Apocalyptic? #24: The “Land” of “Ten Kings”: Josephus

The Two-Letter Greek Word That “Blinds” the Interpreters                     

Jesus was fond of quoting Isaiah (6:9-10) concerning the “blind guide” interpreters of his day, just as I suggest that many modern-day interpreters are “blind” to what is clearly in front of their eyes:

"In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:  'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.  For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.  Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'" (Matthew 13:14-15 NIV.  Cf., also Mark 4:12 and 8:18, Luke 8:10, John 9:39, and Acts 8:26). 

 

Jesus even repeats this “blindness/deafness” concept as an admonition to each of the seven churches of Revelation: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”  Novice students of Revelation sometimes conclude that, since there are so many different takes on Revelation, the book is impossible to understand.  On the contrary, if one reads the various interpretations carefully, one sees that Revelation interpreters agree pretty much across-the-board concerning the interpretation of Revelation 1-5 (the Letters to the Seven Churches and the picture of God and the Lamb in Heaven) and 21-22 (the New Heavens and New Earth).  The many different interpretations are generated concerning what is going on in the seals and trumpets and plagues.  Why is this so?  Most of the differences in interpretation can be boiled down to something the interpreters, for some unexplained reason, cannot “see”:  a misinterpretation of a tiny little two-letter Greek word:  GĒ.  Although virtually ALL of the interpreters know that the interpretation advocated here is very possible, the vast majority of them choose not to “see” the best translation of this little word.  In my blogpost Apocalyptic? #11, I explain: 

The issue as to whether the term "earth" [GĒ] is to be taken as generally referring to the entire world or specifically as referring to Palestine is important.  The Jews most frequently refer to the “Land of Israel” as simply the “Land.”  The Hebrew word for “Land” is the same word translated “Earth [GĒ].”  . . . If Babylon is Jerusalem, the location of her porneia would appear to be in the "land" of Israel. Certainly, either interpretation--Palestine or Earth--is possible, as Charles acknowledges (Commentary, 1:289).

The earth/land is to be the focus of the seven last plagues in 16:1, so this is a very important interpretive issue.  If John is speaking of a destruction which comes upon the land of Israel, rather than the entire earth, it is easy to find historical referents in the Jewish war of 66-73 A.D.

The sole individual who was intimately involved in (and also has written an extensive chronicle concerning) the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 A.D. is Josephus.  As I will demonstrate (from Josephus, himself) shortly, he is one of the “ten kings of the land” described in Revelation 17:12-18 (NKJV, with my correction for the incorrect translation “earth/GĒ”):

12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. ¹³ These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast [i.e., ROME]. ¹⁴ These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

¹⁵ Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot [i.e., JERUSALEM] sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. ¹⁶ And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. ¹⁷ For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. ¹⁸ And the woman whom you saw is that great city [i.e., JERUSALEM] which reigns over the kings of the [LAND/GĒ].”

I expand on my explanation, in my blogpost Apocalyptic? #16:

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 his message to the church in Philadelphia, “the hour of trial” that is coming upon “the inhabitants of the earth/land” (actually, meaning Judea, throughout the seven-year war between the Jews and the Romans from 66-73 A.D.), the NIV translation incorrectly translates what should be translated as “the inhabitants of the land” as “those who dwell upon the earth.”  “The inhabitants of the land/earth” is the exact terminology used to refer to the (non-Jewish) inhabitants of the (Promised) Land (before Israel dominated it) throughout the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, and I and II Chronicles, and even later.  Genesis 34:30, 50:11, Exodus 23:31, 34:12 & 15, Leviticus 18:25, 25:10, Numbers 13:32, 14:14, 32:17, 33:52 & 55, Joshua 2:9, 7:9: 9:24, Judges 1:32 & 33, 2:2, I Samuel 27:8, II Samuel 5:6, I Chronicles 11:4, 22:18, and II Chronicles 20:7 all use the expression “the inhabitants of the land” when referring to the non-Jewish population of the (Promised) Land.  The word translated “land” in every one of these instances is the word ארץ/ARETZ, in the Hebrew, the equivalent of γῆ/GE in the Greek, which virtually all Bible versions incorrectly translate as “Earth,” in Revelation.  A tremendous amount of confusion regarding what Revelation is predicting is removed once one realizes that the prophecies directed against the so-called “earth” (and the “inhabitants of the earth” and the “kings of the earth”) in Revelation are actually only directed against the “land” (of Israel).

