The Woman

The next thing that we need to look at is "the woman" found in chapters 17 and 18. John wrote that he saw a "woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (17:6). The "woman" had this name written on her forehead: "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (17:5). The angel said that "the woman" was a poetic symbol of "that great city" (17:18); in whom "was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (18:24). Then John wrote, "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her… Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." (18:20, 21). So who was this "woman?" This "great city?"

John gave us a clue in Revelation 11:8, where he wrote, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." This shows us, as we saw above, that John was referring to the Jerusalem of his day.

To prove this assertion, Let's look at the term "Sodom." John wrote that this is a "figurative" name. That means it does not tell us the actual name of the city, but it's spiritual condition. Once more, in letting the Bible interpret itself, we find this is a reference to Jerusalem. In Isaiah, chapter 1, after declaring that he had a "vision…concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (verse 1), Isaiah wrote, "Hear the words of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom." In Jeremiah 23:14, because of the adulterous prophets, God said that Jerusalem and her inhabitants were "all of them unto me as Sodom."

But what about "Egypt?" No where in the Bible is Jerusalem called Egypt. However, the first century generation was also in an exodus. While Old Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of Egypt, the New Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of the Old Covenant Law. The most recognizable passage that depicts this "new exodus" is found in I Corinthians 10:1-11. Paul wrote, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." His contextual foundation for this statement was the Old Testament exodus from Egyptian bondage. He wrote that they had passed through the sea (verse 1). They ate manna and drank from the rock (verse's 3-4). He then relays how they wandered in the wilderness (verse 5), became idolaters (verse 7), tried the Lord and were destroyed by serpents (verse 9). This shows us that, just like the "type and shadow" of the Old Testament and their deliverance from bondage, the New Testament saints were undergoing the same exodus. The only difference was that Paul's generation was the reality to which the Old Testament example pointed.

Furthermore, in Luke 13:33-34, Jesus said, " oday and tomorrow, and on the following [day], I must travel on, because it is not possible [for] a prophet to perish outside Jerusalem. Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The [one] killing the prophets, and stoning those having been sent to her." Then, in Matthew 23:29-37, Jesus blasted the Jews of His day for killing the prophets and the apostles. He declared that they are the children of their fathers who also killed the prophets. Then in verse 32, Jesus said that they would complete the sin that their fathers started. But the most crucial evidence is found in verse 35, where Jesus said, "upon you (i.e., the Jews of His day) may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on the earth." Then He said, "I tell you the truth, all of these things will happen to you people who are living now. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone to death those who are sent to you" (verse's 36-37). In both passages, Jesus told the Jews of His day that they were guilty of "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (see also Acts 7:51-52).

Therefore, since both of these passages deal with the same crime and the same judgment, the "great city" of Revelation must be the Jerusalem of Christ's generation. Which further proves that Revelation was been written before Jerusalem fell in AD 70.


The Sixth King

So far we have seen that Revelation deals with the revealing of Jesus to first century Israel. As noted above, "the woman" John saw was first century Jerusalem. The "kings," therefore, were the rulers of the known world of John's day, i.e., the Roman Empire. The "kings" were not ruling at the same time, for the text stated "five fell," meaning that five of those kings had come and gone. Then "one is," meaning the "king" who was ruling at the time Revelation was written. Here in this verse, we have one of the clearest proofs for dating this book. If we simply examine the list of Roman Emperors, we will be able to determine who the sixth king was, and the time Revelation was written.

Here are the Roman Emperors: Julius Caesar; Augustus; Tiberius; Gaius (Caligula); Claudius; and the sixth emperor was…Nero. Nero reigned from 54AD to June of 68AD, with Galba to follow who reigns but six months. Here we find the terrible persecutors of the Christians (at whose hand Peter and Paul were martyred), whom God used to destroy the Jews. Nero was in power and he gave the command to Vespasian to destroy Jerusalem. This was the sixth king, proving beyond any doubt that Revelation was written before the Roman/Jewish war.

Historically, Nero is the one that persecuted Christians beyond all comparison. St. John's banishment to Patmos was itself a result of the great persecution of Nero. The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. The apostle Peter, who was crucified upside down, was another victim of Nero.


The Song of Moses

To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Revelation 15:2,3 will have meaning. It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast" were singing "the Song of Moses."

Question: if these martyrs are Christians living 2,000 years after Christ, why would these Christians be singing the Song of Moses? Does any Christian alive today know how to sing this song? Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has reference to.

