Breaking the Apocalypse Code: The Presumption of Persecution

In “The Corpse of Caiaphas” I reviewed the second so-called error listed in chapter 1 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in which Hitchcock and Ice argue that Hank Hanegraaff is wrong when he claims Caiaphas and the council must have seen Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70. We discovered that while Hanegraaff is indeed wrong, since Caiaphas and many of the council members were dead by then, Hitchcock and Ice miss the point. Jesus' promise that they would see Him "coming on the clouds" and "sitting at the right hand of power" is in no way a reference to His Second Advent. Rather, He promised them that "from [then] on" they would see the evidence and outworking of His ascension to the throne in heaven, which in fact they did.

Of the other six errors Hitchcock and Ice allege are made by Hanegraaff in The Apocalypse Code, one deserves special attention since it calls into question the dating of the book of Revelation. It should be noted that the last chapter of the book, "When Was Revelation Written," (which I reviewed in "The Dating Game" part one and part two) discusses the dating of Revelation, and so it seems a bit disingenuous to be discussing it in this first chapter some 150 pages earlier. Nevertheless, it is the authors' prerogative to do so. Let's take a look.

THE THIRD ERROR IN AC

"Hanegraaff notes that Revelation was written to the seven churches of Asia and says that these churches were 'seven historical churches in the province of Asia about to face the full fury of the ancient Roman Beast.' Hanegraaff relates Nero to the Beast and believes that the seven churches in Asia were about to face the great Neronic persecution...' However, there is almost universal agreement among scholars that Nero's persecution never reached beyond the city of Rome and its environs, much less all the way to Asia. This view argues strongly against a mid-sixties date for the writing of Revelation and favors the mid-nineties date when we know that some persecution by Roman authorities was occurring under the Roman Emperor Domitian." (p. 34-35)

This might seem on the surface to be devastating to the Preterist position. If John indicated that the seven churches of Asia were being persecuted by the Roman government, and if it wasn't until years after the destruction of Jerusalem that Christian persecution by the Roman government extended beyond Rome itself, then a mid-60's date for Revelation indeed seems problematic. Let's take a closer look at the evidence Hitchcock and Ice present in making their case.

SMYRNA AND ANTIPAS

"The internal testimony of Revelation indicates there was at least some degree of persecution against Christians in the province of Asia at the time it was written...the church at Smyrna was warned of imminent imprisonment, which indicates a more widespread and organized threat (Revelation 2:10). The death penalty was a real possibility because the believers at Smyrna were urged to be faithful to death. In fact, Antipas of Pergamum had already been martyred (Revelation 2:13)...the execution of Antipas must have been carried out by Romans since the right to...execute was reserved for Roman authorities alone." (p. 34-35)

One need only spend a few minutes investigating this argument in order to discover that the authors of Breaking are standing firmly in thin air. Hitchcock and Ice acknowledge that "One could argue that the persecution at Smyrna was instigated by Jews." Indeed, John is told to them that Jesus knows of "the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9). They are also warned that "the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days" (Revelation 2:10), but Luke's account of the early church indicates that the local Roman authorities did not need to be actively persecuting the Church for Christians to be imprisoned.

THE PRESUMPTION OF (ROMAN) PERSECUTION

In the early days after Christ's ascension the high priest and the Sadducees are said to have put the disciples in public prison themselves (Acts 4:1-3; Acts 5:17-18). One might object, however, pointing out that this was done in Jerusalem, where perhaps the prison was run by the local Jewish authorities. That may be, but that wasn't the case in "Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony" (Acts 16:12). There, Paul and Silas arrive in Philippi and witness for several days without any opposition whatsoever. One day they cast the divining spirit from a woman whose masters, furious at the loss of their convenient source of income, drag Paul and Silas before the authorities and persuade the crowd against them. Responding to the desires of the townspeople, the authorities imprison them (Acts 16:13-23).

We see, then, that it does not take a present, active attitude of persecution on the part of the Roman government for local authorities to have Christians imprisoned. Its citizens can quickly and without precedent rise up against the local Christian community, to which the authorities may respond by imprisoning them. That Smyrna was warned of impending imprisonment in no way "indicates a more widespread and organized threat."

As for the claim that Antipas in Pergamum "must have been carried out by Romans" because only local Roman authorities have the right to perform executions, this is both false and meaningless. The claim is false because Stephen was stoned to death by the council without approval by the Roman government (Acts 7:58-60). The letter to Pergamum says nothing of Antipas was killed by execution performed by the state; like Stephen, he might have been killed without authority.

The claim is meaningless because, as was the case with imprisonment, the Roman government didn't need to be actively persecuting Christians to execute them at the whim of the townsfolk. When Jesus was condemned to death by Pilate, there was no active persecution against Christ or His disciples on the part of the Romans. Jesus was brought to Pilate, who could find no guilt in Him, and though he consented to punish Jesus he initially planned to release Him. The crowd wouldn't have that and insisted that Pilate execute Jesus, and eventually--hesitatingly--he gave in to their demand (Luke 23:13-25). Thus we see that local Roman authorities could quickly give in to the will of the townspeople.

JOHN ON PATMOS

If the warning to Smyrna and the martyrdom of Antipas in Pergamum are not evidence that the Roman government was actively persecuting Christians in Asia--which, as we've seen, they're not--what other evidence to Hitchcock and Ice present?

"John had been banished to Patmos for his faith in Christ (Revelation 1:9)...[this] must have been carried out by the Romans since the right to banish...was reserved for Roman authorities alone. So there was some degree of local persecution when John wrote Revelation. However, there is almost universal agreement among scholars that Nero's persecution never reached beyond the city of Rome and its environs, much less all the way to Asia." (p. 35)

If John was banished to Patmos, an island off the coast of Turkey near the seven churches of Asia, for his faith in Christ and evangelistic efforts, this would indeed suggest local persecution of Christians on the part of the Roman government. I pondered this issue at length and had originally intended to respond by saying that the lack of evidence of Neronic persecution beyond the borders of Rome isn't strong enough evidence to tip the scales in favor of a mid-90's date, given the variety of external and internal indicators that the book was written in the mid-60's. I still think this is true, but in my research I discovered an assumption made by most Christians engaged in the end times debate--including myself--that may not be warranted at all, and which demolishes Hitchcock's and Ice's claim regarding John and his banishment to Patmos.

THE PRESUMPTION OF BANISHMENT

Ask yourself this question: Why do I believe John was given his revelation while banished to Patmos? When I asked myself that question, I couldn't answer. I assumed John said so in his introduction to the book. Let's take a look at the text:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.' I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.'" (Revelation 1:1-11, emphasis mine)

I apologize for the long quote, but I wanted to include the context so there was no room for argument. Where in the text does John say he was banished to Patmos? It simply doesn't. Yes, John calls himself his readers' "brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance," but so what? Christians began experiencing the tribulation associated with the coming kingdom and learning perseverance from the very beginning of the Church.

The word for "tribulation" is the Greek θλῖψις (thlipsis) which is used in Acts 11:19 where we read that "those who were scattered because of the persecution [θλῖψις] that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone." In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes that "we also exult in our tribulations [θλῖψις], knowing that tribulation [θλῖψις] brings about perseverance" (Romans 5:3). Apollos, or whoever it is that wrote the letter to the Hebrews, ties these together nicely:

"But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations [θλῖψις], and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY." (Hebrews 10:32-37, emphasis mine)

The fact that John calls himself his readers' "brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation" in no way suggests he was currently banished to Patmos. He was a "fellow partaker" with his readers simply by virtue of professing Christ at that time. Tribulation was not something one experienced only when actively persecuted by the Roman government; it was something all Christians experienced.

ON PATMOS BECAUSE OF THE WORD OF GOD

What of John's statement that he "was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus?" This in no way suggests that John was banished there. The Greek word rendered "because of" is διά (dia) and can simply mean John was there for the purpose of "the word of God and the testimony of Jesus," either to hear it (the most probable meaning, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) or to spread it. Its use here is admittedly similar to Revelation 20:4 where John "saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God," and to Revelation 6:9 where he "saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained." However, those texts explicitly include the persecutive activity--beheading and killing--whereas here there is no such activity mentioned.

All John says is that he "came to be" on the isle of Patmos. The word "was" here is the Greek γίνομαι which means "to become, to come into existence" or "to be made." He doesn't say he was imprisoned, he doesn't say he was sent, he doesn't say he was enslaved; he simple "came to be" there. The question is, then, did John "come to be" on the isle of Patmos "for the purpose of" the gospel? Or was he "made to be" on the isle of Patmos "because of" persecution resulting from the gospel?

I don't think the text tells us one way or the other. It is tradition, not Scripture, which tells us John was given his apocalypse while in exile on Patmos. Interestingly, however, this tradition does not appear clearly in the writings of the Church Fathers until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries. Irenaeus, himself a disciple of John's disciple, Polycarp, wrote in the 2nd century, and though he mentioned the apocalypse of John in several places (in Against Heresies I.26, IV.14, IV.17, IV.18, IV.20, IV.21, IV.30, V.26, V.28, V.30, V.34, V.35, among others), I am unable to find a single mention anywhere of John's having been banished to Patmos. Clement of Alexandria also wrote in the 2nd century, and though he wrote that John returned to Ephesus from Patmos upon the death of "the tyrant" (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII), he gives no indication that John was banished there, whether by order of said tyrant or otherwise.

Decades later in the 3rd century, Origen apparently pointed out that John did not say why he was at Patmos, but that tradition taught that he had been exiled there by the unnamed king of the Romans (http://users.sbuniv.edu/~hgallatin/ht3463aa06.html#pat). Then, 100 years or so after Clement and Irenaeus, authors like Victorinius, Eusebius and Jerome more explicitly attribute John's presence in Patmos to banishment there, in particular by Domitian (and not Nero). However, what this means, apparently, is that we have no mention of banishment to Patmos until at least 150 years after John wrote Revelation.