G. K. Beale grapples briefly with the translation of GĒ as “land” on pp. 924-925 of his Commentary, arguing that, in Matt. 23:25, GĒ “is best translated ‘earth’ instead of ‘land’ (i.e., land of Israel),” thus, indicating that Beale understands correctly that the term GĒ may be translated either way—earth or land.  To his credit, he cites Chilton who identifies “merchants of the earth” in Revelation 18:11, 23 as “only Israelite merchants” and notes: “Furthermore, the word [GĒ] is used about eighty times in Revelation . . . .  The remaining uses could be debatable, depending on one’s overall perspective on the book . . . .  Similarly, Ford proposes that the list of trade goods . . . are best understood against the background of the economic situation in Jerusalem and especially its temple.”  A major flaw in Beale’s work is that he consistently gives short schrift to views with which he disagrees, and generally concludes his discussion with an arbitrary dismissal of their value.  Here, the value of translating GĒ as “land is, at once, stunningly mind-blowing.

The most significant attack against the credibility of the Book of Revelation has been that critical scholars believe it predicts the destruction of the EARTH [GĒ], as occurring “VERY SOON,” a prediction which, of course, did not occur.  (This problem in New Testament studies is commonly referred to as “The Delay of the Eschaton” or “The Delay of the Parousia,” which biblical problem I will discuss in a future blogpost.  Revelation 1:1 (NIV) states: “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must SOON take place.”  John is to be listened to by his audience, according to Revelation 1:3 (NIV): “because the time is NEAR.”  John repeats his consciousness of the “what must SOON take place” throughout Revelation.  John predicts that the "time" is "near" (Revelation 1:3, 22:10), that Jesus is "coming soon" (Revelation 3:11, 22:20), that the dragon’s "time is short" (Revelation 12:12), and that these things “must soon take place" (Revelation 22:6).

This entire argument against the credibility of the Book of Revelation quickly dissipates—vanishes, melts into thin air—if one understands that it predicts the destruction of the LAND (of Israel=GĒ), AS OCCURRING “VERY SOON.”  It did, in fact, happen and history records it (especially, Josephus).  If Babylon is, as Ford argues and I agree, the old Jerusalem (not Rome), the city DID FALL VERY SOON AFTER JOHN PREDICTED IT.  If the “Kings of the Land” (not the Kings of the Earth) are indicated in Revelation 17:12-18, their actions become immediately understandable and historically demonstrable.  They are being fulfilled, even as John writes the Book of Revelation.

 

The (Ten) Kings of the Earth (i.e., Kings of the LAND)                    

In my book Revelation:  The Human Drama (p. 84) I observe:

John mentions the "kings of the earth" in Revelation 1:5; 6:15; 17:2,18; 18:3,9; 19:19; and 21:24.  In Revelation 1:5, Jesus the Christ is called the ruler (archon) of the kings of the earth.  . . . In Revelation 6:15, the kings of the earth are among those who hide from the great day of wrath.  This may be the wrath of God directed against the kings of the earth in Psalm 2:5.  In Revelation 17:2 and in 18:3 and 9, the harlot Babylon commits porneia [i.e., harlotry] with the kings of the earth. In Revelation 17:18, the harlot Babylon is the city which has "kingship" over the kings of the earth.  In Revelation 19:19, the kings of the earth assemble for war with the Messiah, after the harlot has been destroyed, and the beast is at that point thrown into the lake of fire.  The kings of the earth (at least some of them?) appear to have survived for in Revelation 21:24 the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into the New Jerusalem, along with the glory and honor of the "nations" of those who are "saved."

