The Narrow Path Ministries

This is from volume II of my book. Check it out! A lot of this is stuff you will not get elsewhere. http://www.amazon.com/The-Antichrist-Se ... ap_title_1

The book of Revelation was referring to a soon coming crisis when it was written. The time was "near" (Rev. 1:1-3). The fulfillment of its prophecies "was at hand" (Rev. 22:6-11). Historically, scholars have debated whether the background of Revelation is the persecution by Nero or Domitian. Friesen notes the following on this.

In the writings of nineteenth-century New Testament scholars, the atrocities committed by Nero against members of the churches in Rome provided a plausible social setting for Revelation. As the twentieth century began, the scholarly consensus about the date of Revelation shifted from the end of Nero’s reign (i.e., ca. 68-70) to late in Domitian’s reign (i.e., 95-96). One facet of this shift was the development of arguments for a Domitianic persecution of Christians. These arguments have largely been abandoned in recent years. It is now clear that political executions in the imperial center increased late in Domitian’s reign, but there is no support for a systematic campaign against Christians in Rome or elsewhere. The rejection of the Domitianic persecutions in recent literature has not caused a return to a Neronic date for Revelation. Rather, there has been a general move away from crisis theories as a way of understanding Revelation.63

As I have stated, the immediate background of the book of Revelation is neither the Neronic nor Domitianic persecutions. These persecutions were relatively limited and not empire-wide. Ladd notes the following on this: “The persecution under Nero (AD 54-68) was limited to Rome and involved only a relatively few martyrs; the persecution under Domitian (AD 81-96) was of very limited scope.” 64

The tribulation that Revelation is referencing was more widespread than either the persecutions of Nero or Domitian. In Revelation 7 John sees those who went through “the great tribulation” (v. 14); they come from “all nations” (v. 9). Note, it does not say they were all killed, however (cf. vv. 16-17). The historical context of Revelation is the time just after Nero’s death in AD 68. This was the time when the corporate beast suffered its mortal wound (it would come back to life with the accession of Vespasian and Titus (cf. Rev. 13:12-14). Although John was probably banished to Patmos under the Neronic persecution, it is not that persecution Revelation is focusing on. Instead Revelation is referring to the then soon coming three-and-a-half-year period (forty-two months) of AD 67-70 (cf. Rev. 11:2) This time period would see the demise of the Roman Empire with the death of Nero (the lights going out on the kingdom of the beast, Rev. 16:10; cf. Ezek. 32:3-8) and its resurrection with the rise of the Flavian dynasty (i.e., Titus and Vespasian, which was the corporate beast coming back to life, Rev. 13:1-5).

The primary focus of Revelation 13 is the individual beast’s war against the inhabitants of the land of Israel (those who dwell on the land, Rev. 13:12, 14; it was those in Judea who would need to flee the great tribulation; Matt. 24:15-21). This will culminate in chapters 17-18 with his destruction of harlot Babylon (unfaithful Jerusalem, cf. Isa. 1:21; Ezekiel 16). This time of crisis would not have manifested itself to those outside the land as a direct persecution against believers as much as the need to swear allegiance to one of the various factions fighting for control of Rome in the upheavals of AD 68-70 (AD 69 is known as “the year of four emperors”). With Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian/Titus vying for supremacy in AD 69, showing loyalty—manifested in the form of worship—to a potential emperor would have been of premier importance during this dangerous time. Saying God was your only Master could easily get one into serious trouble.
Josephus records that under the Flavians those who would not acknowledge Caesar as Lord were put to death:

The next incident occurred in Egypt, and cost the lives of many Jews. Some members of the party of the Sicarii [Jewish revolutionaries] had managed to escape to Alexandria, where not satisfied with being still alive they started a subversive movement, urging many of their hosts to claim their freedom and to regard the Romans as no whit their superiors, honouring God as their only master . . . They [the Jewish elders of Alexandria] . . . urged the gathering [of Jews] to take care that these men [the Sicarii] did not bring them to ruin: they could justify themselves to the Romans by handing them over. Recognizing that the danger was very real the audience accepted their advice, and making a furious rush at the Sicarii rounded them up. Six hundred were caught then and there: a number escaped into Egypt and Egyptian Thebes, but were soon apprehended and brought back. There was universal astonishment at the fortitude and desperation—or was it strength of mind?—that they displayed. Subjected to every form of torture and bodily suffering that could be thought of, for the one purpose of making them acknowledge Caesar as lord, not a man gave in or came near to saying it, but rising above the strongest compulsion they all maintained their resolve, and it seemed as if their bodies felt no pain and their souls were almost exultant as they met the tortures and the flames. But nothing amazed the spectators as much as the behaviour of young children; for not one of them could be constrained to call Caesar lord.65 (underlined emphasis mine)