Why, then, did this tradition develop if it wasn't true? Here's what I think happened: John was, at best, ambiguous concerning the purpose of his presence at Patmos. A hundred years later (give or take), Irenaeus comments that John was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign, connecting it to the Apocalypse, and Clement of Alexandria says John returned to Ephesus from Patmos after the death of "the tyrant." Neither author indicates that John was banished to Patmos, but a tradition develops combining these details in perhaps an unintended way, concluding that Domitian had banished John to Patmos. With Irenaeus and Clement no longer alive, the tradition can neither be confirmed nor falsified, so the tradition goes unchecked. By the time of Eusebius some 100 years later, the tradition has firmly taken root.

STRONGLY AGAINST A MID-SIXTIES DATE

Hitchcock and Ice would have us believe that John's alleged banishment to Patmos and the imprisonment and killing of Christians "argues strongly against a mid-sixties date for the writing of Revelation and favors the mid-nineties date when we know that some persecution by Roman authorities was occurring under the Roman Emperor Domitian" (p. 35). But as we've seen, this is a tenuous claim lacking any real force, whatsoever.

I could be wrong, and perhaps John was, in fact, banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. However, the Scripture certainly doesn't tell us this, and we don't see a tradition develop until 150 years later. I'm hesitant to say that all the internal and external evidence in support of a mid-60's date for the writing of Revelation should be ignored simply because of an ambiguous statement made by John and a tradition that formed a century and a half later. And as we've seen, the Roman government did not need to be actively persecuting Christians for local authorities to imprison or kill Christians.

I enjoy healthy debate over this and a multitude of other issues concerning preterism and the end times. But when critics of preterism such as Hitchcock and Ice resort to such desperate measures, clumsily clinging to flimsy, tenuous arguments which are utterly devoid of merit, it distracts from the real debate and makes critics of preterism look bad. Though some preterists might relish in this, I would rather Christians witness preterists and futurists debate the question meaningfully, giving onlookers the ability to make an informed decision.

Breaking the Apocalypse Code: The Corpse of Caiaphas

In "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" I reviewed chapter 6 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in which Hitchcock and Ice argue against Hank Hanegraaff's view of the 144,000 of Revelation as equivalent to the universal Church. We discovered that Hanegraaff does, indeed, lack exegetical justification for equating the two groups, and Hitchcock and Ice correctly identify the 144,000 as Jews. However, they are not Jews sealed during a future tribulation, “supernaturally converted at some point after the rapture of the church.” They were first century Jews, faithful and devoted to God, sealed and delivered from the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I had intended to continue my review with a couple of other chapters in which I am more in agreement with Hitchcock and Ice than I am with Hanegraaff, but which nevertheless exhibit poor exegesis concerning the timing of prophetic events and entities. I had thought I was finished refuting the challenge levelled against the preterist eschatological model, which is my primary concern in reviewing the book. As it turns out, I was wrong, and I'm going to detour briefly to address two more arguments made by the authors of Breaking in its first chapter.

THE SECOND ERROR IN AC

In the first chapter of Breaking the Apocalypse Code, Hitchcock and Ice present what they consider to be "Seven Errors in AC [The Apocalypse Code]." I am not particularly interested in addressing most of these, but the second so-called error is, to a certain extent, an attack against preterism and thus deserves some attention:

"Hanegraaff states that Jesus cannot be referring to His second coming [in Matthew 26:63-65], but instead is referring to His 'cloud coming' in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70...Hanegraaff emphasizes that 'Caiaphas and the Jewish ruling council would see Christ coming with the clouds as Judge of earth and sky'. The problem with these statements by Hanegraaff is that the high priest Caiaphas was not alive in AD 70 to see the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, nor were most of the other members of the ruling council that heard Jesus' words in AD 33. They did not see the events of AD 70...If Jesus meant that Caiaphas would see the events of AD 70, as Hanegraaff maintains, then Jesus was mistaken. Since this is not possible, Hanegraaff must be the one who is mistaken." (p. 32-33)

The authors of Breaking demonstrate sufficiently (I think) that Caiaphas was not alive in AD 70. The problem is, this addresses only a minor facet of Hank's major point, which is this:

"Proper application of the biblical principle of scriptural synergy might well have deterred Bart Ehrman's evolution from fundamentalist Christian to fundamentalist atheist. When Ehrman read that Jesus told Caiaphas and the court that condemned him to death, 'In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven' (Matthew 26:64), he should not for a moment have supposed that Jesus was predicting that his generation would experience the end of the world...As the principle of scriptural synergy should have prevented Ehrman from disparaging Jesus as a false prophet, so too it should have prohibited LaHaye from supposing that Christ's 'coming on the clouds' metaphor was directed toward a twenty-first-century audience...The generation that crucified Christ would see the day that he was exalted and enthroned at 'the right hand of the Mighty One.'" (The Apocalypse Code, p. 229-230)

You see, it is true that Hanegraaff claims Jesus was telling Caiaphas and the council that they would see the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (not quoted above), and he emphasizes the "you" in Jesus' recorded words. On that point, Hank is probably wrong. However, that's not really his point. His point is that what Jesus was prophesying was not His return. Rather, He was prophesying that they would be faced with His exaltation and enthronement; that the "coming on the clouds" is a metaphor that has nothing to do with His bodily return at the end of time.

As we'll see, Hanegraaff is right, and the properly understood meaning of "coming on the clouds" deals a real blow to the case against preterism. But first, let's read Hitchcock's and Ice's understanding of Jesus' words into the text as originally recorded. What we'll discover is that there is a real problem with their interpretation, and indeed that of dispensationalists in general.

FROM NOW ON, ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

The NASB depicts Jesus saying to the council, "hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN" (Matthew 26:64, emphasis mine). The implication is that the council would see His coming "after now," at some point in the indefinite future. Several other translations render the verse similarly (NIV, Amplified, NLT). A few translations hint, however, that something more is hidden beneath the surface:

"Soon you'll see it for yourself" (The Message)

"Soon you will see" (CEV)

This is interesting. Why do these translations use the word "soon?" Are they inserting a concept into the text that isn't there? Consider how two other translations render the verse:

"from now on you will see" (ESV)

"Henceforth ye shall see" (ASV)

The implication of these translations is that the "sitting" and "coming" is something the council would see "from now on." In other words, it is not a one-time event in the indefinite future, but something ongoing from that moment onward. Why do these translations veer so sharply from the approach taken by the translators of other versions? When one looks at the original Greek, one discovers something fascinating. The phrase rendered "hereafter" or "from now on" is ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι and literally means "from now." Here is how it is used elsewhere:

"For I say to you, from now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" (Matthew 23:39)

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:29)

"From now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He." (John 13:19)

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] you know Him, and have seen Him." (John 14:7)

"And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, 'Write, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι]!"'" (Revelation 14:13)

Why does the NASB render ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι "from now on" everywhere but in Matthew 26:64? Perhaps its translators had an eschatological bias. The phrase does not mean "in the future," and "hereafter" does injustice to its meaning. It denotes a time period during which something does or does not take place on an ongoing or repeated basis. And it is not just Matthew who records Jesus' use of this phrase.

FROM NOW ON, ACCORDING TO LUKE

Mark leaves out the "from now on" language, but Luke doesn't. He uses a slightly different Greek construction. He uses the phrase "ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν," which also literally means "from now on." In fact, the NASB renders it this way (Luke 22:69). We see that it carries the same meaning as ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι when we look at how it's used elsewhere:

"And Jesus said to Simon, 'Do not fear, from now on [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] you will be catching men.'" (Luke 5:10)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three." (Luke 12:51-52)

"But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] I will go to the Gentiles." (Acts 18:6)

"Therefore from now on [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)

We even see this Greek phrase in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament completed over a hundred years before Christ:

"For the eyes of the Lord look upon all the earth, to strengthen every heart that is perfect toward him. In this thou hast done foolishly; henceforth [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] there shall be war with thee." (2 Chronicles 16:9)

"Let the name of the Lord be blessed, from this present time [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] and for ever." (Psalm 113:2)

"And I will make her that was bruised a remnant, and her that was rejected a mighty nation: and the Lord shall reign over them in mount Sion from henceforth [ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν], even for ever." (Micah 4:7).

I apologize if I'm unnecessarily belaboring the point. I want it to be absolutely clear what the authors recorded Jesus as saying. Both Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying that, whatever He meant by His "sitting" and His "coming," Caiaphas and the council would see it from then on, in an ongoing fashion.

FROM NOW ON YOU WILL SEE THE RETURN OF CHRIST?!?!

The authors of Breaking conclude their analysis of Hanegraaff's "error" saying, "Jesus is telling Caiaphas and the ruling council...that they will not see Him again until His return as the undisputed King of the earth and sovereign Judge at the end of the age" (p. 34). This paraphrase sounds an awful lot like Matthew 23:39 and Matthew 26:29, cited above, but in those passages Jesus says something won't take place "from now on" until some event in the future. In the passage we're looking at, Jesus says quite the opposite: His "coming on the clouds" WILL take place "from now on," and no concluding future event is given.

If by saying He was "coming on the clouds" Jesus was referring to His second coming at the end of time, over 1,900 years later, in what way were Caiaphas and the council able to see it "from [then] on?" It just doesn't make sense. Therefore, Hitchcock and Ice are wildly incorrect when they read the Second Advent into Jesus' words. They say of Hank, "in his zeal to find a first century fulfillment for this prophecy, which clearly refers to the judgment at the end of the age, Hanegraaff has imposed his own meaning upon the text rather than letting it speak for itself, and were his interpretation to stand, he would make Jesus the author of a false prophecy" (p. 34). Clearly the authors of Breaking are guilty of the same crime.

So we see that it is dangerous to read one's presuppositions into Jesus' words. Both Hanegraaff's presupposed understanding of the "coming on the clouds" and that of Hitchcock and Ice are incorrect, and make no sense, whatsoever, of the "from now on" language. If Jesus was neither prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem nor His Second Advent at the end of time, what WAS He referring to? And in what sense would Caiaphas and the council see it "from [then] on?"

SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND

We need to begin by recognizing that what we think of when we read the words spoken by first century Jews may not be how they understood them. As Dee Dee Warren writes,

"If I say it is raining cats and dogs outside, I don't literally mean that cats and dogs are falling down on top of our heads, but I do literally mean that it is raining very, very hard out. How do we know that? It is a common idiom of our culture and background. We must delve into the common idioms and background of the first century audience if we are going to understand the NT." (It's Not the End of the World!)

Where do we find the "common idioms and background of the first century audience?" In their Tanakh (the Old Testament), of course! Each of the authors of the synoptic gospels record Jesus as quoting the following Psalm:

"The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.' The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, 'Rule in the midst of Your enemies.'" (Psalm 110:1-2)

This figure, then, would at some point begin sitting at God's right hand. From there, He would "rule in the midst of [His] enemies." He would do so "until [God makes His] enemies a footstool for [His] feet." Jesus said to Caiaphas and the council that from that point onward they would see Him "SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER." Did He, in fact, take His seat shortly thereafter?

"So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)

"who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him" (1 Peter 3:22, also Ephesians 1:19-21)

"we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Hebrews 8:1, also Romans 8:34 and Colossians 3:1)

"He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET." (Hebrews 10:12-13, also 1:3, and 12:2)

Shortly after His meeting with Caiaphas and the council, Jesus died, rose and ascended to heaven. There He took "His seat at the right hand of the throne," at which point "angels and authorities and powers [were] subjected to Him." From this position of power, He will rule "UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET." It makes sense, then, that Jesus told Caiaphas they would see Him seated at the right hand from then on.

If all Jesus had promised was that Caiaphas and the council would from then see Him sitting at the right hand of God, there would be no controversy. It was easy for the translators of the NASB to render the Luke account properly as "from now on" because all he mentions is this "sitting." However, both Matthew and Mark include the additional statement that they would, from that point onward, see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. How would they have understood that?

A SON OF MAN WAS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN

Now that we understand what Jesus meant when He said they would from then on see Him sitting at the right hand of God, we are better prepared to understand what He meant when He said they would from then on see "the Son of Man," "coming on the clouds of heaven." He is making a clear allusion to the prophecy of Daniel:

"I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14, emphasis mine)

My fellow preterists are quick to correctly point out that the "coming" here is not in the direction of earth. Dee Dee Warren writes, "Notice the direction of this 'coming' is not down but UP!! This is not speaking of the Final Advent, but of Christ's coming up to the Father to receive His Kingdom and rule from heaven. This is a painfully obvious fact that many futurists miss" (It's Not the End of the World!). Similarly, Hanegraaff writes, "It is crucial to note that in Daniel's prophecy the Son of Man is not descending to earth at the end of history but rather ascending to heaven" (The Apocalypse Code, p. 26).

I'm not quite so quick to call this "painfully obvious." If I were a dispensationalist looking at this passage in isolation, I might say this IS a reference to the end of time, or at least the onset of the millennial kingdom on earth. The NASB says the Son of Man "came up to the Ancient of Days," but "coming up to" something is common parlance today. It means to "approach" or "come near," as in "He came up and said hello," or "The dog came right up to Nora" (YourDictionary.com).

This is precisely why I led us through an analysis of the "sitting" language first. Jesus "was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19). He is "at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Hebrews 8:1). Daniel's vision, too, included the Son of Man taking His seat (Daniel 7:9), and since we're told in the New Testament that this took place immediately after the ascension in heaven, Daniel's vision is of a heavenly scene as well. Therefore, His "coming on the clouds of heaven" is a coming to heaven, not to earth. It is not a reference to His bodily return to earth, it is a reference to His coming to the throne of God in heaven to receive His kingdom. As Dee Dee Warren writes,

"This then makes perfect sense of Jesus' words to the then-living High Priest that he would from that point on see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven...the 'sitting' (in heaven) and the 'coming' are intimately connected...Christ's 'sitting' and His 'coming' are being outworked even now until all His enemies are made His footstool" (It's Not the End of the World!)

YOU WILL SEE AND COMPREHEND

Hold on a second, though. While I would expect any honest dispensationalist to acknowledge the soundness of the exegesis up to this point, I would nevertheless anticipate at least one final objection: Jesus said Caiaphas would "see" His "sitting" and "coming." If this takes place in heaven, in what way could the high priest be expected to see it?

One possibility is that Jesus was saying they would from that point onward comprehend that He was the ruling King. As Hanegraaff points out, "Seeing is commonly used as a metaphor for intellectual insight, while blindness is used for intellectual incomprehension" (The Apocalypse Code, p. 27). Dee Dee Warren writes, "'seeing' is equated hyperbolically with 'understanding'--something we even do today...Do you SEE what I MEAN" (It's Not the End of the World!)?

Warren points to the following passage as an example of "seeing" being used in this fashion: "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40, emphasis mine). She sarcastically laments, "Oh boy we are sure out of luck since we have never 'seen' Jesus and thus...we cannot be raised up at the last day."

I would also point to Paul's application of Isaiah 52:15 in his letter to the Romans, where he writes, "thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man's foundation; but as it is written, 'THEY WHO HAD NO NEWS OF HIM SHALL SEE, AND THEY WHO HAVE NOT HEARD SHALL UNDERSTAND'" (Romans 15:20-21). Here the word "see" is the same Greek word used by Jesus in Matthew's account of His pronouncement before Caiaphas, and Paul is using the word in the sense of "understanding."

YOU WILL SEE AND NOT BELIEVE

Another possibility, however, is that Jesus was saying Caiaphas and the council would see the evidence of His exaltation. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured forth, and Peter said,

"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:33-36)

Peter says that which was displayed at Pentecost was evidence of Christ's having taken His seat at God's right hand in power. The Jews before whom he spoke were moved deeply and believed. But not everybody who saw the evidence of Jesus' exaltation believed:

"Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, 'By what power, or in what name, have you done this?' Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:6-12, emphasis mine)

Caiaphas and the rest were eyewitnesses to what the Holy Spirit, the sending of whom was evidence of Christ's exaltation, was doing. But they were unmoved and refused to believe. This is a repeated theme:

"Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed. But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the gates of the prison, and taking them out he said, 'Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.' Upon hearing this, they entered into the temple about daybreak and began to teach...The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.' But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them." (Acts 5:16-21, 27-33, emphasis mine)

Caiaphas and the council did, in fact, "from then on" begin seeing the evidence that Jesus was seated at the right hand of God, coming on the clouds to His throne. Many did, but refused to believe. But they did not just refuse to believe, they persecuted the saints and became "drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus" (Revelation 17:6). It is no wonder that apostate Judaism was judged so harshly in AD 70.

THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN

The authors of Breaking the Apocalypse Code insist that preterists have it wrong, that "[Jesus] is telling them that they will not see Him again until His return as the undisputed King of the earth and sovereign Judge at the end of the age" (p. 33-34). But as we've seen, Jesus said they would see Him "sitting" and "coming" from that point onward. Hitchcock and Ice, by reading their own presupposed meaning into His words, make Jesus out to be a false prophet--the very crime they accuse Hanegraaff of committing.

As we've seen, Jesus' "coming on the clouds of heaven" took place upon His ascension when He approached the throne of the Ancient of Days and took His seat at the right hand of God. Caiaphas and the council would from that point onward see the evidence and outworking of Christ's exaltation as King and Judge. But they would not believe; instead they would persecute the saints and become guilty of the shedding of their blood.

Properly understood, therefore, Jesus' "coming" cannot be used as evidence against preterism and its understanding of passages like Matthew 24. As much as the miracles performed by the witnesses of Jesus were evidence that He had taken His throne, so much more so would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, in judgment of apostate Judaism and her slaughter of the saints.

Breaking the Apocalypse Code: Signed, Sealed, Delivered

In "Not-So-Mystery Babylon" I reviewed chapter 9 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in which Hitchcock and Ice argue that the "great harlot" of Revelation cannot be first century apostate Jeruasalem, and must instead point literally to the Babylon of history. We discovered that the only "great city" which qualifies as the "mother of harlots" is, in fact, first century Jerusalem. The Babylon of history, however, aptly serves as the type finding its antitype in the home of apostate Judaism which rejected her Messiah and was "drunk with the blood of the saints."

As we've seen, the case presented in Breaking against preterism and in favor of dispensationalism has been flawed, frail and flimsy. In the chapters remaining to be reviewed, the authors do not so much attack preterism as much as they do particular interpretations given by Hank in his book, ones which are neither germane to the preterist eschatological model nor shared by all preterists. Therefore, preterism remains unscathed by this recent challenge leveled against it. Still, the remaining chapters deserve some attention, for while I tend to agree with many of them insofar as they are critical of Hanegraaff's views, they continue to exhibit poor exegesis concerning the timing of the biblical passages in question.

CHAPTER 6: WHO ARE THE 144,000 JEWS?

For the first five pages of this chapter, Hitchcock and Ice decry the tone and tactics Hanegraaff uses in criticizing dispensationalism on his radio show and in The Apocalypse Code. Indirect comparisons between Darby and Darwin, and between the views held by Jehovah's Witnesses and dispensationalists concerning the 144,000 of Revelation, do seem a bit unnecessarily derisive. I would stand in agreement with the authors of Breaking in saying that Hank ought to learn to express his views "with gentless and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Moving on, Hitchcock and Ice call into question Hanegraaff's understanding of the 144,000:

"Hanegraaff says that his interpretive approach leads him to understand that the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 is 'the purified bride,' or 'true Israel,' which is the church. This is a classic replacement theology interpretation whether Hanegraaff realizes it or not. He then continues to torture the biblical text by equating the 144,000 from every tribe of the sons of Israel (Rev. 7:4) with another group of believers said by the biblical text to be 'a great multitude, which no one can count from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues' (Rev 7:9). He says, 'The 144,000 and the great multitude are not two different peoples, but two different ways of describing the same purified bride.'" (p. 120)

Hank denies that he is a proponent of replacement theology, or supersecessionism. Nevertheless, I suspect one would find it difficult to identify many clear differences between his views and classic, replacement theology. But are the authors of Breaking correct when they say that Hanegraaff "torture[s] the biblical text" when he equates the 144,000 with the "great multitude?" Unfortunately, they don't address Hank's key argument:

"Literarily, the 144,000 and the great multitude are comparable to the Lion and the Lamb. Just as John is told about a Lion and turns to see a Lamb (Revelation 5:5-6), so he is told about the 144,000 and turns to see a great multitude (Revelation 7). Thus, the 144,000 are to the great multitude what the Lion is to the Lamb, namely, the same entity seen from two different vantage points." (The Apocalypse Code, p. 126)

In the rest of Hanegraaff's discourse he merely attempts to explain away the listing of the tribes and their numbers, which is only necessary when one presupposes that the 144,000 are equivalent to the bride of Christ. Therefore, much of this chapter of Breaking the Apocalypse Code would have been unnecessary had the authors merely refuted the poor exegesis Hank exhibits in this argument, for if it does not hold water, such a presupposition is unwarranted.

