. I
believe that not only is John familiar with the "stream of fire," he
even adds a twist to the concept: A
stream keeps on flowing, but a "lake" is the end of the line. (The Lake does not allow water or fire to
flow out of it; if something or someone is cast into the “lake” of fire, it
will never ever reemerge.) Later Jewish
writers speak of souls passing through the river of fire where "the
wicked" are "judged."
Whether these Jewish writers originated the idea of a river of fiery
judgment or picked up on John's "lake of fire" is uncertain, but
their concept does seem to demonstrate the ease with which fiery judgment and
the stream of fire may be connected. The
stream of fire is a magma anecdote--the whole in which God's "words"
exist in their "essential" nature before and after becoming
"angels" (= parts). In
Revelation 19:19, the kings of the earth assemble for war with the
Messiah/Christ, after the harlot (=Babylon=Jerusalem) has been destroyed, and
the Beast is at that point thrown into the lake of fire. Remember the seven heads of the Beast who
were seven kings: Beginning with the
first in the Caesarean family, Julius Caesar, if Julius were head one, head six
would be Nero who died in 68 A.D.
The
seventh head (currently reigning as John wrote) would be Galba who reigned only
in 69 A.D. or Otho who reigned only in 69 A.D. or Vitellius who reigned only in
69 A.D.
Vespasian who became emperor
after these 3 short-lived emperors in 69 A.D. was the eighth head—Nero come
back to life! Caird comments: "Since the main trait of the monster's
character is that it wages war on God's people, the emperor who best fits the
specifications is Nero. His suicide in
A.D. 68 could have been regarded as a deadly wound. . . . Only with the accession of Vespasian
did the monster come to life again.”
Vespasian was Nero's general whom Nero sent to besiege Jerusalem, and
who in 69 A.D. became emperor after the Roman civil war which followed Nero's
suicide (in 68 A.D.). With Caird, I find
Vespasian to be the best candidate for the head which "seemed to have had
a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed" (Revelation 13:3). No other candidate for emperor could more
clearly have represented Nero-returned-to-life to the Jews in 69 A.D. than did
the general whom Nero sent to attack Jerusalem.
Whether this eighth head was Otho, Vitellius, or Vespasian, however,
there was no longer a true “Caesar.”
When Nero committed suicide, the last of the Caesarean dynasty
died. Vespasian represented a new family
on the throne—The Flavian dynasty. Nero
was the Beast whose name meant “666.” An
Aramaic document of Nero's reign from the Wadi Murabba'at, in Jordan, contains
the required spelling for Nero Caesar which would equal six hundred sixty-six
in either Aramaic or Hebrew. (In Aramaic
and Hebrew, letters stood for numbers—similar to the way Latin letters do in
Roman numerals.) With the death of Nero,
the entire Caesarean dynasty of emperors (the Beast) could be thrown into the
Lake of Fire. The dynasty never
returned. The other individual (besides
the Beast) who was thrown into the Lake of Fire, at this point, was the “False
Prophet” (Revelation 19:20). I explain in Chapter Four of my book
Revelation:
The Human Drama, specifically with respect to "priestly"
terminology, John's "false prophet" is probably a high priestly
reference. John’s description of the
"second beast" is probably also a reference to the high priestly
family. His "image of the
beast" and the name "Babylon" are probably also high priestly
references. With the destruction of
Jerusalem, the entire (Babylonian) high priestly family that had usurped the
high priesthood (with the help of Herod the Great) was destroyed—never again to
preside over any sacrifices in the Temple (which was also destroyed). With this destruction, the False
Prophet/Babylon/image of the Beast could be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Revelation is true until proven false.
8.
The
Dragon in the Abyss/Bottomless Pit. In Revelation, the dragon is progressively
defeated. First, he (the dragon) is cast
out of heaven (Revelation 12:9-10).
Apparently, this occurred when Jesus died and paid the price for the
sins of humanity. There is, therefore,
no longer any room for an “accuser” in heaven.
Then, he is chained and confined in the Abyss for a thousand years
(Revelation 20:1-3). Then, before the
End, he will be released from the Abyss for a period of time for his last
battle—of Gog and Magog (Revelation 20:3, 7-9).
Finally, at the End, he is cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10). The Abyss is not Hell. It is not a place that no one can ever escape
from. Revelation 11:7 speaks of the
Beast who comes up from the abyss "conquering" God's two witnesses--i.e.,
killing them. If he can come up from the
Abyss, being confined to the Abyss is not a final judgment situation. It is only a temporary quieting of his
activities. Which of his activities are
quieted? “Deceiving the Nations”
(Revelation 20:3 and 8).
9.
