Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Revelation - The Way it Happened
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The Book of Revelation - Apocalyptic Showdown
message 101:
by
Lee
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Nov 11, 2013 07:30PM
Unless Josephus knew the author of Revelation as I propose in my book, then no, I doubt he was aware of it. But he knew his scripture extremely well and was quite aware of Judaic endtime claims
reply
|
flag
Guys - 1st century history is not one of my major areas of scholarly concentration (I've read just enough to be dangerous!) so I'll leave most of the heavy hitting to other contributors and you may regard my thoughts as purely speculative. A question though: Are there other historians weighing in on the casualty number for the earthquake? If someone else came up with a similar figure (7000-8500) it would relieve the suspicion Revelation and Josephus were somehow in cahoots.
I think it is obvious there is a division between Revelation 1-11 and 12-22, just on a literary level. I mean, if you read it with no preconceived notion and outlined it, that is an obvious break. Maybe it is, as Lee says, a break from what has happened to what will happen. I think Rod brings up a good question in 100. I'd take it and run with it. In our day a book is released and people everywhere have access. Someone writes a book in March and it influences someone else later in March. We are used to this sort of instant communication, but prior to Guttenburg it was different. How long would it take for Revelation to get a hearing? Josephus was a well-known historian so I imagine his works got out quicker, but even then we are looking at copying by hand and a mostly illiterate culture.
Was Josephus in Asia Minor, the area where Revelation was sent? Would the Christians there have been quick to publish this outside Asia Minor?
Do we know any of this? I guess I would vote for 3 since I have a hard time seeing how either could rely on the other one (though I know Lee argues for this later).
Robert, I don't know anybody else who reported on the Jerusalem earthquake. Roman historians seemed more interested in earthquakes in Rome. As for Josephus, he spent lots of time in Jerusalem and Galilee during the period Revelation is about, but after that, he took up residence in Rome.
Josephus knew John of Gischala VERY well, and hated him. If John of Gischala is the author of Revelation, then that is the connection between Josephus and Revelation. We'll get to that.
Lee - as you've seen from my book, I like probability. Could you handicap the likelihood of each of the various John's as being the author of Revelation?
Robert wrote: "Lee - as you've seen from my book, I like probability. Could you handicap the likelihood of each of the various John's as being the author of Revelation?"haha. I do not believe John of Gischala, or John the Apostle, wrote Revelation. I suck at believing stuff. I merely believe that in my book that I've uncovered a likely scenario...as likely as any other. I've been asked this many times, so please pardon if I answer by referencing a short blog post:
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/0...
Lee - as we've ascertained on this board many times, "disbelief" is merely belief in something besides Scriptural veracity. It's a substitution of a humanistic value system over the Biblically ordained one. God help us all! But, thanks anyway for the link - excuse me, I thought I'd been invited to the rostrum there for a moment.
No, disbelief is the inability (or, if you think you can control your own beliefs, the refusal) to believe. For example, I neither believe that you are over 6 feet tall nor do I believe you are under 6 feet tall. I have no reason to believe either way. I disbelieve both, awaiting further evidence.If it makes you feel better, you may claim that I believe anyone who thinks they know who wrote Revelation is insufficiently confused. :)
Q: Have others heard much about the two-Messiah doctrine that permeated Judaic thinking at the time of Jesus? I'm curious whether there was any assumed authority of one over the other--the priest over the king or vice versa--or whether believers in this scenario actually envisioned two equal "Messiahs." It seems like quite a different picture from the warrior figure most pictured.This chapter explains how Christians took the expectation of two figures and coalesced them into one, calling Jesus both priest and king.
Lee, I'd need to look at a timeline to see when Josephus was in Galilee and Jerusalem. I guess I need to stop posting when your book is at home and I am not!As for the two-Messiah doctrine, do you mean how Christians took the Messiah (conquering Davidic king) and combined him with the suffering servant (Isa. 53)? All I ever heard was that this was a totally new idea, no one ever saw Isa. 53 as a messiah.