BEHOLD, THE LION THAT IS FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH

What happens in Revelation 5:5-6 is strikingly different than the events described in Revelation 7. In the latter case, John sees four angels and a voice says to them (not him), "Do not harm...until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads," at which point he "heard the number of those who were sealed." Thus John overhears a numbered group. In the former passage, however, John is not merely "told about" a Lion. He is addressed directly, specifically told to "behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah," and upon doing as commanded, John looks and sees a Lamb.

In fact, whenever John beholds something which he's heard, or about which he's told, he makes it clear to us that the two are one and the same. In Revelation 17:1-3 John is told, "Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot," and upon looking he "saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast." In Revelation 1:10-12 John "heard behind [him] a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet," and then he "turned to see the voice that was speaking." And when John beholds a group which he first hears numbered, he tells us they are the same group: "The number of the armies of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. And this is how I saw in the vision the horses and those who sat on them: the riders had breastplates the color of fire..." (Revelation 9:16-17, italics mine).

John "heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand" and does not tell us that they are the same as the "great multitude which no one could count." Therefore, the two groups are two different groups. The excellent exegesis Hanegraaff exhibits elsewhere is missing from his interpretation of the 144,000 as being to the great multitude what the Lion is to the Lamb.

DO NOT TOUCH ANY MAN ON WHOM IS THE MARK

Though Hanegraaff elsewhere superbly illustrates the parallels between Revelation and Ezekiel, he seems to ignore those parallels here. In chapter 9 of Ezekiel, he hears God tell the destroying angels, "Draw near, O executioners of the city, each with his destroying weapon in his hand...Go through the midst of the city, even through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst" (Ezekiel 9:1,4). God tells them, "Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark" (Ezekiel 9:6).

Ezekiel, then, sees the destroying angels told to kill all but a sealed fraction of a larger group. The larger group is apostate Jews in Jerusalem and the temple; the sealed fraction thereof are Jews loyal to God who've recognized the abominations committed by their leadership. In the same way, John also sees the destroying angels told to kill all but a sealed fraction of a larger group. We know that the larger group is apostate Jerusalem. It stands to reason, then, that the sealed fraction thereof are Jews, specifically, who've not followed after their brethren and who have instead remained in allegiance with God.

Therefore, when John speaks of the 144,000 he has neither Gentiles nor the universal Church in mind, any more than Ezekiel did. If we recognize the parallels between them, we must acknowledge that the 144,000 are Jewish inhabitants of apostate Jerusalem who, by virtue of their allegiance with God, are sealed and delivered from God's wrath. It seems to me that Hank, and indeed many of my fellow preterists who would agree with him, are exegetically unjustified in equating them with the "great multitude" which John sees thereafter.

WHEN ARE THE 144,000 JEWS?

We see, then, that Hitchcock and Ice appear to have the exegetical upper hand when it comes to the identity of the 144,000. However, whereas the question asked by this chapter of Breaking is "Who are the 144,000 Jews?" I would instead ask, "When are the 144,000 Jews?" The authors are convinced they will appear on the scene in the future:

"Israel's calling is to be a light to the nations...in the tribulation she will make progress toward becoming that light she was set apart to be. The 144,000 Jewish men will be like having thousands of apostle Pauls out evangelizing the nations. The result will be millions of conversions to Christ among the Gentiles, even though many will have to give their lives as described in verse 9. The 144,000 Jews, like Paul, are supernaturally converted at some point after the rapture of the church." (p. 128)

As we've seen during the course of my review of Breaking the Apocalypse Code, we have very convincing reasons to believe that most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. But beyond those, the words of Hitchcock and Ice themselves sound suspiciously supportive of a first century fulfillment. There was, in fact, a time when there were "thousands of apostle Pauls out evangelizing the nations"--the first century. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to the Jews and as a result "There were added about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:36, 40-41). Peter preached again shortly thereafter at the portico of Solomon, and though he and John were arrested, "many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand" (Acts 3:11-12, 4:1-4). Not long thereafter we read that "all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number" (Acts 5:14) and "the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

Were these thousands of Jewish believers "out evangelizing the nations?" At least some of them were. After it was revealed to Peter and passed on to the Church that Gentiles were to be welcomed into the faith, "some of them...came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus...and a large number who believed turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:18-21). In response Barnabas was sent, too, to Antioch, "and considerable numbers were brought to the Lord" (Acts 11:22-24). Yes, Jewish Christians were "evangelizing the nations."

At Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas, citing Israel's calling as a light to the nations, turn to the Gentiles who "began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region" (Acts 13:48-49). Now, Paul and the other apostles were martyred prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and thus would not have been among the 144,000 sealed. However, it is unlikely that they were the only Jews witnessing to Gentiles. Why was the gospel "being spread through the whole region?" Because believing Jews, faithful to their calling, were "evangelizing the nations."

THEY HAVE KEPT THEMSELVES CHASTE

An additional clue hints at a first century identify for the 144,000 Jews. We are told they "have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste" (Revelation 14:4). David Guzik notes that,

"Many take the virginity of the 144,000 as simply a symbol of their general purity (as in 2 Corinthians 11:2). But Paul recommended celibacy in distressing times (1 Corinthians 7:25-35), and Jesus spoke of woes upon those with children and families in that day (Matthew 24:19-21). It isn’t hard to see that God would specially call 144,000 to a literal celibacy for the kingdom’s sake during the time of the great tribulation."

Indeed, but these passages point strongly to a first century group of Jews. Paul doesn't just recommend celibacy in distressing times, he recommends celibacy in HIS time! He writes, "I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is (1 Corinthians 7:26, emphasis mine). And why does Paul suggest that single men remain as such? Because they would "be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:32). The 144,000 Jews who had "kept themselves chaste" would have been uniquely suited for the work of evangelism, for their interests would not have been divided (1 Corinthians 7:34).

The "great tribulation" Jesus spoke about, which would be more difficult for "those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies," was to take place before His generation had passed away. In fact, pregnancy and young children are unlikely to present as much of a difficulty to people in modern times as they would have in the first century. In a time of wheelchairs, automobiles and strollers, transporting pregnant wives and their babies to safety is not nearly as problematic as it would have been for husbands of pregnant wives and fathers of infants escaping the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. As Dee Dee Warren writes,

"note the difficulties of flight for those who are pregnant. While yes today pregnancy can be difficult, it is nothing compared to the ancient world. Flight for a pregnant women would be on donkey or on foot, truly a woe! Today it would be by jetliner or vehicle, nothing to warrant this special warning." (It's Not the End of the World!)

Likewise, in a time of baby bottles, breast pumps and even artificial milk-based formula, feeding infants would not terribly hinder a quick escape; but the first century mother of a young baby would likely find it difficult to be fleet of foot while nursing hungry babies. And this, of course, translates to difficulty for the husband and father. For all these reasons, if the chastity attributed to the 144,000 is to be taken literally--and it seems perfectly reasonable that it is--then we have all the more reason to believe they were first century Jewish men, unmarried and thus free to fully serve the Lord, sealed and delivered from destruction.

SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED

In the years following Christ's ascension into heaven, the Church was growing and spreading rapidly, and multiplied thousands of the converts were Jews. It is not inconceivable that by AD 70 there were 144,000 Jewish believers in Christ. The question is, were they sealed in the manner overheard by John and delivered from the destruction of Jerusalem? History records that of the millions of Jews assembled at Jerusalem for Passover, the Jewish Christians recognized Jerusalem's impending doom and escaped, while those who remained faced God's wrath. This sounds to me exactly like the sealing described for John.

Hitchcock and Ice conclude this chapter saying, "Hanegraaff's interpretive approach clouds and obfuscates the intended meaning of the text" (p. 129). Based on my exegesis of the text, I agree. However, the authors of Breaking are equally in error; whereas Hanegraaff misidentifies the 144,000 Jews as the universal Church, Hitchcock and Ice misdate them. They are not Jews sealed during a future tribulation, "supernaturally converted at some point after the rapture of the church." They were first century Jews, faithful and devoted to God, sealed and delivered from the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Breaking the Apocalypse Code: Not-So-Mystery Babylon

In "The Dating Game" (part 1 and part 2) I reviewed chapter 11 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in which Hitchcock and Ice present the external and internal evidence they insist overwhelmingly support a mid-90s date for the writing of Revelation. We discovered that the testimony of some of the earliest Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, was that John was banished to Patmos before Domitian, under Nero, and that the words contained within Revelation strongly favor a mid-60s date while the Jerusalem temple was still standing. While the evidence may not be 100% conclusive, what is absolutely clear is that futurists cannot argue against preterism based on the date Revelation was written.

The logic and exegesis exhibited by the authors of Breaking has thus far left something to be desired. I'm honestly surprised that the book was given the kudos included at the beginning of the book. Clearly we've yet to see the "excellent point-by-point critique of...preterist interpretations of end-time events" that Dr. Norman Geisler read. Nor have we seen the "insightful study, biblical exegesis and historical survey" that Dr. Ed Hindson found in the book. Let's see if we begin to see what these scholars saw as we look at some of the other chapters.

