Rotherham,You presented the question as follows and the answer is clearly, Yes:

Did Christ receive the kingdom of the world in 33 CE?

Your presentation states:

Revelation is a book which is regarded by most as having been written toward the very end of the first century. Some regard it as having been written around 66 CE, but there is no real tangible evidence to establish that date. The tangible evidence suggests the later date. But regardless, it was written far after the date of 33 CE which is what is important for this particular venture.

There is no real evidence to establish that it was written toward the very end of the first century.

This would have been more accurate if you had reworded the entire first paragraph like this:
“Revelation is a book which is regarded by many as having been written toward the very end of the first century. Some regard it as having been written around 66 CE. There is no real tangible evidence that even suggests the later date, but there is internal Biblical evidence that strongly suggests a date prior to 70 CE. There is no tangible evidence for either date, but the strongest internal Biblical evidence suggests the earlier date, closer to 70 CE. But regardless, it was written several years after the date of 33 CE and obviously several years before 1914 CE, which is what is important for this particular venture.”
[editors: there is evidence, we think, that Revelation was put in its final form after 70 CE, even if some portions appear to dated prior to 70 CE. There are excellent books on this subject, and a quick “Google” search will show that the matter has been defended from both sides.]
At any rate, we can agree, that it was written in the first century CE, most likely between 60 CE and 99 CE. You have already acknowledged this.

And this is actually all we really need to establish from internal Biblical evidence that Revelation supports a date for Jesus receiving the “kingdom of the world” prior to 99 CE, and possibly prior to 60 CE

That Jesus has already obtained the kingdom of the world is clear from the following verses from the first Chapter of Revelation:

4 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia:
May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

There is nothing more to say in answer to your question. Jesus was already “the ruler of the kings of the earth” prior to 99 CE. 

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,Just as an aside, which is not important to this particular venture, I would not agree in any fashion that the internal Biblical evidence suggest an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation so I would not see the need to revise the first paragraph, but be that as it may, let us take a look at what you see as the singular, sweeping downfall of the notion that Jesus was not the king prior to the writing of the book of Revelation.

The statement is in Revelation 1:5 in part which declares Jesus is the “Ruler of the kings of the earth”. This, you claim, ends the discussion as it is proclaimed that Jesus is already the Ruler of the kings of the earth in the opening verses of Revelation.

I am surprised you see this as you do since there are other statements in the Bible to this affect which would be just as damaging and disqualfying for the year 33 CE if you took them at strict face value. But there is good reason that we do not have to take such statements at strict face value.

For instance, look at all the statements made prior to 33 CE which declare Jesus to be the “king”.

(Matthew 21:4-5) . . .: 5 “TELL the daughter of Zion, ‘Look! Your King is coming to you, mild-tempered, and mounted upon an ass, yes, upon a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’”

(Matthew 27:11) 11 Jesus now stood before the governor; and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say [it].”

(Mark 15:2) 2 So Pilate put the question to him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” In answer to him he said: “You yourself say [it].”

(Luke 19:36-39) 36 As he moved along they kept spreading their outer garments on the road. 37 As soon as he got near the road down the Mount of Olives all the multitude of the disciples started to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice concerning all the powerful works they had seen, 38 saying: “Blessed is the One coming as the King in Jehovah’s name! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest places!” 39 . . .

(Luke 23:3) 3 Now Pilate asked him the question: “Are you the king of the Jews?” In answer to him he said: “You yourself are saying [it].”

(John 1:49-50) 49 Na·than´a·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” 50 Jesus in answer said to him: “Because I told you I saw you underneath the fig tree do you believe? You will see things greater than these.”

(John 12:12-15) 12 The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival, on hearing that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. And they began to shout: “Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name, even the king of Israel!” 14 But when Jesus had found a young ass, he sat on it, just as it is written: 15 “Have no fear, daughter of Zion. Look! Your king is coming, seated upon an ass’s colt.”

In all of these cases, one could argue in the same fashion that Jesus became king before he ever died and was resurrected, all prior to 33 CE, yet it would have to be admitted that these were all in reference to him as the king “designate”, not as the actual, ruling and present king.

There is no reason why John could not refer to him in that same capacity within the opening of the book of Revelation. Even the mention in the very next verse of John and others being made a kingdom of priests is a reference to their “designated” status, not the actual status. 

Daniel 7 with Revelation 12, taken harmoniuosly, continue to show that 33 CE does not qualify as the year that Christ received the kingdom of the world.

Regards,
Rotherham 

Hello Rotherham,In that initial paragraph about Revelation you stated there was “tangible” evidence that it was written after 66 CE and closer to the end of that century. There isn’t any such tangible evidence. Yet there is internal evidence in Revelation that suggests, but does not prove, that it was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

You added:

I am surprised you see this as you do since there are other statements in the Bible to this affect which would be just as damaging and disqualfying for the year 33 CE if you took them at strict face value. But there is good reason that we do not have to take such statements at strict face value.

This is not difficult for you to understand, so why should you think it would be difficult for me? I can accept exactly the same expression you do for this time period. From Jesus’ birth he was properly called King — even from the day he was born on earth, born into the royal line of David — because he was King-designate AND about to take his Kingdom. My personal belief is a little stronger than yours. I think he was already the KING in even a more direct and complete sense, but was unable to rule over his whole Kingdom because it wasn’t time yet. This is quite similar to how David was known and declared King before he reached his true capital and could openly claim the full domain of his kingdom. That Kingdom, in Jesus’ case, was stated to have been given at Jesus’ resurrection, when he reached the heavenly location of his capital, Jerusalem above, Israel in a new spiritual sense, heavenly Mount Zion, at the right hand of the throne of Majesty. That was a special event marked by his own royal edict at the time of his resurrection: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth, Go therefore…” According to the Bible, his resurrection was when God, his Father, gave him the “highest name under heaven” above every other domain, including King of Kings, ruler of the kings of the earth. 

As King designate, however, these same titles were proper for those who had faith that his earthly life was, in effect, the red-carpet (palm branches) procession towards his inauguration in his capital, in his Father’s house. The proximity of the time when Jesus would receive his Kingdom made it all the more important to already recognize him as King. After all, this was the very time when the “Kingdom of God” was “at hand”.

So there is really no reason to respond individually to all these verses you show from before 33 CE. I treat them the same as you do. They perfectly support my belief on this point. 

The only difference between us is that I believe that Jesus was “King over all the kings of the earth” by the time Revelation was written. This idea is already obvious from many passages that tie this special time of inauguration of his Kingdom. But you have, of course, shown NO evidence that this title was somehow NOT appropriate at the time of his resurrection. 

You added:

In all of these cases, one could argue in the same fashion that Jesus became king before he ever died and was resurrected, all prior to 33 CE, yet it would have to be admitted that these were all in reference to him as the king “designate”, not as the actual, ruling and present king.

He was King-designate, before 33 CE, in the sense that he was already the chosen King and his Kingdom was at hand; he was about to sit on the throne at the right hand of God. He really was the King. What Revelation adds is the very fact that the Kingdom of the world had been given to him. He was now RULING over every dominion. 

You added:

There is no reason why John could not refer to him in that same capacity within the opening of the book of Revelation. Even the mention in the very next verse of John and others being made a kingdom of priests is a reference to their “designated” status, not the actual status.

John didn’t refer to him in that same capacity. John refers not just to him as King, but to his full dominion, something that no other person of faith had fully identified before Jesus’ resurrection. John understands that Jesus had been given ALL authority in heaven and on earth.

You added:

Daniel 7 with Revelation 12, taken harmoniuosly, continue to show that 33 CE does not qualify as the year that Christ received the kingdom of the world.

Taken harmoniously, the entire Bible, including Daniel and Revelation, shows that 33 CE does much more than just qualify 33 CE as the year he received his kingdom. The Bible is explicit that this happened at Jesus’ resurrection. 

See for example Philippians 2:8-10 (NWT) “More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground,”

Also Colossians 2:8-10 (NWT) ” Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.”

Also Ephesians 1:19-20 (NWT) “It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 with which he has operated in the case of theChrist when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.”

This is much more explicit than just calling him the King-designate. This identifies Jesus Christ as already having received his Kingdom, his domain “when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places.”

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,The tangible evidence is actual comments by early church fathers as to when it was written, (Polycarp, Iraneus, Eusibius, Justin Martry) who attested to it being written at the end of Domitian’s reign. There is no valid reason to doubt that as accurate. It is only a “preterist” related view that drives an early date.

I see that you agree that many references of Jesus being king were in regard to “king-designate”. I appreciate the acknowledgement. This tells us that references to his kingship must be taken with that possibility of application in mind.

The scriptures that you offer to prove a current and active kingship do not establish the actual receiving of the “kingship” of the world. The statements offered are no different than what Jesus said himself when he said that all authority had been given him in heaven and earth.

The reason those statements do not offer explicit reference to him having received the kingdom of the world is because everyone knows that even though Jesus has received full authority, there are certainly aspects of that authority which have not manifested themselves as of yet. Even Hebrews 2 tells us that all things were made subject to the Son, yet we do not yet see all things subjected to him. So simply because he has all authority at this time, it does not mean that he must be exercising that authority in every manner, and as Daniel 7, coupled with Rev. 12 point out, one manner in which that authority was to yet be realized was when he would receive the kingship of the world. None of these references can overturn the clear evidence as found in Daniel 7 as to the timing of when the Son of man received the kingship of the world. It was after the actions of the conspicuous horn, which can only logically be considered as after the Roman empire had passed off the scene, or at least far beyond 33 CE, and that is the point at this particular juncture.

Also, if one were to examine the closing portion of Daniel 11 and the opening portions of Daniel 12, and compare the references to the “disgusting thing causing desolation”, and do a cautious comparing of these prophecis with the 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel along with the Olivet sermon’s references to such as a sign of the parousia, and the fact that Michael, who is Jesus, stands up in the “time of the end” surrounding those events, it supplies another evidence of fact that Michael does not stand up (begin ruling) until far after 33 CE. But the details of that can be forthcoming if need be.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,The question of Revelation’s time of authorship is obviously unnecessary here, because it is clear that a vision recorded around 95-99 CE could have referred to events from 33 CE just as a vision from around 60-66 CE could have. 

Still, it can’t hurt to have the discussion. It’s not so much just to see how strong your position really is. But more important than that, no matter when Revelation was written, a serious discussion of this issue will reveal a lot about the “world view” of those who saw the Temple destroyed, and the importance of the changing world view of those who looked at Revelation 75, then 100 years later, then 200, then 300 years later. 

You said:

The tangible evidence is actual comments by early church fathers as to when it was written, (Polycarp, Iraneus, Eusibius, Justin Martry) who attested to it being written at the end of Domitian’s reign. There is no valid reason to doubt that as accurate. It is only a “preterist” related view that drives an early date.

Your source, by the way, is not really the 4 “church fathers” you listed, but actually only one of those, Eusebius, who admits that, as he said, “it is handed down by tradition”. 

I assume that your reference to Justin Martyr is just a mistake. His closest contribution is from something he wrote around 160 CE where he said nothing about the date: 

“And further, a man among us named John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied in a Revelation made to him that they who have believed our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that afterwards the universal, and, in one word, eternal resurrection of all at once, will take place, and also the judgment.” — Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho

You are quoting this “tradition” reported by Eusebius who quotes Irenaeus who says he is accepting the claim of Polycarp, who claims to have known John personally. Eusebius lived in the mid-300’s and Irenaeus lived from 130 to 202 CE, and therefore could not have been discussing this much before 160 CE, which, we agree, was from somewhere between 65 to 100 years after Revelation was written. A hearsay quote by Eusebius of a quote by Irenaeus about a claim from Polycarp is no more “tangible” than Irenaeus claim that Jesus was about 50 years old when he died. Besides, it’s an ambiguous quote. In Greek it is just as well translated: 

“In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, …speaks in the following manner respecting him: ‘If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], … it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since he was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign.”

Admittedly, that word “he” that I underlined might also be translated as “it/that”, and the reference could very well be to the vision(s) of Revelation, and not to John himself. If “he/it” refers to John himself, then it fits the context just as well. After all, the point made in the context is that “he,” John, was still alive as recently as Domitian. (“was yet living”). It may have nothing to do with when the vision was received. So that John, even though he wrote the Revelation in “symbolic code”, would surely have been the one in the best position to “spell out” for us in person who the actual person of the Anti-Christ was supposed to have been or whether it is someone we are still waiting for. 

Of course, Irenaeus could have been wrong as he was on several things. Polycarp could have been wrong. Eusebius could have been wrong. Or perhaps it was Domitius (Nero) that Irenaeus or Eusebius (or subsequent copyists) had confused with Domitian. 

At any rate, we already know that Christians from the wider world view after 70 needed something to support a futurist view of the NT. Believing that Revelation was written after 70 geve them less and less of a reason reason to reference the temple destruction that Jesus had put so much emphasis on. If not by the time of Irenaeus, this would definitely be true for later readers including Eusebius. The interpretation of “it” instead of “he” becomes an even more natural sounding reading after we have accepted the traditional later date. Before that idea is widespread, the context sounds like it is referring to the later personal witness of John, not the vision.

Yet, I think it is still clear, even to you, that much of the NT is directly supportive of a Preterist interpretation. You have mentioned to me in past conversations that you believed the expectations, even of Apostles, were along Preterist lines. (You didn’t use the word Preterist, of course). The end-times prophecies were defined in very Preterist terms even by Jesus and Paul. Revelation is the only claimed exception. But perhaps it wasn’t always an exception. 

The changing “world view” of the Christian church after 70 CE could easily explain why the church leaders, at least by the time of Eusebius in the 300’s and would be anxious to “discover” and “latch on to” a more futurist interpretation. A futurist interpretation was much easier to deal with, because it was always possible for these prophecies to be coming “very quickly”, “soon”, “shortly”. (An idea repeated many times in Revelation, including the very opening and the final verse.) They might have been afraid that some of that imminence is lost if they could point, too often, to a past fulfillment.

I think we need to start with the world view of Jews, Jewish Christians, and Gentile Christians of the first century to understand what this prophecy meant to them. After 33 CE, 70 CE was the most pivotal date that the early Christians have ever really seen in all of history. This is easy to lose sight of today, and it’s worth giving a second look whether we are Preterst or Futurist-Dispensationalists or something in between. 

I believe that the Jews needed a great sign to know that the Temple system was no longer God’s system of salvation. A warning had already gone out against the Jewish generation 37 years earlier because that generation rejected the greatest prophet ever to prophesy in Jerusalem. They would therefore be scattered, many killed, and their Temple system would be smashed. Survivors would be like scattered sheep without a shepherd, like lost chicks without their mother’s wing of protection. This doesn’t mean that the fulfillment of Matt 24 in 70 wasn’t significant, symbolic, and a necessary pattern for Christians throughout the rest of history. Whatever happened to the Jewish world is also a warning again for the entire inhabited earth. For me, 70 CE was the final warning, Christ vs. Anti-Christ, that came quickly, suddenly, upon them. And the extension of time for the rest of the world (along with the extension of time for many antichrists), means our salvation – because a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. The timing, however, was crucial to help Christianity spread salvation to the world by scattering its fantastic hope and faith from the crucible of the most traumatic Biblical event in history.

A major clue about the Jewish world-view can also help understand why preterist interpretations can so easily transform to futurist interpretations. You will recognize it as almost the same argument some JWs have made (you included) about a verse in Jeremiah: 

The Jews thought of their homeland as the true “earth,” “ha-eretz,” THE land, THE EARTH, the [holy, consecrated, promised] land. When they spoke of “all the tribes of the land” (of Israel) they used the same wording that could (ambiguously) also mean “all the nations of the earth.” They were “self-centered” in their thinking, so that “they were the world”. They had to come up with other less ambiguous expressions such as the “entire inhabited earth” so that one could distinguish between their “tribes of the earth” (aka, Israel’s tribes or “nations”) and the outside Gentile nations. There was nothing outside Israel that was worth considering. The end of their Jewish system, therefore, had to ALSO mean the “end of all things together”, “the end of the aeons,” “the end of the world,” “the end of time”, “the last day,” the greatest calamity ever to happen to mankind — or ever to occur again.

A version of this issue is clear from the prophecy that John references when he says: 

Revelation 1:7, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds (PHYLE) of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

This idea of all the “phyle” of the earth mourning because of seeing the one they pierced is clearly from Zechariah 12:10-14:

“And I will pour upon the…inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son …and grieve for him as one grieves for a firstborn….In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem…And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.”

Note that “all the kindreds of the earth” is from a verse about all the families around Jerusalem. They will look upon Jehovah (via “the son of man”) whom they pierced — and who becomes the cause of their mourning. And it’s all related to the great mourning and wailing in the city of Jerusalem. Jesus also applied the idea to when Jerusalem is surrounded by encamped armies: Matthew 24:30, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes [PHYLE] of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

This same world view of “Jerusalem” must also have affected the members, and leaders, of the 1st century Christian church. According to Acts, the majority of the Christians in its first 30 to 60 years must have been Jewish. 12 of the 12 apostles (including Matthias) apparently stayed mostly in Jerusalem, Judea, and Galilee — or only to Jews even if they traveled further. But the 13th apostle went to the nations. All these apostles understood this Jewish “world view”. Their questions about the Kingdom reflected this same view (Acts 1, etc). They thought it necessary, from Jerusalem, to impose acceptable — and sometimes unacceptable — versions of the Jewish proselyte laws even on Christian converts. But according to several recent studies, using hints from early Christian texts, and the archaeology of Jewish synagogues, etc, even those converts from the 13th apostle were probably taken from Gentiles who had already associated themselves with Jews all across the Roman Empire. The studies show how many Gentiles in the larger cities of the Roman Empire in the first century had become the major contributors to the building of Jewish synagogues where they associated and worshiped. (According to the names and occupations inscribed on the synagogue’s supporter lists, these Gentiles were more well-to-do than their Jewish associates.) But there was explosive growth among these Gentiles who saw a better form of Judaism in the Christian message that Paul brought to these big cities. (As an aside, Paul’s message used Hellenistic parables with many references to city life and the Greek games, for example. Jewish parables were pastoral – sheep, goats, fields, wheat, vines.) Jews were now jealous of Paul’s success even where he was only attracting only Gentiles to Christianity. He was still taking away their major contributors. He was taking away the Jewish religious “credibility” among Roman leaders, something they had worked a long time to gain.

The main point is that these Gentiles, even in the 7 “Greek” congregations (Christian synagogues) near Patmos in the first century, were primarily made up of Jewish Christians, both former Jews and former Gentiles who had already accepted the Jewish world view. This also makes sense in light of the Jewish issues that were most troubling to the Christian “synagogues” up until 70 CE. In the first three chapters of Revelation it is clear that these Jewish issues are still a big problem. And this is one reason that many modern scholars have adjusted their position on the time of writing — to pre-70 CE. It makes sense that the Christian church would no longer be troubled by the Judaizers after 70. The clearest argument against the Judaizers was that Jesus prophecy of God’s judgment had already come against them. But that point was not brought up as a past solution that had “escaped their notice”, but it WAS brought up in Revelation as a future solution about to affect these “false Jews” personally. This is why it is so interesting that the churches around Patmos were still having pre-70 issues in their congregations. 

The fact that there is NO reference to a recent destruction is another indicator, in itself, to some readers. This is also because any Christian writing that intends to provide comfort and exhortation, setting things straight, would be expected to touch upon the vast trauma that came upon all Jews and Jewish Christians when the Temple was destroyed. It would be difficult to argue that Jerusalem’s destruction wasn’t mentioned because this was already a long time after; it was only 20-some years after. This trauma, for Christians, could actually grow much worse, rather than subside, especially in the years following the disaster. 

I think that I can explain with an imaginary scenario for many religions with centralized headquarters — such as Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc. Here’s a scenario for JWs to understand this trauma, and how it could grow worse with time:

Let’s say it’s almost 1975 and that there are expectations among JWs that there is danger brewing in the world. Perhaps there are high expectations of Armageddon. Some JWs are even talking about quitting their jobs to go “pioneering”. Some are selling their houses. Some are so sure they are putting off doctor’s visits and not getting their teeth fixed. One or two District Overseers are giving talks called “Stay Alive Til ’75”. Now imagine the impossible. One day in 1975, lightning and earthquakes suddenly strike only some specific areas in the New York area, around say, Walkill, Paterson, and Brooklyn and it brings down all the Watchtower-owned hotel and factory buildings, killing 80% of the Governing Body, and not one stone is left upon a stone in every Watchtower building in NY and around. But very little else is affected. Obviously, to the JW, it must be Armageddon. For a while JWs “lift their heads up”. But then, let’s say nothing else changes for another year. No other religions are affected, no further action by governments, no action by the United Nations. Another year goes by, two years, three years. The fact that nothing else happens would leave all JWs traumatized even further, wouldn’t it? 