David, the clearest example of a two-Messiah doctrine is in Zechariah, where the two "anointed ones" are King Zerubbabel and Priest Joshua. But the idea may have stemmed originally from the Balaam prophecy, "A star out of Jacob and a Scepter out of Israel," with the thought that these were two different people. In Christian thinking, Hebrews tells how Jesus fills both roles as priest and king.
Lee - no one's quite as confused as a person who spends all his time studying the Word of God, but claims he has no reason to believe it.
Yeah, scholars are a strange bunch. I have a friend who spends his time studying Richard Nixon, and doesn't believe a word Nixon said either.
Lee - same way scientifically, one half of it is cutting edge and searching for truth, the other half is a bunch of bull.
Yeah, I've read my share of "Texas longhorn" papers. A point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between.We learn to do that in University, you know. We have to have something to hold up the points, so we fill it up with bull, knowing nobody really understands a word we're writing anyway. It just has to sound like we know what we're talking about, so the points that matter to us are thought to have substance.
Lee - Such a cynical viewpoint for a young man. That sort of self-analysis is usually reserved for the old and cranky.
CHAPTER 7: THE WAR REACHES HEAVENOn that note, let's continue. ;)
I told Robert this chapter is where it hits the fan. It's the longest of the book, and the most substantial. The problem is, I've included two interludes in the same chapter; one is highly speculative, and one is not. As a result, I think I made a strategic error. The unveiling of the False Prophet is speculative, but the unveiling of Nero Caesar as the Beast is not speculative at all, and should not be put in the same category. I believe I should have put more effort into a more convincing explanation of the number 666.
The truth is, I have read tons of books on Revelation, and I have never encountered a studied scholar of Revelation who does not recognize that 666 = Nero Caesar. If a person studies this, they come to accept it. Period. Even conservative scholars who study the Imperial Cult accept this identification. On some level, Revelation is about Nero Caesar. This is simply an acknowledged fact of scripture. Even if all the little hints spread throughout Revelation are ignored, this one 666 puzzle seals the deal for scholars.
The wording itself gives away that 666 is a cryptogram. "Calculate the number of the beast." The only way it can be solved is to guess at the identity, and then calculate his "number," to see if it equals 666. "Nero Caesar," NRWN QSR, in Hebrew numerals, sums to 666. Thankfully, the puzzle is easily solved, as everybody knew what an anti-Christian Nero was.
I recall when I first encountered the cryptogram explanation, and how hokey it seemed to me. Yet the more I read, the more I realized how prolific these cryptograms were in the first century, and how often it was used to hide/reveal secrets of scripture. Then I began to realize that the identification of Nero was no secret at all to early Christians; everybody...and I mean everybody...knew what 666 meant. It was no secret at all.
But of course, why would it be a secret? John commanded his audience in Asia Minor to figure out the puzzle. He surely wouldn't build a puzzle that they couldn't figure out.
I'll introduce other chapter 7 topics later, but wanted to get on solid ground first. Fact: On some level, Revelation identifies the Beast of the Sea as Nero Caesar.
Yes Lee, I concur that Chapter 7 is the centerpiece of your book and very worthy of praise at that. Your dialogue between Nicolas and Samuel is both imaginative and informative and helped me further visualize early Christian times with a real cauldron of competing ideologies thrown together. But, I'm most interested in Nero as Beast. My futuristic conception had the Beast as nuclear winter and 666 as an obscure computation of the size or number of thermonuclear devices employed. Never did like that scenario so I'm asking a favor? Can I borrow Nero to become my futuristic Beast? Instead of resurrecting him so soon after death, let him rest for a few thousand years and get his strength back. He's going to need it when God recruits all the righteous, deceased Jews (dem bones) for his army at Armageddon.