These events happened around AD 74 when Vespasian had been emperor for over four years. This is significant because it was a time when the empire was settled. If such things were happening in AD 74, they certainly would have happened in the much less settled times leading up to AD 70. The whole empire was on the line in AD 68-69; ascertaining which of the four competing Caesars (cf. the three horns removed before the little horn in Dan. 7:8, 24) a given Roman subject was loyal to was of utmost importance. Saying one was a Christian and could not confess Titus Flavius Vespasianus—father and/or son—as Lord would have been a perilous thing to do. (It should be noted that both Titus and his father had the same name. It should also be noted that Titus was given the title if “Caesar” by his father in late AD 69.) As Josephus notes, the sentence for honoring God as one’s “only master” would have been death. Notice how even children were required to worship the Flavian Caesar as Lord or die. This parallels Revelation 13:16, where all of those on the land, “both small and great,” are required to worship the beast or face death.

Consider the following from Roman historian Gwyn Morgan on how all those living in Syria were required to swear loyalty to the Flavian Caesar: “As for Syria . . . Mucianus administered the oath to all the legions and all the civilians there before 15 July” (emphasis in original).66 It would have been similar in the other provinces. This would have been the fourth time in a year that someone living in the Roman Empire might have been called upon to acknowledge a given Caesar as Lord (again, AD 69 is known as “the year of four emperors”). Unlike the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, this need to show loyalty in AD 69-70 would have been empire-wide.

THE CRISES OF AD 67-70
As for Friesen’s observation of scholars moving away from crisis theories as a way of understanding Revelation, it simply shows that they have not been on the right track. There is a plethora of crises if one is focusing on the correct historical period. The forty-two-month period of AD 67 to AD 70 (Rev. 13:4-5; cf. Dan. 7:25, 9:26-27; 12:1-7) was full of crises. In the physical realm, the Roman Empire almost collapsed in AD 68-69 (cf. Rev. 13:3; 16:10). As Wellesley notes concerning the year AD 69, “In all the records of Rome there can scarcely be another year that is so full of calamity . . . .”67 While the Roman Empire almost collapsed, the Jewish nation (harlot Babylon) did collapse, being destroyed by Titus (the individual beast) in AD 70.

In the spiritual realm (which is ultimately what Revelation is unveiling), the old covenant order went up in flames in the holocaust of AD 70 (Rev. 17:16; 19:1-3). In its place the kingdom of God was fully established (Rev. 11:15). This is symbolized by the fleeing of heaven and earth in Revelation 20:11 and then its replacement by a new heaven and earth in Revelation 21 (cf. the destruction of God’s unfaithful people and then the establishment of his servants in a new heaven and new earth, Isa. 65:1-19; see Romans 10:20-21 where Paul applies this part of Isaiah to unfaithful Israel vs new covenant believers). The kingdom of God was taken from God’s unfaithful old covenant people and given fully to his new covenant people at this time (Matt. 21:33-43). This is shown in Revelation in the form of the harlot being destroyed at the same time the bride becomes married (Rev. 19:1-9; cf. Matt. 22:1-10). The demonic confederation of rulers behind the pre-AD 70 Roman Empire was destroyed at AD 70 (Dan. 7:7-12; Rev. 19:20) as God’s people fully possessed the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:17-27). Note the collapse of Nebuchadnezzar’s image at this time of the tenth ruler of Rome (Vespasian, Dan. 2:31-45); this was the time when the kingdom of this world fully became the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15-18 NASB). Note also the fall of “the cities of the nations” at this time (Rev. 16:19). This was the time of the kingdom of God having come with power (Mark 8:38-9:1). This was much more than just the fall of the Jewish nation. At this time Satan was bound in terms of his ability to deceive the Gentile nations (Rev. 20:1-4), and his domain (symbolized by the sea, cf. Isa. 27:1) ceased to exist (Rev. 21:1).

