A study of the "Revelation" - date & significance, then & now

[John of Japan]

When did the mountains melt like wax (Psalm 97:5; Micah 1:3)? There are other passages that could be cited that have similar phrases. For that matter if we want Zech. 14:1 to be literal do we also treat the Angel of Revelation 10:1 the same way, the one with 0ne pillar-leg on the sea, the other on the land?

No, these are all metaphorical. It is apocalyptical language.

Actually, none of these passages are metaphorical, but other figures of speech. Ps. 97:5 is hyperbole, and Micah 1:3 is an anthropormorphism. Zech. 14:1 is personification (or do you mean 4:1?). The great thing about grammatical-historical interpretation is that we know what the figures of speech are and how to interpret them as--wait for it--figures of speech!

I have no reason to interpret Rev. 10:1 other than literally--unless you have some special knowledge that I don't have about how an angel should always look.

And by the way, metaphors represent actual things. Just sayin'.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand this, but find it so bizarre that I hardly know how to address it. Matthew 28:20. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." So which is it? Is Jesus with us always, or was He only with Christians until AD 70?

The OC became obsolete at the cross. 'Now where there is remission of these [sins], there is no longer an offering for sin' (Hebrews 10:18). Paul was not asked, and did not agree, to make any sort of sacrifice (Acts 21:23-24).

But this is, to a degree, beside the point. The point is that with the death and resurrection of Christ, the door of salvation opened to the Gentiles (eg. John 12:32). The old Jewish religion was left behind long before AD 70 (Acts 13:46-47). To place the destruction of Jerusalem as the pivotal event of history is nonsense. Temple worship became old and obsolete, and disappeared. But by that time it would already have been an irrelevance to the thousands of Christians living miles away from Jerusalem who were largely Gentile (entirely so in the case of places like Philippi). I have asked this before and received no answer: why would the Christians in Corinth, Thessalonica and Philippi have been 'eagerly awaiting' the destruction of Jerusalem, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews? How did it benefit them? How did their lives change? In what sense did they start living in the 'new heavens and the new earth where righteousness dwells'? Did they see Jesus? And if not, why not in the light of Revelation 1:7? In what possible sense are we living in the new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells today?

New heavens and Earth will be after the Second Coming, and that period will have JUST the Body of Christ, glorified state, living with God there, so how could that have happened yet?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When did the mountains melt like wax (Psalm 97:5; Micah 1:3)? There are other passages that could be cited that have similar phrases. For that matter if we want Zech. 14:1 to be literal do we also treat the Angel of Revelation 10:1 the same way, the one with 0ne pillar-leg on the sea, the other on the land?

No, these are all metaphorical. It is apocalyptical language.

I agree with you that the language is metaphorical and apocalyptic, but that does not mean that it can be ignored or that it can be made to mean the very opposite of what it rather obviously does.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

The 'nations,' which must surely mean Gentiles, are coming against Jerusalem, and the Lord is going to fight against them. Half the city will be taken, and half not taken. I think that's pretty clear, leaving aside verse 4 which perhaps is more difficult..

How does this work in relation to AD 70? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gentiles win and take the whole city?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you that the language is metaphorical and apocalyptic, but that does not mean that it can be ignored or that it can be made to mean the very opposite of what it rather obviously does.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

The 'nations,' which must surely mean Gentiles, are coming against Jerusalem, and the Lord is going to fight against them. Half the city will be taken, and half not taken. I think that's pretty clear, leaving aside verse 4 which perhaps is more difficult..

How does this work in relation to AD 70? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gentiles win and take the whole city?

Didn't paul state that Jerusalem would be under Gentile control until the end times, and God has then dealing withJews regarding that city?

 

[Covenanter]

I agree with you that the language is metaphorical and apocalyptic, but that does not mean that it can be ignored or that it can be made to mean the very opposite of what it rather obviously does.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

The 'nations,' which must surely mean Gentiles, are coming against Jerusalem, and the Lord is going to fight against them. Half the city will be taken, and half not taken. I think that's pretty clear, leaving aside verse 4 which perhaps is more difficult..

