Self-Defeating Science: The Irrationality of Evolutionary Naturalism

The Preterist Podcast recently turned me on to an awesome podcast called "Say Hello to my Little Friend," otherwise known as the "Beretta Cast" (and corresponding blog). As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything I've come across at the blog; for example, I don't believe in "soul sleep," but rather that the immortal spirit is in some sense conscious in Sheol awaiting the resurrection--primarily because I don't believe Jesus' parables were rooted in fantasy. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed what I've listened to so far.

I was digging through the archive and came across a series of episodes explaining something called "presuppositional apologetics." I had heard of this style of apologetics before, but knew nothing about it, so I gave them a listen and was blown away. I highly recommend you listen to this series as it presents some powerful arguments for the existence of God. Episodes 11 through 13--go, listen, now.

I was particularly impressed with the third and final entry in the series discussing a Christian philosopher named Alvin Plantinga and his transcendental argument against evolutionary naturalism. Plantinga argues powerfully (and irrefutably, I think) that atheists who believe in evolution are utterly lacking in reason for believing that their beliefs are true. In fact, it is immeasurably more likely that any of their beliefs is false given their own world view. As such, evolutionary naturalism can only be described as irrational. I'll do my best to summarize Plantinga's argument.

THE PROBABILITY OF R

The question asked by this line of reasoning is as follows: How probable is it that our beliefs, assuming evolutionary naturalism, are reliably true? This is expressed as the p (probability) of r (reliably true) given ne (naturalism and evolution). So what is the probability of r? To some this may seem like an exercise in futility. How could we begin to answer such a question? The reality is, however, we can approximate an answer--and the answer might surprise you.

Let's frame the question more concretely. Let's assume for a moment that there is no God, and that the diversity of life we see today is the product of blind, random mutations taking place during reproduction, operated upon by natural selection, producing successively more complex organisms. This is evolutionary naturalism in a nutshell. According to this world view, our sensory organs (eyes, ears, noses, etc.) and the mechanisms by which information from those organs is transmitted, as well as our brains which process that information and our instinctive reactions to that information all developed over time through random mutations producing a survival advantage over one's peers.

According to this model, then, our beliefs are based on physiological structures and mental faculties which developed only because they made us more capable of surviving in our environment, without respect to whether or not those beliefs are true. Do you see the distinction? Undirected evolution through natural selection produces structures, faculties and beliefs which offer a survival advantage, whether those beliefs are true or not. The question remains, then: What is the probability of r?

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: BOB THE ALIEN

We humans do not often take part in the useful practice of thought experimentation, but let's do that for a moment. Imagine another world with a creature similar to a human--we'll call it Bob--which developed over millions of years through undirected evolution. Like us, Bob has developed sensory organs, transmission mechanisms and a brain by which he perceives his world, and has formed or had passed down to him beliefs about reality. Let's take a closer look at some of these.

Bob's eyes, optic nerves and brain have developed in a peculiar way. His species' primary predator is a terrible, tiger-like creature, but when Bob lays eyes on it he sees a giant, flashing sign with a message saying (in his language, of course), "Run fast in the other direction to experience great joy!" His endocrine system simultaneously developed to secrete a tremendous feeling of joy upon running sufficiently fast and sufficiently far in the opposite direction from the predator, providing him with the sense of great joy his eyes promised him.

Now, the peculiar way in which Bob sees this predator, and the way his body reacts when he runs fast and far enough away, have provided him with a survival advantage over his peers. But is he perceiving reality correctly? Of course not. There are a seemingly infinite number of ways in which Bob might perceive reality that give him an edge over his competitors, but which do not correspond to reality in an accurate way, and only one which is truly reflective of reality (which might not be advantageous, incidentally). Thus, the likelihood that anything he perceives is real is infinitesimally small.

The same is true of Bob's beliefs. Let's say that the surface of Bob's planet is riddled with pockets of dense, reddish mud. Bob has never touched the mud, and is not aware that it is thick and would so slow him down that any predator would easily catch him. He has had passed down to him, however, the belief that the mud is an acid that will eat away at his flesh. Therefore, he avoids it like the plague, which benefits him as he obeys the sign he saw, unknowingly running from the predator he incorrectly perceived.

Like his sense of vision, Bob's belief is wildly inaccurate and in no way reflects reality. Yet, it affords him a survival advantage in that it causes him to steer clear of obstacles which would slow him down and allow him to be caught by the predator chasing him (which he doesn't know exists). Again, innumerable possible false beliefs exist which would give Bob an advantage, and only one which is true. The likelihood that anything he believes is true is immeasurably tiny.