Clearly there is no shortage of crises—in both the physical and spiritual realms—if one is looking at the right time period (AD 67-70). However, if one believes that Revelation was written around AD 95, he or she will have a major problem finding what soon coming crises the book is referring to.

Endnotes:
63. Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 143.
64. Ladd, Revelation, 181.
65. Josephus, Jewish War, 7, 10, 1, trans. G.A. Williamson, 405-06.
66. Gwyn Morgan, 69 A.D. The Year of Four Emperors (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 185.
67. Kenneth Wellesley, Tacitus: The Histories, Introduction (New York: Penguin Books, 1975), 10.

The word translated as "soon" can be used to evoke immanency in the minds of the readers.
In the final chapter of Revelation, Jesus says to John in John's vision, that He will come soon:

Re 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
Re 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
Re 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

And here we are over 2000 years later, and Jesus hasn't returned yet!

Of course, if you are a full preterist, you would claim that He returned in 70 A.D. to bring judgment on the Jews. However, there is zero evidence that the second coming occurred in 70 A.D. There are several aspects of the second coming described in the Bible which have never taken place at any time in the past.

So if Revelation had been written during Domitian's reign in about 96 A.D, as two of the early Christian writers affirmed, this creates no problem for the futurist. It does, however, create a major problem for the preterist. For then the events predicted in Revelation cannot possibly refer to the events of 70 A.D.

Well I am not quite a full preterist (i.e., I don't think all prophecy was fulfilled at AD 70). I take Russell's position (which is pretty close to full preterism, however) that the Second Coming did happen at AD 70 but that was the beginning of the millennium. Nearness is all throughout the book. Those in the first century audience with wisdom could calculate the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18). The beast was about to come (Rev. 17:8 NASB). If the beast was about to come, then the second coming (when he would be defeated) was about to happen (Rev. 19:11-27). The partial preterist at that point says well that is not really the second coming, just a judgment coming of Jesus on Jerusalem. Well if that is true then Revelation never directly shows the second coming (which does not make a lot of sense).

As I have said before, the biggest difference between the preterist and the futurist is on how the language of Revelation is to be interpreted. For example, If you are waiting for the stars of heaven to fall to the earth you will have a very long wait.

The beast was about to come (Rev. 17:8 NASB). If the beast was about to come, then the second coming (when he would be defeated) was about to happen (Rev. 19:11-27). The partial preterist at that point says well that is not really the second coming, just a judgment coming of Jesus on Jerusalem. Well if that is true then Revelation never directly shows the second coming (which does not make a lot of sense).









In the Isaiah 53 Prophecy about Jesus , Isaiah seems like he is speaking in the present tense so the first coming sounds imminent yet it took 750 years. So the writer may be having a vision about a future event that sounds near yet may not necessarily be.
As i mentioned before the New Covenant and the destruction of Jerusalem had already been explicitly been forecast several times so why would God then give another message about the same thing in highly symbolic language? I think the Papacy fulfills the attributes of the beast as well as anything can, so at least right now i like the Historicist view.

steve7150 wrote: In the Isaiah 53 Prophecy about Jesus , Isaiah seems like he is speaking in the present tense so the first coming sounds imminent yet it took 750 years. So the writer may be having a vision about a future event that sounds near yet may not necessarily be.
As i mentioned before the New Covenant and the destruction of Jerusalem had already been explicitly been forecast several times so why would God then give another message about the same thing in highly symbolic language? I think the Papacy fulfills the attributes of the beast as well as anything can, so at least right now i like the Historicist view.

Steve,
First, Revelation is about much more than just the destruction of Jerusalem. It is about the end of the old covenant age and the full establishment of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15-18). That is major stuff.

As for the beast, the individual beast (i.e., the eighth king of the eight kings, Rev. 17:7-11) is the same as the little horn of Daniel 7. I would be interested in how you apply this to the Papacy.

1. The little horn/individual beast is an eighth ruler. The little eleventh horn becomes an eighth when three rulers are removed before him (Dan. 7:8). The individual beast is an eighth king (Rev. 17:11).