CHAPTER 9: THE HARLOT IN REVELATION 17-18

"The book of Revelation contains 404 verses, and 44 of these verses deal with Babylon (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:1-18:24). That's about eleven percent of the entire book of Revelation devoted to one main topic--Baylon, the great harlot...In chapter 5 of AC (Historical Principle), Hanegraaff contends that the 'harlot' city in Revelation 17 is the nation of Israel/the city of Jerusalem. He presents his view of Babylon in Revelation 17 as a virtual slam dunk and wonders why others have missed what is so obvious to him...But is is certainty well-placed?" (p. 169)

I'll be honest, when during my "conversion" to preterism I became convinced that Babylon was apostate Jerusalem, I was surprised I'd been blind to the obvious for so long. Thus I can relate to Hanegraaff's statement that "What has puzzled me over the years is not the identity of 'the great prostitute,' but how so many could mistake her historical identity" (The Apocalypse Code, p. 118). But perhaps I was right before, and am blinded now, rather than then. Hitchcock and Ice begin by attempting to refute two arguments Hanegraaff makes in his book.

"First, he notes that in Revelation 17, Babylon is referred to as a harlot. He then notes that in biblical history the only nation that is 'inextricably linked to the moniker "harlot"' is the nation of Israel...It is true that Israel is portrayaed as a harlot, especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. However, as Hanegraaff mentions in a footnote, Nineveh is also called a harlot...as is the city of Tyre...So, the harlot imagery is not as clear a link to Israel as Hanegraaff states." (p. 170)

NINEVEH AND TYRE, BUT NOT BABYLON

The authors of Breaking point out that Hanegraaff admits that Nineveh and Tyre are also associated with harlotry. However, it is telling that they do not quote the footnote in question:

"Even the two exceptions once worshiped the one true God of Israel. Nineveh was transformed through the preaching of Jonah (Jonah 3) and Tyre assisted Solomon in the construction of the Jewish temple (1 Kings 5). Thus, their apostasy is associated with harlotry." (The Apocalypse Code, p. 256)

So Nineveh could be called a harlot because she apostatized from her God. As Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary on the opening of Nahum:

"About 100 years before this Jonah had, in God’s name, foretold the speedy overthrow of this great city; but then the Ninevites repented and were spared, and that decree did not bring forth. The Ninevites then saw clearly how much it was to their advantage to turn from their evil way; it was the saving of their city; and yet, soon after, they returned to it again; it became worse than ever, a bloody city, and full of lies and robbery."

Tyre, too, had once served the Lord:

"When Hiram [king of Tyre] heard the words of Solomon, he rejoiced greatly and said, 'Blessed be the LORD today, who has given to David a wise son over this great people.' So Hiram sent word to Solomon, saying, 'I have heard the message which you have sent me; I will do what you desire concerning the cedar and cypress timber.'" (1 Kings 5:7-8)

"Then Huram, king of Tyre, answered in a letter sent to Solomon: 'Because the LORD loves His people, He has made you king over them.' Then Huram continued, 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who has made heaven and earth, who has given King David a wise son, endowed with discretion and understanding, who will build a house for the LORD and a royal palace for himself.'" (2 Chronicles 2:11-12)

Babylon, on the other hand, is never recorded as serving the Lord. It was a pagan kingdom of godlessness, and under Nebuchadnezzar it beseiged Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, sending the Israelites into exile (Ezekiel 24:2, 2 Kings 25). Yet in all its inquity, Babylon is never called a harlot in the Old Testament, because she was never in a relationship with God. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the "great harlot" of Revelation is literal Babylon.

UNDERSTATING EZEKIEL

"Second, Hanegraaff says, 'The biblical link between Ezekiel 16 and Revelation 17 in itself is enough to preclude misidentification.'...While there are some parallels between these two texts, the Old Testament passage that most closely parallels Revelation 17-18 is Jeremiah 50-51, not Ezekiel 16. Jeremiah 50-51 is an Old Testament passage that describes the destruction of the literal city of Babylon on the Euphrates." (p. 170-171)

Hitchcock and Ice understate the parallels between Ezekiel and Revelation. They are not limited to Revelation 17. As Hank points out,

"Revelation is a virtual recapitulation of Ezekiel, from the four living creatures (Ezekiel 1//Revelation 4) to the mark on the foreheads of the saints (Ezekiel 9//Revelation 7); from the eating of the scroll (Ezekiel 3//Revelation 10) to the measuring of the temple (Ezekiel 40//Revelation 11); from God and Magog (Ezekiel 38//Revelation 20) to the river of the water of life (Ezekiel 47//Revelation 22). And even that but scratches the surface." (The Apocalypse Code, p. 121-122)

Indeed, I would add the four judgments upon Jerusalem in Ezekiel 14:21 as compared with the authority given the fourth horseman in Revelation 6:8. It is important that we remember that the first half of Ezekiel is not just a depiction of the abominations and harlotry committed by Israel; it foretells the seige upon Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple that stood in Ezekiel's day! These parallels, then, are a striking indication that the great harlot of Revelation is, in fact, the apostate Jerusalem of John's day, upon whom God was preparing to pour out His wrath.

TRIPPED UP BY TYPOLOGY

But what about the claim made in Breaking the Apocalypse Code that "the Old Testament passage that most closely parallels Revelation 17-18 is Jeremiah 50-51, not Ezekiel 16?" The authors go on to list the many parallels between these two passages, saying, "The many parallels between this passage and the future Babylon in Revelation 17-18 indicate that they are both describing the same city" (p. 171). They go on to say,

"Every Old Testament mention of Babylon is a reference to the literal city on the Euphrates River. By the time one gets to Revelation there are hundreds of references to literal Babylon. A consistent pattern has been developed. To use Hanegraaff's language, 'someone with the background music of the Old Testament coursing through their minds' should know that in the Old Testament Babylon means Babylon (about 300 times), not Israel or Jerusalem." (p. 172)

I cannot help but wonder if Hitchcock and Ice understand the concept of biblical typology, "the doctrine or study of types or prefigurative symbols." The Bible powerfully testifies to the sovereignty of God over His creation by the many literal events and entities in the Old Testament which serve as types fulfilled in the New Testament. The Mosaic Law, the temple and the sacrifices performed there by its priests, the Jewish Feasts; all are types fulfilled by their antitype, the New Covenant:

"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, 'SEE,' He says, 'THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.' But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises." (Hebrews 8:4-6)

"The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience...But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:8-9, 11-12)

"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." (Hebrews 10:1)

"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

It would seem the authors of Breaking would have us believe that, given the great number of parallels between them, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant must be one and the same! Now obviously, I don't think Hitchcock and Ice would actually make that claim. Nevertheless, their insistence that the parallels between Babylon in Jeremiah 50-51 and Babylon in Revelation 17-18 prove they refer to the same literal city is unjustified. It is quite possible that the historical Babylon served as a type of the "great harlot" that we see in Revelation.

JOLTED BY HERMENEUTICS

Of course, this begs the question: Is there exegetical justification for viewing the Babylon of Revelation as the antitype of a forerunner? Hitchcock and Ice would say no, there is not:

"Think about it...why would John suddenly change the established meaning of Babylon, which is reinforced about 300 times in the Old Testament, to Jerusalem the last time Babylon is mentioned in the Bible? No careful, informed reader could expect this sudden shift, this hermeneutical jolt, just a few chapters from the end of the Bible, yet this is what AC would have us believe." (p. 173)

It is here that the authors of Breaking begin setting themselves up for embarrassment. Any reader familiar with this passage in Revelation ought to see it coming. They go on to say:

"The one time John wants to identify a geographical location using symbolic language, he alerts the reader to the fact that it is non-literal. In Revelation 11:8 he refers to Jerusalem as 'Sodom and Egypt,' but he makes it clear that he is not speaking literally: 'The great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt' (italics added). John is being very careful here to let the reader know when he is not speaking literally of Sodom and Egypt...While it might be possible that the name 'Babylon' is a code name...there is no such indication in the text." (p. 173-174)

Did you catch it? Notice they say that because John refers to "the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt" he therefore "is not speaking literally of Sodom and Egypt." This utterly shatters their own case, for look at how various translations render Revelation 17:5 (I've added the emphasis to each):

"and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, 'BABYLON THE GREAT'" (NASB)

"This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT" (NIV)

"A riddle-name was branded on her forehead: great babylon" (The Message)

"And on her forehead there was inscribed a name of mystery [with a secret symbolic meaning]: Babylon the great" (Amplified)

"A mysterious name was written on her forehead: 'Babylon the Great'" (NLT)

"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT" (KJV)

"And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great'" (ESV)

"On her forehead a mysterious name was written: I AM THE GREAT CITY OF BABYLON" (CEV)

"And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT" (NKJV)

Hitchcock and Ice cite Henry Morris as saying, "It must be stressed again that Revelation means 'unveiling,' not 'veiling.' In the absence of any statement in the context to the contrary, therefore, we must assume that the term Babylon applies to the real city of Babylon" (p. 174, citing The Revelation Record). As we've seen, John provides just the statement necessary by calling the harlot "Mystery Babylon," or calling it a "mysterious name."

The word is μυστήριον (mystērion) and means "hidden thing, secret, mystery;" "a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding." What I would ask the authors of Breaking is, in what way is the moniker "Babylon" meant to keep the identity of the harlot "a hidden or secret thing" if she is, in fact, the literal Babylon of history? Clearly, John is expecting us to understand his Babylon as a symbolic representation, a type fulfilled by its antitype, the "great harlot."