So what would Christians – who were still mostly Jewish — think of a book that had the following statements but supposedly ignored Jesus’ prophecy about the fate of Jerusalem?

Revelation 11:1-2, “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.”

If the city had just been trodden by the Gentiles for 42 months, which was basically the length of the war around Jerusalem from 66 CE to 70 CE, then why was it important to repeat this prophecy about measuring the temple and altar and outer court and to tell Christians that the Gentiles were about to come “shortly”, “soon”, “quickly” and tread it under foot again for 42 months?

Remember that Jesus had just made this same prediction about the Gentile Times: Luke 21:24, “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles.” It makes more sense that this was a reminder that was needed so that the 30-some year old prophecy is not lost sight of. That should not not grow cold and wavering now that “the due time HAS approached.” In the Gospels there was warning not to become overly anxious and not to be misled and not to follow those who say “the due time has approached”. If this was about the year 1914 or 2014, this subtle difference between the Gospels and Revelation would make no sense.

Also note how the sectarian issues, including Jewish-Christian doctrinal issues, in the congregations were going to be taken care of: 

To Smyrna:

“I know your tribulation and poverty—but you are rich—and the blasphemy by those who say they themselves are Jews, and yet they are not but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of YOU into prison that YOU may be fully put to the test, and that YOU may have tribulation ten days. Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

To Pergamum:

“‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those holding fast the teaching of Ba´laam, who went teaching Ba´lak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. 15 So you, also, have those holding fast the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·la´us likewise. 16 Therefore repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war with them with the long sword of my mouth.'”

To Thyatira:

“‘Nevertheless, I do hold [this] against you, that you tolerate that woman Jez´e·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her fornication. 22 Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23 And her children I will kill with deadly plague,…'”

To Philadelphia:

Look! I will give those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews, and yet they are not but are lying—look! I will make them come and do obeisance before your feet and make them know I have loved you. 10 Because you kept the word about my endurance, I will also keep you from the hour of test, which is to come upon the whole inhabited earth, to put a test upon those dwelling on the earth. 11 I am coming quickly.

The language of the Olivet sermon in the Gospels is obvious, which you can treat as Preterist or Futurist — or both. But notice that the solution to their Jewish sectarian issues will be answered with imminent war on these “Jewish” sectarians, tribulation that will affect everyone but also resolve this particular sectarianism. Look especially at the last congregation above, Philadelphia. The synagogue of Satan, of false Jews, are about to “do obeisance” before the feet of “true Jews” because an hour of test is about to come upon the whole inhabited earth. (Note the similarity to the Jewish world view discussed earlier.) 

If this were really the FINAL hour of test upon the entire inhabited earth, then how would the Philadelphia congregation be kept free or unaffected from this hour of test? If it were according to the world view of Jewish Christians, a few hundred miles from Jerusalem, then it makes perfect sense. 

There are several additional arguments given for the view that Revelation was written before 70 CE:

I’ll quote directly from a website, from which I’ve already taken a lot of information for this post: ( http://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html )

Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: “As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies.” Domitian’s reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the “vision” being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.

There are at least a dozen other good points made here, some of which I have already incorporated into the discussion. But the most obvious one and most convincing to me, is this:

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.” … 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.

Another site sums up these issues like this:

* The many “coming soon” and “at hand” passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. – there was nothing left of the Jewish state.
* The Beast (which most …scholars agree represents Rome) was ruled by its 6th head (“head” = “king” see: 17:10) which was already in existence in John’s day. Of the 7 heads (kings) only one was left – by 95 A.D. Rome was long past its 7th Caesar.
* A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).
* There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) – impossible after 70A.D.
* The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.
* If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere.
* Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around – yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.
* Irenaeus’ statement regarding Domitian’s reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source. In the same passage he also mentions “ancient copies” of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old.
* Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.
* The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60’s.
* John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.

Additionally, to the Preterist view, you probably also know that Josephus, even though he was not a Christian, and therefore with no reason to try to support Christ’s prophecies, still reported on the great and fearful signs in the heavens and the clouds from exactly the period, 66 to 70 CE, that Jesus mentioned. 

Again, the idea that Revelation 12, for example, could refer to events of the entire sweep of Christian history does NOT require that Revelation was written before 70 CE. (Accepting a pre-70 date also should not stop JWs from making any claim whatsoever about the supposed beginning of the “kingdom of the world” either.) So just consider this an interesting point of view, if nothing else.

I’ll respond to your other points in a separate post.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Rotherham,Before responding to your additional posts I’d like to continue treating your presentation “Did Christ receive the kingdom of the world in 33 CE?.”

After your initial point about the book being written far after 33 CE, you make this additional point, in an attempt to show that the visions must refer to the FUTURE – beyond 33 CE:

The symbols presented in the book are said to be of things which must shortly take place.

Revelation was intended to teach us about things that must shortly take place: to show us that the appointed time is near. But we can also be shown that the appointed time is near from things that have happened in the past. (JWs, for example, look at their past history, along with the perceived historical surge in war, pestilence, earthquakes and famine, which they say started in 1914, and they use this past history to show what must shortly take place.) Similarly the book of Revelation can, and does, also use symbols from the past, from the present and about the future, to show us other things about the future. Almost the entire Bible is ultimately about things which must shortly take place, but it’s full of information about the past, too. Revelation never says that all these symbols and visions had to all take place in the future.

The rest of the Bible is quite clear that symbols from the past can show us things about the future.

1 Cor 10:6 “Now these things [from Israel’s history] became our examples”.

Hebrews 10:1For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things,

And of course, Jesus gave several parables and illustrations utilizing symbols from the historical past, the recent past, and the present in order to show his disciples the things that must shortly take place.

But the worst enemy to your theory is the opening of Revelation itself. For example, what’s the very first vision? It’s in Revelation 1:10-19. Note carefully the highlights:

By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet, 11 saying: “What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations, in Eph’e·sus and in Smyr’na and in Per’ga·mum and in Thy·a·ti’ra and in Sar’dis and in Philadelphia and in La·o·di·ce’a.”12 And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me, and, having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed with a garment that reached down to the feet, … 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, …And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des. 19 Therefore write down the things you saw, and the things that are and the things that will take place after these.

If your assumption had been correct, there would be no reason for him to be told to write down what he saw AND “the things that are” AND the things that will take place after these. More explicitly, notice the meaning – the explanation – that John was given of this vision of the seven golden lampstands?

The seven stars mean [the] angels of the seven congregations, and the seven lampstands mean seven congregations.

This vision is the ONLY one explicitly said to be “in the Lord’s day”. Yet there is NOTHING in this vision about the future, per se. Jesus had already “become dead”, a past event, he had already been given the keys of death and of Hades, a past event. He was already holding seven stars, in the present at that time. The meaning of this vision is given. In fact, the meaning was that Jesus presence had already begun. Jesus was presently “in the midst of the lampstands”, the congregations, holding the angels of those congregations in his right hand. Jesus was present with the congregations like Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. (By the way, my wife and I, with my parents, recently visited Izmir, Turkey, and really enjoyed the amazing ruins of these two “Greek” cities, Ephesus especially.)

There’s also a minor point. The opening of Revelation offers the opportunity for people to “observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near”. Nothing is said of sealing up the book for only future generations, 2000 years later, to “observe”. Although the word that the NWT translates “observe” can hold several possible meanings here, some of the ideas include that it is to be kept near and dear to them, or that they can “take advantage of” these ideas, to “possess them in the present”, to “experience” them, to “follow” them. It’s much more than just “reading” the words. So in some sense it could be near for them to follow, just as it is is near for us in another sense.

So, Revelation actually specifies that not all visions are set in the future by explicitly defining the first “Lord’s Day” vision in the present (1st century CE). In addition, Revelation also uses phrases that could easily lead us to expect that the first few centuries of readers could also “follow” what was in it because the appointed time was near for them, too. And, although it isn’t necessary to make the point, if one also accepts the possibility from internal textual evidence in Revelation that the book was written before the Jewish temple was destroyed, then you would probably be even more likely to accept the perspective that much of the book points toward the first century history and symbolism of the Christian church.

You added:

(1:1)There are also clues that can be derived from other portions of the Bible that can identify the time period being focused upon in relation to the fulfillment of the prophecies.

I accept that the major purpose of the book of Revelation is to prepare us for all the possible ranges of things that could happen between wherever we are now in life, and the coming Judgment Day of the Lord. That “Day of the Lord” will come “suddenly” at the end of our lives, or may even occur during our lifetime. That was the entire point of the Judgment Day upon the Jewish salvation system in 70 CE. The time period (or periods) that are focused on in relation to fulfillment of prophecy does not determine whether some of the symbols come from the past or not. (Even the symbol of Jesus as a Lamb doesn’t mean he is about to sacrificed again some time in the future.)

However, I agree that there are clues from other portions of the Bible that can help identify the time period(s) being focused on. Many of these other passages are also included in my own reasons for understanding Revelation as I do. You added:

For instance, John states that he came to be in the Lord’s day by inspiration. The Lord’s day is not Sunday nor is it Saturday as if the “Lord’s day” referred to the weekly Sabbath, for Christians are no longer under the weekly Sabbath observance.

I agree that “Sunday” doesn’t look like the most likely meaning to me either. I have given a lot of consideration to the explanation you gave from 1 Cor. 1:6-8. Still, you can’t completely discount the idea that he is speaking of the first day of the week. The very fact that this first vision “in the Lord’s Day” is NOT set in the future leaves that possibility open. Here’s why:

As early as about 90 CE to 115 CE, which you say is almost the same time period as the writing of Revelation, the practice of meeting on the first day of the week had already become common enough so that the first day of the week was being referred to as “The Lord’s Day”. (Compare Acts 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” Paul spent a week and the only mention of celebration and breaking bread was on the first day week.)

So it could very well refer to the fact that the church now met regularly on the first day of the week instead of the 7th day of the week and/or that Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, and/or that Pentecost would land on the first day of the week, and John could merely be saying that although he was without other Christians to meet with on this particular Lord’s Day, he had a particularly memorable Lord’s Day after all.

Didache was most likely written before 90 CE, or based on versions written before 90 CE. Epistle of Barnabas is from about 100 CE. Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch had to have been written before his martyrdom dated to 110 CE.

Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. [The Didache 14:1]

And we too rejoice in celebrating the eighth day; because that was when Jesus rose from the dead… [Epistle of Barnabas 15]

We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the Sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord’s Day instead – the Day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him (Jesus) and His death. [St Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians 9]

Enough said on that matter. You added:

The Lord’s Day, via the surrounding context, is identified with the coming of the Lord with the clouds when every eye will see him. (1:7) This is an explicit parallel to the closing events associated with the parousia of Christ as mentioned in the Olivet Sermon. The important thing to remember as we proceed is that the book of Revelation opens with the timing of the parousia, whether it be seen as the “advent” or the “presence” of Christ. The timing of the parousia, which includes the revelation of Jesus Christ, is also referred to as the Lord’s Day elsewhere in the Bible.

The Lord’s Day in the most common context, usually refers to Judgment Day. The expression is tied specifically to the Day of Judgment, Day of Terror, Day of Reckoning, Day of Reward. It’s also a consistent theme among the Old Testament prophets: that the Day of the Lord is near so now is the time for repentance; it is a terrible day of wrath, but followed by a time of restoration. The New Testament follows exactly the same pattern, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, through Jesus’ ministry, and right up through the Revelation. Of course, this particular surrounding context doesn’t really prove that the Judgment of Rev 1:7 is directly tied to the Day spoken of later in Rev 1:9.

Another possibility, I don’t agree with, is that it could refer to the “realm” or “time-space” of the Lord, in other words, he was transferred into one of the heavenly realms as Paul says he was transferred to “third heaven” in a vision. (But I see no linguistic precedent for this meaning.)

You added:

(1 Corinthians 1:6-8) . . ., 7 so that YOU do not fall short in any gift at all, while YOU are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make YOU firm to the end, that YOU may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.Here the revelation of Jesus Christ and the Lord’s day are clearly connected. So we have a reference from the opening verses of the book that tells us that, in effect, John came to be in the “parousia” via inspiration.

I like this connection. I’m glad you used it. The “revelation of Jesus” is perhaps equal to the “Lord’s Day” in this context of First Corinthians. Again, this doesn’t mean that ALL or even MOST of the revelations in the book of Revelation are at the moment of Judgment. They don’t all fit the time of “parousia” as either of us understand “parousia”. This first vision, as I think you’ll agree, is primarily set in the first century CE. And I think you’ll agree that other revelations are from a time long after the “parousia” during the time of restoration, perhaps as much as a thousand years or more after the Lord’s Day. If John was taken to a time of the parousia, then it is obvious that, from that pivotal point, he be taken back in time to the first century or forward in time to the restoration.

As correct as this connection might be, it still says nothing of the specific timing of the visions themselves, or whether a vision of something to happen in the future could not also include a sweep of history starting with the past or the present.

I also like Apostle Paul’s expression you quoted, “firm to the end” — the “telos”. He makes the term “end” another parallel equivalent of the Lord’s Day, the “revelation of the Lord”. The time when the Lord reveals himself. It’s the same word used in these contexts:

(Matt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.)
(1 Cor 10:11 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.)
(1 Cor 15: Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.)
(Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:)
1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

The idea of being made firm to the end matches other times when Paul discusses the ambiguity of ending his career with his life or with the parousia. Again here he can use the expression because it covers up to the last day of your life and/or the judgment to eternal life.

You said:

Another important point to remember is that we are told by the Apostle Paul that the holy ones do not receive their resurrection to heaven until the parousia of Christ.(1 Corinthians 15:22-23) 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

Or as some would render “at his coming”. Regardless, the holy ones do not take their thrones, nor do they ascend to heaven before the parousia of Christ but AT or DURING that parousia. Therefore, their heavenly presence or receiving their thrones, likewise, occurs with the parousia, not before.

When the holy ones take their thrones is not related to when Jesus is handed his kingdom. The King of Kings is later joined by kings and priests brought from among mankind. Remember that Jesus is handed his kingdom in the midst of his enemies, and he hands it back to the Father when all the enemies are completely dominated. The kingdom is therefore “saved” forever from any future enemy. (And it doesn’t mean, even then, that Jesus is somehow no longer a King just because he can hand back the newly perfected domain of the kingdom.)

At his coming, or at his revelation, at judgment day, at the end, at the parousia. These would all mean the same here. Translating “during his presence” allows more of a stretch than “at his coming” or “at his [royal] parousia”.

In the past we’ve discussed the problems with extending the parousia out for many years instead of the concept of “at the end” or the “day of the Lord.” The real problem is not how long this parousia “day” lasts, but the fact that it is marked by a suddenness which makes it too late at that point to change the judgment. The parousia is a sudden revelation, a sudden end, a sudden manifestation, a sudden rendering of his judgment from which there is no escape. The parousia marks the end of the possibility of additional growing, or additional salvation.

This is clear from the context of all the “parousia” wherever the Bible speaks of the parousia of a “royal” or “worshiped” or “godlike” person. 

Because it’s already clear that the entire issue of Parousia is the key behind this discussion, I will include here some portions of information on that subject that I typed up for you on another forum a few days ago:

—-end of quotation from other forum——
[This] is part of all “end-times” time element that are described as “imminent” “near” “approaching” “upon us” “drawn nigh” “at hand”. Even in Revelation, “the time is at hand,” and you claim this was written after the current “end” of the Jewish Temple-attending generation.

I believe the reason for this expression to be appropriate in all ages was the suddenness of the end no matter how it came, whether by death or by parousia. When a Christian dies he is suddenly taken into Christ’s Kingdom – immediately. Even if he has to wait for 2,000 years, it is still the immediate end and new beginning in God’s consciousness (the God of the Living) and in the human consciousness, which has no true comprehension in death. It was explained by Apostle Paul when he (more than once) spoke of the possibility of losing his life before the end and the question about whether it is better to leave this life immediately in death for Christ or to live a full life which can help others achieve a life in Christ. The expression in 1 Corinthians 1:7-8 is appropriate:

“7 so that YOU do not fall short in any gift at all, while YOU are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make YOU firm to the end, that YOU may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Remaining firm to the end — the “telos” — is repeated several times in the NT. It’s used about the same as passages which speak of remaining firm to the time of the royal manifestation — the “parousia”.

I assume that most readers of this forum are aware that koine Greek used the term “parousia” to refer to a special manifestation, appearance, coming or arrival of an important or royal personage. The “parousia” coins in Roman times celebrated the “Advent” or “arrival” called “parousia” of the Emperor or his ambassador to a city, which was announced in advance so that for example:

* the “parade route” could be cleaned up (make the paths straight for his feet),
* robes could be washed so that the people were clean and presentable,
* entertainers could play music or choir singing for the honoree,
* and the trumpet-players could prepare for the required fanfare. 

Taxes could be raised in advance (or afterwards) for a “parousia”, which explains the “parousia” coinage with respect to these visitations.

In addition, after the public spectacle, a ruler or his ambassadors would usually have other political matters to handle in the city such as legal decisions or judgments concerning people appointed to important positions, etc.

When Jesus and other NT writers speaks of Jesus’ own royal “parousia”, it is often in the context of language that would remind the reader of these same types of royal advents: including a parade of white robed attendees or worshipful parade-goers, an angelic choir, an angelic trumpet, and a time for judgment.

The “judgment” plays a very large role in Jesus’ advent-parousia, because the one thing different about Jesus is that he arrives UN-announced. He arrives suddenly. When he arrives for judgment his followers must be already prepared because his fate is decided “at the parousia”. The parousia is a judgment day.

I think this is why the element of surprise, suddenness, and constant advance preparation is always an element in the NT usage of this type of “parousia”.

For example, in the Olivet sermons, his disciples ask for a sign so they can know in advance, “When will this parousia occur?” (Matthew 24, Mark 13). Jesus goes on to consistently indicate that no matter what they see in advance, don’t be misled by it because the parousia will still come as a surprise.

I believe that Watchtower authors over the years have tried to separate this “appearance” at the “end of all things” (1 Pet 4:7*) and make it seem different from the “parousia” at the “ending [of things] together” (synteleia). This seems to be an obvious mistake based on the New Testament PAROUSIA passages.

*1 Pet 4:7: But the end of all things is at hand.

1 John 2:28: And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his PAROUSIA. (NWT: “28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his presence[PAROUSIA].”

Note that paralleling his “appearance” (“manifestation”) with his “parousia” is the most natural reading of this passage.

2 Peter 3:12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the PAROUSIA of the day of Jehovah, through which [the] heavens being on fire will be dissolved and [the] elements being intensely hot will melt!…14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace.

Note the paralleling of, actually, the linking of “parousia” with the “Lord’s Day”, the “Judgment Day”, the “final” judgment.

And note the context, that this passage in Peter was an answer to those who wondered or scoffed about the promise of his PAROUSIA, thinking it won’t happen because things keep going along as they always have. The answer Peter gives, of course, is that these scoffers must be ignorant of the fact that it MUST be this way because it’s coming as a surprise, just like the flood came suddenly:

2 Pet 3:4-10: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming[PAROUSIA]? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. ..For this they willingly are ignorant of, … the world…being overflowed with water,…But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;

2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his PAROUSIA:

The NWT uses the word “manifestation” of his parousia, and the Greek word here is the same as for “EPIPHANY (of his PAROUSIA)” which was used elsewhere in Greek to refer to the bright, glorious Epiphany of the appearance of God or gods.

The fact that the Bible speaks of the sudden, unexpected, and glorious “EPIPHANY OF HIS PAROUSIA” might make one wonder if the Bible ever uses the idea of “lightning” in connection with the PAROUSIA, since that would offer the same idea of something bright, sudden and unexpected. Of course, one would think that it would have to be a much larger than usual lightning. Does the Bible ever speak of “lightning shining from one part of the sky all the way over the other part of the sky”?

Maybe Matthew 24:27: “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the PAROUSIA of the Son of man be.

…

Compare: 1 Timothy 6:14 That thou keep [this] commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing [EPIPHANY] of our Lord Jesus Christ: Also, 2 Tim 4:1 ties the appearance [EPIPHANY] to his Kingdom and Judgment: I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
—-end of quotation from other forum——

Regards,
Bill

Hello Rotherham,I expected you might just respond any time and we can keep track of unanswered issues as needed. For now, I’ll just go ahead and complete my response to the rest of your forum post.

I’ll pick up from the paragraph I left off with last time for context:

Allusions are made to the effect of the holy ones being in heaven or on their thrones during some of the visions that follow which naturally tells us, based upon the same criteria as before, that these visions are in the timing of the parousia and revelation of Christ, or what some would refer to as the “end times”.

Three things: 
1. The key vision in question (Rev 12) makes no such allusion to holy ones being in heaven.
2. The Bible’s premise is that Jesus sits in his kingdom at the the right hand of the throne of majesty upon his resurrection and is only LATER joined by the holy ones in this kingdom. So when the others join has nothing to do with the beginning of Jesus’ reign.
3. That sentence is packed with your own assumptions about the timing, meaning and nature of the visions, the parousia, the revelation of Christ, and the end times. 