THE INESCAPABLE DILEMMA

Darwinists thus face an inescapable dilemma. Given evolutionary naturalism, what is the probability that one accurately perceives reality via one's senses? Little to none. Given atheism, what is the probability that one's beliefs correspond to reality? Little to none. The materialist is utterly devoid of justification for believing that anything he perceives, believes, or thinks he knows, is true. He exercises blind, warrantless faith that his senses accurately convey information, that his mind accurately interprets it, and that the beliefs he's formed and knowledge he's gained using those faculties are true.

Therefore, only if one believes there is a God is one justified in trusting in one's senses and beliefs. Indeed, one is justified in calling anything "knowledge" only if one believes a Creator made knowledge possible. Without a God, it is immeasurably unlikely that anything we sense, believe or think we know is trustworthy. But if a Designer fashioned the universe intending it to be able to be accurately perceived by its inhabitants, then we have reason to believe that knowledge is possible. True knowledge is only possible in a universe created by God.

The Bible and the Dead: Do Ghosts Exist?

In "Did the Disciples Fear Ghosts?" we discovered that when Jesus walked on the water, the disciples did not fear what they thought was a ghost, but what they thought was an appearance of the Lord, the likes of which meant certain death. But this particular event aside, what does the Bible say about the dead? And does it allow for the existence of ghosts? Do the disembodied spirits of the dead roam the earth?

As we will see, the answer to this question is unequivocally, "No." When a man dies, he goes to a place where the dead are utterly separate from the living, awaiting the final resurrection and judgment throne of God. While in this state, he has no access to the land of the living. He can neither appear here and interact with the living, nor does he have knowledge of their goings on. Only in a few rare, specific cases does God cause the dead to appear to the living.

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS

Let's start this study by looking at the parable Jesus gives of Lazarus and the rich man:

"Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:19-31)

This parable is a veritable treasure trove of insight into the state of the dead. Despite being a parable, it is likely reflective of reality. Jesus' parables were meant to reveal truth to His disciples, and if the pictures He painted were not rooted in reality, then how could one be assured of the truth of that which He intended to reveal? Therefore, we should probably assume that the story told is an accurate picture of the state of the dead.

NO ACTIVITY IN SHEOL

Note first that when these men died they are taken to "Hades," and whereas the rich man awakens in torment, across a great chasm Lazarus is comforted in the bosom of Abraham. Some translations, including the NIV, call it "hell," though this is different from the place of eternal torment likened unto a lake of fire in Revelation. The word is ᾅδης (hades) which is how the translators of the Septuagint--a pre-Christ translation of the Hebrew text into Greek--rendered the word שאול (sheol).

Usually Sheol is referred to in the Old Testament simply as "the grave." Little, if any, activity is said to take place there. Solomon wrote, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going" (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Whether or not there is consciousness in Sheol, it is evident from the context that he's speaking of activity on earth. Once we are dead, we no longer have the ability to act among the living.

Jesus' parable seems to confirm this. The rich man twice pleads with Abraham to let him warn his living brothers. Twice Abraham denies the request. Granted, there is a specific reason the rich man is told he cannot return to his father's house. Nevertheless, what is clear is that by default the dead have no access to the living. Only with special permission can the dead appear outside of Sheol on earth, and very few such occurrences are found within the pages of Scripture.

THE WITCH OF ENDOR

Saul was on the verge of being attacked by the Philistines, and he was scared. He asked the Lord for guidance, but God remained silent. So Saul sought out a medium in the hopes she could conjure Samuel up to advise him:

"Then the woman said, 'Whom shall I bring up for you?' And he said, 'Bring up Samuel for me.' When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, 'Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.' The king said to her, 'Do not be afraid; but what do you see?' And the woman said to Saul, 'I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.' He said to her, 'What is his form?' And she said, 'An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.' And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. Then Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?'" (1 Samuel 28:11-15)

Here is one case in which, apparently, the dead is allowed to interact with the living. The text does say, after all, that "Samuel [spoke] to Saul." However, it is worth noting that the woman appears to be shocked at the appearance of Samuel, for she "cried out with a loud voice." This has led many theologians to understand this as being unique, that she was not accustomed to actually interacting with the dead. As Chuck Smith writes,

"...this woman was shocked and surprised when Samuel came back. She expected to have a little conversation with her demon guide, and her demon spirit, and from him to get the information that Saul was seeking. But to her amazement this spirit actually came out of the earth, and she shrieked when she saw it."