Yes, of course you may borrow him! I bemoan the fact that Christians today have all but forgotten the original Antichrist. But to be fair, most Christians/scholars of Revelation do still retain a futuristic viewpoint, and merely read typology into Revelation. Much as Antiochus IV (the "beast" of Daniel's biographer) became a typology of a much worse beast for John of Patmos, John's beast (Nero) becomes a typology of a much worse antichrist to come.
Chapter Eight - the fall of Babylon, in a futurist interpretation, of course, signifies the demise of Islam. Too easy, so it probably won't come to pass that way!
Here's my question Lee - if everyone knew 666 = Nero, what was the point of saying 666 and not just saying Nero? Why have a code that is not a code since EVERYONE knows what it means?I certainly see 666 as Nero, but that question has always bothered me.
I also have no problem seeing Antiochus as a type for a much worse beast and then holding out belief that Nero could be a type of an even worse one. I mean, I don't need the Bible to tell me that - it seems patently obvious that humanity is susceptible to powerful people leading great persecutions.
David wrote: "Here's my question Lee - if everyone knew 666 = Nero, what was the point of saying 666 and not just saying Nero? Why have a code that is not a code since EVERYONE knows what it means?"David Chilton would answer that the Jews with their numerology long understood the number 666 to define both a king and a kingdom in the dragon's image. Then, lo and behold, along came an emperor (of the hated Rome, no less) with that very number. John wasn't so much building a puzzle as he was pointing out that Nero is the one prophesied, the time has arrived.
Robert wrote: "Chapter Eight - the fall of Babylon, in a futurist interpretation, of course, signifies the demise of Islam. Too easy, so it probably won't come to pass that way!"I've heard that interpretation, of course. But if it's too easy to be right, I vote we be careful about perpetuating that myth, as it just heightens inter-religion distrust.
Some questions I'm curious about, for those who've read the chapter:1. p. 132 about the dragon myth: does it bother you that Revelation refers to a commonly-known pagan battle myth, or that the myth has such obvious ties to astrology?
2. p. 139, have you ever tied the war in heaven between Michael and the angels to what Jesus says in Luke 10:18, and do you think it's primordial or apocalyptic, or an event that happened in Jesus' lifetime?
3. p. 176, what do you make of the commonalities between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus bar Ananus?
4. p. 186-190, How freaky is it that Nero came back just as I propose Revelation was being published? Is this coincidence? What kind of reaction did you have: did it make you believe MORE in the identification of Nero as the beast, or did it make you angry and dismissive of the whole Nero issue?
5. Who do you think first-century readers actually envisioned the False Prophet as? Do you think we have enough information to hazard a guess?
Number 5 is a hot topic among preterists, so I highlighted the more common guesses (Florus, Simon the Sorcerer, Nicolas) before proposing Josephus. The latter seems the best fit for me, especially since I like Vespasian as the evil white horseman, and it was only after this association fell into place for me that I really began to seriously consider the possibility that John of Gischala wrote Revelation. The conflict in Revelation suddenly became very personal and alive.
Lee - I'll tackle #2 as I have made that connection. I think it is primordial and happened long before Abraham. I would put it at the time of Noah when all were evil and Satan made the case to turn them all over to Him as God's principal creation was irredeemably rotten. Michael, as God's henchman, toppled Satan and God decided to start again with just Noah and his son's families. Of course, this didn't turn out too well as we're still irredeemable rotten.
Apparently Jesus disagrees (about us being irredeemable). :)
No, we're irredeemable all right - just forgiven.
Fun stuff!I think all this is very similar to how God plays with creation and the pathetically slim possibility of evolution. There is just enough comparisons for non-Saints (and some really gullible saints?!) to chase this stuff down eternal rabbit holes.
Good research Lee. - R.C. Sproul just did a study on the Preterist view of Revelation. He agrees with you on many things. (not everything though.)
Thanks Rod, and thanks for the praise in #118 Robert! It is, as Rod says, fun stuff.