The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them "in the latter days" (Deuteronomy 31:29). the song talks about "their end" - the Jews (verse 20), and details their destruction by a consuming "fire" (verse 22), "famine" (verse 24), "plague" (verse 24) and "bitter destruction" (verse 24). God calls them a "perverse generation" (verses 5 and 20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and "vindicate His people" (verse 41 and 36 respectively). Why would Christian martyrs of the 21st century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had reference to the Jews living in the 1st century? It wouldn't make much sense.

Aren't these the same martyrs who cried out earlier, "How long, O Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood" (Revelation 6:10)? Who was it who had all the "blood of the righteous" martyrs imputed against them? Clearly, it was Christians who had kept their faith in Jesus, in spite of the intense persecution, and "had come off victorious from the Beast." (See Matthew 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Revelation 15:2,3) points very clearly to followers of Christ living in the first century.

In Revelation 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast's kingdom "gnawed their tongues because of pain." They had great sores on their bodies along with other plagues that had been poured out on them. We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for lack of food during the siege of AD 70! And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls the Jewish Zealot forces a "wild beast" in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8; V.2.5)! This point is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is full of references to "beasts," "serpents," and "dragons" (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28-32; Deuteronomy 32:24,33).


The Time Element

Next consider the expectations of the author, Jesus Christ. He tells John to expect the fulfillment of the prophecy soon (Revelation 1:1,3; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6,7,10,12,20).

In Revelation 1:1,3, right off the bat, John informed his readers, the seven churches of Asia (verse 4), that the contents of this volume "must shortly come to pass." Please note, that John did not write that some of the events, or even most of the events must shortly take place. He wrote that all of the events contained in Revelation "must shortly come to pass." Why? Why must those things "shortly come to pass?" Because "the time (was) at hand." At hand for whom? The seven churches of Asia, specifically, and to the church of the first century in general. The time for what was at hand? "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Remember, as we saw above, this is the main episode of Revelation.

In Revelation 22:6, John wrote that the Lord sent an angel to John "to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." Here, at the end of the book of Revelation, John recorded the exact same message that he did in chapter 1. This again emphasizes that all of the events contained in Revelation were about to take place in the first century — not stretched throughout time, and certainly not for any future generation.

In Revelation 22:10, the angel of the Lord said to John, "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." Once more, we have proof that the events of Revelation were about to take place in the first century. However, another element was added to this warning. The angel told John not to seal the Scroll. Why is this important? To answer that, let's look at the book of Daniel.

After Daniel had received visions concerning his people (the nation of Israel), he was told, "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (12:1). Daniel is then told how they would be rescued — by resurrection, some would be rewarded with "everlasting life" and others with "everlasting contempt" (verse 2). But then, Daniel is told something very peculiar. In verse 4, Daniel was told, "shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end." Please note that this verse says the "time of the end", and not "the end of time". There is a huge difference between the end of time and the time of the end. Now, we must ask "Whose time of the end?" Verse 1 told us that Daniel's visions concerned the nation of Israel, not mankind in general.

Next, Daniel saw two angels talking about the fulfillment of all that he had seen (verse 6). One asked the other, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" The answer was, "when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." (verse 7). But Daniel could not understand what they meant, so he asked again, "When?" The angel answered "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." Now that we have looked at this passage, how does it relate to Revelation 21?

Did you know that there is only one other place in the Bible where a sealed book is referred to? Revelation, chapter 5. How Daniel relates to Revelation is that Revelation is the opening of Daniel's sealed book!! Remember, Daniel's visions were concerning the "time of the end" of Israel, and Revelation is about God's judgment on Israel. They are one and the same. The reason this has direct bearing on Revelation 21, is that Daniel was told to seal his book concerning the end "for it pertains to many days in the future" (Dan.8:26), but John was told not to seal his book "because the time is at hand" (Revelation 22:10). The end of Old Covenant Israel was at hand. All things written had to be fulfilled by the time Jerusalem fell in AD 70 (see Luke 21:20-22). Therefore, since Revelation is the opening of Daniel, then it must have been fulfilled by the summer of AD 70.

Our next time statement is found in Revelation 21:12. There, Jesus told John, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Notice that Jesus did not say that "when I come, I will come quickly," He emphatically said that He was coming "quickly." But He also said something else. He said that His reward was with Him to give every man according to his works. Now some state that this has not happened yet. However, we must let Scripture interpret Scripture, and turn to Matthew 16:27-28 and Mark 8:38-9:1 and Luke 9:26-27.