How does this work in relation to AD 70? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Gentiles win and take the whole city?

Zechariah has a context - he & Haggai were raised up about 20 years after the temple rebuilding had been started & discontinued.
They are encouraging the Israelites, led by Zerubbabel & Joshua to get on with the rebuilding - ultimately for Messiah, according to Gabriel's prophecy in Dan. 9.

Many of Zechariah's prophecies are specific for the last week of our Lord's life on earth & the response to the Apostolic preaching:

Zec. 3:9, 6:12-13, 9:9, 11:13, 12:10, 13:1,6,7,​

So, how do we understand/interpret Rev. 14 in that context?

The Israelites, in rejecting & crucifying their Messiah have broken the covenant. They looked on the pierced One & mocked him. Now they MUST look on him in repentance & be baptised in the opened fountain. Acts 2 records Peter's preaching & the response of 3000. Acts 3 confirms that Jesus fulfills the covenant, & warns his hearers:

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.​

The Jews were becoming non-covenant people. Stephen, by the Holy Spirit, declares them 'uncircumcised.' They are the first nation to be destroyed.
There is a new prophetic Jerusalem being built, a new living temple, a new people of God who according to Zechariah:

13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.​

14:8 ... living waters.... must relate to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit according to Jesus' prophecy.

The war against Jerusalem should be understood as war against the new Jerusalem, the redeemed people of God - Christians - and the Jewish leaders, now declared 'uncircumcised' are in the forefront of that war, determined to exterminate the followers of their Messiah.

14:4,5 prophesy the flight of believers from the city. God opens the way, & guards them as they flee. And in v. 9 -

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.​

There is no longer a rival city, rival temple, of godless people claiming to be chosen. Jesus is fully vindicated - our LORD Jesus Christ.
Hallelujah!

 

[kyredneck]

Well, duh! He was teaching in the temple when he was 12. 12 + 15 = 27. And he was born in 5 BC and died in 31 AD. That's 36 years old, which is pretty close to a rounded off 40.

I know you are desperate,…

Lol, considering this demonstration of gymnastics with numbers I'd say YOU'RE the one that's desperate:

"Irenaeus suffers from credibility issues and/or textual and scribal errors. He also wrote when he was very old and/or made major mistakes. For example, in the same work as the aforementioned quote, he states that Jesus was crucified when he was fifty years old. Thus, the principle source for the late dating of the Book of Revelation has some significant holes."

…. but your one error filled quote does not negate the overwhelming consensus of the early church fathers who all agree

Wrong. If Irenaeus, as the original source that all others have built upon has shone this sort of gross error, it most definitely negates the consensus of the ECF.

It's call "History." He was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus.

This is called history also:

The "Syriac version" of the New Testament, which dates back to the second century A.D., states that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero making a date of 64-68 A.D.

The "Muratorian Fragment," dating back to 170-190 A.D., states that this work of John was written during the reign of Nero.

The "Aramaic Peshitta" version has a remark that places its date prior to 70 A.D. The title page of Revelation states this work of John was written right after the reign of Nero.

The "Monarchian Prologues," that dates back to 250-350 A.D., claims that Paul also wrote to these seven churches (possibly Romans which was a "circular letter," it went out to many addressees) following John's Book, thus, placing the book even before some of the other Pauline epistles.

A quote, arguably attributed to Papius (130 AD), states that John the Apostle was martyred before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/?articleid=57879&columnid=4624

IOW, external evidence is unreliable. Internal evidence should be the source for dating the book of Revelation.

 

[TCassidy]

"Irenaeus suffers from credibility issues and/or textual and scribal errors. He also wrote when he was very old and/or made major mistakes. For example, in the same work as the aforementioned quote, he states that Jesus was crucified when he was fifty years old. Thus, the principle source for the late dating of the Book of Revelation has some significant holes."