So we might as well be clear about your specific position to see if it is even logical for you to use an expression like “in the timing of the parousia and revelation of Christ.” I disagree that you can make sense of the Parousia/Epiphany passages by extending the parousia the three generations or so back to 1914 CE. Your reasons for starting the Parousia so long ago, so long before any accompanying epiphany makes it about the same, logically, as saying that the parousia began in 33 CE. For example, you argue that he began his parousia nearly 100 years prior to the expected theophany because, after all, he would rule in the midst of his enemies from that point. That’s no different from the argument about 33 CE. You argue that he was only King-Designate prior to 33 CE, and now you argue that he is King-of-Kings-Designate around 95 CE. So, why not argue then that he is STILL King-of-Kings-Designate in 1914. After all, we are still waiting for the epiphany. 

You quoted Corinthians, on this timing matter, but we’d have to compare the parallel discussion in Thessalonians to get a more complete picture about what it really means to be “in the timing” of the Parousia. 

Of particular interest is the 12th chapter in helping us to determine when Christ would take his throne and receive the kingdom of the world. While it is apparent that in 33 CE, Christ began to reign at least in some fashion, we find evidence that suggests “another” reign that would have to be established at a later time, which is the purpose of considering chapter 12.

I’m glad you clarify that Christ began to reign “at least in some fashion” in 33 CE. It’s fortunate that the Bible states not only that he was a king but also happens to mention his “kingdom” or else you might still be arguing that this was just a “King-designate” position. Your only choice now is to try to minimize this “kingdom” (with phrases like “at least in some fashion”) in order to emphasize the importance of ANOTHER kingdom that supposedly begins in 1914. 

And what is the only thing you say Jesus did that is not already listed as one of his accomplishments around 33 CE. Casting Satan out of heaven? No. Jesus already listed that as an accomplishment beginning around 33 CE. So that accomplishment, while claimed, is ambiguous. The only other thing you say Jesus did around 1914 is to choose Jehovah’s witnesses as his ONLY channel of communication to Christians on earth. It’s no wonder 1914 is so important for you to defend: 

JWs say that 1914 marked the beginning of the Parousia. How do they know they are right about this? Because in 1914 Jesus chose his only channel of communication to Christians, and that’s what this channel has been claiming. 

It’s 100% circular, and naturally self-serving, but is there even a remote possibility that this theory is correct? 

I could accept that a new phase, new facet, new domain, or a great expansion, or accomplishment of this Kingdom can legitimately be referenced as the coming of “a kingdom” — even if that kingdom had already begun. So if some new aspect of Jesus kingdom was “gloriously manifested” at that time, then yes, I would have to accept that this could be called a coming of his Kingdom. EVEN THAT wouldn’t discount the fact that he had already been ruling. (You made the same point when you tried the argument that on a glorious occasion it could be said that “Jehovah has become king”. Obviously Jehovah was the King long before the special occasion.)

Similarly, Jesus was always the Son of God, but was declared “with power” to be God’s son at the time of his resurrection. Compare Romans 1 with Rev 12 here. (Now have come to pass the power!)

I can imagine something like that for people who had never seen Augustus, for example, in one of the more remote regions of the Roman Empire. It might easily be imagined as a phrase on the lips of the people who come out to view a long-awaited parousia of Augustus. “Augustus has become emperor! Long live the Emperor! Rome (your Kingdom) has come to [choose: Bythinia, Brittania, etc.]”!! 

And I would say that the Theophany/Epiphany of the Parousia of the Lord’s Day would clearly match such an enormous event. If the “epiphany” of 70 CE was as traumatic as it is described by Josephus, for example, on the Jewish system, then imagine the exponentially higher power required to change the systems of the entire inhabited earth. You’ll notice that the real issue isn’t denying that the Parousia could legitimately be described as a COMING of the kingdom. Because, if it’s also a theophany/epiphany as it is described in the Bible, then it’s truly an APPEARANCE of that same Kingdom. In fact, I would expect it to be called such.

The problem, is that I am asked to attach this coming of the kingdom (or appearance of the kingdom) to a date on which there was very little evidence — very little “manifestation”. There was so little evidence, in fact, that not even Jehovah’s Witnesses, or anyone writing in the Watchtower thought to make such an application until at least 10 years after 1914. 

To be fair, I would also have to wonder if it were possible that Jesus did NOT have to actually manifest or bring any new aspect of his kingdom into “literal” light. Perhaps it’s enough that some few Christians can INTERPRET that this new aspect or domain of his kingdom began on a certain date, even if there were no specific physical manifestations. Your answer to this is YES. You point to a verse about clouds and the fact that Jesus was visibly seen rising into the air at his ascension (and then you emphasize that Jesus finally became invisible). The context of the passage says he will return in the same way. But other verses mention him returning with the cloud(s) yet stress the visibility. 

And interpretation is always open to change. The same JWs that missed Jesus return in 1914 later started to “see 1914” around 1924 to 1929. But from 1879 to 1929 those same people were saying that he had returned in 1874 and had become king in 1878. 1874 had about 10 “solid” lines of reasoning behind it, so strong in fact that they were considered by JWs to be “God’s dates” not their own, and they couldn’t be changed by so much as even ONE year, the Watchtower books added. The 1914 theory only had two lines of reasoning behind it. One was a prophecy in Daniel about a tree that Nebuchadnezzar saw chopped down for 7 “times” but which grew again when some metal bands were loosened. The other was the idea that October 1914 might make a better time to start counting the increase in “signs” picked from Matthew 24 (and parallels including Revelation 6). A great European war had started earlier that year. Pestilence and disease appeared to be ready to return almost as bad as 14th century levels with the Spanish Influenza by 1918. And even if earthquakes could not be proven to be increasing since that time, at least the Watchtower could always point to great earthquake damage if they happened to hit near large cities. 

But then again, trying to find a sign in wars and rumors of wars was considered to be potentially “misleading” according to Matthew 24. Same with earthquakes, famines, and pestilence. These are things they would see but things that would be likely to mislead them, if they were looking for a sign, Jesus said. 

So, I also have to wonder if this so-called “INvisible parousia” wasn’t exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said that some will try to claim that he had come, that they know about it, but you just can’t see it. They would say, he’s over here, or he’s over there, or he’s in some inner chambers that you can’t see right now. Jesus’ answer was not to follow these people because, instead, it would be manifest like lightning, and it would take people by surprise. 

So, even if I could accept that a new expansion, domain, or aspect of the kingdom could be interpreted but still invisible, that might be true at some point – but definitely not in relation to any supposed invisible parousia. (And even if I could, which I can’t for scriptural reasons, it would still not signify a NEW reign, just a new aspect of an existing reign.)

Also, there was never any good reason in the first place to minimize Jesus reign and kingship and kingdom in 33 CE, long before the final “epiphany of the parousia” — “the parousia of the Lord’s day”. Besides, the Parousia is one of the great expectations of this same reign of Christ. Not a different reign, or a different kingdom. He doesn’t stand up from his throne and go sit on another throne to rule. He continues ruling from the right hand of the throne of majesty. It was always known that he would rule until all his enemies were subdued, but there would come a special time in that rule when he would meet these enemies at once. Revelation 12 does not speak of another reign, even if it werespeaking of an outstanding future aspect of his current reign.

Your argument continues:

Of particular note, is this verse:(Revelation 12:5-6) 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. 6 . . .

Some have applied this solely to the birth of Christ, but this simply will not work in harmony with the rest of the vision, since this “child” is referred to as more than one individual, a class of individuals, those who have been assigned the witnessing work to Jesus.

(Revelation 12:17) 17 And the dragon grew wrathful at the woman, and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus.

So we have the REMAINING ones of the male child identified as those who will shepherd the nations with an iron rod and as the ones assigned to bearing witness about Jesus. This would be the church, the holy ones, that are included in this male child, because they are promised upon their conquering that they will shepherd the nations with an iron rod.
(Psalm 2:9) 9 You will break them with an iron scepter, As though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.”

Whereas this a clear prophecy about Jesus, it is also directly applied to those who conquer, the holy ones.

(Revelation 2:26-27) 26 And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he shall shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, the same as I have received from my Father,

Therefore this male child is a reference to Jesus Christ and also the holy ones who constitute the heavenly government, being kings, priests and judges who do not get caught away to God and their throne until the parousia of Christ occurs according to Paul. So the holy ones can not be caught away to heaven until their resurrection, for it would only be by that means that they could be 
caught away to God and to their throne.

I hope you can see how weak, and in fact patently false, this argument is. You claim that it is NOT Jesus when Revelation says “she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne.” JWs say this is NOT Jesus Christ, but a class of people that includes Jesus. I think it will be clear that JWs only find it necessary to attack this scripture because otherwise it gets in the way of their doctrinal traditions.

Your logic is so flawed I hardly know where to start here. Obviously it starts with accepting Watchtower explanations, and for the writers of Watchtower explanations it obviously starts out trying to fit 1914 and then works backwards to re-explain all scripture that gets in the way. But let’s pretend it was based on rational systematic theology. If your method were rational it would mean that you might do the same to a story like the following one:

Once upon a time a woman, of glorious stature, gave birth to a son who was the royal heir to the throne. An enemy, Stan, with access to the palace wanted to destroy that royal heir and got a lot of other persons from the palace involved – up to a third of them were involved. But Stan failed to destroy the child. The child was taken into the palace and found protection at the throne of the King. Stan and his henchmen were kicked out of the palace, never to return, so in his anger Stan went after the woman and the ‘remaining ones of the woman’s seed.’

You can’t honestly say that you would naturally read this story and assume that the remaining ones of the woman’s seed were ALSO “the child”, “the son” whose removal was the very reason the enemy had to go after others instead of him. But, you might ask, what if the remaining ones were going to be allowed to co-rule with the Son, you say? What if they were also promised to share in the same effort of ruling over a new government? It doesn’t matter, obviously. You would never have “the child” caught away from one domain to another and yet say that this child is still in first domain just because there are other “royal heirs” in that first domain. The need to impose complexity on simplicity is merely obfuscation because you (JWs) don’t like what this passage would do to your traditions, your traditional explanation that needs 1914 to work. 

The woman is the “true Israel”. Before 33 CE the true Israel was Israel in a fleshly sense. Israel in a fleshly sense produced Christ. Note Romans 1:

“concerning his Son, who sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead”

The Devil would love to devour this child, at his birth via Herod, and later through temptations at the beginning and through to the end “the final cup” of his ministry on earth, but Jesus was caught away to heaven, “with power” which was a huge defeat for Satan. Jesus had conquered. At his resurrection he could say “All authority has been granted on heaven and on earth” (the verbal equivalent of receiving the kingdom of the world)– So Satan is angry, brought low, his lofty “anti-Christ” claims are defeated and he has no power to do anything further in heaven. All his focus to fight against Jesus Christ is now too late, he confined to the earth where he can only try to crush the remaining ones of the woman’s, Israel’s, seed after 33 CE. These remaining ones are joint heirs, heirs with a promise, the royal family. Satan can go after the woman, natural Israel to destroy many of these potential heirs of true Israel. But, unfortunately for Satan, the witness to Jesus had spread like wildfire after the flames of Pentecost, and had turned the entire inhabited earth upside down through this teaching. By spreading throughout the earth, the earth had come to Israel’s rescue. True Israel was becoming a spiritual entity. (Israel as a spiritual and as a physical nation, is always protected when chosen people of God are doing his commandments as his witnesses.) Satan tried to stop it but not even the gates of Hades could swallow up, or come against the church.

It should be obvious that the Bible explains exactly who the remaining ones of her seed are. Revelation 12 is paralleled with Galatians 4::

But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law,…Now this Ha´gar means Si´nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than [those] of her who has the husband.” 31 Wherefore, brothers, we are children, not of a servant girl, but of the free woman.

There was a transference of the woman to freedom and the remaining ones of her seed are now, as Israel in a spiritual sense, more numerous than the barren system under Jewish Law. Note that this was already happening, already in progress. God had let the woman escape by transforming true Israel from fleshly to spiritual. By being allowed to influence the desires of nations and leaders, Satan’s only war or major physical attack could be moved against the earthly, fleshly Israel, but his attempts were in vain. His usual attacks on individuals through influence to sin, were nullified by the blood of Christ, the power of holy spirit in the Christian’s life, and the fact that even if killed, those Christians merely conquered Satan immediately. 

The history of Christianity in the first century should now make even more sense when we read Acts, the epistles and Revelation. Even the attempt in 70 to destroy the fleshly remainder of Israel was an attempt to destroy what was left of both fleshly and spiritual Israel. Satanic forces were at work in tying Christianity too close to Jewish legalism. Some Christians were really in a synagogue of Satan (see Rev 2 and 3), where the true fleshly Jews were NOT really true Jews, but were lying. There was a temptation among Christians to believe that some form of laws and, therefore works, were needed for salvation on one side, and a temptation on the other side to go too far to show that their faith did NOT need works on the other hand which may easily misled some Christians into idolatrous and immoral practices. (See Acts, Paul’s letters and James’ letter) If Satan nurtured these two extremes then even the punishment inflicted on Jerusalem in 70 would play right into Satan’s hands at crushing God’s woman, Israel. The river of anger that Satan aimed at the woman was swallowed up. The true woman was now the mother of her seed (other royal offspring) spread through all the inhabited earth.

Therefore, the timing of verse 5 of chapter 12 must at least in part refer to the parousia of Christ. This is in total harmony with John’s words that he came to be in the Lord’s day via inspiration. And that also fits with the words that the signs are said to “shortly” take place, which would tell us that the visions had not yet transpired at the writing of the book.

It’s true that the remaining ones of the woman’s seed are to join at the parousia; that’s perfectly legitimate, but that isn’t even mentioned in connection with verse 5. The Devil is brought down due to the blood of the Lamb, and the fact that Christ’s brothers – the remaining ones of the woman’s seed — are standing up to Satan and conquering in the face of accusation, even to the point of death. This is all part of the first century experience of Christians – and continues until the parousia. (Matt 24, Revelation 2 & 3)

When was Jesus caught away to God and his throne? We shouldn’t have to point out these verses again. The Bible says it was at his resurrection. (Acts 2, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews) 

Note also first John:

For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil. …because everything that has been born from God conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith….We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.

This was all true in the first Christian century.

So then, in relation to this male child being caught away to God and to his throne, we have the Devil being ousted from heaven, we have at least SOME of the male child caught away to heaven. I say SOME, because it is apparent that there is a REMAINDER of her seed who are still on earth and bearing witness to Jesus and being harassed by the Devil who was cast down to the earth to wreak havoc for a short time.The question is, can this vision be applied to the events of 33 CE?

Yes, 33 CE, when he received the Kingdom and became King of Kings, when Jesus blood cleansed the heavenly temple, Satan had no more place ever again. He was given a short period of time to express a flood against the woman and against the remainder of God’s people on earth, and now far beyond 70 CE, when salvation is also brought to multitudes from the Gentiles. 

I think you already see some of the absurdity of the Watchtower’s theory when you had to contradict scripture to say that SOME of the male child were caught away to heaven when:
1) the scripture says that THE male child was caught away to heaven, not a part of the male child , or SOME of the male child — and THE remaining ones of her seed were on the earth. 
2) JWs believe that by 1914, and even through part of 1918, that NONE of the “male child” except Jesus, had already gone to heaven. Also, JWs have published many times that the doors had closed to additional Christians going into heaven (before 1914). It’s a “staple” of their doctrinal diet that MOST new Christians called will rightfully look to an earthly hope. In the 1920’s the Watchtower still argued that the doors had been closed to new entrants back in 1881. Up until 1933, the Watchtower Organization actively sold that explanation to the public. More recently, the Watchtower argued that the doors had been closed back around 1935. After the end of March this year, the Watchtower will happily publish that only on the order of 10,000 out of 10,000,000 will be “partaking of the Memorial emblems” as an indication that only this many Christians on earth have a heavenly hope. Most of your “male child”: over 100,000 out of 144,000 were already waiting in the wings between 33 CE and 1918. The Watchtower probably “resurrects” on the order of 100,000 heirs around 1918 CE. This is also quite problematic when you try to make it work with Corinthians and the parallel passages about the resurrection in Thessalonians. This loose method of working with “in the timing of the parousia” is probably just a carryover from the previous false doctrines that the resurrection waited until 3.5 years after the Kingdom began in the 1880’s. 

It could be claimed that the kingdom is first born in 33 CE via the woman, later, it is caught away to God via resurrection, first of all Christ, and then the holy ones when the parousia occurs, and then they are given their thrones once the remaining ones of her seed, being persecuted by the Devil, have joined the initial ones who were resurrected to heaven, as is also indicated by Revelation 6: 11:And a white robe was given to each of them; and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they also had been.

Therefore, the interpretation might be attempted that in 33 CE the kingdom was born first with Christ, later to be joined by the holy ones when the parousia occurs. Also that the Devil was ousted from heaven at 33 CE and went off to wage war with the holy ones, the remaining ones, minus Jesus, who was now caught away to God and to his throne as the primary seed, during his short period of time, which would now have lasted over 2000 years.

Good enough. The apostles attempted that same interpretation, although it really was only a short period of time until 70, the initial great sign of judgment on physical Israel. As far as a short period of time lasting just under 2000 years: 2 Peter comes closest to seeing that the short period of time could last 1,000 years or more where he said: 

These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction…9 Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial, but to reserve unrighteous people for the day of judgment to be cut off,… upon themselves…..7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men. 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief,

One objection to this interpretation is the fact that the visions are said to be future from the time of the writing the book. Therefore, if the features of the visions are yet future, then one could conclude that the actual birth of that kingdom seed by the woman was yet future, especially since we know that the church’s being caught away to God could not happen until the parousia.

As shown, the visions were NOT said to be only future, but of the things that are AND the things that will take place. Including things that will SHORTLY take place. You saw that in the very first vision. And of course, this vision in Revelation 12 really is about the FUTURE, but that doesn’t make every element of it future. The blood of the Lamb, mentioned here, is ongoing from the moment Christ died in 33 CE. The witness for Jesus is ongoing. The accusations of Satan are ongoing. But whether it’s about something a few months or days in the future or 1,000 years in the future, it’s ultimately about this:

“What sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which [the] heavens being on fire will be dissolved and [the] elements being intensely hot will melt! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation,

This is in harmony with the fact that John received these inspired visions after he came to be in the Lord’s Day, the parousia and the revelation of Christ. That would make the timing of the visions entirely within the parousia, not before.

And we have already seen the problem with this theory. The first vision — and only vision specifically identified with Lord’s Day — was only about the past and present, and included NOTHING about the future. This doesn’t negate the fact that the purpose of all visions was to lead Christians to know about and to be ready for the Lord’s Day of Judgment — the Parousia of the Lord’s Day. That doesn’t mean that all the elements had to be future.

In response to this objection it could stated that there are clear references to past events or personages within the visions, and this is true, at least on occasion. However, to apply the events of chapter 12 to 33 CE in the manner presented, it places nearly the entire vision in the past, which stands in contrast to the opening words of the book and the time period in which John found himself under inspiration, that being when “every eye” would see the Son, also referred to as the ‘revelation” of Jesus Christ.

There is no problem with most of this vision taking place in the past, because these things — including Jesus now sitting on the right hand of majesty in the midst of his enemies — were the very things that gave meaning to the present and future. They were already seeing Satan’s anger, and were being asked to continue their witness to Jesus in the face of death so they too could conquer as Jesus had. They were either about to see, or had just seen the awesome power of Satan’s anger disgorged against the woman through the powers of the world, Rome. Revelation was a key to the identification of the age they were now in — no matter how long that age lasted.

Of course, the only part of chapter 12, that you really need to place well beyond 33 CE, to 1914 specifically, is the phrase from verse 10: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ”. While my view puts this event in the past at to the time it was written in Revelation, even your view puts it in the past right now. The only difference between our views at the moment is that yours takes away the ability of this passage to encourage or set things straight or discipline in righteousness until 1,900-plus years later. 

This would not be an impossible situation, of course, in prophecy. But remember to compare those types of prophecies that looked far into the future — such as those that named a time many years away — or which were to be sealed up until the time of the end. This one was not to be sealed up because the time was now. That type of language is explainable with ideas about God’s patience (as in Peter), but this particular argument comes right out of Revelation itself, and is explicitly said to address MAN’S patience. In other words, Revelation is definitely NOT sealed up to a date as late as 1914, or else you are saying that God was being purposely disingenuous by having this book declared as to be opened NOW and NOT sealed up for a later time, but you get around it by saying that it was a vision of a time when it was no longer to be sealed up for a later time. 