You see, the woman is described as being a "medium," and the Hebrew reads בעלת־אוב, which literally means "mistress of a familiar spirit." Mediums, apparently, communicated with, or at least believed they communicated with, spirit beings, and a "familiar spirit" is a demon. These spiritists, then, if they had any real talent, did not actually interact with the dead; they interacted with demons who may have given them information about the dead.

In this case, however, the woman is surprised that, instead of simply communicating with her familiar spirit, she actually sees the spirit of Samuel coming up from the dead. Interaction with the dead, therefore, must not have been commonplace, even for a medium. Whether this interpretation is correct or not, it is evident that this was an exception to the rule that the dead do not interact with the living.

THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION

Another case in which the dead appear to the living is at Jesus' transfiguration:

"Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Peter said to Jesus, 'Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'" (Matthew 17:1-4)

There is some debate as to whether or not Elijah physically died. We know, however, that Moses died, for Scripture records it (Deuteronomy 34). Clearly, then, the spirit of Moses was permitted to appear in such a way as to be visible to Peter, James and John. However, like the spirit of Samuel's appearance to the woman at Endor, Moses' appearance before Jesus' apostles was a unique event, one with a particular purpose. As Peter wrote,

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased'--and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure..." (2 Peter 1:16-19)

The appearance of Moses and Elijah, then, was for the specific purpose of demonstrating the reality of His majesty to the disciples, so that as a result "the prophetic word [was] made more sure." Like the appearance of Samuel's spirit from the dead, the appearance of Moses and Elijah was unique, an exception to the rule. These are not normative, commonplace experiences. They are exceptions allowed in extremely rare circumstances for specific purposes.

A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES

If the dead are utterly separate from the living, unable to interact with the living except in rare circumstances, what are the "spirits" referred to throughout Scripture? I happened upon a website which points to several passages its authors believe to be support for the existence of ghosts, such as Jesus' appearance in the upper room after His resurrection:

"While they were telling these things, [Jesus] Himself stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be to you.' But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.'" (Luke 24:36-39, emphasis mine)

The website I found claims, "Christ himself describes a ghost, 'a ghost does not have flesh and bones'...would not this indicate that ghosts do exist? Jesus could of easily said that something on the lines that there are no such things as ghost, but instead Jesus describes a ghost." This is not what happened at all. The disciples did not think they were seeing a ghost, they thought they were seeing a demon, an "unclean spirit," as we'll see from examining the original Greek.

The Greek word for "spirit" is πνεῦμα (pneuma) and most often refers to the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 10:15, 1 Corinthians 6:19). In some cases it refers to an attitude ("of quiet" 1 Peter 3:4) or purpose ("with you in spirit" Colossians 2:5). It often describes demons, "unclean spirits" (Matthew 8:16, Mark 5:8,12). While the word is sometimes used to refer to a person's spirit, "the vital principal by which the body is animated," it never speaks of a disembodied human spirit anywhere but in Hades. Let's look at where the word is used to refer to a person's spirit:

"Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit [πνεῦμα] is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Matthew 26:41, see also Mark 14:38)

"And Mary said:...'my spirit [πνεῦμα] has rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47)

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit [πνεῦμα] was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols." (Acts 17:16)

"For God, whom I serve in my spirit [πνεῦμα] in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you" (Romans 1:9)

"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit [πνεῦμα] of the man which is in him?" (1 Corinthians 2:11)

Other passages that speak of the human spirit (arguably, in some cases) include: 1 Corinthians 7:34; 14:2, 14-16, 32; 16:18; 2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:1, 13; Galatians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon 1:25; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26; Hebrews 12:22-23; 1 Peter 3:18-20; Revelation 4:2; 17:3 and 21:10. But in every one of these cases, the human spirit is in one of two places: a living human body, or in the place of the dead apart from the living. There are only a few arguable cases:

"And her spirit [πνεῦμα] returned, and she got up immediately." (Luke 8:55)

"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit [πνεῦμα]!'" (Acts 7:59)

In the former verse, the human spirit was absent and returns to animate the body, but there's nothing to suggest that this transition from the place of the dead to the reanimated body is anything but instantaneous. In Stephen's case, the living body is about to die and the spirit will leave, but Stephen's plea makes it clear that he expects his spirit to be received immediately, not left to wander the earth indefinitely. Finally:

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit [πνεῦμα], but test the spirits [πνεῦμα] to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit [πνεῦμα] that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit [πνεῦμα] that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

In this case, if the spirits we're to test are those of humans (it is possible this is referring to demons), it is evident they are of living of humans, the "false prophets [who] have gone out into the world." We are not being told of ghosts roaming the earth trying to deceive people. So of the nearly 400 places in the New Testament in which πνεῦμα is used, fewer than 40 refer to human spirits and they're always either inside a living body or in the separate abode of the dead.