OBLITERATING OBSTACLES

"One also wonders why Hanegraaff never considers the numerous obstacles to taking the harlot in Revelation 17 as Jerusalem. Proper exegesis would require at least an awareness of these problems." (p. 174)

Let's take a look at these "obstacles" one-by-one. First, "Jerusalem doesn't sit on many waters...While the waters in 17:15 are identified as the nations of the world, it appears that this city is a major source of international sea trade (18:17-18)" (p. 174). The harlot is said to sit upon a beast whose seven heads are seven hills, suggesting alliance with Rome, the city upon seven hills, the empire comprised of the nations of the world. And the Romans ruled Judea from Caesarea, which is where Herod, who ordered the slaughter of the small children in Bethlehem, had built his palace, and which was the official residence of Pontius Pilate, who eventually gave in to the demands of the apostate Jews and ordered Jesus' death. Caesarea had a very impressive harbor, one described by Josephus as being as large as Athens' major harbor at Piraeus. And the merchants who frequented the harbor at Caesarea had extensive economic dealings with Jerusalem.

Second, "Revelation 17:18 says that the great city of Babylon reigns over the kings of the earth. Clearly, Jerusalem did not reign over the kings of the earth in AD 70. She did not even reign over herself in the first century" (p. 174-175). No, but she "reign[ed] over the kings of the land" of Judea (the word is γῆ, ge, and can mean "a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region"). As Josephus wrote, "[Judea] was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was supreme and presided over all the neighboring country as the head does over the body" (Josephus, The Jewish War, book 3 chapter 3).

Third, "In the first century Jerusalem was never the world economic city described in Revelation 17-18. Even in one's wildest imagination, the city of Jerusalem in the first century cannot even come close to the description of Babylon as the economic juggernaut and hub of the world" (p. 175). Here Hitchcock and Ice are simply wrong. As Philip A. Harland writes, "wealth in the form of rents, taxes, and tithes flowed toward urban centres, especially Jerusalem (and the Temple)...In many respects, Jerusalem and the Temple were the hub of commercial activity and trade in Judea" (The Economy of First-Century Palestine: State of the Scholarly Discussion). But as Harland also notes, the wealth that flowed toward Jerusalem was distributed asymmetrically "in favor of the elite, a small fraction of the population...consisting of the royal family, aristocrats, religious leaders and some priests." Thus it is precisely that element of apostate Jerusalem that was in bed with Rome and in opposition to God which grew rich as a result of the economic prosperity generated through Jerusalem.

NAILING THE COFFIN SHUT

We see, then, that the "obstacles" presented by the authors of Breaking are not obstacles at all, and are perfectly compatible Hanegraaff's identification of the great harlot of Revelation as Jerusalem. But if she is, in fact, Jerusalem, is there any additional evidence, besides the harlot imagery, with which the proverbial coffin can be nailed shut?

1. The harlot is called the "great city" (17:18). As Hitchcock and Ice readily admit, Jerusalem is called the "great city" in Revelation 11:8.
2. The harlot is "drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus" (17:6). Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, "I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify...so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth...all these things will come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:34-36). Before Stephen was martyred by the Council he said to them, "you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become" (Acts 7:51-52). No better candidate exists for a harlot "drunk with the blood of the saints" than first century apostate Jerusalem.
3. A voice from heaven says, "Come out of [the great harlot], my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues" (18:4). This brings to mind Jesus' warning to His disciples in the Olivet Discourse, saying, "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city" (Luke 21:20-21).
4. John contrasts the great harlot with the purified bride saying, "He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality...His bride has made herself ready" (19:2,7). Since the "bride adorned for her husband" is "the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (21:2), it suggests that the "great harlot" is the earthly Jerusalem of John's day. The contrast between earthly and heavenly Jerusalem had been illustrated earlier by Paul using a contrast between a bondwoman and a bride (Galatians 4:25-26).

NOT-SO-MYSTERY BABYLON

The identity of Babylon, the great harlot of Revelation, is thus not such a mystery at all. Only apostate Israel could be called the "mother of harlots," and within that context only apostate Jerusalem called the "great city." The Babylon of history, identified with oppression of God's people and godless idolatry, naturally serves as a type finding its fulfillment in the harlotry of apostate Judaism, which had left its God and which persecuted the saints. The great harlot is the Jerusalem from below, contrasted with the purified bride, the Jerusalem from above. And God's people were called to flee from her midst, for her destruction was near.

Hitchcock and Ice conclude their examination of the harlot saying, "Hanegraaff's identification of Babylon in Revelation 17 as Jerusalem is not consistent with the text, with sound exegesis, or even with his own 'code' of tethering our interpretations to the Old Testament" (p. 175). As we've seen, quite the opposite is true. Proper exegesis of the text and application of Old Testament typology demands we accept that "Mystery Babylon" is, in fact, first century apostate Jerusalem.

Breaking the Apocalypse Code: The Dating Game, Part 2

In part 1 of "The Dating Game," we examined the external evidence Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice present in chapter 11 of Breaking the Apocalypse Code in support of a late (AD 95) date for Revelation. We discovered that in their attempt to sweep the preterist position under the rug, they want you to believe that "The external evidence from church history points emphatically and overwhelmingly to the AD 95 date for the composition of Revelation" (p. 198). As we've seen, however, this statement is based on a shaky house of cards, the foundation of which collapses with the breath of a whisper.

As R. C. Sproul writes in The Last Days According to Jesus, however, "the external evidence regarding the dating of Revelation is neiher monolithic nor homogeneous" (p. 145). In other words, though the historical evidence is not firmly in support of the late date, neither is it conclusive evidence of an early one. Therefore, an examination of the internal evidence is additionally necessary for formulating an idea as to when Revelation was written. In this second part of my review we will look at the internal evidence presented in chapter 11 of Breaking argued to support a late date.

"In considering the internal evidence for the date of Revelation, let's begin by examining Hanegraaff's arguments and then look at the evidence for the AD 95 date.

Hanegraaff identifies "three arguments that tower above the rest" in his attempt to defend the AD 65 date for Revelation. Let us look at these three towers and see if they are built on stone or sand." (p. 198)

Thus the authors of Breaking begin their case by attempting to refute Hanegraaff's reasons for believing Revelation was written before AD 70: 1) John doesn't mention that Jerusalem was destroyed; 2) John doesn't say Jesus' prophecy of the attack upon Jerusalem was fulfilled; and 3) John mentions a seemingly still-standing temple. I'm comfortable with Hitchcock's and Ice's dismissal of the second point above, so I won't address that one.

A DEAFENING SILENCE

"Hanegraaff's first tower is an argument from silence...One must remember that Revelation was written to a primarily Gentile audience in Asia Minor, about 800 miles from Jerusalem, 25 years after AD 70. The original audience was removed ethnically, geographically, and chronologically from the destruction of Jerusalem. Also, Revelation says clearly that it is a prophecy about the future (1:3; 22:10) and not history as Hanegraaff supposes. The simple reason John didn't record the events of AD 70 is that it was a past event, and Revelation is a prophecy." (p. 198-199)

I'm not sure I buy the authors' first point, that because Revelation was written primarily to a Gentile audience that therefore his readers would be utterly unfamiliar with Jerusalem and the temple and their importance. In a letter to the church at Smyrna, John is told to write, "I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (2:9). Similarly, to the church in Philadelphia he is told to write, "I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--I will make them come and bow down at your feet" (3:9). The point is, there was a Jewish influence in at least some of the seven churches, albeit a negative one, and no doubt the Gentile congregants had some knowledge of the temple in Jerusalem.

Additionally, the book of Revelation is replete with allusions to the Old Testament. As the authors of Breaking admit, "there are at least 278 allusions to the Old Testament in the 404 verses of Revelation" (p. 200). John's words would have been impossible to understand to an audience not steeped in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. (Indeed, I think that's largely the problem today.) But an audience intimately familiar with the Old Testament would likewise be aware of the temple in Jerusalem and their importance.

As for the other point, that Revelation "is a prophecy about the future...and not history," that means nothing. Ezekiel, too, prophesied of the future, yet he mentioned the siege upon Jerusalem in his day:

"And the word of the LORD came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth of the month, saying, 'Son of man, write the name of the day, this very day. The king of Babylon has laid siege to Jerusalem this very day. Speak a parable to the rebellious house and say to them..."In your filthiness is lewdness. Because I would have cleansed you, yet you are not clean, you will not be cleansed from your filthiness again until I have spent My wrath on you. I, the LORD, have spoken; it is coming and I will act I will not relent, and I will not pity and I will not be sorry; according to your ways and according to your deeds I will judge you," declares the Lord GOD.'" (Ezekiel 24:1-2, 13-14)

Here Ezekiel records a prophecy of the future, just as John did, namely the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet, he also mentions the beginning of the seige upon Jerusalem by Babylon. According to Hitchcock and Ice, "The simple reason John didn't record the events of AD 70 is that it was a past event, and Revelation is a prophecy." We now see how little sense that makes. Of course, in Ezekiel's case the seige upon Jerusalem is related to the prophecy of its destruction. Well, if John wrote after the seige upon Jerusalem, after the destruction of the temple and after the scattering of the Jews, and if his prophecy is of a future rebuilt temple and attack upon a Jerusalem to which Jews had been returned, no doubt the former are related to the latter. As R. C. Sproul put it in The Last Days According to Jesus, "Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening" (p. 147).