Jesus said the exact same thing in these three verses that He did in Revelation 21. In Revelation 21, He said He was coming and "he shall reward every man according to his works." These are the exact same "comings" with the exact same "rewards." But, Jesus also said in these three verses, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Notice that Jesus tied His coming to the lives of His disciples. He said that some of his listeners would not die until He came. But to whom is He coming? And what will be their reward? Jesus said that the "coming" would be to the first century generation of Israel (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32). Daniel told us that the "rewards" would be that some would be resurrected to "everlasting life" and others to "everlasting contempt". Now, let's put these two passages together. Jesus said He was coming and He was going to reward each according to his works, and that some of the disciples wouldn't die until they saw this take place. Therefore, since all of the disciples are dead, Jesus must have returned and rewarded each according to his works. Furthermore, in Revelation, He said the same thing, therefore it must be fulfilled!

Conclusion

If a person doesn't believe the first three verses of Revelation (i.e., the near expectation of the events), neither will he believe the rest of the book. For if a person is unwilling to accept the time constraints of the text, the rest of the document can mean anything that the reader desires.

If the Apostle John was banished to Patmos under the reign of Nero, as the internal evidence indicates, he wrote the book of Revelation about AD 68 or 69, which was after the death of that emperor; but the gospels and epistles some years later. One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a passed fact.

The inscription to the book of Revelation, in the Syrian version, first published by Deuteronomy Dieu, in 1627, and, afterwards in the London Polyglot, is the following, "The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar."

This places it before the year of our Lord 69AD.

#########################

Wow!! This gives a whole new meaning to when Jesus tells us "Behold! I come quickly!". This message went out to the churches just in time!!

I am going to end this by quoting the beginning of this study:


'If you date it early, you have its fulfillment in God's judgment on Israel. If you date it late, you have every man's idea. So dating plays a very important part in its interpretation."

Dating it early brings all of the Revelation back within the pages of the Bible, where one can read the Word and find each and every fulfillment of it. This is major! It is important to understand the implications of this and how it affects "rightly dividing the Word".

May the Lord Bless each of you in your search for Truth.

JESUS IS ALL AND EVERYTHING!!

Patti C.

Futurism is fact.

Patti you say 'preterist interpret the bible with the bible. Then you post a study containing 'secular history says, josephus says, history says, the list of roman emporers is' so my question is - are you saying secular history and josephus are part of the bible? No? Then how are you saying preterists interpret the bible with the bible? Isn't it really 'preterists interpret the bible with the bible mixed together with the words of secular men'?

Paul taught timothy that the scripture are all we need to be perfect in doctrine 2timothy 3:15-17. But you're saying its not enough and to understand we need MORE than God's Word - we also need the words of men like josephus. I'm confident that any reading this and truly seek understanding will recognize the error in such a worldy doctrine.

Let me add, article writes about the temple of rev 12 and uses this as an argument to attempt to prove the dating of the rev. Now, someome correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we all read posts by patti which teach that the temple of God is spiritual and refers to we Christians as the temple of God, as paul plainly teaches on numerous occasions?

So why is patti suddenly changing the understanding of the nature of the temple when we get to rev 12- and suddenly the one preaching a spiritual temple of God reverts to a carnal understanding of the temple of God?

Dear John,

How did I know that you would pop up and respond to this? But thank you for this opportunity to prove my case and point.

First of all, your total summation of Futurism is this: "Futurism is a fact." No supporting Scriptures or in anyway disproving what the study I presented was saying. Nope! Just a few simple words from a man who is a futurist. Sorry that certainly does not convince me that you are in anyway correct.

What does convince me is searching the Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and continuing to learn and grow in my knowledge of the truth. My coming to the conclusions that I have come to here is the result of a long processes of doing just that. You see, before I started on this journey of finding out for myself, I was a futurist, and in a big way! So, to now see all this in such a different light was not something I thought would happen, but I cannot and will not deny that it has.

Let me explain about the "temple" issue. Since you know my writings so well it should be easy for you to understand this. I have always placed a major focus on it being " finished at the Cross", and was convinced that Jesus brought in the New Covenant at this time. I still do, but I was missing something and had not learned what it was until listening to Jonathan Welton explain Matthew 24. Then it hit me, I was seeing the establishing of the New Covenant, but I had not taken into consideration the ending of the Old, and how greatly this impacts Bible eschatology.

I have not in any way changed my mind about the the temple of the New Covenant being spiritual and within each born again believer! That is a fact. What I have learned is that the ending of the Old Covenant took 40 years to fade away, and how this ending is described perfectly in the Book of Revelation, and not only that, it was foretold throughout much of the Old as well as the New Testaments! Once understanding this, it opened the way to a much more complete understanding of Scripture. Therefore, I do see the Temple mentioned in Rev.11(not as you said Rev. 12) as being the physical temple of the Old Covenant, because it was still standing when John wrote the Book of Revelation, and has much to do with the passing away of the Old Covenant.