Further, it must also harmonize with what happens when we plug this vision in with the vision mentioned in Daniel chapter 7? Does the situation change as to the timing of this received kingship by Christ, as to the birth or initiation of this kingdom? Does it confirm or deny the 33 CE application?In chapter seven, verses 7-13 establish for us that the son of man did not receive his kingdom until after the actions described the conspicuous horn, and in fact, this same horn is prominent clear up to the time of the parousia because verses 21 and 25-27 clearly show his persecution of the holy ones right up until the time that they take possession of the kingdom, which as we have learned, does not happen until the parousia.

This horn best answers to an outgrowth of the Roman empire, which is represented by the fourth beast in the vision. In fact, it is difficult and a severely strained interpretation to make it apply otherwise. Regardless of the other details of the prophecy, the important feature that we need to take from this, for this particular venture, is the TIMING of the event of the son of man receiving his kingdom, which clearly had to take place after the outgrowth of the Roman kingdom, an outgrowth which lasts clear down until the parousia.

Daniel the 7th chapter, taken in harmonious fashion with Revelation chapter 12, tells us that regardless of when one would think that Christ received the kingdom of the world, it could not have been established before the events of the conspicuous horn, which would have been far into the future approaching the time of the parousia.

With this established, all other statements concerning rulership and/or authority must remain harmonious. The treatment of those passages is forthcoming.

Well, we can only hope, for your argument’s sake, that your treatment of those Daniel passages offers your theory some support, because you certainly didn’t get any clear support from the book of Revelation or the Gospels or the Epistles. 

Regards,
Bill

Hello Rotherham,It’s not optimal. The piecemeal (hopscotch/leapfrog) format is not as good as standard debate practice put in written format. I’m done with my comments on your initial presentation. I could stop here, and let you take over until you are ready for an additional round of responses, or summaries if we’re ready. I can see that it might be easier for you to respond more efficiently if I would also give you my take on Daniel 7. I removed what I would have said on that subject but I see that you have made it integral, if not the “key” evidence.

So, let’s say that I give you at least a short overview of my take on Daniel 7. I’ll keep it to one post and then you may respond to any (or every) point you think might be useful.

[…]

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,If you have no evidence to present to overturn the presentation I made of Daniel the 7th chapter, there is really not much point in continuing the discussion as the other points concerning the application of the verses in Revelation would then naturally fall into place with the prophecy of Daniel. Should we go ahead and close the disucssion? If so, I will likely update the article to include some of these points that were discussed and then if you wish to rechallenge, you may. I don’t know what else to do since you do not seem to want to respond any longer.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,Apologies for the delay. Some of it was spent around Columbus (Dublin, OH) and even a little time on those vaunted ski slopes of Ohio (Mad River Mountain) — and a quick cruise around Florida and Bahamas. After returning, however, we’ve had just too many things to keep up with. I wrote up some information to respond about Daniel, but it was embarrassingly long and I never found the time to edit it down into smaller bites. 

So where did we leave off? You said:

Rotherham wrote:Hello Bill,
If you have no evidence to present to overturn the presentation I made of Daniel the 7th chapter, there is really not much point in continuing the discussion as the other points concerning the application of the verses in Revelation would then naturally fall into place with the prophecy of Daniel. Should we go ahead and close the disucssion? ….

If you don’t mind, I’ll go ahead and complete a shorter response to your take on Daniel 7, too. I’ll try to keep my own explanations to the bare minimum needed for this discussion. Otherwise, I’m sure there would be too many long, unnecessary tangents. 

I’ll respond this afternoon.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Rotherham,This is the final segment of my response to your initial thesis. This is in regard to using Daniel 7 as evidence that Jesus doesn’t get his kingdom until long after 33 CE.

Daniel 7 cannot, of course, help your interpretation explicitly. A specific solution might produce more difficulties in some details for my interpretation than it does for yours. Or it might produce more difficulties for yours than it does for mine. But using an interpretation of prophetic symbols in Daniel to support a theory about interpreting prophetic symbols in Revelation can obviously become a circular argument. This would be true no matter how good or bad your specific solutions seems to be.

So it wouldn’t hurt to point out that many religions have had many different interpretations of Daniel over the last 2,000 years. JWs themselves, for over 130 years, now admit that MOST of the interpretations they have preached about Daniel have actually been false. But this isn’t just JWs. I have also had views I now know to be false, along with every other religion that makes attempts to apply prophecy to modern day circumstances. It tells me that no specific interpretation, however current, is ever really “final.”

But perhaps there is an obvious reason why there are so many interpretations. To avoid this problem, God could have predicted the very names, dates and meanings of all the symbols. Such details and explanations were provided in other prophetic passages. So, why even use symbols if we could have been told directly? In Daniel, some symbols are identified and some aren’t. In Daniel 7, NONE of the symbolic beasts are identified, except to say that some represent kingdoms and some represent kings. It seems likely to me that the reason for this is as follows: The primary value of prophecy is to provide just enough information to comfort God’s people about His future promises, without giving us so much information that we are tempted to center our lives around specific knowledge of the future. It’s enough to know that God has set limits to the power of the earth’s great empires so that His people don’t have to become “faint out of fear, not knowing the way out”.

But there’s another side of the problem of not getting specific identification of prophetic symbols. God’s people will be tempted in every generation to see those symbols as applying to themselves. Can prophecy actually apply to two (or more) completely different time periods? JWs say, “Yes.” For example, JWs have commonly taken many Old Testament prophecies and have identified, first, an early application on Israel or Judah, and second, a later application usually about some specific events related to JWs in the 22-year period between 1918 and 1940. Outside of that period, recent application of prophecy for JWs, only refers to very general events before that period and all other specific events are expected for the future (great trib, Armageddon, UN attack, cries of Peace/Security). The JW explanation of Daniel 7 includes references to European powers in prior recent centuries. In addition, several religions accept a dual prophetic solution for the prophecy of Matthew 24.

God would have known that this would happen, and we have to wonder sometimes if the dual prophetic solution, “types and anti-types” — like the JWs often use — is a proper method. If it is, then it may also be correct that some of these prophecies were worded ambiguously, on purpose, to minimize the differences between the dual – or multiple – or ongoing solutions. Daniel to me appears to have been purposely worded to also provide especially for a single solution, but with multiple application LESSONS which are re-usable for similar behavior by world powers. In any case, in Daniel 7, the first, or primary, solution seems to apply best to Greco-Maccabean times. The second solution, per Jesus, is perhaps NOT the actual fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, but perhaps merely an extension, or object lesson, of the Greco-Maccabean solution. It could therefore be applied just as well to Roman times (when Jesus drew parallels with Daniel in his sermon that answered the question his disciples asked regarding the Temple destruction). If this is true, then it could as easily be extended to future empires, including those of our own time. But the numerical groupings of heads and horns need not apply specifically each time. The numerical groupings seem to be best applied in Maccabean times, as I would expect, but they also work out fairly well under Vespatian, the tenth Caesar, for John’s application in Revelation. The numbers are treated less distinctly by JWs in their explanations, where numbers themselves are often given symbolic meanings when necessary to avoid specificity.

JWs can clearly accept dual prophetic solutions in other prophecies, especially Matthew 24. Is it just as possible that the lesson of Daniel is a continuing lesson –purposely ambiguous — so that it provides comfort under ALL the general crises of the types that ungodly, beastly Empires will repeat against God’s people?

I think that the reason we have difficulty with it is that we humans want to be able to claim “knowledge of the times,” even if there is a good chance our explanations are wrong. But we can’t know the times and seasons – we can only be prepared at ALL times. The Father’s jurisdiction over the times and seasons does not need to make sense to us. If the Paradise of the New Heavens and Earth holds 1 million people or 10 billion or 20 billion, or this old earth stays until 30 billion or more are eligible, this only matters to our current human view of time. In immortality, we would look back and someday see this human history prior to the Parousia/Epiphany as just a blip of time. And of course, from the viewpoint of human consciousness, those deadly tribulations (Daniel 7, Matthew 24, etc) took those martyrs for the kingdom IMMEDIATELY to their reward. And even the survivors, who went through the tribulations, also go “IMMEDIATELY” within a single lifespan to their reward – and their “works” go right with them. If we could see things forward from a billion years in the past and see things backwards from a billion years in the future, that might approximate how we can imagine God views the “immediacy” of the final kingdom to the generations that saw Nebuchadnezzar or Antiochus or Vespatian or Nero or Stalin or Hitler, etc.

I’m not going into all the details of why I think Daniel 7’s little horn is primarily solved by Antiochus Epiphanes. This have been explained by many others going as far back as Hippolytus. From the “Bible” books of Maccabees and “history” books of Josephus we have the ability to match up a very high percentage of details across Daniel 2,7,8 11,12 to see that the 4th beast most likely refers to Greek and Maccabean history. And Jesus said we could, with discernment, prepare to see these same symbols apply to Rome in 70 CE. Then John, in Revelation, uses some of the same symbols from Daniel, probably also in reference to Rome, but possibly with respect to some future generation(s) that may meet up with similar symbols. 

One could make a case that Jesus’ statements would take precedence as a fulfillment, and therefore the little horn refers to a specific character, event, or characteristic from Roman times around 70 CE. If you go with a single solution, then this (70 CE Roman solution) obviously could take precedence over the JW solution which puts that small horn in modern times. The JW solution needs to use ambiguous wording like: “best answers an outgrowth of the Roman empire”. This could then mean anything you happen to have chosen to to mean — between Roman times, current times, and even future expectations. Wording like that makes it possible to play “fast and loose” and still claim that you are being specific with your solution. 
You said:

In chapter seven, verses 7-13 establish for us that the son of man did not receive his kingdom until after the actions described the conspicuous horn, and in fact, this same horn is prominent clear up to the time of the parousia because verses 21 and 25-27 clearly show his persecution of the holy ones right up until the time that they take possession of the kingdom, which as we have learned, does not happen until the parousia.

What you have claimed about the parousia here is not at all necessary to the solution. Jesus did receive his kingdom in 33 CE, which was well after the initial actions of the Antiochan horn over 100 years before Jesus was born. That horn which could represent Antiochus initially and specifically represents, as a more general lesson, all the activities of the forces of the world’s empires against God’s people through history up until the time when God’s people would start possessing the kingdom — not waiting until the parousia/epiphany. (I think Revelation makes this clear in the parallel about the son of man when Revelation 14:13 says: “Write: Happy are the dead who die in union with the Lord from this time onward. Yes, says the spirit, let them rest from their labors, for the things they did go right with them. 14 And I saw, and, look! a white cloud, and upon the cloud someone seated like a son of man.” 

The prophecy of Daniel was sealed up for hundreds of years from Babylonian times down through Mede and Persian and Greek times, but was unsealed in time for the Antiochan persecutions. Those righteous Jews who did not succumb to the religious and anti-religious pressures of Hellenism and paganism were bolstered in a timely way to understand that God’s judgments were higher and would soon overpower the temporary situation of Antiochus. Happy are those who died faithfully in that persecution because they would possess the kingdom, for the things they did go right with them. If, for some reason, Daniel was not supposed to provide strength and comfort for its first readers, then the next most appropriate fulfillment would be for Roman times. 

It is not difficult to skip Greece here and go straight to Rome as the 4th beast, but it isn’t necessary. After all, Daniel 7 says that the order of events is this: 3 beasts are 3 great kingdoms that have ruled in the past. The 4th beast is different as to the extent of its power (10 horns) and another horn, a man evidently, speaks grandiose things, and has trampled on God’s people, and this results in a judgment against him from God. The judgment (v11) results finally in the slaying of this particular 4th beast, but the previous kingdoms are allowed to live on again: “concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (v12) So this isn’t the parousia/epiphany. This kingship received by the son of man in the next two verses, is evidently in the “midst of his enemies”, in the midst of a prolonged season of national powers, even if the particular dominions of those particular empires is taken away. Whatever exalted expressions are made by new kingdoms and dominions that come up from the kingdoms which were allowed to live on are meaningless in the sense of “dominion” over God’s people. They have no hold on God’s people. God’s holy ones have “conquered” the world according to Revelation. 

So this is not the parousia. That is still a future time when ALL the holy ones, in their entire number, take possession of the Kingdom WITH the Son of Man, who has already been given his kingdom in the midst of enemies. God’s people take possession of the Kingdom in some sense as soon as they realize the power that keeps anti-Christian forces from ever being able to take it away from them. But more specifically they “possess it” since even death at enemy hands only locks in that possession more surely. That’s why all are “happy” who “die in union with the Lord from this time onward.” There is nothing wrong with the potential thousands of years that this may go on.

If you would like to see “my” explanation spelled out, it is currently done well by some commentator(s) on Wikipedia. I refer especially to the charts that provide hints across Chapters 2,7,8,11. The ambiguity that could make the fourth beast apply first to Greece and then again just as easily to Rome might become clearer from the charts. I focus on the general view that makes Antiochus the little horn. But note that support for this view is built up from additional hints in Chapter 2 and 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_8

If this could apply the fourth beast to Greece and then to Rome, it might also be just as applicable to a current beast, and at any time a “current” beast can become the final beast, or perhaps the same symbols will become appropriate again in a future time. The specifics won’t matter, because “as for the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us because we already know that the day of the Lord will come as a thief. It is our Christian obligation, therefore, to be always ready. It comes as a thief yet we don’t want to be overcome as if by a thief.

Regards,
Bill

Thankyou Bill,I appreciate the response and can now complete my response to you. As I want to address alot of things about Daniel 7, it may take a couple of days.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,As I re-read my post I noticed that I should have spelled out at least a couple more of the supporting arguments for my belief about Daniel 7 within the post rather than just sending you off to some links. I don’t expect you to have to worry about all the points in those links. I also noticed a few other things that needed clarification, so I edited my last post. You should use my own (edited) last post instead of the version you re-quoted in your last post. 

There is also another point, already covered, that I need to address again. It’s about the expression king-designate. I had said:

From Jesus’ birth he was properly called King — even from the day he was born on earth, born into the royal line of David — because he was King-designate AND about to take his Kingdom. My personal belief is a little stronger than yours. I think he was already the KING in even a more direct and complete sense, but was unable to rule over his whole Kingdom because it wasn’t time yet. This is quite similar to how David was known and declared King before he reached his true capital and could openly claim the full domain of his kingdom. That Kingdom, in Jesus’ case, was stated to have been given at Jesus’ resurrection, when he reached the heavenly location of his capital, Jerusalem above, Israel in a new spiritual sense, heavenly Mount Zion, at the right hand of the throne of Majesty. That was a special event marked by his own royal edict at the time of his resurrection: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth, Go therefore…” According to the Bible, his resurrection was when God, his Father, gave him the “highest name under heaven” above every other domain, including King of Kings, ruler of the kings of the earth. 

Jesus was King designate as far back as we can know – perhaps from the time of Adam (Genesis 3:15) or even millions or billions of years prior – from the very “founding of the worlds” in the sense of God’s destiny or purpose. But that doesn’t mean he would have been called “King” in a “King-designate” sense until he was ALSO just on the verge of accepting that ANNOUNCED kingship. The announcement began with John the Baptist. But this got me thinking about something. In another forum one of the JWs there mentioned that Jesus’ kingship (or kingship preparation) paralleled David’s in that he was anointed (in a smaller ceremony) before he truly “possessed” the kingdom and its capital, Jerusalem — and anointed more officially. This has made me wonder if there could be any truth to your proposal about Jesus’ possession of two different kingdoms and therefore the possibility that the Kingdom of Israel was given to him at a different time. (In my view the question is whether the Kingdom of Israel was received at a different time from the Kingdom of the World.)

As I looked again, I see nothing wrong with this angle on the proposal. The parallels between Jesus and David may be more significant than I previously gave credit. This may be the best explanation for why he was already King to his disciples and those of faith – even before he died and was resurrected. It seems that he was already “King of the Jews” at his anointing (baptism). This would explain all the verses you quoted in your initial post here. Perhaps he was NOT King-Designate, he was King of the Jews, King of Israel. The expression “You yourself are saying it” to Pilate seemed like some clever lawyering if Jesus was only King-Designate and not truly King. But it makes more sense that Jesus was being perfectly honest. This wasn’t something true in the near future, it was true NOW, exactly when Jesus said it was. That’s why it was significant that the phrase was nailed to the stauros. Israel had truly rejected their king. 

So the expression King designate does not need to be used. It can still refer to his youth in a prophetic or designated sense (Simeon’s exclamation, or “the one born King of the Jews”) but it isn’t needed to explain any of the dozens of verses you used above. (Of course, during his life on earth he could technically be King of the Jews and still be “King-Designate” of the entire World.)

After his resurrection of course there was no more need to focus on merely the Kingdom of Israel. It was now a kingdom anointed in Power and Spirit from on High. It was now the “kingdom of the world”. Jesus was now “King of Kings”. All authority on earth has been given to me – he said just after his resurrection.

I know this doesn’t change much, but I think it’s a more accurate explanation of the verses you quoted and, after all, this is a discussion about the timing of Jesus receiving his Kingship.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,I’m a little confused here. Are you now saying that Jesus was appointed as king BEFORE 33 CE?

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,If my last post was confusing, you can safely ignore it. The primary question is when Christ received the “Kingdom of the World”, which is in 33CE. 

What I had noticed is that the Bible clearly spells out (as you indicated with your quotes) that Jesus was accepted before his death, not as King-designate, but as the “anointed/appointed King of Israel” at least from the time of his baptism which would have been between 1 and 3 years prior to 33CE. 

Until his death, Jesus and his subjects were only commanded to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In 33 he received an even higher name – the anointed Messiah and King of Israel became King of Kings, “king of the rulers of the earth” — above every principality and dominion.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,Sorry, I thought I would have more time than I have had lately so things are moving kind of slow on y end for a while. But I am still confused by your position, often.

[quote=”BillW”]Hello Rotherham,

If my last post was confusing, you can safely ignore it. The primary question is when Christ received the “Kingdom of the World”, which is in 33CE. 

What I had noticed is that the Bible clearly spells out (as you indicated with your quotes) that Jesus was accepted before his death, not as King-designate, but as the “anointed/appointed King of Israel” at least from the time of his baptism which would have been between 1 and 3 years prior to 33CE. 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This paragraphs contradicts your first one and that’s what is confusing me. If he was not king-designate but KING two or three years before 33 CE, then he did not receive the kingdom in 33 CE but received it earlier, so, which is it exactly?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Until his death, Jesus and his subjects were only commanded to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In 33 he received an even higher name – the anointed Messiah and King of Israel became King of Kings, “king of the rulers of the earth” — above every principality and dominion.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But this makes no sense with your reference in Acts as proving that Jesus received the kingdom of the world in 33 CE. The reference in Acts is speaking of the throne of David which would apply to your “Jewish” element, not the kingdom of the world.

Sorry, still confused by what you are trying to say and why.

Regards,
Rotherham

Bill,I have completed my response but before I post I would appreciate a comment on my last post above.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,There could be valid reason for confusion, and this post might just make it worse. If there is then, for argument’s sake, please continue to use my first position and ignore that last post. 

In general, I am saying that Jesus was born on earth in the line of David in order to be king — so recognizing him as the “one born King of the Jews” was in a “King Designate” sense. But when he was presented by the forerunner or messenger, John, who introduced him as the one they had been waiting for in connection with “the kingdom {which} has drawn nigh” then this was in a more complete sense of being “anointed as king”. His baptism would have been that anointing. 

Announcing the precise word “king”, we expect, would have had Jesus running from authorities more than preaching, but declaring him “God’s Son” or “Messiah” (anointed one, christ-ened one) were already known synonyms for “kingship” in the practice of previous royal anointings so this was not a problem for the Jewish initiated. His actual disciples (foot soldiers of the kingdom) would understand and take their marching orders from this king – who sent them only to the house of Israel. Therefore, there is no reason to think that he wasn’t already the anointed king of Israel from the time of his baptism. Jesus apparently agreed with this title. He never rejected this phrase, but would have been extra careful about using it in front of Romans or Roman sympathizers (like the Sadducees).

Therefore, this is why I had said: “What I had noticed is that the Bible clearly spells out (as you indicated with your quotes) that Jesus was accepted before his death, not as King-designate, but as the “anointed/appointed King of Israel” at least from the time of his baptism which would have been between 1 and 3 years prior to 33CE.”

But you claim that this paragraph contradicts my first one, because if he were already KING two or three years before 33 CE, then he did not receive the kingdom in 33 CE. 

There is not necessarily a contradiction. This thread is about when Jesus received the Kingdom of the World. Jesus could still be anointed as King of Israel at his baptism. But he did not receive “all power and authority” until the kingdom became the kingdom of the world in 33 CE. He was declared king over every dominion “with power” at his resurrection. He was given a name above every other name and above every other authority at his resurrection. Also, Jesus was not able to sit on the throne at Jerusalem until he returned to heaven. His “enthronement” was obviously in 33 CE, in the Jerusalem above. The passage in Acts is about his becoming the “enthroned King”, and also, I’ll argue below, the time of the expanded dominion of his kingdom over every other authority and dominion and principality – not just for the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel (1:8).