Thousand
Year Reign. Caird
writes: "We return therefore to the
question raised by the very first sentence of the Revelation. What did John think was 'bound to happen
soon'? Certainly not the End, which was
at least a millennium away." Which
prophecies did John expect to happen near/short/quickly? The Parousia?
(Yes. See the previous post— The Logic of Christianity 14). The Fall of Jerusalem? Yes, it is a historical fact. History records it in almost as much gory
detail as John prophesied. The beginning
of the 1000 year reign (The Millennium)?
Yes. The destruction of the Beast
and the False Prophet in the Lake of Fire?
Yes. The imprisonment of the
Dragon? Yes. The End of history? No. There
is a cyclical plot in John's description of the reign of the Messiah. The messianic reign begins on the heels of
the Battle (of Armageddon) in which a woman (the harlot Babylon) is destroyed (16:16ff.),
and it ends with a Battle (of Gog and Magog) which the "new
Jerusalem" wins. It begins with a
preliminary defeat of the dragon, with his being imprisoned in the abyss
(20:3), and ends with the ultimate defeat of the dragon, his being cast into
the lake of fire (20:10). Having
destroyed the harlot Babylon in the battle of Armageddon, the Lamb and his
bride celebrate and rule the earth in 19.1-20.6. The beast and the false prophet (Rome and the
Jewish High Priesthood) are cast into the lake of fire. The dragon/Satan is confined for a thousand
years to the Abyss. The Christian
martyrs are resurrected and reign for one thousand years with Christ. Since the significance of confining the
Dragon to the Abyss was to curtail his activities of “deceiving the nations,”
it is interesting to note that (despite successive world empires—Babylonian,
Mede-Persian, Greek, and Roman—for hundreds of years), with the Fall of the
Roman Empire, world empires vanished for a thousand years. Calculate the thousand years from the death
of Nero in 68 A.D. to 1068 A.D. or from the Christianizing of Rome under
Constantine in 313 A.D. to 1313 A.D.
Either way, you are brought to the Renaissance. For the thousand years prior to the
Renaissance--as my professor of Ancient Greek Poetry at Indiana University,
Willis Barnstone (nominated four
times for the Pulitzer Prize in Poetry), first brought to my
attention—Christian literature dominated the world and secular literature was
progressively destroyed “FOR A THOUSAND YEARS.”
Furthermore, there was a thousand year gap in the military atrocities of
the great world empires. For example, “During their first war with Carthage, a
Roman fleet with 100,000 men was lost in a single day. Rome responded to this
catastrophic loss by calmly sending in more troops and continuing the war for
another decade and a half. Over the course of the second Carthaginian War,
Rome suffered nearly 400,000 casualties without batting an eye. The Roman
Empire wasn't really interested in outwitting its opponents -- it just
outlasted them. If Rome had a problem, it kept throwing troops at it until it
stopped causing trouble. When the Roman Empire fractured, Europe's economy became
increasingly localized. Without an intercontinental tax base and a healthy
division of labor, giant standing armies became artifacts of a bygone era. This
sudden lack of fiscal infrastructure also left the scores of kings and princes
who filled the Roman power vacuum strapped for cash. Sure, they probably would
have wanted to roar through the
continent with a million men, legion style; they just didn't have the money to
pay such huge armies. Most leaders responded
to this problem by introducing a feudal system; they divided and distributed
their land holdings, dealing out plots for military service. Since very few of
them had all that much land to begin with, this kept the armies relatively tiny
-- even the most massive military forces of the latter stages of the era had
well under 20,000 soldiers. Most armies were basically just large mobs. As
such, warfare in the Dark Ages was defined by quick skirmishes fought between tiny
forces. There were no campaigns, no decade-long struggles” (http://www.cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages.html). And, what about
Jesus and his martyrs reigning?
According to an even antagonistic source,
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95, “Christianity
may have grown from about 1,000 believers in 40 C.E. to about 5-8 million in
300 C.E. – just 260 years. That would require a growth rate of 40% per
decade, as shown by this table:
|
Year
|
Number of
Christians, given 40% growth per decade
|
|
40
|
1,000
|
|
50
|
1,400
|
|
60
|
1,960
|
|
70
|
2,744
|
|
80
|
3,842
|
|
90
|
5,378
|
|
100
|
7,530
|
|
150
|
40,496
|
|
200
|
217,795
|
|
250
|
1,171,356
|
|
300
|
6,299,832
|
. . . That really is tremendous
growth.” According to
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txx/numberch.htm:
Growth of the Church in Numbers.