Nowhere is a disembodied human spirit manifested visibly. At Christ's transfiguration, we're told Moses and Elijah appeared visibly, but the word πνεῦμα (spirit) is not used; it is possible they were temporarily reunited with their bodies. The medium of Endor called up Samuel from Sheol, but the text doesn't say Saul saw him; he may have appeared only in a vision to the medium through whom he spoke. The point is, even in the few rare exceptions, there's no evidence that disembodied human spirits can appear visibly to the living.

A DEMON DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES

So, back to the passage at hand. What does it mean that the disciples were "frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit?" Many well-known theologians have assumed that "spirit" here does, in fact, refer to a disembodied human spirit, and that the disciples were startled by Jesus' appearing before them in this fashion. However, it is evident from Jesus' words that the disciples did not think it was truly Him: "See My hands and My feet, that it is I myself" (emphasis mine).

Jesus was not trying to prove to His disciples that He was physical, He was trying to prove to them that it was Him! They were not questioning the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body, they were questioning the identity of the "spirit" that was standing before them. And Jesus proves to them that He is not a "spirit" because a "spirit" does not have flesh and bones as He has.

What or whom, then, did the disciples fear they were seeing? We've seen that there's no biblical warrant for belief in disembodied human spirits manifesting visibly to the living, so it's unlikely that the disciples thought that's what had appeared to them. Of all the other definitions of the word πνεῦμα (spirit), the only remaining possibility is that they feared they were seeing a demon.

Biblical examples of demons manifesting visibly are admittedly lacking, at least given my meager volume of research. However, most Christians believe demons are "fallen" angels, those which followed Satan, also a former angel. And there are several examples of angels appearing visibly to humans, so it would stand to reason that, if allowed to by God, demons can likewise make themselves visible, even if it is uncommon. Therefore, I believe the most likely explanation is that Jesus' disciples were afraid they were in the presence of a demon until He proved to them it was Him.

GHOSTS AND THE BIBLE

What, then, is the answer to the question, "Do ghosts exist?" No, they do not, at least from a biblical perspective. The disembodied spirits of dead humans await resurrection in Sheol, wholly separate from the land of the living. They cannot interact in the land of the living whatsoever, except in extremely rare circumstances in which God has a specific purpose, and even then not as "spirits," but either in a vision or, so far as we can tell, physically.

When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples feared the kind of appearance by God that in the time of Moses would kill those who drew too near. When Jesus appeared to them in the upper room after His resurrection, they feared they were in the presence of a demon rather than the Lord. These are simply not examples of the dead appearing to the living, and we are left with no biblical warrant for believing in ghosts whatsoever.

In this day of sensational stories of supernatural terror, as Christians we needn't fear ghosts. I laugh at shows like Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures and the like, and hope my wife succeeds in getting me on as a guest along for one of their adventures. For while any dark place in the middle of the night will be a bit creepy, I think I would still find the experience rather laughable, bringing with me a biblical world view.

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.

Jesus on the Water: Did the Disciples Fear Ghosts?

On day 11 of my small group's Bible reading plan we read a passage from Mark in which Jesus walks upon the surface of the Sea of Galilee. It's a story with which we Christians are quite familiar. However, something caught my eye this time around:

"Seeing them straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by them. But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw Him and were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, 'Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid.'" (Mark 6:48-50, emphasis mine)

What struck me about this passage was that it seems as though the disciples believed in and feared ghosts. For years I've told people that ghosts do not exist, and that Scripture expressly teaches as much. When I read this passage, however, I wondered if perhaps I'd been teaching wrongly. After all, if the Bible says there are no ghosts, why would the disciples have feared them? So, I decided to do a bit of research.

AN ASIDE FOR ENCOURAGEMENT

Before I explain my findings, however, I want to encourage my readers to do this kind of investigation into the word of God. I promise you, I am not all that different from you. I am an untrained layperson in the pews. I am not a pastor, I hold no degree, I cannot read Greek or Hebrew, and I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture.

What I have is a desire to study the riches contained within the pages of God-breathed Scripture, and I'm telling you, it is so rewarding and fulfilling to dive deeply into the text of the Bible. You will be blessed immensely, as the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to you through His word. (But be careful, you might become addicted!) And it's not that hard to do, honestly. Let me tell you what I do.