#5 Well 1st century Jews envisioned Jesus as the False Prophet. Most 20th century ones still do. As I'm futurist, I've been brainstorming about which historical figure (if any) I could carry forward as sidekick for Nero. Josephus is w-a-y too puny, Maybe some Spanish Inquistioner or wayward Pope.
1. p. 132 about the dragon myth: does it bother you that Revelation refers to a commonly-known pagan battle myth, or that the myth has such obvious ties to astrology? Not even a little.
2. p. 139, have you ever tied the war in heaven between Michael and the angels to what Jesus says in Luke 10:18, and do you think it's primordial or apocalyptic, or an event that happened in Jesus' lifetime?
Good question. I'm not sure when this battle happened.. I would say that Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and in that Satan lost his access to God and job as accuser (since there is no more need, post-Jesus). As I write this I would be okay with equating the Revelation battle and Luke 10:18.
3. p. 176, what do you make of the commonalities between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus bar Ananus?
I'd need to look into this one more. I'm not sure.
4. p. 186-190, How freaky is it that Nero came back just as I propose Revelation was being published? Is this coincidence? What kind of reaction did you have: did it make you believe MORE in the identification of Nero as the beast, or did it make you angry and dismissive of the whole Nero issue?
Its a pretty cool story. But it makes sense that if people expected Nero to return, someone with a dream of power could pose as Nero. If he won at the head of a Parthian army he'd be set for life, right?
5. Who do you think first-century readers actually envisioned the False Prophet as? Do you think we have enough information to hazard a guess?
I've always taken them not as individuals but as larger entities - beast from sea is the Roman empire (came over the sea to Asia Minor) and beast from the land is the imperial cult, demanding worship of Rome (so if you don't call Caesar Lord you can't buy or sell). I suppose it makes sense if we look for people today to fill the roles (the pope! Obama! Reagan!) then people then would too. Nero makes sense.
I forget though - if Nero is coming from Parthia, how exactly is this from the sea?
David wrote: "I forget though - if Nero is coming from Parthia, how exactly is this from the sea? "In my interpretation, I fall back on a common interpretation of "land" being Israel and "Sea" being gentile lands. The first beast comes from the sea, the second beast (false prophet) comes from Israel.
Lee - when you do get to Chapter 8, I'd like to know where, Scripturally, Satan is granted the authority to initiate the early judgments. Sure, Revelation seems a wild free-for-all, but I'm not sure God grants Satan the extent of power you outline. Wouldn't that raise Satan to the level of competing God?
CHAPTER 8: MESSIAH TO THE RESCUE!On vacation for Thanksgiving, but thought I'd pop in and open chapter 8.
Here we look at the evidence of John of Gischala as the author of Revelation, and how closely his story matches the tradition handed down of John the Apostle. Do I really think they're the same person? Geez, I dunno. I consider it a real possibility, as likely as any other scenario.
This section in Revelation introduces the bowls of wrath. This has long puzzled scholars, as it seems to repeat the woes of the trumpets, just more extreme. This all fits quite nicely with my interpretation (that the trumpets are pretty much over at the time of writing, and John expects an even greater climax when God finally steps in to finish the job) but it seems to me that scholarship, both conservative and not, flounders here. Why are they so close to the same? Is it really telling the same story twice? Preterists date all of this to the time of the war, which makes little sense to me at all.
Robert asked about God granting Satan power. Is this biblical? I'd like other opinions, but Satan is an extremely powerful being in Revelation, a seven-headed dragon casting stars from the sky. Revelation (whether intended literally or not) is a cosmic battle between Christ and Satan.
We also could note the style of apocalyptic writing here, that in the same manner as the Beast is both a person and an empire (Nero and Rome) depending upon how he is portrayed, Satan appears to be not only a single enemy but a stand-in for all the dark forces against Jesus. He is the personification of evil. The eruption of Vesuvius, whether or not caused by Satan, is representative of evil taking over the world.