2. The little horn/individual beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

3. The little horn/individual beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

4. The little horn/individual beast has a three-and-a-half-year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5).

5. The little horn/individual beast is defeated in AD 70 by the coming of God/Christ (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-20).

6. The little horn/individual beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-21).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/individual beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

One way people seek to escape the fact that Revelation says these things were about to take place is to make the 8 kings of Rev. 17 into 8 kingdoms. This does not work, however. Here is something from volume II on it.

COULD THE EIGHT KINGS BE EIGHT KINGDOMS?
Some futurists, in an attempt to escape the fact that Revelation shows the Antichrist was “about to come” (Rev. 17:8 NASB), try to make the kings in chapter 17 into kingdoms.22 While kings can represent kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Dan. 7:17), there is no support for the hypothesis that the eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 are eight kingdoms. Mounce notes the following on this: “The basic problem with this approach is that the Greek word under consideration [Gr. basileus] is everywhere throughout the NT translated ‘king’ not ‘kingdom.’”23 If John was talking about eight kingdoms he would have used the word for kingdom [Gr. basileia]—he did not. Added to this, Daniel 2 and 7 only show four kingdoms and then the coming of the kingdom of God, not eight kingdoms (Dan. 2:36-45; 7:3-12; 21-22). Revelation references this as it shows its beast with the characteristics of Daniel’s four kingdoms (Rev. 13:1-2). Revelation is showing us the fourth of these kingdoms, the one with ten horns (Dan. 7:7).

The eight kings in Revelation 17:7-11 are the same rulers as those of Daniel’s fourth beast. The eighth king of Revelation is the same as the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast (who became an eighth ruler after three kings were removed, Dan. 7:7-8).24 Thus, to try to make the eight kings of Revelation 17:7-11 into eight kingdoms is without scriptural support. It is an attempt to escape the fact that the coming of the beast, and thus the Second Coming (cf. Rev. 19:11-21), were first-century events about to happen. The NASB correctly translates Revelation 17:8 as, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss . . . .” That this translation is correct is confirmed by the context; we are told there was only the short rule of one king between the then ruling king (when Revelation was written) and the soon coming individual beast (Rev. 17:8-11). The beast was about to come in the first century, not some two thousand years in the future (cf. 1 John 4:3). It was not a kingdom about to come out of the abyss; rather it was a king—a demonic king (Rev. 11:7; cf. the kings of Persia in Dan. 10:13).

Steve,
First, Revelation is about much more than just the destruction of Jerusalem. It is about the end of the old covenant age and the full establishment of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15-18). That is major stuff.

As for the beast, the individual beast (i.e., the eighth king of the eight kings, Rev. 17:7-11) is the same as the little horn of Daniel 7. I would be interested in how you apply this to the Papacy.





Duncan.
I also mentioned the establishment of the New Covenant which had been predicted in the OT at least twice and about which Jesus already said he established it in 33AD. I don't know what 70AD has to do with the New Covenant. Jesus also said that the kingdom of God was in "their midst" during his ministry so again what does 70AD have to do with the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Did Jesus mention that it was only partially established by him? What is it about the kingdom of God that changed in 70AD?
I don't pretend to be an expert on Revelation so i wouldn't attempt to spar with you quoting different verses but my Historicist Revelation book says the Chap 13 beast has a strong correlation to the 4th beast of Dan 7.7-8 and that it is Rome, first secular and later the religious power meaning the Papacy.

steve7150 wrote:
Duncan.
I also mentioned the establishment of the New Covenant which had been predicted in the OT at least twice and about which Jesus already said he established it in 33AD. I don't know what 70AD has to do with the New Covenant. Jesus also said that the kingdom of God was in "their midst" during his ministry so again what does 70AD have to do with the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Did Jesus mention that it was only partially established by him? What is it about the kingdom of God that changed in 70AD?
I don't pretend to be an expert on Revelation so i wouldn't attempt to spar with you quoting different verses but my Historicist Revelation book says the Chap 13 beast has a strong correlation to the 4th beast of Dan 7.7-8 and that it is Rome, first secular and later the religious power meaning the Papacy.

This is what changed at AD 70.