There is no contradiction in that understanding, just a growth in my own comprehension of what the Scriptures are truly conveying.

As to using secular historians to prove Preterism, and going outside the Bible, that is a weak argument to say the least!! Are you saying that Futurism does not go outside the Bible and look at secular events as proving biblical Scriptures? Futurists that still see God's chosen people as those who practice the religion of Judaism that denies Christ came in the flesh? Futurists that see themselves as the generation that Christ was speaking to in regards to the ending of the Old Covenant? Where in the Bible are futurists getting their information? Most of what you call future has been fulfilled and can be proved right there in the text of the Word, when taken it it's proper context. So, you see, I think your position is one that is outside of Scripture much more than one that can be found right within its pages!

I think you have much more work to do to prove that futurism is a fact! Prove it biblically John, don't just offer your biased opinion, as it goes against your argument that I should not believe the opinions of men, especially a man who does not support that opinion with any valid proof.

Truthfully you are a good example of how futurists debate with preterists, they offer little but preconceived notions based on worldly events, and when that fails they attack the person and not the issue.

We are all learning and growing, no one has ALL TRUTH, and this is what we are doing here on this forum, sharing what we are learning and supporting it with the Word. So if you are going to disagree with my understanding at least be respectful enough to me, and to your position, to offer Scriptural support, and to address the topics being discussed. Because honestly John, your opinion means nothing without doing that.

JESUS IS ALL AND EVERYTHING!!

Patti C.

Patti understand that there is a difference between guarding the Word and attacking the person. I am always doing the former, if you are feeling attacked I can assure you that your understanding of my work is in error

You say I am voicing opinion but this is false as it is a fact that jewish wars is not the Word of God and has no place in understanding the Word of God. You are under the impression that I need to address every point you make here but this is also error- if the foundation of your doctrine is sand then it doesn't matter what you use to build the parts of the house.

You say no one has all understanding and I wouldn't disgree. But this doesn't mean I don't know what I know, and what I know is all I need is the Word of God.

Look a man says to me 'i seek knowledge of God- I seek TRUTH. I hand him a bible and say 'this will be all the teaching you need' - but what do you say

I say to the churches the bible is all the words you need. But what do you say? Does the man need for you to give him morebooks?

Is the Word of God perfect? Or is it lacking? Are we busy stapling josephus jewish wars to the revelation?

Look I don't know who understands the law by the Spirit but what you are doing is bringing a stranger into the Holy Place. I am already in there and I am standing up and asking 'who is this man what have you done?'

My counsel is this: the Lord is on His way, I would remove this stranger from His sanctuary before He arrives. He has a very strong dislike of bringing in strangers to His Temple and I do not know these men you are bringing in, and neither does the WORD which makes no mention of them

John,

I am just amazed at the lengths you go to make yourself seem all knowing and only into Biblical truth when you use not one word of Scripture!!

I do not seek your counsel, and have no need of it as I have the ultimate Counselor in Jesus and His Spirit. I rest and trust in that.

I have plainly stated my position and standby what I said. You do not address anything about how your futuristic position is fact or valid, just a bunch of holier than thou mumbo jumbo. In all honesty you give Futurism a bad name if you are an example of one holding to that belief.

Tell you what. Be brave enough to post your own study proving that all of Revelation is future and I will show you how to debate an issue using only the Bible. I have little hope that you will take that challenge, but being so Bible centric makes you the perfect candidate.

JESUS IS ALL AND EVERYTHING!!

Patti C.

Dear John,

Sorry if my last response was a bit harsh, but sometimes what you respond with seems as though you are coming from a position of "all knowing" without offering any Biblical proof, just your quips and warnings. That is your style...so be it.

But, I do have to thank you because it was your harping on the Preterist point of view that really got me interested in looking at this position, as well as the other three, to see where I would fit in. I found that I fit into none of them, although each has some valid points, none of them fully satisfies as a category in regards to what I am learning to be true.

I found a great article about "Progressive Revelation" and discovered that is a position that most fits my understanding of Bible prophecy, and how it has, and is, and will unfold.

So, if you are interested I posted a letter about all 4 positions along with the article I found so interesting. I discovered I am not a Preterist, although I agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was the end of the Old Covenant, there is still a future fulfillment in these end times.

Just so you know....thanks for causing me to find out where I stand, although I will still consider myself a Truthist.

Agape!

Patti C.