A CONTEMPORARY TEMPLE

"Hanegraaff's third tower in defense of the early date of Revelation is based on the mention of a temple in Revelation 11:1-2...[His] insistence that the temple in Revelation 11:1-2 must be standing when John wrote, is surprising in view of the fact that he says the Old Testament is the key to understanding the book of Revelation. In the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezekiel, both prophets describe future temples that did not exist at the time they wrote (Daniel 9:26-27; Ezekiel 40-48). When Daniel wrote, the Jewish temple was in ruins in Jerusalem. Likewise, when Ezekiel prohpesied there was no temple standing in Jerusalem." (p. 200)

Daniel and Ezekiel did indeed speak of a future temple while the former one lay in ruins. But each did so only having first spoken of the destruction of the former temple and prophesying concerning a future restoration of Jerusalem! I can only surmise that either Hitchcock and Ice have not read the passages they cite in their context, or they are trying to mislead their readers. Take a look for yourself:

"O Lord, in accordance with all Your righteous acts, let now Your anger and Your wrath turn away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; for because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all those around us. So now, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications, and for Your sake, O Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary...'Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.'" (Daniel 9:16-17, 24-27, emphasis mine)

Daniel can only speak of a future temple because he's first spoken of the destruction of the former and was told explicitly that it would be rebuilt. We see something similar in Ezekiel:

"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name. They will forget their disgrace and all their treachery which they perpetrated against Me, when they live securely on their own land with no one to make them afraid. When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall be sanctified through them in the sight of the many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then gathered them again to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer. will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,' declares the Lord GOD. In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the LORD was upon me and He brought me there. In the visions of God He brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, and on it to the south there was a structure like a city. So He brought me there; and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway. The man said to me, 'Son of man, see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and give attention to all that I am going to show you; for you have been brought here in order to show it to you. Declare to the house of Israel all that you see.' And behold, there was a wall on the outside of the temple all around, and in the man's hand was a measuring rod of six cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth. So he measured the thickness of the wall, one rod; and the height, one rod." (Ezekiel 39:25-40:5, emphasis mine)

Like Daniel, Ezekiel mentions the destruction of Jerusalem and records God as promising Israel's restoration to her homeland. Daniel and Ezekiel only write concerning a future temple in the explicit context of the contemporary temple's destruction and Jerusalem's future restoration. The authors of Breaking want you to believe that the "temple in Revelation 11:1-2, in the context, is a future, third Jewish temple that will be rebuilt and desecrated by the coming Beast or Man of sin" (p. 201). Yet, the context is missing the necessary elements seen in Daniel's and Ezekiel's prophesies concerning a future temple, and thus John's temple must have existed at the time of his Revelation.

A couple of additional clues are found within Ezekiel's prophecy that suggest John's is of the destruction of the then-standing temple. First, in John's Revelation he is told to "Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it" (Revelation 11:1). In Ezekiel's case, on the other hand, he sees the temple being measured by someone else (Ezekiel 40). Second, and more strikingly, just as John is told to interact with the temple in his vision, earlier in Ezekiel's writings he, too, is told to interact in his vision with the temple--the one that was then standing:

"It came about in the sixth year, on the fifth day of the sixth month, as I was sitting in my house with the elders of Judah sitting before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell on me there...and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the seat of the idol of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy, was located...Then He brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house. And behold, at the entrance to the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. He said to me, 'Do you see this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and provoked Me repeatedly? For behold, they are putting the twig to their nose. Therefore, I indeed will deal in wrath. My eye will have no pity nor will I spare; and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, yet I will not listen to them.' Then He cried out in my hearing with a loud voice saying, 'Draw near, O executioners of the city, each with his destroying weapon in his hand...Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary.' So they started with the elders who were before the temple. And He said to them, 'Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!' Thus they went out and struck down the people in the city." (Ezekiel 8-9)

Ezekiel was shown this vision before Jerusalem was seiged and the temple was destroyed. It was a few years later that he received word that the event he had foretold was in the processing of coming to pass (Ezekiel 24). The parallel's between this vision and John's are unmistakable. Ezekiel and John are both told to interact in some way in their visions with the temple and those worshipping inside (Ezekiel 8, Revelation 11:1-2). Each see marks being put on the foreheads of the faithful, whom are to be overlooked by the destroyers (Ezekiel 9:4-6; Revelation 7:1-3).

It seems clear, then, that the temple to which John refers is the temple that stood before being destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Whereas Daniel and Ezekiel, in their prophesies of a future temple, explicitly speak of the former's destruction and future restoration, John does not. And just as Ezekiel was told to interact in his vision with the then-standing temple, and saw marks being put on the foreheads of the faithful whom would be overlooked by the destroying angels, so, too, did John. John's reference to a temple, then, is powerful evidence that the book was written before Jerusalem fell.

CONDITION CONJECTURE

The authors of Breaking, having attempted to refute Hank's internal evidence supporting a pre-70 date for Revelation (poorly, as we've seen), move on to present their evidence that Revelation was written in AD 95:

"One of the key internal arguments for the late date of Revelation is the condition of the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2-3. The churches of Asia Minor show all the symptoms of the second generation. The period of Paul's great mission seems to lie in the past." (p. 201)

Whenever I see a critic of preterism going down this road I sigh and roll my eyes. Let's take a look at the specifics they provide:

"If John wrote Revelation in AD 64-67, then the letter to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-7 overlaps with Paul's two letters to Timothy who was the pastor of the church when Paul wrote to him...Yet Paul makes no mention of the loss of first love or the presence of the Nicolaitans at Ephesus in his correspondence with Timothy. Neither does he mention these problems in his Ephesian epistle which was probably written in AD 62. Jesus' statement to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 that it had guarded itself well against error does not fit what we know of the church in Nero's day (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 2:17-18)." (p. 201-202)

Paul may make no mention of the Ephesians having lost their first love, nor of the Nicolaitans, in his epistle to Timothy or to the Ephesians themselves. But the latter was written at least a couple of years before Revelation, so that is no surprise. As for the former, in the very opening to his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes, "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines" (1 Timothy 1:3). He tells Timothy to "fight the good fight" (1 Timothy 1:18). He says "the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1). We have very little information about what the Nicolaitans professed, but no doubt it consisted of "doctrines of demons," and as such Paul's first letter to Timothy is consistent with the letter in Revelation, which would have come not long thereafter.

Likewise the emphasis throughout his second letter to Timothy is on guarding "through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (2 Timothy 1:14). He tells Timothy that being "strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" requires endurance (2 Timothy 2:1-13). He says "in the last days difficult times will come...evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3). That "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine...and will turn away their ears from the truth" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Clearly it is evident in both of Paul's epistles to him that Timothy would have to fight against deceivers leading Ephesian congregants away from the truth.

Hitchcock and Ice tell us "Jesus' statement to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 that it had guarded itself well against error does not fit what we know of the church in Nero's day." What that verse actually says is, "I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false" (Revelation 2:2). The letter goes on to say, "and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary" (Revelation 2:3). This is exactly what Paul had exhorted Timothy to do!

Thus, the letter to the church at Ephesus contained in Revelation 2 is perfectly consistent with a pre-70 fulfillment. The question that remains is their loss of their "first love:"

"Those who support the early date often respond to this point by noting that error can erupt very quickly in a church. As an example they sometimes cite the churches of Galatia who Paul says, 'so quickly deserted the gospel.' But there is a great difference between the condition and maturity of the Galatian churches after Paul's brief visit there on his first missionary journey, and the church of Ephesus where Paul headquartered for three years, where Apollos taught, where Priscilla and Aquila ministered, and where Timothy pastored for several years." (p. 202)

Perhaps there is a great difference. Nevertheless, baldly asserting one's opinion as fact does not constitute evidence. As Paul promised to Timothy, false teachers would come into the congregation and lead people astray, and he would need to fight for that church fervently and with perseverance. This is exactly what Jesus in Revelation says the "angel of the church in Ephesus" was doing, and commended him for it. We don't know for certain what it meant that the church is said to have lost its first love, but whatever it is, it's certainly conceivable that the Ephesian congregation and its leadership would have done so by the mid-60s.

"Moreover, Revelation 2:1-7 makes no mention of the great missionary work of Paul in Asia Minor. On his third missionary journey Paul headquartered in Ephesus for three years and had a profound ministry there. If John wrote Revelation in AD 65 then the omission of any mention of Paul in the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor is inexplicable." (p. 202)

Nonsense. Hitchcock and Ice cannot have it both ways. If they wish to justify the omission of the destruction of Jerusalem by saying that Revelation "is a prophecy about the future...and not history," then they can't from the other side of their mouths say the omission of Paul is unjustified. The letters to the churches speak of their current condition and their immediate future. There is no contextual reason to mention Paul.

GRASPING AT SMYRNAEAN STRAWS

"Apparently the church of Smyrna did not even exist during the ministry of Paul. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. In his letter to the Philippians (11.3), written in about AD 110, Polycarp says that the Smyrnaeans did not know the Lord during the time Paul was ministering...Polycarp is saying that Paul praised the Philippian believers in all the churches, but that during Paul's ministry in the AD 50s and 60s the church of Smyrna did not even exist...This evidence points to the close of the first century as the time of composition for Revelation." (p. 203-204)

Here's what Polycarp said:

"But I have not observed or heard of any such thing among you, in whose midst the blessed Paul labored, and who were his letters of recommendation in the beginning. For he boasts about you in all the churches--those alone, that is, which at that time had come to know the Lord, for we had not yet come to know him." (p. 203, citing the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, chapter 11)

Hitchcock and Ice are yet again grasping at straws. Notice that Polycarp says it was "at that time" at which the Smyrnaeans had not yet come to know the Lord. The authors of Breaking are without justification equating "at that time" with "during Paul's ministry in the AD 50s and 60s." What is the "time" to which Polycarp refers? Certainly one possibility is that "at that time" refers to Paul's ministry, from beginning to end. However, I see two other context-supported possibilities.

Stemming from the translation quoted in Breaking, one possible interpretation of the "time" to which Polycarp refers is that time during which Paul labored in the midst of the Philippians. Now I am no church historian, but from what I can gather, this would have been, at the most recent, some eight years or so prior to a mid-60s date for Revelation. This is certainly enough time for a new church to begin in Smyrna.

Another translation of Polycarp's epistle reads, "But I have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle." If this translation is accurate, then the "time" at which Polycarp refers, at which the Smyrnaeans had not yet come to know the Lord, may have been that at which Paul wrote to the Philippians. If this is the correct interpretation, then a mid-60s date for Revelation would allow for three years or so for the church at Smyrna to be founded.

In either case, the letter John is told to write to the church at Smyrna in no way serves as evidence in support of a late date for Revelation. It fits comfortably within an early dating framework as well. In fact, very little is said to this church. All we're told is that it was experiencing tribulation and poverty, but was rich, perhaps in good works, and that some Judaizers were present there (Revelation 2:9). The letters to the other churches are longer, more specific and include some amount of condemnation; the brevity of the letter to Smyrna suggests a newly founded church which has not yet waned in its passion. Hence, Polycarp's words lend greater support to the mid-60s date for Revelation than to a later date.