The unveiling of Revelation is of the spiritual realm; it is showing the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Here is a summary on the two-stage establishment of kingdom of God.

1. Before the cross one can see Satan offering the authority of the kingdoms of this world to Jesus.

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” Luke 4:5-6


This authority is probably the authority that God gave to Adam. God has always been the ultimate authority of the world. Jesus did not question Satan’s right here. Notice that this offer which was rejected by the Christ, is accepted by the Antichrist (Rev. 13:4)

2. After his victory on the cross Jesus proclaims “all authority has been given to me in heaven and earth.” Matt. 28:18

3. Although “the works of the devil” were destroyed at the cross (1 John 3:8), the whole world was still “under the sway of the wicked one” prior to AD 70 (1 John 5:19). Satan was still allowed to be “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2), the “god” of the pre AD 70 age (2 Cor. 4:4). This was the already/not yet of the kingdom of God.

4. It is at the AD 70 destruction of those who were destroying (morally corrupting) the Land of Israel that God fully implemented his power and reign. (The word usually translated as “earth” in Revelation is often better translated as “Land,” the land of Israel.)

Then the seventh angel sounded: and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their throne fell on their faces and worshiped God, “We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and destroy those who destroy the earth.
Revelation 11:15-18

This was the time that Jesus “sat on the throne of his glory” Matt. 25:31ff (cf. Matt. 16:27-28). The already/not yet concept can be seen in the parable of the minas in Luke 19.

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’
15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’
20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”

The kingdom reign fully began at this time of the destruction of those subjects who did not want the nobleman to reign over them (the Jews cf. John 1 :11-13). This was when the servants of the nobleman fully possessed the kingdom.

You can also see the full establishment of the kingdom of God in Dan. 2:34-35, 44-45. It would happen in the reign of the 10th king of Rome (Vespasian) at the time of the little 11 th horn (his son Titus) Dan. 7:17-27. That is talking about the full establishment of the kingdom (it coming with power, Mark 8:31-9:1) at AD 70 not AD 33.

As I have said before, the biggest difference between the preterist and the futurist is on how the language of Revelation is to be interpreted. For example, If you are waiting for the stars of heaven to fall to the earth you will have a very long wait.
Duncan










Of course you can be a futurist or any other view and take stars falling as tribulation or judgment, isn't that right Duncan?

Duncan,
So to fulfill what Jesus said about all authority being given to him in heaven and on earth, the city of Jerusalem had to be destroyed? The temple's curtain had already been torn, the Old Covenant already was obsolete, Jesus sacrifice was already effectuated and the New Covenant was already implemented and Temple was no longer God's house in 33AD. Jesus during his ministry said the New Covenant and the kingdom of God were established yet is there any validating evidence that these things were fulfilled in 70AD? If anything were impeding the kingdom of God it was the Roman Empire which under Nero was persecuting Christians as a sport. Jerusalem was under Roman control and had no real political or religious power outside of Roman rule. Rome only grew more powerful after Jerusalem's destruction.
In Chap 11 it says "the nations were angry" but when Jerusalem was destroyed Rome was positively giddy. They celebrated and created coins and other architecture reflecting the destruction of Jerusalem therefore this verse that "the nations were angry" doesn't fit 70AD.
You made reference to the "already but not yet concept" to support your interpretation of Chap 11 , but you could also apply this concept to the foundation of Preterism "the things that must happen quickly."

Paidion wrote:
So if Revelation had been written during Domitian's reign in about 96 A.D, as two of the early Christian writers affirmed, this creates no problem for the futurist. It does, however, create a major problem for the preterist. For then the events predicted in Revelation cannot possibly refer to the events of 70 A.D.

One is Irenaeus - I'm not sure who the other is (Eusebius perhaps, who simply quotes Irenaeus?).

But Hort was undoubtedly correct that the subject in Irenaeus' statement is still John, not Revelation - Irenaeus is speaking of how John the person, who was consulted by the elders, would have declared the meaning of the name of the beast had it referred to Irenaeus' time. If you haven't read Hort on this, I'd recommend you consult him and think through his arguments.

Evidence that this Hort's view is the correct one is found in the Latin translation, which predates Eusebius; besides, Eusebius mixed and matched sources arbitrarily to create a Domitian persecution which simply never happened in history.