You said: 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But this makes no sense with your reference in Acts as proving that Jesus received the kingdom of the world in 33 CE. The reference in Acts is speaking of the throne of David which would apply to your “Jewish” element, not the kingdom of the world.Sorry, still confused by what you are trying to say and why.

I’m glad you recognized that “the reference in Acts is speaking of the throne of David”. This is true but there is more to it in the context. Let me quote again:

24 But God resurrected [Jesus of Nazareth] him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it. 25 For David says respecting him, ‘I had Jehovah constantly before my eyes; because he is at my right hand … Moreover, even my flesh will reside in hope; 27 because you will not leave my soul in Ha´des, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption. …29…concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among us to this day. 30 Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, 31 he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha´des nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear. 34 Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”

I could be wrong, and if I am, we can easily revert back to the idea of King Designate until 33 CE. But I believe there is a nuance here that can get lost in the NWT. The original Psalm 110 in Hebrew said, in effect: “Jehovah said to my master, Sit at my right hand….” The expression “my master” is almost never used as a reference to God. In fact, the vast majority of uses of “Lord/Master/Adonai” are about humans, and so it is not often used of God as a stand-alone reference, because it was so common to refer to the human authority as “my master”. So when God is called “the master” (adonai) it is often attached to an expression like “the master of all”. However, a man’s human authority or “lord” was generally “the king”. (A woman’s human authority, her Lord/Master, was her husband — who owned her. Similarly with a slave.) But if David is the one speaking, then it is odd that he, as King, would have a Master in addition to God/Jehovah. And this is the significance of Psalm 110 as a proof-text of Jesus, David’s son, being a “Lord above a King”. Now, Messiah (or Christ in Greek) was used as a general reference for the Israelite/Jewish Davidic King, the “anointed one”. But to also be “Lord” in the context of BOTH “Lord and Messiah”, AND in the context of Psalm 110:1, implied something even more than just King of Israel. (See Matt 22:42-46)

In any Greek quotations of Psalm 110:1 this would become even clearer because in all likelihood, the name Jehovah, had been dropped as it had been even in late 2nd temple writings, the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, and even the LXX used at that time. “Said the KYRIOS/Lord to my KYRIO/Lord” loses all distinction between Jehovah and Jesus. This becomes a way of saying — by implication — that Jesus is not only Messiah, but also “Lord of all”. Both are references to Kings because of Psalm 110. But even in Psalm 110, the Lord/Adonai there was a King above a King, a King of a King. Greater than just a King of Israel.

So when Jesus was finally sitting on a throne (at the right hand of the throne of majesty) in 33 CE, at that time the Kingdom of the World became the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ. 

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,Yeh, that didn’t help.

I still do not see any way for you to harmonize your position. I’ve read what you said a couple of times now and I still am not seeing it despite all the points about “anointing” and what it meant. The “anointing” was not the same as being placed on the throne as I am sure you know. 

For you to say he was already the anointed king of Israel at his baptism completely skews your argument. If he was the anointed king of Israel then he had to already BE on the throne of David, for that is clearly what his serving as Israel’s king would have to mean. What other throne would he be on but the throne of David if he were the king at his baptism?

If you use Acts to show that Jesus became the king of the world in 33 CE, that destroys any chance of Jesus being on the Davidic throne before that time. You can’t have him on the throne before he is on the throne. It makes no sense.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,Then by all means, please go back to the original position that Jesus was King-Designate from his birth up until his resurrection in 33 CE, when he first sat on the throne of the Kingdom of Israel, and which is also when he ALSO received all authority in heaven and on earth.

(For the record, I explained that he was not sitting on the throne before he sat down in 33 CE, only that he was the anointed King of Israel BEFORE sitting on a throne. This makes him a kind of King-Designate, so we’re back to the original argument.)

Regards,
Bill

Well, things were fine until the second paragraph and then they got bad again.There’s something here by way of logic that you are missing. You seem to still hold to the idea that he was king BEFORE he sat on the throne. Would that not mean then to the average Jew that he had taken up Davidic kingship? Do you think they would have then thought “Well, he’s not really king until he plants himself on a literal throne?” Being king doesn’t really have anything to do with a literal sitting upon a throne. Kings are kings whether they are on the throne or not. When they become king, they are king, even if they literally sit on a throne then or later or ever. The word throne represents the kingship. So again, he can’t be anything but a king-designate until he becomes the actual king, and if you use Acts 2 to make him the actual king, then we was entirely king-designate before that time, not “kinda”.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,

Rotherham wrote:Well, things were fine until the second paragraph and then they got bad again.There’s something here by way of logic that you are missing. You seem to still hold to the idea that he was king BEFORE he sat on the throne.

Yes. True. You might recall that this was exactly the scenario that started me thinking about the possibility. (A JW on another forum where you also were participating, mentioned that David himself was anointed as king at a time before he took the officially enthroned position.)

Rotherham wrote:Would that not mean then to the average Jew that he had taken up Davidic kingship? Do you think they would have then thought “Well, he’s not really king until he plants himself on a literal throne?” Being king doesn’t really have anything to do with a literal sitting upon a throne. Kings are kings whether they are on the throne or not. When they become king, they are king, even if they literally sit on a throne then or later or ever. The word throne represents the kingship. So again, he can’t be anything but a king-designate until he becomes the actual king, and if you use Acts 2 to make him the actual king, then we was entirely king-designate before that time, not “kinda”.

Yes. I “kinda” agree. But to answer your question, the “average Jew” was waiting for a literal throne. The “average Jew” who believed that Jesus might represent the promised King/Messiah gave him a procession/parousia waving palm branches so that he could go into the capital and be enthroned somewhere. This was a dangerous view by the “average Jew” (not being able to recognize that his kingdom was not part of this world) therefore the gospel of Mark shows that Jesus’ Messiah-ship being kept a secret, as far as possible. Jesus promised that his disciples (who were already “subjects” of the kingdom) would receive “thrones” in heaven to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus did not have the authority at that time to offer anyone thrones over all the nations (to break the nations with an iron rod) until AFTER his resurrection. (Matt 28:19) Jesus promised that where he was going there were many palaces, but these would be in heaven. 

So yes, being King does not have to do with sitting on a literal throne – therefore he could be “king” not just “king-designate”. At the time of his heavenly enthronement (his resurrection to the right hand of the throne of majesty) he was not suddenly a “real” king, but it was a time when the full rights of his authority and power were spelled out as “above all dominions and principalities”, “all power in heaven and on earth” “king of kings”. All these expressions were now used of him as already active AFTER his resurrection, and NONE of them were used prior to his resurrection. It just happened to coincide with his heavenly enthronement, which seems appropriate, but as you say we do not require a literal, physical enthronement to create the meaning – only the word of God itself.

It isn’t true that I need to use Acts 2 to say that Jesus BECAME king in 33 CE. He was already in the position of “Messiah-King”. It was a fait accomplis but also there is nothing about the Jewish understanding of Messiah-King that required anyone to be more than human. In Acts 2, he is not just Messiah-King, but now, after resurrection, BOTH LORD AND MESSIAH. In the context of Psalm 110:1, this reference to “Lord” was a Lord-above-a-King. So at his resurrection, he sat on the throne of David, but also as a greater Lord-King, a “Lord-over-a-King”. 

But even if all that sounds like mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus to you, that’s fine. There is a simpler way to look at Acts 2. David was a King who stopped sitting on the throne at his death. Jesus is a King who continued sitting on the Davidic throne even after his death, because death could not hold him. —“30 Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, 31 he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ.”

We definitely know that Peter makes statements about David’s throne being tied to Jesus’ resurrection. You tie it to his resurrection as loosely as possible, admitting only that it was obvious he had to be resurrected to be alive 1881 years later when he was finally enthroned per Watchtower doctrine. But Peter goes right on and ties the sitting on David’s throne to going into heaven and being EXALTED to God’s right hand (unlike what happened to King David who did not ascend to heaven). 

Again, if this makes no sense, consider Jesus a King-Designate until 33 CE, as you wish.

Regards,
Bill

But Bill,Don’t you see that vieing for the position that Jesus was already the Davidic king before 33 CE completely dismantles Acts 2 as any kind of explicit reference to him becoming king upon his resurrection? By your doing this, you as much as concede that Acts 2 doesn’t have to mean what you have stated it to explicitly mean.

Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,

Rotherham wrote:But Bill,
Don’t you see that vieing for the position that Jesus was already the Davidic king before 33 CE completely dismantles Acts 2 as any kind of explicit reference to him becoming king upon his resurrection? By your doing this, you as much as concede that Acts 2 doesn’t have to mean what you have stated it to explicitly mean.

Acts 2 only says what it actually says. Look, again, at your post again that quotes:
(Matthew 21:4-5)(Matthew 27:11)(Mark 15:2)(Luke 19:36-39)(Luke 23:3)(John 1:49-50)(John 12:12-15). This is enough for me. I’m convinced that believers recognized him correctly as King of Israel. He was proved to be of the correct lineage, introduced as Messiah, given a royal procession to Jerusalem, and testified to Kings that he was indeed a King. As you showed, he even fulfilled a scripture that said “Your King is coming to you on a young donkey.”

If this was all “King-Designate” speech, so be it. But the Bible doesn’t support that idea. I never used the term in exactly the way you did, I can see. It seems to just be a necessity for the sake of a doctrine. 

But it never really mattered to this specific argument which is about when Jesus received the “Kingdom of the World” (Rev 11) and when Jesus was snatched away to God’s throne (Rev 12). Acts 2 is not even necessary to this discussion. It is useful in that it identifies the time when Jesus was exalted to God’s throne, to sit at God’s right hand, to “RULE AS KING” in the midst of his enemies (1 Cor 15:25 and Acts 2:35). This exaltation could mean his exaltation from Messiah (Jewish King) to “Lord” (Earth’s New King) — or — it could mean that he was exalted to BOTH positions at once because he was now officially enthroned to both at once. This would make the “enthronement” a symbol of the newfound POWER of his position as King. 

But, no matter what, all other verses including others in Acts show that this was the time that Jesus could express power and authority to command his “soldiers” into not just the lost sheep of Israel – but to the most distant parts of the earth (1:8). This was indeed a new time for celebration. This was one of those occasions when it could be said, again, “Jehovah has taken his power and begun ruling as King”. In Acts 2, this newfound authority and power was the explanation for why Jesus was just now sending the Holy Spirit from heaven.

So I’m not sure what you think is “dismantled”. I don’t use Acts 2 to show that Jesus became King of Israel at exactly the time of his resurrection. I use Acts 2 to show that Jesus’ resurrection was a time of enthronement (as King). That enthronement was the first enthronement of Jesus as the new King of Israel AND coincided with this new authority received upon his resurrection (“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”). You can also show from Acts 2 that when Jesus “sat at God’s right hand”, this wasn’t related to mere WAITING, but was related to an enthronement and the use of power and command. You can also show from Acts 2 that Jesus was resurrected BECAUSE he was to sit on David’s throne AND he is now sitting (not just on any earthly throne) but at the very right hand of the throne of God. Peter’s speech puts these elements together in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus’ sitting at God’s right hand NOW (in 33 CE) is the very enthronement of his Kingship. The throne symbol, even if Jesus already claimed to be the King of Israel, is still significant because the throne is a symbol of power and this was the inauguration of the time of Jesus using (and sending) his great newly exalted power and commanding his followers to the most distant parts of the earth.

Regards,
Bill

So your position now is that Jesus did not receive the kingdom of the world at his resurrection, but some time before that, right? So, “when” exactly do you say he received it?The reason I ask is because earlier you specifically stated:

Taken harmoniously, the entire Bible, including Daniel and Revelation, shows that 33 CE does much more than just qualify 33 CE as the year he received his kingdom. The Bible is explicit that this happened at Jesus’ resurrection.

Regards,
Rotherham

Rotherham,

Rotherham wrote:So your position now is that Jesus did not receive the kingdom of the world at his resurrection, but some time before that, right? So, “when” exactly do you say he received it?

I couldn’t help but suspect that you were surely joking, or you needed to buy some time for yourself. At any rate, I don’t claim that my writing is easy for you to follow, but after re-reading it and having someone else read it, I can only surmise that you didn’t try very hard to read anything I’ve said since my post on Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:47 am.

My position is that Jesus received the kingdom of the world at his resurrection in 33 CE. That is “when” exactly I say he received it. I hope that answers the question. I have never changed my position on that point.

The name of this “challenge” still stands:
True Theology Forum ‹ Did Christ receive the kingdom of the world in 33 CE?-Challenge
My response to the challenge is still correctly labeled: 
Re: ‘YES HE DID’ is the answer supported by Revelation

In the post (Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:47 am) I brought up the possibility that, as I said there: “the Kingdom of Israel was received at a different time from the Kingdom of the World.)…It seems that he was already “King of the Jews” at his anointing (baptism). …After his resurrection of course there was no more need to focus on merely the Kingdom of Israel. It was now a kingdom anointed in Power and Spirit from on High. It was now the “kingdom of the world”. Jesus was now “King of Kings”. All authority on earth has been given to me – he said just after his resurrection.”

Hopefully you could see that this means he was King-Designate until his anointing. King of Israel at his baptism/anointing. King of the World at his resurrection. But in your next post you said you were confused. So I answered: “If my last post was confusing, you can safely ignore it. The primary question is when Christ received the “Kingdom of the World”, which is in 33CE.” I even added again the clarification that he was King of Israel since the time of his baptism and “In 33 he received an even higher name – the anointed Messiah and King of Israel became King of Kings, “king of the rulers of the earth” — above every principality and dominion.”

You came back one more time and said: “But I am still confused by your position, often.”

I came back with a longer explanation as to why I had changed my position. I ended it with a one paragraph sentence: “So when Jesus was finally sitting on a throne (at the right hand of the throne of majesty) in 33 CE, at that time the Kingdom of the World became the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.”

Obviously, you could be confused as to WHY I had changed my position, but my position itself had been spelled out clearly. Of course, you still came back confused, saying “Yeh, that didn’t help……. It makes no sense.” At least this time, you showed you had picked up on a couple of my points.

You didn’t seem to be able to grasp my entire point, especially since you had trouble with Jesus being “anointed as King” (mine) vs. “anointed as King-Designate” (yours). So I gave you a good-enough reason to go ahead and go back to the original argument. I said: “Then by all means, please go back to the original position that Jesus was King-Designate from his birth up until his resurrection in 33 CE, when he first sat on the throne of the Kingdom of Israel, and which is also when he ALSO received all authority in heaven and on earth.” My meaning is still that he was King of Israel at his baptism/anointing, but that you can go ahead and call him King-Designate because he hadn’t necessarily sat on a “THRONE” of that Kingdom until he sat down on the heavenly throne when he ALSO received “all authority in heaven and on earth” (kingdom of the world). I simply believe he was King of Israel BEFORE he sat on the heavenly throne. In effect you might say he was on the Davidic throne in some symbolic manner, because he was the now the anointed King of Israel – and because he was already King. 

You wrote back one more time and said you didn’t understand. 

So in my response, I continued to argue that he was Messiah (King of Israel) before 33, but received the “kingdom of the world” at his resurrection/enthronement in 33. Note that I said: At the time of his heavenly enthronement (his resurrection to the right hand of the throne of majesty) he was not suddenly a “real” king, but it was a time when the full rights of his authority and power were spelled out as “above all dominions and principalities”, “all power in heaven and on earth” “king of kings”. All these expressions were now used of him as already active AFTER his resurrection, and NONE of them were used prior to his resurrection. …It isn’t true that I need to use Acts 2 to say that Jesus BECAME king in 33 CE. He was already in the position of “Messiah-King”.

You responded again with a partial understanding, saying “Don’t you see that vieing for the position that Jesus was already the Davidic king before 33 CE completely dismantles Acts 2 as any kind of explicit reference to him becoming king upon his resurrection? By your doing this, you as much as concede that Acts 2 doesn’t have to mean what you have stated it to explicitly mean.”

I still say that he became King of the World in 33. Acts 2 is addressed especially to Peter’s Jewish audience, so all Acts 2 shows is that he was resurrected to sit (or continue to sit) on the throne of David. We have several other passages to show that this time of sitting on the throne in heaven ALSO coincided with Jesus receiving much higher authority and dominion – over all the earth. I thought this might be clear by ending the paragraph: “Peter’s speech puts these elements together in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus’ sitting at God’s right hand NOW (in 33 CE) is the very enthronement of his Kingship. The throne symbol, even if Jesus already claimed to be the King of Israel, is still significant because the throne is a symbol of power and this was the inauguration of the time of Jesus using (and sending) his great newly exalted power and commanding his followers to the most distant parts of the earth.

So again. My position is that the term King-Designate is not useful to this discussion. He may have been King-Designate at his birth, when he was referred to as “the one born King of the Jews”. But at his introduction by John and at his baptism, he was now the One they had been waiting for, the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Perhaps this means he was already “on the throne of David”. I don’t think the Bible says he needed to be enthroned yet to be accepted as the King. But if you believe he must at least be on a symbolic throne if he is called King, then I’m OK with him now being on the symbolic throne of David. But the Bible does mention an enthronement connected to the time of his resurrection. In Acts 2 that enthronement is connected with the throne of David — but it is also connected in Acts 1 & 2 to a kingdom of much wider range – to the ends of the earth. Therefore, I prefer thinking of Jesus as King of Israel (King of the Jews) who had come as King but without much fanfare. (Luke 17:20 “[20] Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, [21] nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is among you.”

In 33 CE Jesus remained the King of Israel (since baptism) and sat on the throne of David, but he also received the Kingdom of the World in 33 CE.

At this point, I no longer accept the expression “King-Designate” for Jesus unless it’s before his baptism. He was already identified as King of Israel several times after his baptism and before his his resurrection. 

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,I am surprised that you do not think that I should be confused by this, but regardless;

Just to clarify, here is what I see you saying.

At his baptism, Jesus became the Davidic king.

At his resurrection, he became the king of the world.

Right?

Rotherham

Well, after rereading everything, that must be the right conclusion, so, I have a question or two.What does Acts2 explicitly tell us concerning the kingdom of David or the kingdom of the world?

What does Ephesians 1:19,20 explicitly tell us concerning the same?

Regards,
Rotherham

Rotherham wrote:Hello Bill,I am surprised that you do not think that I should be confused by this, but regardless;

Just to clarify, here is what I see you saying.

At his baptism, Jesus became the Davidic king.

At his resurrection, he became the king of the world.

Right?

Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,

Rotherham wrote:Well, after rereading everything, that must be the right conclusion, so, I have a question or two.What does Acts2 explicitly tell us concerning the kingdom of David or the kingdom of the world?

Explicitly? I assume you mean explicitly as opposed to implicitly or logically. I see very little in the way of explicit explications in Acts 2. I’ve already described what I see it saying implicitly. About the best we can do “explicitly” is look at the context that Jesus “appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” (1:3) The disciples still had a question: 6″they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?””(1:6) Jesus answered “7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

(Note that if this “restoration of the kingdom of Israel” meant merely the restoration of the Davidic throne that, per Acts 1:7, it would NOT have been the proper place of any disciple to begin wondering if the tree from Daniel 4, held down for 7 times, could have referred to 7 years, and those 7 years could have referred to “7 times 360 years”, and those 7 x 360 years could have started at Jerusalem’s last Davidic king.)

All we can explicitly so far know is that the kingdom he had been speaking about was being interpreted by some of the disciples, at least, as referring specifically to the kingdom of Israel’s restoration, but that Jesus responded with words about not just Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria but “to the ends of the earth”. Jesus responded without telling them about the time element, but he responded with an expansion of their world-view from Israel to the rest of the world.

Then in 2:25 Peter invokes the person of King David (a King until he died) but who had spoken of not being allowed to decay in the grave. But King David had died and was allowed to decay in the grave. So the explanation is therefore that this was David’s prophecy about Jesus because David knew that one of his own descendants was promised, per God’s oath, to sit on his throne, and this was therefore a prophecy about Jesus’ resurrection. 

That much (the last paragraph) is explicit. What is NOT explicit is the exact status of Jesus’ relationship to the throne of David at his death and his resurrection. It is clear that Jesus is explicitly understood to be the descendant prophesied to sit on David’s throne. But it doesn’t say exactly when. Logic can be used for several possibilities here, but nothing explicit:

1. Jesus was already the King of Israel but had not yet sat on David’s throne therefore he must be resurrected to be seated on a throne at some future time. (Whether that future throne be earthly or heavenly isn’t here stated.) (Whether he would wait a second, a day, years, or a thousand years or more to sit on that throne isn’t explicitly stated.) 

2. Jesus was already the King of Israel, therefore already sitting on David’s throne (symbolically through the definition of “kingship,” not that a literal earthly throne existed for him) — BUT he must be resurrected to fulfill the implication of ETERNITY in the oath, either so that the promised Messiah would ALWAYS sit on that throne or must at least remain alive to produce eternal heirs to that throne. 