What Irenaeus actually said was:

"For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

What he said was a man was young until 30, mature until 40, and old at 50. As the Sanhedrin required a man to be at least 50 years of age to be considered a Master (teacher), all Irenaeus was saying was that Christ fulfilled that requirement, not by his age, but due to his extraordinary teaching ability.

Irenaeus' point is that Jesus' humanity identifies with human beings of every age, he went on to say:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and ***youths***, and ***old men***. He therefore passed through ***every age***, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. ****So likewise He was an old man for old men****, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time ***the aged*** also, and becoming an example to them likewise."

Wrong. If Irenaeus, as the original source that all others have built upon has shone this sort of gross error, it most definitely negates the consensus of the ECF.

Irenaeus is not the source. History is the source.

The "Muratorian Fragment," dating back to 170-190 A.D., states that this work of John was written during the reign of Nero.

Uh, the Muratorian Fragment dates to the 8th century AD. It has been speculated that it is a Latin translation of an older Greek manuscript of unknown origin.

What you failed to mention is that it does not set any dates for John's exile, but he does consider the Apocalypse of Peter as canon, as well as the Book of Wisdom. And you consider that a trustworthy source?

The "Aramaic Peshitta"

You do know that the Peshitta and the Syriac are the same thing, right? You can't offer the same thing twice, especially when it has already been disproved.

A quote, arguably attributed to Papius (130 AD)

Yeah. Now trot out the fake Papius. "Arguably attributed to Papius?" Really? By whom? Oh! Yes! Those who can't find any legitimate evidence to support their false notion.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.

 

[asterisktom]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Was Jesus born of a virgin in the strict literal sense of the word?
How do you know one way or the other?

HankD

Hank, there is a difference between the Virgin Birth and the Zech. verse about the mountains splitting. For one, the Virgin Birth is taught and assumed in many other passages, most of them clearly straightforward, like in Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans.

That Zech verse, by contrast, stands alone. The only ones close to them are like the ones I cited, ones I assume you would readily accept as figurative. And if you accept, say, Micah 1:3 as figurative why not this verse in Zechariah?

 

[asterisktom]

The Lord always fulfilled His prophcies in a literal physical fashion, as you showed here!
Mary was not a "spiritual Virgin"

Are you willing to accept that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was prophesied to come? If so then you have a fulfillment that is in non-literal fashion.

 

[asterisktom]

I understand this, but find it so bizarre that I hardly know how to address it. Matthew 28:20. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." So which is it? Is Jesus with us always, or was He only with Christians until AD 70?

Jesus is with us always. The verse does not say He will cease to be with us after the end of the age. The focus is on His help and presence during that time. It says nothing about a future absence. This usage is common, even among us today. Do I even need to give an example?

Not sure when the cut off for responding in this thread is. There is more I wanted to answer but other business calls.

 

[asterisktom]

To place the destruction of Jerusalem as the pivotal event of history is nonsense. Temple worship became old and obsolete, and disappeared.

There are many OT verses that disagree with that being nonsense. Also, you keep saying words like "became". But I showed from Scripture the terms like "is about to fade away", "is passing away", etc. You overlook this to put undue emphasis on your contention.

But by that time it would already have been an irrelevance to the thousands of Christians living miles away from Jerusalem who were largely Gentile (entirely so in the case of places like Philippi). I have asked this before and received no answer: why would the Christians in Corinth, Thessalonica and Philippi have been 'eagerly awaiting' the destruction of Jerusalem, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews? How did it benefit them? How did their lives change?

I suggest you read Josephus more carefully, or Ussher's Annals. The disaster to the Jews was not confined only to Jerusalem or Judea. It ranged all round the known world, wherever the Diaspora had reached. There were bloody reprisals in Cyrene, Antioch, Thessalonica, etc. Persecution of Christians from the Jews was put to an end.

This is exactly what Paul had assured the Thessalonians when he promised both relief and retribution to those who troubled them.

This is all I have time for.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 3 AM Pacific.