What do you guys think of the hailstorm? (p 238-239) I felt inspired that day, writing that!
CHAPTER 9: JUDGMENT AND GLORYHope everyone had a good Thanksgiving! The book is winding down, just two more chapters and a short epilogue.
If I don't say so myself, chapter 8 ended with a solid argument that the Babylon of Revelation is the (now destroyed) city of Jerusalem. See page 225 for the closing arguments. This study left no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Babylon (the Great City) was Jerusalem; not Rome, nor any modern day speculation. This interpretation allows Revelation to fall completely into place in its first-century setting.
With this identification of the whore firmly in place, then, we enter the chapter-long tirade in Revelation against Jerusalem. It's not pretty. Jerusalem (the whore) rides Rome (the beast with seven heads/hills) and God brings her down.
Not very many scholars agree with me on this identification. Well, heck, mostly just preterists do. But to me, after taking the time to really study, this is crystal clear: Babylon, the whore, is Jerusalem, whom God finally gave up on and let be destroyed.
Also in this chapter is a description of the seven founding kings of Rome. P. 235 gives us a solid timeframe for when Revelation was written: Five of the seven kings are dead, one is now reigning (Vespasian) one is yet to come (Titus) who will reign only a short while, and then Nero will revive as the 8th king.
Another extremely important discovery to interpreting Revelation can be seen on p. 250. Revelation is a rewrite, and Christianization, of the book of Ezekiel. Why is this important to recognize? Because whenever you get confused in Revelation, just turn to the parallel passage in Ezekiel, and study it there. Fascinating.
Just for the sake of discussion, Lee, let us say I accept your supposition that ancient Jerusalem was Babylon. As a futurist, wouldn't that be a big "So What?", because, as we've constantly established, the Bible is repetitive. All that happened in the first century merely foreshadows that which is to come on a much larger scale at a date TBD.
Yes, as a futurist, that's a big "So What?" As is any history book to people not interested in history.
Lee, sorry I've been so out of this discussion...its been a busy time!As for why the bowls and trumpets are so similar - the books we read in seminary (Beale's commentary, a brief overview by Koester) both emphasized the repetitive nature of the judgments (scrolls take out 1/4, trumpets 1/3, bowls the whole thing). I guess in an idealist framework the point is not real-world judgment but the literary point being made - the goal is to drive the reader/hearer to choose to align with the Lamb (Jesus) not the beast. In other words, in repetition it is the same judgments told over and over again, but within the sameness is an increase as we near the end. Kind of like a symphony that loops back but still intensifies.
I don't know that I'd see Revelation as a cosmic battle between Jesus and Satan mostly because Satan never comes close. When we get a battle (Rev. 19) it is not even described, the implication I take is it is over before it begins (like a gnat taking on an F16). And when we see Satan fighting in chapter 12, isn't he fighting the angels. I see God as simply above Satan to such a degree - Satan may want a fight but really stands no chance. This is no manichean dualism.
I do also think how Satan is spoken of throughout scripture is interesting. The gospels and revelation have a very personified Satan, but Paul's letter emphasize the powers and principalities.
As for Babylon being Jerusalem...why not? At the same time, this does not eliminate Rome (or other empires) from being Babylon-ish. Could we say the fall of Rome in the 400s was punishment for it being a Babylon?
Lemme clarify: when I speak of Jerusalem being THE Babylon of Revelation, I'm referring to what John of Patmos was writing about. He was writing to first-century people, experiencing first-century tribulation alongside them, and encouraging them to stand true against first-century enemies. Or, if you hold to the idea that Revelation was divinely dictated, let us at least say that John THOUGHT he was writing about Jerusalem (and his intended readers THOUGHT he was condemning Jerusalem). Fair enough?Beyond that, by spiritualizing Revelation, sure, we could say the fall of Rome or the fall of 20th-century Germany or the fall of the Catholic Church or whoever your enemy happens to be at the time is your God-given deliverance from Babylon. Or, as Robert prefers, Revelation is a foreshadowing of a bigger struggle, like our earlier example of Isaiah's predicted "virgin birth" of a leader foreshadowed (and came to be recognized as a prophecy of) the birth of Christ.