3. Jesus was not yet King of Israel (he was only anointed to be the future King) and therefore he had to be resurrected so that the promised oath could be fulfilled at some future point. (seconds, days, centuries, or millenia from the time of his resurrection.) 

So we have an explicit CAUSAL relationship declared between Jesus resurrection and the promise that someone would SIT on David’s throne. But from a timing point of view we don’t YET know exactly what the relationship is. We know we other sources for a timing perspective saying that Jesus has already been called “King of Israel” and that Jesus had accepted the title “King of the Jews” just a few days earlier. Jesus had also accepted the title “King of the Jews” several times in the previous several years. But again we don’t have anything in Acts 2, up to this point, on the timing of the sitting on David’s throne.

But there is one more thing we have which MIGHT be explicit. I think it probably would be the most natural reading. It’s the relationship of the word “FOR” (Greek, gar, see Thayer’s G0163) that might even make it an explicit point. Here it is: 30…God …would SIT one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, [David] spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, …33Exalted to the right hand of God, ….34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“SIT at my right hand …”

So we definitely have an implicit, logical relationship between sitting on David’s throne and sitting at God’s right hand. And the most natural reading is probably (or intends) an explicit relationship.

Logically, at least, then we also know that sitting at God’s right hand is an enthronement related to the sitting on the throne of David. As I said before however, this doesn’t negate the fact that Jesus could have already been that King of Israel in the line of David. But this was his first opportunity, probably a couple years after becoming King, to actually sit enthroned.

This is the reason that I discount choice #3 above.

My own understanding is that this enthronement was specified as something extraordinary in relationship to his ongoing Kingship of Israel precisely BECAUSE it was also the time when he was given the “Kingdom of the World” and therefore could now expand the scope of the disciples’ work to the ends of the earth. I see the same special reason in the phrase “Lord and Christ” (Lord and Messiah) tying it back to Acts 1:8.

I will respond to the question about Ephesians 1:19-20 a bit later.

Regards,
Bill

OK, I’ll wait.Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,

Rotherham wrote:What does Ephesians 1:19,20 explicitly tell us concerning the same?

Again of course we need the context to see its relationship to Jesus’ Kingship. And, of course, just as in Acts, all references to Christ and Lord are also references to Jesus’ Kingship. In the NT context, Christ means Messiah which means Anointed One, which means King. 

(1 Samuel 10) Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the Lord anointed you leader over his inheritance? 

(2 Samuel 23) These are the last words of David:“The oracle of David son of Jesse,the oracle of the man exalted by the Most High,the man anointed by the God of Jacob,Israel’s singer of songs: 
(Note that “exalted” is the same term used by Peter in Acts 2.)

(1 Kings 5) When Hiram king of Tyre heard that Solomon had been anointed king to succeed his father David, he sent his envoys to Solomon, because he had always been on friendly terms with David. 

Of course, a priest or prophet could be anointed, too. But there is a special precedent for the term Messiah (Anointed One/Christ) to mean “King” when it is referring to the “Coming One” the promised, future “Messiah”. 

Messiah is interchangeable in these cases with King/Ruler, note:

(Daniel) “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens.’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ 

(Isaiah 9) 6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule {government} will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the abundance of the princely rule {government} and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite.

(Luke 19) 38 saying: “Blessed is the One coming as the King in Jehovah’s name! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest places!” 39 … 40 …{Jesus} said: “I tell YOU, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out.” 
(Matthew) “Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee.” 
(John 12) “Blessed [is] the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Also:
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross
Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] … saying that he himself is Christ a King.

I say this, because to get the real context of Kingship, we could replace every mention of “Christ” and translate with the terms “Messiah,” “King,” or “Messiah-King” and still be perfectly accurate.

Ephesians 1:1-23

1 Paul, an apostle of King Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph´e·sus] and faithful ones in union with King Jesus:

I won’t do that all the way through, of course, because it would affect almost every verse. But you should get the point.

9 …he purposed in himself 10 for an administration {government} at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in him, 11 in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, …18 …, what the glorious riches are which he holds as an inheritance for the holy ones, 19 and what the surpassing greatness of his power is toward us believers. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

Explicitly, we see that (the King) Jesus, when he was raised up from the dead, was seated at God’s right hand, and was ALREADY AT THAT TIME: 
* FAR ABOVE every government
* FAR ABOVE every authority
* FAR ABOVE every power
* FAR ABOVE every lordship
* FAR ABOVE every title given in this age
* FAR ABOVE every title given in the age to come.

With this kind of authority over every current King, every Governor, every magistrate, every Caesar, every Emperor – and every future King, Emperor, etc, this means that the congregation, Christs’ own “body” has nothing to worry about in terms of the great treasure awaiting them as they are also heirs to this same kingdom.

We also see explicitly that “He also [already had] subjected all things under his feet.” So we know that Jesus does not need to sit around waiting for all things to be made subject to him. What Jesus is waiting for (and the entire body of Christ, too) is the time when he will take final action according to God’s purpose/plan. But the Congregation can already see that this is working out because they are the current beneficiaries of the power and spirit that has already been poured out on their behalf. Other actions by this existing kingdom, even toward the congregation will continue to unfold. Even though MOST of what will happen with the Congregation/Body is still future, the Kingship is currently in full power, and a token has already been given in advance of that future inheritance that Christians will share in that kingdom as it unfolds its purpose more fully over heaven and earth. 

Regards,
Bill

Thankyou Bill,I will make a few adjustments and additions to my full response and hope to post shortly.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Bill,Since we have no witnesses who otherwise state that the book of Revelation was written at the early suggested date, and we have a few who confirm the late date, the tangible evidence, which simply means the evidence that can actually be directly read and seen with the eye, presents no reason for doubt. The evidence against the late date is insinuated by circumstance, not by a visible statement that I have ever seen.

You presented a few possibilities and specualtions as to why the early date is better but it appears very circular to me. I would find it odd that so many would repeat the same mistake without someone somewhere along the line correcting the traditional view among those early writers. You would think that if the early date were the correct one, it would be at least mentioned somewhere or corrected over time. And the “ancient” argument really falls kind of flat. I fail to see how a difference of about 25 years in the writing of the book would establish one copy over another as “ancient”. I don’t know what Greek word was there used, but I have a suspicion that “ancient” may not be the only possible meaning. Maybe “older” or even “old”, but ancient really doesn’t fit with either date. Also, if it wasn’t corrected back then, what makes us think we have figured out the proper date 2000 years later, far more removed from the period of origination than they were. It would be as if no one appeared to even know of an early date back then, but now suddenly we do. A little odd, don’t you think?

Anyway, as I mentioned, the internal evidence of the book of Revelation time and again pulls it down to the timie of the parousia for application, starting in the very first verses of the book. I really don’t see any way to overturn that reasoning.

John immediately mentions in connection with this “revelation” of Jesus Christ that “he is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him”. That is an explicit reference to what Jesus said in the Olivet sermon and is unanimously agreed to be the indicator of Jesus parousia, or as most say, his coming. Every eye seeing him is what they say actually establishes the coming (parousia) of Christ. John immediatley plugs in the parousia to this Lord’s day where he is found to be under inspiration. No where else in scripture do we see the Lord’s day or day of the Lord to refer to a day of the week, but refers to the events of the parousia. So in the course of a couple of sentences we have reference to that which is referred to as the Lord’s Day. First the parousia reference about coming with the clouds and then the actual words “Lord’s Day”. Since a day of the week is never referred to as the Lord’s Day, if we allow scriptural precedent to be our guide, which we should always want to do, then there doesn’t seem much choice but to see this book being applied in its visions to the time when “he comes with the clouds and every eye will see him”, which, as I mentioned, is nearly universally agreed to the “coming” (parousia). Now unless you want to appeal to a FULL preterist view, (which by the way I think is disastrous) then the conclusion is really unmistakable. And as far as a full preterist view, under examination, I find their interpretations to be most unnatural, scripturally unprecedented and in the end, entirely untenable.

To claim that the church would no longer be bothered by Judaizers after 70 CE is really a non sequitor. What makes one think that there would still not be Jewish Christians around after 70 CE that still might carry that Mosaic Law sentiment? Judaizers weren’t just Jews, they were Christianized Jews! Is someone under the mistaken notion that the destruction of Jerusalem was the destruction of every Jew or Jewish sentiment? Clearly not! And most clearly not among those Christians who used to be Jews.

There would be no need for the mention of the past destruction of Jerusalem because the prophecy was for the future and the past destruction had no bearing on the future, but only the past. The past destruction was simply not the focus of the prophecies. And to claim that Babylon the Great was actually a picture of the destruction of Jersualem on the way is a most disastrous interpretation. it is fraught with difficulty and contradiction all along the way. It is a most unnatural way to interpet what is actually said.

Ezekiel himself prophecied and spoke of the rebuilding of a magnificnet temple which was clearly prophetic of something future, because frankly, based on its parameters and description, it hasn’t existed yet in history and may be a completely spiritualized prophecy. This would be no different than John giving descriptions of a spiritualized temple. Just as in Ezekiel’s day the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed for the most part. No body complained about Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple being neglectful of the one that was already destroyed.

The hour of test argument is also ineffective, The hour of test, likely a reference to the great tribulation, is not upon God’s people, but is primarily upon false religion, that which is represented by apostate Jerusalem. If you recall, the Christians fled Jerusalem and the ensuing tribulation upon Jerusalem did not affect them, they were protected by fleeing.

Your particular application of Revelation to Daniel I find to be completely circular and unwarranted. The visions of Daniel strecth clear down to the time when the holy ones would take the kingdom, again connected with the parousia, and runs far past the first century in its application of the conspicuous horns in both the 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel. If anything, the book of Revelation, if it is this opening of the book of Daniel, it would apply to times far after the first century, just like the visions of Daniel do.

As far as the bulleted points that you summaraized, I find them entirely unconvincing. It appears you are going to have to adopt a completely full preterist view, which if you want to do, OK, but I think that you will see that such a view denies Biblical precedent and history doesn’t match with the interpretations given when compared to the language used. 

* The many “coming soon” and “at hand” passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. – there was nothing left of the Jewish state.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ever hear of Masada? What makes anyone think that because Jerusalem was destroyed that there weren’t still thousands of faithful Jews around? And what makes anyone think that the Christianized Jews, KNOWING that the natural nation was rejected for Christianity and therefore not surprised at the fall of Jerusalem, would still not carry some erroneous Jewish sentiment with them even to the time of John’s writing of the book? It’s not like the Hebrew scriptures became obsolete or anything. And what makes us think that the “seven” churches have to be just representative of seven literal churches in the district of Asia? Seven, consistently used as a number for completion, especially in the book of Revelation itself, could tell us that these messages to the churches were actually messages to the universal church, for Christians everywhere, or even especially for Christians in the Lord’s day, lessons and warnings and commendaions drawn from examples in the past that demonstrate problems that could arise at any time in the church?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* The Beast (which most …scholars agree represents Rome) was ruled by its 6th head (“head” = “king” see: 17:10) which was already in existence in John’s day. Of the 7 heads (kings) only one was left – by 95 A.D. Rome was long past its 7th Caesar.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This completely ignores Biblical precedent as established by the unmistakable parallels with the beasts of Daniel and how they play out in history. 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Never seen this supported.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) – impossible after 70A.D.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That’s just plain silly.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Irrelevant and not conclusive. See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not if the book was completely futuristic in the applications of the visions.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around – yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Verse 2 refers to “false” apostles, not the real ones. That should have been readily apparent.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Irenaeus’ statement regarding Domitian’s reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source. In the same passage he also mentions “ancient copies” of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nothing about a “massive” persecution has anything to do with the time of the writing. However, there was always a consistent persecution of some kind going on in the first century. This is irrelevant.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60’s.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Unsupported and conjecture. If Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and Philadelphia were current and existing hubs of Christianity just before 70 CE, why do they not even merit a mention from the Apostle Paul who apparently mentions other cities around them in regard to his travels and concerns? That could just as easily tell us that those churches did not exist yet at that time.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

* John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The original words used, especially “epi”, does not necessitate him actually standing before nations or kings to prophesy. It could have been nothing more than a reference to the affect that the visions being presented to him were not done yet. He continued to prophesy in regards to nations and kings throughout the book after this was said.

Frankly Bill, if one believes that the parousia is yet future, as I think you have said that you do, then one would not have much choice to see the visions of the book of Revelation as future because nearly every vision contains reference to the “church” in heaven, and that maintains the consistent theme of a futuristic application since the church will not be in heaven until the parousia.

In nearly every vision it is more than apparent that the church is already represented as in heaven, either in part or in whole, by the twenty four older persons who are shown to be on thrones. This is nearly unanimously seen, regardless of who they specifically represent, as a vision of those who were once human but who are now in heaven, in other ones, holy ones, and since that does not happen until the parousia, every vision then has a backdrop setting, that being the parousia. Otherwise the reference to the “holy ones” in heaven is entirely anachronistic.

In your second entry you go to great lengths to show that there is no reason for us to think of the visions commencing with chapter 4 as future due to the statement that John was supposed to write about not just future things but the things that are. Interestingly, this fails as a point because you will note that the verse that states this, verse 18, ends with the two words in Greek, mete tauata, which is rendered rendered as “after this” or “hereafter”. But you will notice that where the things termed as ‘after this” or “hereafter”begin is clearly marked for us in chapter 4 verse 1. 

That verse ends with the exact same two words as John is called up to heaven to see that which is to happen “hereafter”. So the visions then are primarily “hereafter”. Yes, there are references to things that existed in the past, it would be impossible to build a vision without them, but they are primarily about things that are “hereafter’, which would be after the writing of the book, and as mentioned, this doubly fails when we keep in mind that each vision is shown with the “holy ones” already represented either in part or in whole, in heaven, which does not happen until the parousia. I really don’t see any way to discount that. We have two clear references in the very beginning in regard to the Lord’s Day, the coming on the clouds, which is a parousiac indicator, we have numerous visions which place the “holy ones” in heaven, which is also a parousiac indicator and the visions regarding the wild beast, when paralleled with Daniel’s beasts, which it clearly parallel in a composite form, that too shows that the timing of the book INCLUDES the last days before the “stone crushes the image” of all those world powers.

Forcing this to be a book about the fall of Jerusalem simply makes no sense with anything that puts this book into a parousiac construct, nor does it make any sense with many of the phrases that are found there in relation to actual history.

The Lord’s Day includes the parousia, the Revelation and all that follows. Parousia, Revelation and Lord’s Day are not exactly synonymous in every way, but they clearly are closely related in time and in purpose. The “revelation” refers more to the actual “revealing” of the Son of Man toward the climax of the parousia, so I am not sure of what importance your comments about the differences between those terms has to do with this discussion, if there was a point in there I missed, please repeat it, otherwise, all that seemed inconsequential.

As far as the meaning of parousia, we should once again rely on Biblical precedent if there is one that is able to be established, not upon a meaning that is extra-biblical, unless of course there is simply no choice to look outside the Bible for a meaning to a word.

Parousia, never means anything but “presence” when used not in connection with the parousia of Christ. We have no Biblical precedent to render it or understand it otherwise. Besides, even if we take the advent meaning, it actually translates to the same thing. An advent is far more than just an arrival but involves what? A subsequent presence after the arrival. Parousia is not JUST the judgment day, but it surely will include it. There is actually no problems at all in extending the length of the parousia to include many years. Since the disciples grammatically referred to it as virutally the “same thing” as the “sunteleia”, which can clearly be shown to include many years, there is every reason to think that it is a long event, not some momentary spurt of activity. 

I did not see anything that you said about parousia to really overturn the idea that the holy ones do not go to heaven until the parousia. I think you actually agree, which solidifes the point about the timing of the revelation visions which were to be AFTER the writing of the book of Revelation especially starting with chapter 4 verse 1.

There really is no way to make sense of the parable of the wheat and the weeds unless one allows for a second sunteleia fulfillment. The weeds clearly grow together UNTIL the harvest, which is clearly not the same sunteleia that ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, it is no surprise to find dual fulfillments between the early suntelaie and the late sunteleia. And since the disciples referred to the sunteleia and the parousia as virtually the same thing, that tells us that the sunteleia and the parousia are very long events.

The entire thrust of the Olivet Sermon is about what to watch for to know that he is near at the doors. That the revelation of the Son of Man is about to happen. How any one can see phrases like 

1.”when you see these things start to occur, lift your heads up for your deliverance is getting near” 

2. “Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors”

3. “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur”

4 “these are a beginning of the pangs of distress”

and then say the point of the sermon was to tell them there was no sign but one, is truly beyond me. The entire point was that the sign was a composite one, not a singular event. The reference to lightning is not the suddenness of it, but the visibility of it, which he stresses by saying that it can be seen everywhere from the observer’s viewpoint, not just in a particular location.

It is incorrect to say that the vision of chapter twelve has no parousiac indicator. The opposite is true as we can see at the very end of chapter eleven that the twenty four elders are there and active. That places the vision in the parousia. So your arguments concerning that fail.

You go to great lengths with a lot of complaining inbetween to try and prove that the male child is only Jesus, but frankly after reading through all that I saw no decisive point against at all. The book of Revelation itself makes the connection because the holy ones are said to rule with an iron rod just like Jesus. It represents the entire messianic kingdom, that is why the context can so readily switch between a single male child and the remaining ones of her seed. There is no contextual raeson or otherwise to think that the male chuild has to be only Jesus. I searched for something you were using as decisive in the issue but could not find it. many commentators agree that the ‘male child” includes the holy ones for the same reason that we do. Maybe you should take it up with them as to how flawed their logic is.

Geneva Study Bible
{10} And she brought forth a man {11} child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

(10) The second history of this Church delivered of child: in which first the consideration of the child born, and of the mother, is described in two verses Re 12:6: secondly the battle of the dragon against the young child, and the victory obtained against him in the three verses following Re 12:7-9: last of all is sung a song of victory, to Re 12:10-12. Now John in consideration of the child born, notes two things: for he describes him, and his station or place in this verse.

(11) That is Christ the head of the Church joined with his Church (the beginning root and foundation of which is the same Christ) endued with kingly power and taken up into heaven out of the jaws of Satan (who as a serpent did bite him on the cross) that sitting on the heavenly throne, he might reign over all.

People’s New Testament

12:5 And she brought forth a man child. If the reader will turn to Re 12:17, he will learn that the remnant of the woman’s seed is those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The offspring of the woman, the woman’s seed, then refers to the saints. The man child is a symbol of the faithful members of the Church. 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

5. man-child-Greek, “a son, a male.” On the deep significance of this term, see on [2714]Re 12:1, 2.

rule-Greek, “poimainein,” “tend as a shepherd”; (see on [2715]Re 2:27).

rod of iron-A rod is for long-continued obstinacy until they submit themselves to obedience [Bengel]: Re 2:27; Ps 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong. The male son’s birth cannot be the origin of the Christian state (Christianity triumphing over heathenism under Constantine), which was not a divine child of the woman, but had many impure worldly elements. In a secondary sense, the ascending of the witnesses up to heaven answers to Christ’s own ascension, “caught up unto God, and unto His throne”: as also His ruling the nations with a rod of iron is to be shared in by believers (Re 2:27). What took place primarily in the case of the divine Son of the woman, shall take place also in the case of those who are one with Him, the sealed of Israel (Re 7:1-8), and the elect of all nations, about to be translated and to reign with Him over the earth at His appearing.

Matthew Henry

II. The unsuccessfulness of these attempts against the church; for, 1. She was safely delivered of a man-child (v. 5), by which some understand Christ, others Constantine, but others, with greater propriety, a race of true believers, strong and united, resembling Christ, and designed, under him, to rule the nations with a rod of iron; that is, to judge the world by their doctrine and lives now, and as assessors with Christ at the great day. 2. Care was taken of this child: it was caught up to God, and to his throne; that is, taken into his special, powerful, and immediate protection. The Christian religion has been from its infancy the special care of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 3. Care was taken of the mother as well as of the child, v. 6. She fled into the wilderness, a place prepared both for her safety and her sustenance. The church was in an obscure state, dispersed; and this proved her security, through the care of divine Providence. This her obscure and private state was for a limited time, not to continue always.

The rest of your points in this second entry have already been addressed since they simply repeat your prior arguments. However, if any of these treatments that I have given your words, if you see something that I have clearly missed and you would like a comment on it before you respond, please let me know and I will offer a response. After looking through it though, I really didn’t see much that wouldn’t at least have been covered by other points. So much is based on a premise or two, if one removes or negates the premise, the rest is really irrelevant, and the premise that Revelation visions were not necessarily placed in a parousiac backdrop has been dealt with and removed.