 

Luke assists us in understanding how the phrase “Kings of the Earth/Land” is to be interpreted, in Acts 4, in his historical application of Psalm 2:

And the peoples [Gk. laoi] think vain things.  The kings of the earth and the rulers [Gk. archontês] were assembled on the same (day) against the Lord and against his Christ.  For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the heathen and the peoples [Gk. laoi] of Israel were gathered together against your holy child, Jesus, whom you anointed. (Acts 4:25-27, emphases mine)

 

Acts 4, thus, identifies two important terms: "rulers" and “kings.”  In Acts 4:5, the “rulers” were gathered along with the “elders and scribes.”  Specifically, verse 6 reports that this group of “rulers” included "Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of high-priestly family" (emphasis mine).  Peter addresses the group in verse 8 as "rulers [archontês] of the people [laos] and elders of Israel" (emphasis mine).  In Acts, then, an authoritative Christian historical application, this Psalm is interpreted as an alliance between the “rulers” of the people (the priestly family) and the “kings of the earth/Land” (Herod and Pontius Pilate, specifically).  The only specific "kings of the earth" who are identified in the Acts 4 passage are Herod and Pilate, both of whom ruled over only the "land" of Israel, although they received their authority from Rome.  John’s favorite Psalm is Psalm 2.  According to Nestle and Aland, he cites this Psalm eight times in the book of Revelation.  For John, this Psalm denounces an alliance between Jewish “rulers” and "the kings of the earth," as does the author of Acts.  The Psalm asks:

Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.

     "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."

     The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.  Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."

     I will proclaim the decree of the Lord:

     He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.  Ask of me and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.  You will rule them with an iron scepter . . .” (Psalm 2:1-9).

Since the “kings of the earth/Land” refers to kings who rule over only the “land” of Israel, we may consult Josephus to see if there was a specific historical group of “ten kings” as described in Revelation 17:12-18 (cited above) who ruled only over the Land of Israel.  Josephus knows of this group of ten kings quite well, because he was one of them.  I state in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (pp. 91-92):

The ten horns of the beast are "ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom but will receive authority as kings one hour along with the beast" (17:12).  If they are identified as the "kings of the earth/land" (meaning Palestine), they enter into the equation, in the sense that they would then be understood to have committed porneia with Babylon [Jerusalem], and therefore this would explain the parallel references to the ten horns of Revelation leaving her naked (17:16) and Ezek. 16:37 where it is Jerusalem's lovers who leave her naked.  Thus, these "kings" would have an explicit link with Rome (since they are the horns of the beast), although that link is implicit.  But these ten horns are described in language that links them philosophically with the second beast [the Jewish high priesthood].  17:17 says, "For God gave into their (the horns') hearts to do His mind and to act in one mind and to give their (plural!) kingdom (singular!) to the beast."  The independent Jewish government of 66 A.D. (headed by the High Priest Ananus) was similarly described by Zeitlin:  "This government . . . played a double role.  . . . Inwardly it was for peace.  It wanted to disarm the extremists so that it should have all power concentrated in its hands and thus be allowed to make peace with Rome."

 

How many rulers did this government have?  TEN.  The following list is from Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book I, Chapter XX.3-4, in William Whiston, Trans., Josephus Complete Works (Grand Rapids, MI:  Kregel Publications, 1974), 497 (emphases and numbers mine):

 

[T]hey . . . appointed a great many generals for the war [with Rome].  [1] Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and [2] Ananus the High priest, were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city [of Jerusalem] . . . .  They also chose other generals for Idumea; [3] Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and [4] Eleazar the son of Ananias, the high priest; they also enjoined [5] Niger, the then governor of Idumea. . . .  Nor did they neglect the care of the other parts of the country, but [6] Joseph the son of Simon was sent as general to Jericho, as was [7] Manasseh to Perea, and [8] John, the Essene, to the toparchy of Thamma; Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa and Emmaus.  But [9] John, the son of Matthias, was made the governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabastene; as was [10] Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees.