Right, I gotcha Lee!The way I've always read Revelation is to see Babylon as Rome. The argument, if I recall, is that the seven churches in Asia Minor were filled with Christians being strongly challenged by culture. The big challenge was to get on the winning team, to put your hope in the best army and best economy - Rome. But John is revealing that the Rome that looks so good is actually a Babylon that will fall.
If Babylon is Jerusalem, then how does that tie in to the seven churches? Is the message - don't go back and trust in your old way of life in Judaism?
David wrote: "If Babylon is Jerusalem, then how does that tie in to the seven churches? Is the message - don't go back and trust in your old way of life in Judaism? "Not the way I see it. I see a significant portion of the Asian churches at this time as being displaced Judean and Galilean Christians. John felt a huge responsibility to explain what happened to them, their homes and families.
The message is more like, "this is why Jerusalem fell: God's covenantal promises had to come to pass, and now they have. Jerusalem's demise means history is finally climaxing. The end has arrived, and a new beginning is underway. Hang in there until all the tribulation is complete."
Right, makes sense. Hmmm...I am not sure which I believe.
Well, guys, however one sees end times playing out, I think ALL of us are in for some pretty exciting times quickly approaching, and it will all be in accordance with Biblical prophecy. If those damn prophecies were a little clearer we could make book on it and be a moneychanger in the new Temple!
Well, Revelation insists that there will be no new Temple, and John's Gospel explains why: Jesus is the new Temple.
Lee's question is a huge one for futurists - the Bible explicitly says Jesus is the new temple. Our faith is centered on a person, not a building. Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. Why await a new building, where is the biblical evidence that we ought to do this?
The Biblical evidence is in the O.T., especially Ezekiel. There in Ezekiel, the Temple is the centerpiece of the new city. I suspect if Revelation wasn't taking its inspiration directly from Ezekiel so much, John wouldn't have had to make such an issue of pointing out that there won't be a new physical temple...Jesus replaces the temple.However, I still stand in awe of John's theology. That Jesus isn't building a new temple (the Synoptics were mistaken about that) but IS the new temple. Brilliant! It's just one more place where Revelation and John's Gospel agree, tying them together as Johannine literature, by the same person or at least the same community.
I know the Old Testament is the evidence. But we Christians take the whole Bible and see Jesus as the fulfillment. To say the OT points to a still future temple is to ignore Jesus (and probably Paul, with his words on the temple in 1 Cor and elsewhere). According to Jesus, he fulfilled the promises so to await a temple seems anti-Jesus.
David - Christians are saved through Jesus, but we are NOT God's chosen people. We are rootless Gentiles who God had mercy upon so we got a new covenant through the Son. The old covenants are still intact; the Jews will get all the land promised to Abraham AND a new Temple. Take your little Christian salvation and be grateful for it and stay out of the REAL cosmic battles fought in the Holy Land for far bigger stakes than those ellicited in the NT (except Revelation).
I said nothing about chosennpeople. I simply am asking that if the NT says Jesus is the temple then what need is there for another temple? It sounds like you are saying Jesus was wrong or not enough. Jesus is the hoped for temple and all who come to him, Jew or Gentile, are incorporated into the temple as Paul says.
David - And what of the Jews who don't come to Him? Weren't they promised a new Judaic temple? Sure if we're Christian (Messianic Jew or Gentile) we've got our NT temple, but unconverted Jews still have their covenant and WILL get the building as measured in Ezekiel. Just because Christians are saved doesn't make them first in the eyes of God. In fact, I think He wants them raptured and out of the way so they won't muck up the more important functions of Revelation with their sappy idealism.