As far as the Daniel 7, you had the following things that I felt needed a response:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

But perhaps there is an obvious reason why there are so many interpretations. To avoid this problem, God could have predicted the very names, dates and meanings of all the symbols. Such details and explanations were provided in other prophetic passages. So, why even use symbols if we could have been told directly? In Daniel, some symbols are identified and some aren’t. In Daniel 7, NONE of the symbolic beasts are identified, except to say that some represent kingdoms and some represent kings. It seems likely to me that the reason for this is as follows: The primary value of prophecy is to provide just enough information to comfort God’s people about His future promises, without giving us so much information that we are tempted to center our lives around specific knowledge of the future. It’s enough to know that God has set limits to the power of the earth’s great empires so that His people don’t have to become “faint out of fear, not knowing the way out”.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You clearly miss the intent of prophecy from God and the you miss the value of Biblical rpecedent and pattern when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Both are extremely important so as not to leave prophecy open to private interpretation, something that God is explicitly against.

You ask why not just spell it out? Funny, this is the same thing that Jesus’ disciples asked him and he answered well:

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 
Mat 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 
Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

That’s why.

Also God specifically assures us that prophecy is never borne from private interpretation. That tells us that it is important for God for us to know that we can trust prophecy because it is not the result of someone’s private idea. Now just how assuring would that be if on the other hand God specifically made prophecies so that they could be interpreted by anyone who wants to as long as they follow the basic skeleton of the components? That results in the same thing, can’t you see that? It results in prophecy being created for the purpose of private interpretation, for if it can be privately interpreted that’s the same result as if it were privately created. The very fact that God does not prefer a private interpretation of a prophecy tells us that we should primarily rely on Biblical precedent and pattern for interpretation and not some individual’s favorite idea. If we rely on Biblical pattern and precedent, as I have shown before the many parallels and patterns between the different visions in both Daniel and Revelation, one arrives primarily at the interpretation that we have arrived at, at least in regard to the four beasts of Daniel 7 being who we say they are. Numerous commentators are in agreement. That’s where Biblical precedent and pattern leads you. If you don’t think so, prove otherwise, using Biblical precedent and pattern and you might have an argument. I do not think though, that you will attempt such a thing as I think you know that isn’t available for your hodgepodge collection of possible interpretations. It’s like you’re presenting “mud” where we strive for clarity, as we should.

You said:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

“I’m not going into all the details of why I think Daniel 7’s little horn is primarily solved by Antiochus Epiphanes. This have been explained by many others going as far back as Hippolytus. From the “Bible” books of Maccabees and “history” books of Josephus we have the ability to match up a very high percentage of details across Daniel 2,7,8 11,12 to see that the 4th beast most likely refers to Greek and Maccabean history. And Jesus said we could, with discernment, prepare to see these same symbols to apply to Rome in 70 CE. Then John, in Revelation, uses some of the same symbols from Daniel, probably also in reference to Rome, but possibly with respect to some future generation or generations that may meet up with similar symbols.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you even made half of an attempt to make a coherent presentation out of the fourth beast being Greece, I am confident that I could take it apart rather quickly. It simply ignores all the patterns. It’s a good thing that you don’t try and defend the Antiochus Epiphanes application to the conspicuous horn because it turns out to be one of the most strained, stretched and inaccurate applications around.

Your view is typically preterist. The preterist attempt is to make the second beast Media and the third Persia and the fourth greece and therefore make the horn Antiochus. This is a terrible gARbling of history and denies the obviouS patterns between the7th and the 8th chapters of Daniel. Lacking historical support for their interpretation of the 2nd beast of Daniel 7, preterists have to fall back upon doing gymnastics with the symbols themselves. What has commonly been done here, such as we see in the Anchor Bible volume on Daniel is to actually change the text by transposing the phrase about the three ribs in the mouth of the bear forward so that the ribs end up in the mouth of the lion instead. In this way the bear receives the heart of a man and stands on his hind legs, not on one side. This then is supposed to refer to Darius the Mede.

In contrast to this garbling of history and garbling of the text the historical interpretation of these symbols is predominantly reasonable. The bear being raised up on one side can be seen quite naturally as a reference to the composite nature of the kingdom formed by a fusion of the Medes and Persians. When left in the bear’s mouth, the three ribs reasonably are representing the three major conquests of the combined forces of the Medes and Persians, Lydia, Babylon and Egypt.

Support for this interpretation in Daniel 7 can be found in working back from the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia (v. 20), expressing the same duality that is found in the prophet’s view of the bear in chapter 7. The three-part nature of the ram’s conquests also parallels the three ribs in the mouth of the bear since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt). The parallels between these two beasts supports the interpretation of the former already arrived at from its context in Daniel 7, that the bear represents Medo-Persia. This means that the non-descript beast, the 4th in order there, must represent Rome and the little horn that came out of it cannot, therefore, represent Antiochus Epiphanes.

The Babylonian Empire of Daniel’s day was overthrown by the Medo-Persian Empire, not simply by the Medes or the Persians alone (Dan. 7:5, 17, 8:20). And the Medo-Persian kingdom was, in turn, superseded by “Greece” (Dan. 8:21). Therefore, the empire of Alexander, who conquered Persia, was the third, not the fourth of the series. And the empire of Alexander and its fourfold divisions constituted one Grecian empire. Therefore the next world power, the one that took over the domain of Alexander’s Macedonian empire, namely Rome, must be the fourth in actual sequence.

The fourth beast had ten horns (verses 7, 19, 20), but the Greek beast, to which Antiochus belonged, had four divisions, which are pictured in chapter 8 as four horns. Therefore there is a glaring discrepancy between the actual number of divisions that succeeded the original empire. it doesn’t fit history.

Antiochus did not rise after ten kings (verse 24). He was only eighth in the Seleucid (Syrian) line. And besides, the prophecy calls for contemporaneous kings, not successive ones. Again, it doesn’t fit history.

Also, there is nothing about him that made him “diverse” from his predecessors for he was not stouter than the rest and he was not the greatest of his line and it is impossible to find three out of ten kings who were “plucked up” or subdued before him. As before, it doesn’t match history in any way.

Application to Antiochus is strained and frankly laughable when compared with biblical patterns and history, and is purely devised to feed a preterist agenda, one that you seem more and more fond of, by necessity.

In the rest of that particular response, I see nothing that I thought was of any concern or consequence after what I have presented above. If I missed something in a glaring way, please point it out, but there is more to consider before I close.

There are many more arguments to present that let us know that Jesus did not receive the kingdom in 33 CE or sometime before that. It clearly had to be after that via many other prophetic statements that are made.

Luke’s account of the man of noble birth traveling to a far away land, in chapter 19, clearly shows that this man of noble birth did not receive his kingly power until he travelled away to the far away land, which is clearly heaven. Therefore, receiving kingly power before his ascension to heaven simply does not fit, so this tells us that ALL of those reference to him being “king” before that time were clearly in a “king-designate” terminology.

Also, if, as you say, ALL (without exception) authority had been given to him at this time, then there would simply be no “AWAITING’ in regard to his enemies being supplied as footstool for him. The expression of something being one’s footstool did not signify destruction, but domain or authority over that which was the footstool. The Bible clearly shows that there were enemies that were not yet positioned as his footstool, otherwise, there would be no waiting. Once they were all under his domain, he would go forth to “complete his conquest as he is shown doing in Rev. 6 via the white horse and the receiving of his crown, whihc is naturally a reference to him being made king. He went forth at that point to COMPLETE his conquest, but up until that time, he was AWAITING the time when these enemies would be put under his domain, which had not happened clear up until the writing of the book of Hebrews, once again disqualifying any notion that he was the king of the wolrd at this time. If he were king of the world, then all of his enemies would then be in his domain and under his kingly authority, they would be his footstool, which they clearly weren’t yet in the first century. Before he could go forth to complete his conquest those enemies would first have to be serving as his footstool.

We also have Daniel the 12th chapter where Michael, who can really answer to no one other than Christ, is seen to “stand up”, which means to start exercising kingly power, according to Danielic patterns of the same words. When exactly is Michael shown to stand up? It is not until the “time of the end” during the time when we see the king of the south and the king of the north engage in their final pushings and the king of the north comes all the way to his end, which would have surely been far after 33 CE.

Prophetically, nothing fits with such an early date for the enthronement of Christ as the king of the world until far after 33 CE. All you have are statements that can easily be seen as references to his king-designate position, including Acts 2 which doesn’t actually mention anything about Jesus explicitly sitting on the throne at that time anyway. Understood as expressions of king-designate, everything fits with the rest of the prophecies in the Bible. Taken as actually being king sometime before 33 CE or even 33 CE, the prophecies lose their coherence in every way.

Your last entry was about Ephesians 1:19,20 and its explicit elemants in relation to Jesus kingship.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Again of course we need the context to see its relationship to Jesus’ Kingship. And, of course, just as in Acts, all references to Christ and Lord are also references to Jesus’ Kingship. In the NT context, Christ means Messiah which means Anointed One, which means King. 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bill, this is simply not correct and frankly would destroy your own position.

First, if “Christ” is synonymous with “king” then he was king long before his baptism.

Notice:

(Luke 2:8-11) . . .. 9 And suddenly Jehovah’s angel stood by them, and Jehovah’s glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful. 10 But the angel said to them: “Have no fear, for, look! I am declaring to YOU good news of a great joy that all the people will have, 11 because there was born to YOU today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord, in David’s city.

(Luke 2:25-26) 25 And, look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Sim´e·on, and this man was righteous and reverent, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah.

As you note, Aaron, his sons and the high priests and porphets were all anointed and were not kings so the terms are not synonymous in any way. Even articles devoted to God and his temple were often anointed. Those itmes were surely not kings nor held any kind of office. They were simply solely devoted to the work of the Lord. That’s all an anointing really has to mean.

To try and say that in relation to Jesus it also had to mean he was the king is simply not true. Jesus was far more than just a king, but was also the Prophet and the High Priest. His anointing was in regard to all three but nothing demands he had to become immediately upon his anointing. We know that the abnointing of David did not result in his immediate kingship but was in regard to his king-designate position. The reference in Daniel is easily rendered “leader” rather than specifically “ruler or king” so there is nothing for your positionthere either.

So onward to your exegesis of Ephesians 1 :19,20.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ephesians 1:1-23

1 Paul, an apostle of King Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph´e·sus] and faithful ones in union with King Jesus:

I won’t do that all the way through, of course, because it would affect almost every verse. But you should get the point.

9 …he purposed in himself 10 for an administration {government} at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in him, 11 in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, …18 …, what the glorious riches are which he holds as an inheritance for the holy ones, 19 and what the surpassing greatness of his power is toward us believers. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

Explicitly, we see that (the King) Jesus, when he was raised up from the dead, was seated at God’s right hand, and was ALREADY AT THAT TIME: 
* FAR ABOVE every government
* FAR ABOVE every authority
* FAR ABOVE every power
* FAR ABOVE every lordship
* FAR ABOVE every title given in this age
* FAR ABOVE every title given in the age to come.

With this kind of authority over every current King, every Governor, every magistrate, every Caesar, every Emperor – and every future King, Emperor, etc, this means that the congregation, Christs’ own “body” has nothing to worry about in terms of the great treasure awaiting them as they are also heirs to this same kingdom.

We also see explicitly that “He also [already had] subjected all things under his feet.” So we know that Jesus does not need to sit around waiting for all things to be made subject to him. What Jesus is waiting for (and the entire body of Christ, too) is the time when he will take final action according to God’s purpose/plan. But the Congregation can already see that this is working out because they are the current beneficiaries of the power and spirit that has already been poured out on their behalf. Other actions by this existing kingdom, even toward the congregation will continue to unfold. Even though MOST of what will happen with the Congregation/Body is still future, the Kingship is currently in full power, and a token has already been given in advance of that future inheritance that Christians will share in that kingdom as it unfolds its purpose more fully over heaven and earth. 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This has really been covered before but I will mention it again. First, we know that God has all authority from the beginning of time yet there are times when his authority takes on a new aspect and it is spoken of as God becoming king. If that terminilogy can happen in regards ultimate authority and he can still be viewed as becoming king then it can surely happen in regard to the authority given Christ. Even if he has all authority he may not yet be king in the fullest sense of the word. And the phrase you said was explicit actually harms you more than helps you because hebrew tells us specifically that it is NOT explicit in the way you think it is.

You say he has explicitly had all things subjected under his feet so there is no wating for anything. Hebrews helps us to see how that phrase is also what you might call as future designated capacity that has not yet been achieved EVEN THOUGH it was spoken of as already achieved. This hAd to be in a POTENTIAL sense rather than a realized sense according to Hebrews which sheds light on how those “authority” statements should be understood.

Hebrews tells us:

(Hebrews 2:8) 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 

I believe this does you more harm than good because it clearly shows how everything could be stated as UNDER HIS FEET when that was clearly a POTENTIALITY rather than a realization.

All things considered there is nothing that explicitly states Jesus became king at 33 CE yet there is much prophetically, taken collectively, to explicitly establish that it was sometime far after that.

Regards,
Rotherham

Hello Rotherham,Thanks for the response. Most of your response is easily overturned, but you did provide a few ideas that will take some additional time to research. Fortunately, these ideas don’t have much bearing on the final outcome of the challenge.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Rotherham,The Date of the Writing of Revelation

I find your definition of ‘tangible evidence’ to be self-serving, and wrong. Besides, in most courts, a preponderance of consistent circumstantial evidence can easily outweigh third-hand hearsay claims from a mistake-prone witness that doesn’t necessarily directly speak to the matter of the date of writing anyway, but which have only been interpreted to relate to that date, hundreds of years later. I believe there is much more to this subject than we touched on, but the typical argument for the late date is merely tradition. (I doubt that you would make the same pro-tradition arguments you made here for some other traditions: for example, what about that of translating the Greek “Parousia” into Latin and Syriac as “Advent” or “Coming” instead of “Presence.” That, of course, was attested to even earlier than Eusebius)

I gave you my reasons why I believe the early date is more likely than the late, but either is possible, and none of the evidence is truly “tangible”. I won’t revisit the argument beyond what I’ve already said because it really doesn’t make a difference to the main point. A post-AD70 Revelation could reveal things about the past, present and future and a pre-AD70 Revelation could do the same.

The Internal Evidence of the Book of Revelation

You mention that “time and again” Revelation is pulled down to the time of the parousia. Of course, that’s just what I would expect it to do. Just like many of Jesus end-times parables. Just as Matthew 24 does. (You and I have both noted the Olivet paralIel.) Based on the introduction to Revelation, we should expect visions of things in the contemporary present (1st century) as well as the future since BOTH are stated explicitly. Chapters 1 through 3 claim internally to include visions and writings for the contemporary present and I see no reason not to see additional symbols of the first century in Chapters 11 and 12, too. Naturally, I still agree that the primary focus of all the visions (past and present events included) is always for the purpose of looking towards the future, especially towards the coming Parousia.

(Internal Evidence) The Lord’s Day

This phrase could have been just as properly translated “On the Lord’s Day, I was in the Spirit”. The “en” in Greek can mean “on” as in John 7:23: “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision….” And the same is true of the Greek word in Acts 20:7 “And on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” Your “scriptural precedent” argument that “nowhere else in scripture do we see this phrase refer to [this possibility]” is extremely weak. I doubt you even believe this type of argument yourself, except in a couple cases where you are aware that it tends to suppress unwanted evidence. There are hundreds of words and phrases that can be given unique translations or understood to have a unique meaning because of their context (i.e., historical, social, attitude, audiences intended, etc.). And, on the point of whether “Lord’s Day” can mean “first day of the week” we do know from the “tangible” context of early Christian literature within just a few decades (or maybe even just a few weeks?) of the writing of Revelation, that this expression DID mean “the first day of the week”. And we also know from these same early Christian contexts that it was considered a day for worshiping (compare: “in the spirit”). At any rate, even if John was time-traveling to the time of the Parousia, it still doesn’t preclude visions and symbols of the past, present and future from that new vantage point in time.

(Internal Evidence) The Preterist View

On the issue of “preterist” interpretation, I don’t think I need to defend that here, and a full discussion would derail the real topic. But as I have said before, I believe the Preterist understanding is only partially correct. It can be taken much further than I take it, but I don’t like the tendency to lose the full impact of the final, future, secondary end-time parousia. I take these prophecies to have dual solutions where the first “preterist” solution informs something greater about the end-time parousia (even if not always as specific). This is similar to a lot of JW prophetic interpretation, except that for JWs BOTH of the dual solutions are often already in the past.) The best example is Matthew 24, where I have seen JW books make various attempts over the years to understand and define which portions of the passage might ONLY be understood as “latter-day” (1914 onward) and which might more specifically be understood as “pre-70 CE”. (Of course, the JW understanding is ALSO a form of preterist interpretation, as far as I’m concerned.)

Curiously, from a JW point of view, those who literally pierced Jesus will not see him at all during his parousia – past, present or future, because they were not likely in the early resurrection shortly after his Parousia began (in 1914-1918), and in fact, MAY see him only in a future resurrection scheduled for after Armageddon. For me, there is truth in this passage for his literal piercers at 70 CE. And in a more symbolic, but just as truthful way, it fits those who have “pierced” him anew by their rejection at the final parousia/revelation. Per Josephus, there were angelic apparitions and symbols seen in the clouds and other signs in the heavens for the million or more witnesses of this war at Jerusalem up to the year 70 CE. (Of course, if that evidence is a little too “tangible” for you, I’ll understand.)

The preterist view takes nothing away (necessarily) from the final non-preterist, end-times view.

(Internal Evidence) Judaizers

I understand your point about Judaizers after 70 CE. I copied some bullet points from a site I referenced. I also didn’t like the way it treated the idea as “impossible”. After all, less than 150 years ago, travelers to Palestine discovered groups of non-Christian Bedouins who claimed to be followers of John the Baptist (but rejected Jesus). My point was about the internal textual evidence of Revelation 2 and 3 that spoke of a judgment that should have ended the Judaizer’s position, and that would answer to the judgment on Jerusalem in 70. Whether or not Judaizers would have disappeared completely, the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem was a harsh judgment which should have crushed their belief system.

(Internal Evidence) No mention of the very recent destruction of Jerusalem

Here you claimed: “There would be no need for the mention of the past destruction of Jerusalem because the prophecy was for the future and the past destruction had no bearing on the future, but only the past. The past destruction was simply not the focus of the prophecies.” 

And I can still answer that if it were written between 60 and 66 CE, then this would be an even better explanation of why it wasn’t mentioned AND would still agree with your emphasis on the future focus of the visions.

You added: “And to claim that Babylon the Great was actually a picture of the destruction of Jerusalem….” That’s not a necessary argument to this discussion. And I’m not claiming it. 

You also mentioned Ezekiel’s prophecy and I would agree with most of your comments there. But when it came to the only relevant point about “internal evidence” you said: “Just as in Ezekiel’s day the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed for the most part. No body complained about Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple being neglectful of the one that was already destroyed.” 

That would have been a good point if it were true. But Ezekiel DID mention the current Temple and what was going on there (chap 8) while it still stood, and a later prophecy describes another siege on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar that had just begun that very day (chap 24), and then another description is of the complete destruction of the locale, and then an upcoming desolation even to the point of those few survivors who thought they might still be safe at least in the fairly remote places outside the cities (chap 33) — showing the extent to which the desolation would reach.

(Internal Evidence) The “Hour of Test”

You also said: “The hour of test argument is also ineffective, The hour of test, likely a reference to the great tribulation, is not upon God’s people, but is primarily upon false religion, that which is represented by apostate Jerusalem. If you recall, the Christians fled Jerusalem and the ensuing tribulation upon Jerusalem did not affect them, they were protected by fleeing.”

Not only is your “hour of test” dismissal ineffective, you are too dismissive of Jesus’ own words about fleeing Jerusalem. Fleeing wasn’t a panacea. Jesus didn’t say that the ensuing tribulation upon Jerusalem would NOT affect his Christian disciples. You seem oblivious to what it would have meant to have many of your Jewish and Christian friends and family visiting Jerusalem in the danger years as 70 CE neared. Remember that Christians still visited the Temple at Jerusalem from hundreds of miles around. If one Christian wasn’t caught up himself in the destruction in 70 CE, he would still likely have had many friends and relatives (and “brothers” in the congregation) who were there. Perhaps the church at Philadelphia had been given a reason to put off their travel plans in and before 70 CE for some reason (another earthquake, local Christian prophet?). More importantly, note what Jesus had actually said, again to see if it really looks reasonable to say that Christians weren’t affected:

…Jerusalem…then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains. 17 Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; 18 and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment. 19 Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! 20 Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; 21 for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.

(Internal Evidence) Seal up Daniel, the end is far off; Don’t seal up Revelation, the end is near

I find your particular application of Revelation to Daniel to be completely circular and unwarranted. I find it entirely unconvincing. Particularly this: “If anything, the book of Revelation, if it is this opening of the book of Daniel, it would apply to times far after the first century, just like the visions of Daniel do.” You don’t even attempt to address the very point that makes this a point of textual “internal evidence.” If Revelation is the opening of Daniel, and the first part (Daniel) is to be sealed up for a long time — to the time of the end, and the second part (Rev) is explicitly NOT to be sealed up because the time has now approached, then they must be different as to time. You have completely missed the point about those two timing clues when you claim that they were BOTH pointing to the same time (far into the future).