|
Era
|
Estimated
Christians
|
|
First
century
|
500,000
|
|
Second
century
|
2,000,000
|
|
Third
century
|
5,000,000
|
|
Fourth
century
|
10,000,000
|
|
Fifth
century
|
15,000,000
|
|
Sixth
century
|
20,000,000
|
|
Seventh
century
|
24,000,000
|
|
Eighth
century
|
30,000,000
|
|
Ninth
century
|
40,000,000
|
|
Tenth
century
|
50,000,000
|
|
Eleventh
century
|
70,000,000
|
|
Twelfth
century
|
80,000,000
|
|
Thirteenth
century
|
75,000,000
|
|
Fourteenth
century
|
80,000,000
|
|
Fifteenth
century
|
100,000,000
|
|
Sixteenth
century
|
125,000,000
|
|
Seventeenth
century
|
155,000,000
|
|
Eighteenth
century
|
200,000,000
|
I
think that we can historically say that not only Revelation’s prediction that
Jesus’ witnesses “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation
20:4), but also that Revelation’s prediction that the God and Christ “shall
reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 11:15, 22:5) came and is coming true.
10. Satan’s Release after the Thousand
Years. Revelation
20:7-15 describes the final events of humanity's earthly existence. After the thousand years, Satan is released
to raise one final army to fight against the camp of God's people, the city he
loves. Once again, he “deceives the
nations.” In my third blog post in this
series, “The Logic of Christianity
3: The Four Logical Explosions of Human
History,” I pointed to the writings of the atheist John Thomas Didymus, and
his article “Failed End-of-World Predictions of Jesus’ Coming: Montanists and the Ecumenical Council (1000
AD)”: “The Ecumenical Council sitting in
999 declared solemnly that the world would end on January 1, 1000 A.D. That was
the signal for mass madness. On the last day of the year, St. Peter's at Rome
was filled with a crazed mass of people, weeping, trembling, screaming in fear
of the Day of the Lord. They thought that God would send fire from heaven and
burn the world to ashes . . . . But New
Year came and passes [sic] and nothing happened.” (Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5476263). I credited that 1000 A.D. event (or lack of
an event) for shocking the world into the Renaissance (a logical abandonment of
the teaching of the Church), because the Church had relied on the Book of
Revelation (aka, the Apocalypse) in predicting that Jesus’ reign on earth would
last 1000 years. Certainly, the Ecumenical
Council believed that John’s Revelation was predicting that the BEGINNING of
the 1000 year reign and the 1000 year imprisonment of the Dragon (aka, the
Millennium) would be during the First Century A.D. The impetus for the Renaissance began when
Christians’ faith in the end of the world did not materialize at the time they
expected it. Not only did the
Renaissance bring with it a rebirth of humanism, but also a new rise in
“nationalism.” According to http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/11/FC79,
”Just as the turmoil of the Later
Middle Ages had cleared the way for sweeping economic, cultural, and
technological changes in Western Europe, it likewise produced significant political
changes that led to the emergence of a new type of state in Western Europe: the
nation state.” Is it mere coincidence that Revelation
predicted a millennium in which the Dragon (who raised up world powers) would
be inhibited in his “deceiving the nations” only to be released at the end of
the thousand years to “deceive the nations” again? Yet, this happened! As cited earlier, “Rome suffered nearly 400,000 casualties without
batting an eye.” By contrast, as noted
earlier, during the millennium following the Roman Empire, “warfare . . . was defined by quick skirmishes fought between tiny
forces. There were no campaigns, no decade-long struggles.” But, once the thousand years were concluded,
the deceiving of the “nations” begins again.
From the Hundred Years War of the 14th and 15th
centuries to the War of Roses to the Italian Wars to two World Wars of the 20th
Century, it is clear that nationalism and attempts at creating new world
empires have been rising. Revelation’s
predictions are, once again, true. The
Dragon has been released.
11. The Battle of Gog and Magog. So, now we look to the future predictions of
Revelation. Satan's final world powers,
Gog and Magog, are destroyed by fire. Who
are these entities? We don’t know, but
we may speculate. What about Gog and
Magog? What about the surrounding of the
beloved city? Now, Hal Lindsey, you may
try your hand. These were futuristic for
John. The symbols used are much more
ambiguous and, thus, open to speculation.
Christians can surely supply interpretations that acknowledge the
strength of the Contemporary-Historical method and yet preserve the expectant
hope for the future triumphant return of Christ.
12. The End of Satan, Death, and the Old
Earth. Satan and all
whose names are not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of
fire. Death itself is thrown into the
lake of fire. The epilogue, chapters 21
and 22, describe the new heavens and new earth in which the Lamb and his bride
will spend eternity.
These final two
prophecies have not, to the best of my knowledge, yet been fulfilled. But, what does that prove? It proves only that the world is continuing
to exist. It does not prove that it will
always continue. Revelation is true
until proven false.