 

This tenth king is the same Josephus who wrote this book (Wars of the Jews) from which we are citing the history of the Jewish Roman War.  These "kings of the earth/land" are Jewish (not heathen), but then, Herod, whom Luke named in the book of Acts as being one of the “kings of the earth/land” considers himself to be Jewish, also.  And, if Solomon Zeitlin (mentioned above, the foremost Jewish authority on Josephus and the Jewish-Roman War, in the past century) is to be believed, they act in favor of the "heathen" rule of Rome.  These "kings" are specifically "kings of the land," meaning the "land" of Palestine.  Since they took office at the time the Jews declared their independence from Rome, they actually rule for a short period "along with the beast" (Revelation 17:12).  While they are (plural) kings, they share a (singular) kingdom (Revelation 17:12, 17).  And they do in fact work in league with the beast to destroy Jerusalem (Revelation 17:16-17).  Zeitlin (2:253) observes:

 

“This government . . . was greatly responsible for turning a revolution into a civil war."  The civil war was the instrument, perhaps more than the Roman siege, which destroyed Jerusalem.  The various parties in the war ravaged the citizenry, confiscated and wasted precious food and ammunition.  Vespasian, himself, waited for the Jewish civil strife to complete much of the work of destroying the Jewish nation before he pressed the siege.  Jewish writers of later years blame those internal struggles for the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

In the next blogpost, we will consider John’s (Trumpet 2, Trumpet 3, Bowl 2, and Bowl 3) prophecies concerning the Seas and Rivers turned to blood, according to Josephus’s historical evidence. 

The Logic of Christianity 14: The Parousia is True until Proven False

One of the premises on which the Logic of Christianity is founded is the argument that Jesus fulfilled multiple Old Testament prophecies (see the Gospel accounts). So, what about Jesus’ own prophecies, regarding his “Coming” (aka, the Parousia)? According to a Pew Research poll published August 24, 2016, the vast majority of individuals (78%) who now say that they have no religion were actually raised in religious families.

 Furthermore, "About half of current religious 'nones' who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion.” Prominent among those issues that led to a lack of belief were “learning about evolution when [they] went away to college” and “lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.” That is why I focused the previous post on the truth of “Creation.” I believe the Creation issue is unquestionably essential to the Logic of Christianity.

 Having been an active member for nearly 50 years of the extremely critical academic society—The Society of Biblical Literature—I have been exposed to the onslaught of negative biblical scholarship. I have concluded (as I mentioned at the close of my last blog) that “Along with issues of the end of time apocalypses, and with questions about the historicity of the Gospel accounts, Creation issues are the front lines of the war.” In this blog post and the next, I turn to “issues of the Parousia of Christ and the end of time in Paul, Revelation, and the Gospel mini-apocalypses.”

 Jesus is reported in the Gospels to have predicted that his Parousia would occur within a generation:

1. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus predicts: “[T]here shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming (ERCHOMAI) in his kingdom.” This appears to place a serious time limit for the fulfillment of Jesus’ Parousia prophecy. In the parallel accounts, Mark 9:1, using a different grammatical form of ERCHOMAI, offers the additional detail that this coming would be in “power.” Luke 9:27 doesn’t mention a specific “coming” of Jesus, but states that they will see the “kingdom of God.” Scholars have interpreted Luke’s phraseology as an attempt to “delay the Eschaton.” Eschaton is a word meaning “the End.” These scholars are suggesting that, by the time Luke wrote his Gospel, the church was beginning to back away from a belief that Jesus would return within decades of his Resurrection. But why would Luke (more clearly than the other two evangelists) spell out exactly a time frame for the appearance of the kingdom of God: “when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies” (Luke 21:20, a clear reference to the war on Jerusalem that began in 68 AD, within the “lifetime” of some who heard Jesus’ prophecy)?

\2. Paul, writing in I Corinthians 15, verses 51 and 52 corroborates the expectation that Jesus’ Parousia would happen within the lifetime of some first generation Christians: “51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” Scholars agree that Paul (by using the term “we” in all three instances) is expecting the Parousia within either his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. Earlier in this chapter (15:23), Paul previews what he expands on in the verses just cited: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (PAROUSIA).” Paul wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written down. Clearly, an expectation of an early Parousia of Christ was pervasive in the Early Church.


3. Combine these predictions of the Parousia occurring within the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries with the several statements to the effect that Jesus’ contemporary “generation” would not pass until his Parousia had occurred (Matthew 23:36 and 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32). Of the three Synoptic Gospels, only Matthew (24:3, 27, 37, and 39) actually employs the term PAROUSIA (as does Paul) to name what all three gospels describe as “the Son of man coming (ERCHOMENON) in the cloud/s with power and glory.” Revelation 1:7 agrees that he is coming on the clouds.