First, I look at the text at an online Bible like BibleGateway.com, and I compare it with other, related passages. The text of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is perfect because there are links in the text to other places where similar words and themes appear. Second, I look at the original text at Blue Letter Bible, where you can find the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew in which the Bible was originally written, as well as where those words are used elsewhere in Scripture. Third, I look at commentaries written by the giants upon whose shoulders I stand, which you can also find at Blue Letter Bible.

That's about it! I compare Scripture with Scripture (step 1), I look at what the words in their original languages meant (step 2) and I find out what theologians who are smarter than me have said over the centuries (step 3). When you do this, you will discover a limitless wealth of biblical truth that will edify you and leave you thirsty for more. You will find yourself better prepared to share the gospel, and perhaps more importantly, you will protect yourself from doctrinal error, being able to readily identify false teachings from a distance before getting swept up yourself.

DID THE DISCIPLES FEAR GHOSTS?

Okay, so back to the issue at hand. Here's what I discovered. First, the word rendered "ghost" is φάντασμα (phantasma), a noun which means "an appearance, an apparition." The only place it's used in Scripture is here, both in Mark's and Matthew's account of the event. It comes from the root word φαντάζω (phantazo), a verb which means "to cause to appear, make visible, expose to view, show." So the disciples feared an "appearance" of something.

Interestingly, the verb φαντάζω (phantazo) appears (excuse the pun) only once in Scripture:

"For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, 'IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED.' And so terrible was the sight [φαντάζω], that Moses said, 'I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling.'" (Hebrews 12:18-21, emphasis mine)

So what is the "sight" to which the author of Hebrews refers in this passage? The author is writing to Jewish believers in Jesus who are intimately familiar with their Tanakh (the Old Testament). He is contrasting the inapproachability of God on Mount Sinai, something with which the readers were very familiar, with the new covenant and heavenly Jerusalem through the mediator, Jesus Christ. He is referring to Exodus 19 in which Moses and the sons of Israel had arrived at Sinai having left Egypt three months earlier.
 
THE LORD DESCENDED UPON IT IN FIRE
 
"The LORD said to Moses, 'Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever'" (Exodus 19:9). But, God warned him, "You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, 'Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death'" (Exodus 19:12). And it was not just the people that would die, but "whether beast or man, he shall not live" (Exodus 19:13).
 
Three days later, "Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently" (Exodus 19:18). God told Moses, "Go down, warn the people, so that they do not break through to the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish" (Exodus 19:21). And it was from within this terrifying smoke and blazing fire that the Lord gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
 
We see, then, that the φαντάζω (phantazo) to which the author of Hebrews referred was the "appearance" of God in what he called "blazing fire," which the people were not to approach or they would die. Moses recounted the event later, quoting the people as having said, "this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer, then we will die" (Deuteronomy 5:25). This is actually a very common theme throughout the Old Testament.
 
The angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah and he thought "We will surely die, for we have seen God" (Judges 13:21-22). He appeared also to Gideon who, upon realizing it, cried out, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face," to which God replied, "do not fear; you shall not die" (Judges 6:22-23). And Moses asked God, "show me Your glory," to which God responded, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live" (Exodus 33:18-20).
 
THE APPEARANCE THE DISCIPLES FEARED
 
What is it the disciples of Jesus feared, then? Was it the "appearance" of a ghost, a roaming, disembodied spirit of a dead person? Clearly not. The disciples feared for their lives! They thought they were seeing an "appearance" of the Lord, the likes of which caused the people to tremble with fear of death at Mount Sinai! They feared they were being visited by the angel of the Lord and were about to die! But Jesus comforted them, just as the angel of the Lord had done in the past, and said, "Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid" (Mark 6:50).

The Bible teaches us ghosts don't exist, and perhaps I'll write about that in greater depth later. What we see, though, is that the disciples did not fear a ghost, they feared they would die having seen an appearance of the Lord. But this is more than an interesting bit of insight into the text in which the event is recorded. I am moved deeply, nearly to the point of tears, as I type these words, for in this post I wrote this morning what I was learning as I was learning it.

Reflect and meditate on Jesus' response to His disciples: "Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid." They feared they would die as a result of God having appeared to them, as He had on Mount Sinai. But Jesus and the author of Hebrews remind us that we "have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire...so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, 'I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling.'" No, we have come to something much greater:

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel." (Hebrews 12:22-24)

Through Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and man, we can approach God! In the past God could not be approached, for anyone catching a glimpse of His glory would perish. But because of what Christ has done for us, we are welcome to draw near to God! We "have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear;" we "have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father'" (Romans 8:15).

The word "Abba" is the equivalent of our "Papa." Almighty God appeared in the past in a terrifying blaze of fire. We get to draw near and call Him, "Papa." Think about it.

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.