Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (62 page)

The first “text” (say modernists) contains the letters to the seven churches that begin the book (chs. 1–3). The authorship of this section is usually dated at the supposed time of compilation, around 96 A.D., during the reign of Domitian.

The major reason this text is dated late is because of the mention of numerous heresies. The modern scholar usually doubts that these heresies could have existed any earlier than the end of the first century, partly because they imagine early Christianity as an undogmatic spiritual movement. Given that presupposition, how could heresy spring up before there was a unity of Church belief against which to define it? Of course they could not, say modernists, so the letters to the Churches must be dated later.

Modernists date the largest text section (chs. 4–14) from the reign of Nero because there exists virtually unanimous agreement that the 666 refers to Nero (Apoc. 13:18). “Scholars … believe that the historical background of Apocalypse was the reign of either Nero (54–68) … or Vespasian (69–79)”
(NCE)
.

The third text (ch. 15 ff) is believed to have been written after the start of the reign of Vespasian (69 A.D.). Scholars see a reference to him in the list of kings in the final part of Apocalypse (Apoc. 17:9). If you do not believe in prophecy, this section could not have been written
before
Vespasian took the throne. (GR1).

In spite of the accepted thesis that the unity of the book argues strongly for one author, many scholars follow this three-text theory. The French scholar Boismard pioneered some of these ideas (
LAP
, 507–541;
NCE
).

So where does this leave us? If we are careful, we will notice that we are actually in a similar situation as we were in Daniel. Many scholars hold to a later date of writing, but believe the visions were intended to be read as though they were written in 68 A.D. That is the crucial question for our study:
What is the author’s intended frame of reference?

Scholars accept that the intended setting of the large second section of text is 68 A.D. Yet they reject that date for the first and third texts because, quite frankly, they reject the possibility of the supernatural. We do not have that problem (GR1).

The modernists’ presupposition underlying the first text (that there couldn’t have been heresy early in the Church) is faulty. The Church was born “whole” on the day of Pentecost precisely because Her birth
was
supernatural. As the
Catechism
states, “The Church was catholic on the day of Pentecost [i.e., having correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession]” (
CCC
, par. 830). If one accepts the supernatural nature of the Church, there is no problem accepting the existence of heresy in 68 A.D. We should keep in mind that Gnosticism was the Church’s initial plague. It pre-existed the Church by centuries and pounced upon the Church right from its initial introduction into the non-Jewish intellectual world.

We can find ample evidence that other Churches struggled with heresy early. For example, St. Peter wrote his first epistle before 68 A.D., which is the latest reasonable date for his martyrdom. Yet he is worried about the sexual promiscuity of the Nicolaitins, just as St. John was, without referring to the heretics by name. “I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh” (1 Pet. 2:11;
AEX
, 50).

Also, Jesus warned His disciples in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24) that heresy would crop up in His Church before the fall of the Temple! A close study of The Apocalypse shows that St. John was careful to substantiate the fulfillment of the eight signs of the Olivet Discourse for his readers. Those who try to give the seven letters a late date do not take into account the words of our Savior (or they date the Olivet Discourse later also, and place those words in the mouth of the early Church instead of attributing them to Jesus).

We have already alluded to our reasoning concerning the third section. Because they reject the possibility of true prophecy, many scholars date this third text during the reign of Vespasian. But even granting that the text refers to Vespasian (I argue in the main body of this book that Nero is a much more logical choice), I see no problem with St. John’s having written it before Vespasian became emperor in 69 A.D. If one accepts the possibility of the supernatural, there is no compelling reason to date
any
of the book after 68 A.D.

The
New Catholic Encyclopedia
states, “Some scholars believe that the historical background of Apocalypse was the
reign of Nero
(54–68 A.D.).… The preparatory vision in Heaven (chs. 4–5) serves as a second prophetic investiture for the revelation of God’s interventions
from the Resurrection of Christ to the fall of Jerusalem
. [Some scholars] find apocalyptic allusion to different phases of the Jewish War of 66–70”
(NCE, LAH)
.

Regardless of the date of authorship, the crucial issue is that many scholars agree that The Apocalypse describes in apocalyptic language the world events that transpired from 66 to 70 A.D. I go a step further. I believe that St. John the apostle saw the visions and wrote them down around the same date as the frame of reference, 68 A.D.

We must not overemphasize the importance of the date of authorship. As long as we agree with modern scholarship about the author’s intended frame of reference, we can clearly understand The Apocalypse. So the discussion concerning the actual date does not directly impinge on the purpose of this book. But if you are curious about the reasons for dating the authorship of The Apocalypse in 68 A.D., then hang with me.

The internal evidence within The Apocalypse points to a 68 A.D. date of writing, or at least to that time as a frame of reference for its writing. The evidence I point to in this short summary is not adequately dealt with in the modern three-text theory, nor in rapturist theories.

Of one thing we can be absolutely certain: the book was not primarily written about events that would not transpire until hundreds or even thousands of years later. If it had been, it would be the only book of the Bible that was intentionally meant to be undecipherable to its original readers. God does not pull tricks like that on people who are undergoing intense persecution: this book could not be primarily speaking of events in our own day.

The language St. John uses makes this crystal clear. He includes the repeated assertion that these events must happen “soon.” The book starts with this statement: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants what must
soon
take place” (1:1). In verse 3, St. John re-emphasizes that “the time is
near
.”