4. The amount of time required for the accomplishment of the actual event called Parousia to occur, however, seems to be negligible. Even though the Synoptic Gospels speak of seeing Jesus “coming in the clouds,” which could suggest a “noticeable” time period, Matthew 24:27 suggests the time frame of the Parousia as “lightning” going from the east to the west. Matthew 24:39-41 offers a glimpse of two men in the field or two women at the mill—one taken and the other left—something that seems to imply a split-second disappearance. As cited earlier, Paul, in I Corinthians 15:52 suggests a split-second Parousia: “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.”

5. John, the author of Revelation, writing in 69 AD, (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).

6. It is true that some New Testament books, such as James and II Peter acknowledge the impatient frustrations of some in their audiences that Jesus’ Parousia has not yet occurred. James 5:7-8 states: “7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” James not only reasserts the predicted coming, but also states that it is “drawing near.” II Peter 3:4 addresses the point: “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. . . . 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

7. The strongest argument critical scholars have for suggesting that New Testament Christianity abandoned hope in a Parousia that would occur within the generation to whom Jesus prophesied it is to claim that New Testament books, such as Luke and Revelation, were written well after the time of first generation Christians. While that position has been advanced by some critical scholars, it is by no means proven. For example, while many critical scholars want to date the writing of Revelation at 96 AD, I point out in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (Lehigh University Press, 2001, p. 37): “According to (an apparently private conversation with) John A. T. Robinson, [the renowned British scholar, F. F.] Bruce ‘now inclines’ in the direction of the earlier date [69 A.D.]. Robinson's own thesis is that Revelation (and all other New Testament books) should be redated prior to 70 A.D. Robert M. Grant . . . criticizes Robinson's work . . . Yet, Grant is only critiquing Robinson's book--he is not disavowing the possibility that the date of Revelation was prior to 70. Robinson even cites Grant as allowing for the possibility of an early date for Revelation: ‘Grant, INT, 237, is prepared to say 'a situation between 68 and 70 is not excluded.'"

8. If one redates “all . . . New Testament books . . . prior to 70 A.D.,” there is absolutely no proof in the New Testament that the prophesied Parousia did not occur. On the contrary, if all New Testament books were written prior to 70 A.D., there is a missing link between the New Testament church and the Early Catholic Church. Indeed, renowned church historian S. G. F. Brandon, in his book The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London: S.P.C.K., 1957), claims that any record of the church existing actually disappears for a period of twenty years. What happened to the Christians?

9. In my book on Revelation, page 36, I observe: “Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza claims that ‘New Testament scholars generally agree that the author of Revelation [was writing] . . . at the end of the first century.’ But this consensus is mistaken. If this general consensus view were correct, presumably the intended audience would be primarily gentile in makeup. [However,] R. H. Charles . . . contends that the author of Revelation is Jewish and J. Massyngberde Ford questions whether or not the work is Christian at all, or a thoroughly Jewish book. If any portion of Ford's argument is accepted, what Fiorenza claims to be the consensus view regarding the date, and hence the intended audience of Revelation, needs to change. The Church at the end of the first century appears to be quite gentile in makeup. In this regard, S. G. F. Brandon notes: ‘[T]he author of the Acts in his presentation of the tradition of Christian Origins never gives any indication that the numbers of the Gentile converts were large, while he makes several statements about the considerable numerical strength of the Jewish Christians in Palestine, which . . . must be fairly interpreted as genuine indications of the comparative situation. Yet, Justin Martyr, writing in the second century at approximately 135 A.D., can have a debate with Trypho, the Jew, in a context that seems to clearly indicate the almost total absence of Jews in the Church! What happened to the Jewish Christians?