LOSING WITH LAODICEA

"The church of Laodicea is the only one of the seven churches (and possibly Sardis) that does not have one thing to commend. In his letter to the Colossians, probably written in AD 60-62, Paul indicates that the church was an active group (Colossians 4:13). He mentions the church there three times in his Colossian letter (2:2; 4:13, 16). It would certainly take more than three to five years for the church to depart so completely from its earlier acceptable status that absolutely nothing good could be said about it." (p. 204)

Yet again Hitchcock and Ice are grasping at straws. Their argument here is basically this: Paul lauds Laodicea in his letter to the Colossians by calling them an "active group," and that three to five years is not long enough for a church to downspiral into depravity. This is, once again, a bald assertion of an opinion stated as fact. There is no reason a congregation cannot fall so quickly.

Note, too, that Paul says nothing of the quality of the Laodiceans in his letter to the Colossians. He says he struggles on their behalf (2:2), that he wants his letter to be read to them (4:16) and that Epaphras has a "deep concern" for them (4:13), which is to say he's worked hard for them. That's it! There's no indication that the church was in "good shape" at that time. They very well could have been struggling, in the middle of a fall that would worsen over the next few years leading up to the Revelation. In fact, David Guzik writes in his commentary on this passage, "The church at Laodicea is mentioned by Paul - in a somewhat unfavorable light - in Colossians 2:1 and 4:16." So some commentators take Paul's words to the Colossians, not as speaking of Laodicea in neutral terms, but in negative ones.

"Laodicea is also described in Revelation as flourishing economically. Jesus quotes the church as saying, '"I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing"' (Rev. 3:14-22). Yet the city suffered devastation in the earthquake of AD 60 or possibly 61. After the earthquake the Laodiceans refused all aid and assistance from Rome preferring to rebuild their devastated city from their own resources...Since the rebuilding of Laodicea after the earthquake occupied a complete generation, it is highly problematic to claim that Laodicea was rich, wealthy, and in need of nothing in AD 65." (p. 204-205)

Yes, Laodicea was devastated by earthquake in the early 60s. But that does not mean they weren't "flourishing economically." The authors themselves indicate that they were able to "rebuild their devastated city from their own resources!" Pray tell, if they were not wealthy, upon what resources did they rely in their rebuilding effort? A. R. Fausset, in his commentary on this passage, writes,

"It was destroyed by an earthquake, A.D. 62, and rebuilt by its wealthy citizens without the help of the state [TACITUS, Annals, 14.27]. This wealth (arising from the excellence of its wools) led to a self-satisfied, lukewarm state in spiritual things."

David Guzik, citing Barclay, agrees:

"After an earthquake devastated the region in 60 a.d. Laodicea refused Imperial help in rebuilding the city, successfully relying on their own resources. They didn’t need outside help, they didn’t ask for it, and they didn’t want it. 'Laodicea was too rich to accept help from anyone. Tacitus, the Roman historian, tells us: "Laodicea arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us."' (Barclay)"

The Laodiceans, then, exhibited pride, unwilling to accept help but instead insisting that they could do it on their own. This prideful self-sufficiency is exactly what Jesus condemns. So Hitchcock's and Ice's argument fails. The letter to the Laodicean church, like those to Ephesus and Smyrna, are completely consistent with a mid-60s date for the book of Revelation.

SPOIL AND WINE

"Another internal argument for the Domitianic date is suggested by Revelation 6:5-6, which appears to be an allusion to an edict of Domitian...In AD 92, in the face of a grain shortage, Domitian handed down a vine edict. In this edict he restricted provincial viticulture by ordering half of the vineyards of Asia Minor destroyed and no new ones planted to make room for growing more grain...The edict resulted in riots in Asia Minor because wine was a major source of income in that area. In response, Domitian revoked his earlier edict and ordered that anyone who allowed his vineyard to go out of production would be prosecuted. This event would have been a familiar, vivid allusion for John's readers of a case where grain was in shortage, but when it was illegal to harm the supply of oil and wine." (p. 205-206)

The verses in question read, "and behold, a black horse; and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, 'A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine" (Revelation 6:5-6). This is a prophesy of the future (Revelation 4:1), not an allusion to the past, in which the horseman is commanded to cause grain and barley to become scarce and expensive while leaving the oil and wine untouched. This is in stark contrast to Domitian who responded to a drought he didn't cause by destroying half of the vineyards in the area!

Hitchcock and Ice write, "Since Revelation 6:6 appears to be an intentional allusion to this event, Revelation had to be written after AD 92, thus, supporting the late date of Revelation" (p. 207). I find it humorous that they say Domitian's edict "appears to be" the fulfillment of this prophecy and then say the prophecy "had to be written" after that event; quite the shift from uncertainty to absolute fact. The reality is, this passage in no way, shape or form supports an AD 95 date for the writing of Revelation. It is merely the prediction of impending famine, and we have numerous accounts of famines throughout the 60s. We may not have uncovered any evidence of famines at that time which had not touched the supply of oil or wine, but what that means is that this passage is proof of neither the mid-60s nor the mid-90s date.

PATMOS AND ANTIPAS

Finally, Hitchcock and Ice offer up two last pieces of internal evidence supporting an AD 95 date for Revelation. First, as John admits toward the beginning of his letter, he received his Revelation while banished to the island of Patmos. The authors of Breaking tell us that while Nero did practice banishment, he is not recorded to have done so with Christians, whom he instead killed. Second, in the letter to Pergamum, Jesus mentions the martyrdom of Antipas, whom we're told by Hitchcock and Ice was martyred in AD 83 or 92. For both these reasons, John must have been banished by Domitian.

Regarding Nero and Patmos, the authors admit Nero did practice banishment, and while he certainly enjoyed killing Christians, we have no reason to believe it is impossible that he would have banished John. As for the Antipas argument, an endnote admits that "The tradition of Antipas' martyrdom in AD 92 by being roasted alive in bronze bull comes frm a Byzantine hagiographer named Simeon Metaphastes (AD 900-984)." If Hitchcock and Ice want to argue against an early date for Revelation based on a tradition that originated more than 800 years later, they can have this one.

The only internal evidence for an AD 95 date for Revelation, then, is the flimsy argument that Nero wouldn't have banished a Christian, and an equally tenuous tradition originating 800 years later which held that Antipas was martyred under Domitian. What internal evidence, on the other hand, might one present in support of a mid-60s date?

1. The reference to the temple in chapter 11. As we saw earlier, John was told to measure the temple in his vision, and unlike Daniel and Ezekiel, John includes no mention of the destruction of his contemporary temple, nor prophesies concerning its restoration. Lacking those details, Revelation must have been written when the temple was still standing.
2. The parallels between Revelation and Ezekiel. We also saw that like John, Ezekiel tells us in his early chapters that he was told to interact with a temple in his visions and those worshipping inside. But Ezekiel, in that context, was being shown the then-standing temple, and was told that all but those with stamps on their foreheads would be slain. John also sees the faithful stamped on their foreheads and spared from being slain by the destroying angels.
3. John tells his readers he was shown "things which must soon take place." The plain reading of the time-texts in Revelation need only be abandoned for an alternative interpretation if one first accepts that they could not have been written before AD 70.
4. Daniel was told to seal his prophecy but John was not. Daniel was told, "conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time" (Daniel 12:4,9). John, on the other hand, was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Revelation 22:10). Daniel wrote some 600 years before John, and we are reading John's words some 1,900 years later. It is strange that Daniel would be told to seal up his words for 600 years "until the end," but John was told to leave his prophecy unsealed for over 1,900 years "for the time is near." It makes perfect sense, however, if Daniel was to seal his prophecy for 600 years until the end, which was within years of John's prophecy.
5. John suggests his readers can calculate the number of the beast. He writes, "let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six" (Revelation 13:18). This would have made sense in a first century context where names were often reduced to their corresponding numbers in both Greek (isopsephia) and Hebrew (gimatriya). In a modern day context, however, there are a limitless number of ways one can imagine calculating the number of the beast, and it seems implausible that one could know which is correct.

Though other preterists would offer a number of other internal evidences, these are those which I think are most difficult to answer. Of course, those who insist Revelation was written in AD 95 will not see them as being as strong as I do. Hence, as I said in part 1, I don't think the evidence is terribly conclusive one way or another. I firmly hold to a mid-60s date primarily because I believe the testimony of the whole of Scripture supports a preterist position better than a futurist one, and I think futurists likewise hold to a late date, not because of the external and internal evidence we've examined, but because they firmly hold to a futurist position.

THE ACHILLES SPIEL

With that, the authors of Breaking conclude the chapter, saying,

"While Hanegraaff's system has other weaknesses, the Achilles heel of his view is the date of Revelation. The evidence for the AD 95 date of Revelation is overwhelming. Yet, in spite of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the AD 95 date, and the fact that it is the dominant, traditional view of the church all the way back to the second century, Hanegraaff calls it 'patently untenable.'" (p. 208)

As we've seen in parts 1 and 2 of my review of this chapter, the evidence presented by Hitchcock and Ice is anything but overwhelming. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, writing in the second century, lend support to the mid-60s date, rather than the AD 95 date. The tradition of John's banishment under Patmos isn't evident until Eusebius wrote of it a hundred years later. And of all the so-called internal evidence presented by the authors of Breaking, only two tenuous arguments hold any water, in contrast with several powerful internal evidences in support of an early date.

Thus, though I would argue that the external and internal evidence is strongly in favor of a mid-60s date for Revelation, the point is that the authors of Breaking the Apocalypse Code are being disingenuous in claiming that an AD 95 date is demanded by the evidence. Hitchcock and Ice "urge Hanegraaff to rethink his position and adopt an approach to eschatology in general and Revelation in particular that is not totally dependent upon the sandy foundation of a mid-sixties date for Revelation" (p. 208). I, instead, urge Hitchcock and Ice to vigorously debate the preterist position on its merits, rather than redirect and make the spurious claim that preterists are on shaky ground when it comes to the date of Revelation.