The contrast with Daniel’s statement regarding these events is noteworthy. Daniel is told that “the words are shut up and sealed until the end of time” (Dan. 12:9), because the time of its fulfillment was so far away (five centuries). The angel tells St. John, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (22:10). Yet rapturists attempt to place the fulfillment twenty centuries later! No can do. It is not honest interpretation.

Those who try to see current events in The Apocalypse should learn the lesson of Joachim of Fiore. He understood this problem and so used the seven letters to symbolize seven epochs of Church history that stretched from St. John’s time to his own thirteenth century. That was the only way he could justify the use of the word soon. But his solution was innovative in his day and has been justly discredited since.

As we will see, the events of 70 A.D. fit very well as a fulfillment of many of the events that “must soon take place.” However, a later dating (of 96 A.D.) leaves us with nothing of significance that took place anytime “soon.” Of course, this is an argument that modernists would use against the earlier dating. They freely admit that the visions of The Apocalypse were fulfilled in 70 A.D., but would want to date it around 96 A.D. to avoid the appearance of supernatural prophecy (GR1). By the modernist view, a later author wrote after 70 A.D. as though he were writing before then. In scholarly circles, this is called “antedating.”

Although I disagree with the modernist in his antisupernatural assumptions, I grant that the book can be understood using this assumption. The subject of the book is the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is an enlargement on the themes in the Olivet Discourse and in the even-earlier prophecies of Daniel.

The many instances in which St. John disguises the true characters and events through symbolism argue for authorship during a time of intense persecution. These disguises would protect the Christian community from reprisals if a copy of the book were ever confiscated. While the persecution of Domitian was certainly intense enough to warrant this use of disguise, some of the book will not tolerate that late a dating.

Further, some of the disguised symbols point to Jerusalem in an uncomplimentary light. What would be the purpose of disguising the references to a city that had been sacked twenty-six years earlier? The symbolism pointing to Jerusalem definitely suggests a date of writing
before
Jerusalem lost its influence in 70 A.D.

In Chapters 2 and 3, there are letters written to seven churches, as though these seven encompass the entire scope of St. John’s concern. But by 96 A.D., there would have been many more than seven Churches to address. Opponents of the earlier dating try to claim that these seven were symbolic of all the Churches in 96 A.D., but there is no textual reason for this assertion. The simplest, most logical conclusion is that the failure of John to address any more churches points to an authorship before there were any more, in 68 A.D.

We have already mentioned this, but St. John alludes to the man symbolized by 666 (13:18). With the exception of rapturists, the consensus of scholars is that this refers to Nero. This is clear evidence that St. John meant his readers to understand the book as being written no later than 68 A.D., when Nero committed suicide.

We have also mentioned the seven kings who are noted in text three (17:9–11). Although other alternatives have been proposed, the only solutions that do justice to history and the text remain Vespasian and Nero. Although I believe Nero is the best interpretation, even the reign of Vespasian does not extend the writing of the book to 96 A.D., as proposed by rapturists.

But besides these seven kings, there are also ten
future
kings mentioned by St. John (17:12). They are specifically mentioned as warring against the Lamb. There were ten persecuting emperors starting with Nero and ending with Diocletian (
TBR
, 372). If we start from 96 A.D., there were not.

In Chapter 10, St. John is told, “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” It is possible that this is a reference to the rest of The Apocalypse, but it seems to refer to something beyond the scope of that book. In 68 A.D., John had another thirty years of life and ministry left, and he certainly could fulfill this directive. But by 96 A.D., John was an invalid who, according to St. Jerome, “was with difficulty carried into the Church, and could speak only a few words to the people.” His prophetic ministry was drawing to a close at that point, and it is doubtful he would have had the strength to write The Apocalypse, much less look forward to prophesying “again.”

St. John writes of Jerusalem and its Temple as though they were still standing and functioning. In Chapter 11, John is instructed to measure the Temple and its altar, but to omit measuring the outer court of the Temple because it will be trampled by the Gentiles. It is not referred to as the former Temple, nor is any reference made to its past destruction or the future rebuilding of a third Temple. Nor is the book referring to the heavenly Temple; both the last chapter of Zechariah and The Apocalypse assure us that no gentile unbelievers will have access to the New Jerusalem. Yet by 96 A.D. the Temple had already been trampled by the Gentiles, and even destroyed. It seems peculiar that there would be no reference to these events unless The Apocalypse was written before them, when everyone knew the Temple was in existence.

All language develops over time as different events affect its usage and idioms. For example,
mouse
and
bug
took on new meanings after the invention of the computer. In the third century B.C., the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint introduced Hebraistic elements into the Greek language. Experts tell us that these elements were identifiable in writings before the destruction of Jerusalem, but that they rapidly disappeared after 70 A.D. They are patently evident in the language of The Apocalypse, which necessitates its writing before 70 A.D. (
TBR
, 43–44).

Scholars proficient in this critical analysis claim this evidence is absolutely trustworthy and irrefutable. Some claim that their analysis proves that St. John wrote The Apocalypse first, then his Gospel, and finally his three epistles.

This order would explain the difference in the language between St. John’s five books (
BAP
, 255). The Greek grammar in The Apocalypse is certainly defective. For example, in Apocalypse 3:12, 14:12, and 20:2, the author adds an apposition in the nominative to a word in the oblique case. In 68 A.D., St. John’s Greek abilities would have been less advanced than when he wrote his Gospel two or three decades later. By this understanding, the Gospel of John could be part of the “further witness” of St. John mentioned earlier.