10. In 1878, a British exegete named J. Stuart Russell published a book entitled The Parousia. Still in print (now, with a Foreword by Reformed leader R. C. Sproul), the author concludes, quite logically (p. 565): “[T]he predictions of our Lord in Matt. xxiv . . . had a veritable accomplishment. . . . These predictions are bounded by certain limits of time. The time is explicitly declared to fall within the period of the then existing generation. . . . And why should it be thought incredible?” Russell anticipates that skeptics of his suggestion will offer an answer to the question just asked: “Because there is no historical evidence of the fact.” However, if such an event were predicted to occur in a negligible period of time—such as “lightning” going from the east to the west or “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” how could there possibly be any historical evidence? The answer to that question, which J. Stuart Russell reached in the 19th Century, is the same answer that I reached, entirely independently of Russell, in the 21st Century: It’s the 20 year absence of the evidence that a Church existed following the Jerusalem War of 66 to 73 A.D. It’s the fact that, once the Church reemerges, it is almost entirely Gentile; whereas, it had been dominated by Jews in the New Testament period. Russell writes: “The principal, if not the only, portion that seems to come within the cognizance of human sense, is the removal of a great multitude of the disciples of Christ from this earthly scene. . . . [T]here should be some trace in history of this sudden disappearance of so vast a body of believers. . . . a blank in history. . . . a failure, at the least, in the continuity of the records of Christianity. [T]he predictions do not require an absolute and universal removal of the whole body of the faithful (for it is manifest that there is a clear distinction made between the watchful and the unwatchful, the ready and the unready . . .) . . . .” Such a huge gap does exist, as seen by the church historians.

11. Does the historical gap in the records of the existence of the Church prove that the Church was raptured? No. That proposition could not possibly be proven, historically. But, it does argue the POSSIBILITY. Everything else in Jesus’ prophecy occurred within a generation: the Temple was both profaned and destroyed, there were wars and rumors of war as the Roman Empire progressively attacked the Land of Israel, Christians were delivered up to councils and synagogues, and beaten, but gave their testimony before kings and governors.

The view that the Parousia predicted by Jesus actually occurred sometime around 70 A.D., is not only my own view and that of J. Stuart Russell, but also (with variants) the view of the 16th Century Jesuit Catholic theologian, Luis del Alcázar and 17th Century Reformed exegete Hugo Grotius. F. F. Bruce observes: "Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) . . . was the first Reformed exegete to give up the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist and he held that some of the visions of Rev[elation] reflect the period before, and others the period after, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70." Bruce continues, "[Grotius] may thus be regarded as the pioneer of the literary-critical approach to the book [of Revelation]." No less than the most respected Revelation scholar of the 20th Century—R. H. Charles--indicates that Revelation should "be taken as referring first and chiefly to the times in which it was originally written." This assertion by Charles summarizes the position of the Contemporary-Historical methodology of interpreting Revelation. Along with the scholarly consensus, the Contemporary-Historical methodology is what I personally follow, even though I agree with Charles’s earlier (69 A.D.) datings, but not his later (96 A.D.) datings.


Unlike Charles (but like Russell and others), I suggest that the predictions of John regarding those times in which Revelation was originally written actually occurred. I offer strong evidence of that view in my book Revelation: The Human Drama. Merrill C. Tenney of Wheaton College refers to the view of R. H. Charles, which he calls the “view of the majority of liberal scholars,” as the Preterist School of Revelation—that the book’s symbolism “relates only to the events of the day in which it was written.” It is with that view of the Parousia—that it was predicted to happen within the generation of Jesus—that I am dealing with this post. It is the majority interpretation of critical scholars. Most of these critical scholars use this interpretation of the Parousia prophecies to discredit the Bible and Jesus. They say that the Parousia, while predicted, did not happen within the first generation. I am arguing that, if one offers the Bible the “presumption” of “truth”—that the Bible is true unless proven wrong—the truth of the Bible must stand. If the Parousia was predicted to occur in a “moment,” in the “twinkling of an eye,” as a “lightning” flash, there is no way that it could be proven that it did not occur . . .

UNLESS there is evidence that the whole church continued in existence uninterrupted from the day it began.

 BUT . . . there is evidence that the existence of the church WAS INTERRUPTED for about 20 years!

Therefore, I conclude that the Parousia very well may have happened around 70 AD, and continue to hold to the presumption of Biblical truth.

So, if the Parousia has occurred (around 70 AD), what does the Bible say about the rest of human history? Revelation offers a very interesting sketch of the remainder of human history, which has occurred with startling precision. The Battle of Armageddon is misunderstood; the Battle of Gog and Magog is yet to occur. It was not predicted to occur until after the 1000 year incarceration of the Dragon. What does all of that mean? These issues will be the subject of my next post.