Your only way around this, of course, is to look for a loophole in the timing. You claim that John had been moved into the future, say 1914, 1918, 1933, 2018, 2034 or 2134. Who knows? But then he still writes down the visions, skewed to time, and now the expressions which wouldn’t have been true without the skewing, are perfectly OK to release to an unsuspecting audience (who weren’t in on the ambiguous clue about the “Lord’s Day”). How unfortunate for those reading around 100 CE when we know that Christians were by about that time already using the expression “Lord’s Day” to refer to the first day of the week.

(Internal Evidence) “Jewish” issues still most common problem in 7 Asia Minor churches

I had also said:
[quote=BillW]* The many “coming soon” and “at hand” passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. – there was nothing left of the Jewish state.[/quote]

One of your mistakes that you hadn’t addressed is that John doesn’t get to the future until he begins seeing the visions after Rev. 1:9. If this time shift explains the “coming very soon” passages, as you say, then why was John already making the point in the very introduction BEFORE he was supposedly time-shifted? Why would he make the same point in these “future” visions, then make the same point in the “present” and also to the currently existing churches of Asia Minor.

The additional point about the Jewish themes addressed in Revelation is not to say there could be no more Jewish interests after 70 CE – or that there was “literally” nothing left of the Jewish state. And, yes, there would still be thousands of faithful Jews, Christianized and otherwise. Nationalistic and vengeful passions would still have been rampant for many years.

(I’m going to re-use your practice of setting off your own statements with $$$$$$$$$’s)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ever hear of Masada?
$$$$$$$$

Masada wasn’t captured until 3 years later, 73 CE. But even that wasn’t the end of it. (Bar Kochba was even later) My point, however, doesn’t intend to deny Judaizers existence, but is about the casual way Jewish themes, religious and otherwise, were presented in the text. It’s the way Jerusalem and the Temple are mentioned as existing, still standing, (and even inspected and measured) without any question or hint of the significance of the “past” destruction. 

$$$$$$$
And what makes us think that the “seven” churches have to be just representative of seven literal churches in the district of Asia? Seven, consistently used as a number for completion, especially in the book of Revelation itself, could tell us that these messages to the churches were actually messages to the universal church, for Christians everywhere, or even especially for Christians in the Lord’s day, lessons and warnings and commendaions drawn from examples in the past that demonstrate problems that could arise at any time in the church?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don’t think anyone disagrees that these churches are supposed to be representative for lessons to the entire Christian church. No one should think it’s just for Christians on a Lord’s-Day Sunday or just for a future parousia, (or in your case, a continuing, present and future parousia. I treat them pretty much the same as you – there was a specific preterist meaning for them and we can allegorize or spiritualize a meaning for the the church at large.

Interpretation: Correlations between Beast and Rome

I had said:

* The Beast (which most …scholars agree represents Rome) was ruled by its 6th head (“head” = “king” see: 17:10) which was already in existence in John’s day. Of the 7 heads (kings) only one was left – by 95 A.D. Rome was long past its 7th Caesar.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This completely ignores Biblical precedent as established by the unmistakable parallels with the beasts of Daniel and how they play out in history.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Actually, it completely ignores your circular and unconvincing precedents. It works just fine with Biblical precedent. There are ways in which your understanding of Daniel completely ignores the differences between Kings and Kingdoms. (A king can represent a kingdom, but I am referring to times when they are explicitly distinguished in the passage). You make the exact same mistake in Daniel, so you are the one ignoring Biblical precedent here.

“Tangible” Evidence of Being Written by 68 CE or before

* A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Never seen this supported.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If your definition of “tangible” is correct, then this would be about as tangible — or more so — as your usage of Eusebius. There is a site that includes the references for this. I’ll just add some of the context here smaller than normal type. You can check the site for the rest of the context.
( http://christeternalchristianchurch.com … vity39.htm )

In another place in the writing of Irenaeus, again writing about the number 666, he seems to indicate an earlier date for the dating of Revelation. In his fifth book, he writes the following: “As these things are so, and his number [666] is found in all the approved and ancient copies.” Domitian’s reign was almost in his own day, but now he writes of the Revelation being written in “ancient copies!” His statement at least gives some doubt as to the “vision” being seen in AD 95 which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as “ancient.”Several of the church fathers of the third and fourth century speak of John’s writing Revelation in connection with his banishment to the Isle of Patmos, which they fix as the reign of Domitian. Yet some of them are unclear between Nero and Domitian. Clement of Alexandria says John was banished by “the tyrant,” a name appropriate to either, yet in usage applies less to Domitian and more to Nero. Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, and the Roman satirist Juvenal, all of whom predate Eusebius, call Nero “the proverbial tyrant.”

Eusebius, who was the bishop of Cesarea from AD 314–340, writes of John as being banished to Patmos and of seeing his visions there in the reign of Domitian. The problem with this source is that he quotes Irenaeus, in fact, the very passage we have under consideration (this appears in his history, book 3, chapter 18). He also refers to a tradition to the same effect, which may have grown out of the same leading of Irenaeus.

Jerome [331–420] held the same opinion, apparently on the authority of Irenaeus.

Victorinus of Petavio, who died in AD 303, in a Latin commentary on the Apocalypse, says “John saw this vision while in Patmos, condemned to the mines by Domitian Caesar.”

Many others of a later age could be cited supporting this same connection between John and Domitian, but it would seem that this does no more than to continue a tradition which appears to have come from the language of Irenaeus. The conclusion most come to at this point is that the external evidence of John writing the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign rests on the sole testimony of Irenaeus, who wrote a hundred years after that date, and whose words were from a verbally transmitted second source during the childhood of Irenaeus. To make matters worse, the words he used can easily have two different meanings!

Unfortunately, the earliest church fathers such as Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, the very testimonies that would be the most helpful to us, are silent on the dating of Revelation. They either omitted this point because it was understood without their testimony, or what they wrote perished along the way.

An ancient document known as the Muratorian Canon which comes down to us from AD 170–210 states, “Paul, following the order of his own predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name.” The seven churches that Paul wrote to were: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossi and Thessalonica. John, in his addressing the writing of Revelation, wrote to seven churches as indicated in Revelation 1:4. The implication of this statement in the Muratorian Canon is that John had written his book of Revelation BEFORE the completion of Paul’s writings to the seven churches he had written to. Paul died under Nero’s persecution. Nero’s rule ended in AD 68!

There is also in existence, a number of Syriac translations of the book of Revelation which have the following inscription: “The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.” Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the “Peshito,” “Curetonian,” the “Philoexenian” and the “Harclean” are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second, but the ones containing Revelation are not believed to be quite that old. The superscription on this manuscript does provide support that the dating of the Revelation goes back to the time of Nero. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse (1845), Vol. 1, p. 267; J. W. Mc Garvey, Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, Gospel Advocate, 1886), pp. 34,78; Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (1890), pp. 136, 138; James Murdock, Syriac New Testament, Peshitto Version, translated in 1852, published 1896. It is thought that the Peshitto Versions, which are dated at 150 AD, were based upon original autographs (original documents).

Clement (AD 150–215) makes the following statement supporting an early dating: “For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero” (Miscellanies 7:17). Clement seems to indicate that he believes that the Scriptures were completed by the end of Nero’s reign which ended in AD 68.

Epiphanies, AD 315–403, stated that the book of Revelation was written under Claudius [Nero] Caesar. This Roman ruler was emperor from AD 54 to AD 68.

Andreas of Capadocia, about AD 500, in a commentary on Revelation, dates the book as Neronian.

Arethas, about AD 540 assumes the book to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that its contents was prophecy concerning the siege of Jerusalem.

(Internal Evidence) Revelation pictures Temple as still standing

* The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Irrelevant and not conclusive. See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Hardly irrelevant. And of course your argument above is irrelevant and inconclusive.

* If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not if the book was completely futuristic in the applications of the visions.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not conclusive. The book uses symbols from Jesus’ past such as a slaughtered Lamb. It references the Temple features explicitly which would have been known from the past. It references Sodom and Egypt which would have only been known from the past. It references many long-past prophecies about Jerusalem. It references many phrases that had specific meanings to past OT contexts. It mentions features of cities that are well-known to the inhabitants of those cities. No one is arguing that this is a conclusive point, only that one might simply expect a reference to one of the greatest events in memory, even in all history, up to that point. Past Bible prophets used phrases similar to “just as can be seen down to this day” or “just as surely as God’s power was seen at …. so will it surely come to pass again.” 

Apostle’s Alive?

* Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around – yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Verse 2 refers to “false” apostles, not the real ones. That should have been readily apparent.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It is readily apparent. I quoted this person’s weak points in there, too, based on the idea that even a false claim to be an apostle could have a chance of fooling Christians in Asia Minor because the real ones were still alive. There is also another hint of possibly living apostles in Revelation 18 gloating over a destruction: “Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.” In any case I don’t agree with this point as much of a possibility – maybe a weak one.

Irenaeus, supposed source of late date, implies the earlier date

* Irenaeus’ statement regarding Domitian’s reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source. In the same passage he also mentions “ancient copies” of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
See above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not conclusive. Even if it means “the very old copies” or “much older by comparison” then it makes more sense if there are copies that are 30 years old compared to new copies that are only 1 to 2 years old. This situation is a possibility if Revelation was written in 66 or before. 

See the new quote above from http://christeternalchristianchurch.com … vity39.htm

More evidence for current persecutions and tribulations under Domitius Nero (66/68) than Domitian (81-96) and other miscellaneous evidence

* Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nothing about a “massive” persecution has anything to do with the time of the writing. However, there was always a consistent persecution of some kind going on in the first century. This is irrelevant.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

True. It’s also possible that John wasn’t being persecuted. It’s tradition again that puts him on Patmos as a penitentiary island. He could have lived there and preached from there perhaps even escaping Nero-inspired persecutions.

* The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60’s.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Unsupported and conjecture. If Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and Philadelphia were current and existing hubs of Christianity just before 70 CE, why do they not even merit a mention from the Apostle Paul who apparently mentions other cities around them in regard to his travels and concerns? That could just as easily tell us that those churches did not exist yet at that time.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Agreed. I think he’s trying to say that he would be much more than 7 based on expected growth after Paul visited the region in the 50’s and 60’s. I don’t think this argument means that much either way unless this author has not mentioned some specific knowledge of the situation closer to 100 CE.

* John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The original words used, especially “epi”, does not necessitate him actually standing before nations or kings to prophesy. It could have been nothing more than a reference to the affect that the visions being presented to him were not done yet. He continued to prophesy in regards to nations and kings throughout the book after this was said.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That’s possible. It’s also possible it meant he would go out on new missionary journeys from 70 CE to 90 CE. Personally, I take it to mean something very significant to the structure of the visions of Revelation, but disagree with the idea that it means he needs to go out again in any way.

Fallacy of repeated claim that “if the Parousia is future, you have little choice but to see the visions as all future”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Frankly Bill, if one believes that the parousia is yet future, as I think you have said that you do, then one would not have much choice to see the visions of the book of Revelation as future because nearly every vision contains reference to the “church” in heaven, and that maintains the consistent theme of a futuristic application since the church will not be in heaven until the parousia.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Believing the Parousia is yet future is unrelated to when or why or which ones of the visions refer to past or current events. All of these symbols are meant to lead us to a proper understanding of the future. Ezekiel spoke of what was happening NOW currently, and what had been happening in the recent past. Daniel referred back to Jeremiah’s writing and often spoke of the current political situation. Same for Isaiah, Jonah, Zechariah, etc. The prophet Michaiah, for example, gives a Revelation completely about the PAST so that the king of Israel will have faith in the prophet’s word about the future. So, if we look at Biblical precedent, we do have much choice. Nearly every vision does NOT reference the “church” in heaven. Giving a symbolic history of the past still maintains a consistent theme about futuristic application because it shows that God’s plan/purpose has been working out all along. (Besides, there are specific reasons textual and contextual reasons to consider chapters 11 and 12 as representing a new sweeping history of Christianity from the first century onward in easy to understand, symbolic terms. I can discuss that later if you wish.)

More importantly, since you are wrong about those references to the church already in heaven, your argument really works against you.

Fallacy of “24 Elders in heaven means we’re in time of the Parousia”

$$$$$$$$$$$
In nearly every vision it is more than apparent that the church is already represented as in heaven, either in part or in whole, by the twenty four older persons who are shown to be on thrones. This is nearly unanimously seen, regardless of who they specifically represent, as a vision of those who were once human but who are now in heaven, in other ones, holy ones, and since that does not happen until the parousia, every vision then has a backdrop setting, that being the parousia. Otherwise the reference to the “holy ones” in heaven is entirely anachronistic.
$$$$$$$$$$$

You argument falls apart here, because there is NO reason whatsoever to conclude that the 24 older persons to refer to the church at large that rises at the time of the parousia/revelation. You could rely on a lot of speculation and tradition, or come up any number of possible interpretations. One of the LEAST likely speculations is that these 24 elders are the same as the 144,000 (from another “perspective” as claimed in WT literature).

I believe that the interpretation with the most going for it scripturally, is the idea of God’s inner “Counsel.” OT revelations about this includes a picture of the Most High God (El), and the “Sons of the Most High (El)”. This might make them include highly privileged “sons of God,” perhaps the arch-angels. Apparently there exists Hebrew and related Semitic religious literature that could picture God’s throne encircled with beings from inner circles to outer circles, sometimes the first circle could be 4, or 7, sometimes surrounded by 24, or surrounded by 70, then surrounded in outer circles by myriads of angels of varying “ranks” beyond that.

Of course, I disagree, but there is also some appeal in the idea that certain humans were given exceptional possible early resurrections. There is evidence that Jews long before Jesus already believed Elijah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and others were already “alive” in some sense. (Jesus hinted this could also be true of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whom he called “the living” and he gave a parable in which Abraham appears “alive”.) The idea that the church was to built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets might give some extra credence to this, too. (I prefer that these are symbolic foundations, not living resurrected humans.) These types of solutions, including 12 apostles + 12 prophets (or 12 tribes) creates too much confusion with other scriptural passages.

Fallacy of “afterwards” meaning that only pre 4:1 verses can be possibly pre-parousia

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In your second entry you go to great lengths to show that there is no reason for us to think of the visions commencing with chapter 4 as future due to the statement that John was supposed to write about not just future things but the things that are. Interestingly, this fails as a point because you will note that the verse that states this, verse 18, ends with the two words in Greek, mete tauata, which is rendered rendered as “after this” or “hereafter”. But you will notice that where the things termed as ‘after this” or “hereafter”begin is clearly marked for us in chapter 4 verse 1.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I’m sure you really mean the “meta tauta” of verse 19, but your point still fails because it isn’t just used in 4:1, but also in 7:1, 7:9, 15:5, 18:1, 19:1, 20:3. And, at any rate, I have always believed that 4:1 was received after 3, 7:1 was received after 6, 15 after 7, etc., etc. The order of the visions appears to have remained intact in this book.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That verse ends with the exact same two words as John is called up to heaven to see that which is to happen “hereafter”. So the visions then are primarily “hereafter”.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Who ever said the visions are primarily in the past? I’ve always claimed and believed the visions are primarily about the future – AND even the ones that refer to events of the past also are about the future.

Repeated Fallacy: 24 Elders and “Holy Ones”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, there are references to things that existed in the past, it would be impossible to build a vision without them, but they are primarily about things that are “hereafter’, which would be after the writing of the book, and as mentioned, this doubly fails when we keep in mind that each vision is shown with the “holy ones” already represented either in part or in whole, in heaven, which does not happen until the parousia. I really don’t see any way to discount that.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

One way to discount it is to read the visions more carefully. The resurrected holy ones are NOT represented as already in heaven in each vision. And there is never a time when they could be represented only “in part”, because they are all to receive their reward together – “at the same time” (NWT) – when both the resurrected and the living meet the Lord in the air. Do you actually take Revelation 6:11 and believe this is what these martyred souls are saying AFTER the resurrection of say, 1918? Do you put the “holy ones” in heaven in Chapter 11 BEFORE the time came to give the holy ones their reward and for the dead to be judged (v 18). Surely you don’t put Sodom and Egypt in heaven, do you? Yet, curiously, there are your 24 elders in heaven before the throne, BEFORE the holy ones have even received their reward.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We have two clear references in the very beginning in regard to the Lord’s Day, the coming on the clouds, which is a parousiac indicator, we have numerous visions which place the “holy ones” in heaven, which is also a parousiac indicator and the visions regarding the wild beast, when paralleled with Daniel’s beasts, which it clearly parallel in a composite form, that too shows that the timing of the book INCLUDES the last days before the “stone crushes the image” of all those world powers.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The entire book, in my opinion, is about the Parousia/Advent/Judgment/Kingdom/Future. You don’t really have any argument when you point out that Lord’s day and clouds are mentioned together. In fact, they are mentioned separately because John doesn’t mention “on the Lord’s Day” until verse 9, and yet he mentions how quickly Jesus is coming back (and coming on the clouds) long before this and long after this and places in between. But it doesn’t matter that they are separated, either. It’s all part of the theme.

Your idea that the 24 elders are resurrected humans at the parousia is completely unsubstantiated conjecture. And it makes no sense. You believe the 144,000 represent this group, but Revelation 14:3 makes that hypothesis ridiculous: “And they [the 144,000] are singing … before the throne and before the four living creatures and the [24] elders.” The 144,000 are standing in front of the 4 living creatures and the 144,000. What kind of twisting can make that scenario stand?

Fallacy that pre-70 date of Revelation makes it all about the fall of Jerusalem

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Forcing this to be a book about the fall of Jerusalem simply makes no sense with anything that puts this book into a parousiac construct, nor does it make any sense with many of the phrases that are found there in relation to actual history.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I certainly don’t force it to be a book about the fall of Jerusalem. I don’t even believe that’s what it’s about. Even though I believe the book was most likely written before Jerusalem’s fall — it’s hardly all about that event. Besides, it was most likely written not long before Jerusalem falls, within that decade or perhaps as late as 68 CE, in Asia Minor and sent out initially to 7 or so local churches. This still means that it wasn’t widely known until long AFTER Jerusalem is destroyed. Most people wouldn’t see this book until after Jerusalem is gone. The center of centrist Christian activity had already moved to Asia Minor in the days of the Apostle Paul. Acts of Apostles hints at this, and this is supported by extant letters between Romans of that period. 

I think it’s a book about the sureness of the end and the “fall of the world” made “immediate” because of the sureness of Christ’s involvements in the judgment of God even upon Jerusalem – which would be known to come true very shortly, and which most early Christian readers would know as the most powerful of all events they could have ever imagined, recently emblazoned on their psyche, and with an enormous traumatic impact on their understanding of the Bible and prophecy. Now they would wait on the next logical step, the “judgment on the world” which is “immediate” now in their psyche, but need not be immediate as to chronological historical time. It gave immediacy to the “kingdom” because Christian conquering of this world is immediate, they are already, necessarily, a nation outside this “falling world.” There is even a kind of historical immediacy from the perspective of “all who die from this time forward are already declared happy for their reward goes with them.”

Importance of understanding the most likely meaning of Parousia

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The Lord’s Day includes the parousia, the Revelation and all that follows. Parousia, Revelation and Lord’s Day are not exactly synonymous in every way, but they clearly are closely related in time and in purpose. The “revelation” refers more to the actual “revealing” of the Son of Man toward the climax of the parousia, so I am not sure of what importance your comments about the differences between those terms has to do with this discussion, if there was a point in there I missed, please repeat it, otherwise, all that seemed inconsequential.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I just included it for clarification, since we each use the term to mean something different.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
As far as the meaning of parousia, we should once again rely on Biblical precedent if there is one that is able to be established, not upon a meaning that is extra-biblical, unless of course there is simply no choice to look outside the Bible for a meaning to a word.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I say you look for the best possible meanings in the context of the whole language, not some arbitrary subset of the language. Otherwise you merely set unnecessary traps for yourself. There are many words used only twice in the Bible. If the meaning might be slightly different between them, you would limit yourself to whichever meaning you ran across first? What if you had run across the other instance first? If the word or phrase is only used three times and the third might be a slightly different usage, you make the third equal the other two? This is just a plain silly proposition. Imagine the trouble your doctrines would be in if you always made “nephesh” or “psyche” or “proskuneo” mean the same thing without exceptions. Or even terms for “word” for “heaven” or for “kingdom”. I already know from past discussions and from your agreement with Watchtower books, that you don’t even believe this hypothesis. You only think you are invoking it “as a rule” when it seems to help dismiss some evidence you don’t like.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Parousia, never means anything but “presence” when used not in connection with the parousia of Christ. We have no Biblical precedent to render it or understand it otherwise. Besides, even if we take the advent meaning, it actually translates to the same thing. An advent is far more than just an arrival but involves what? A subsequent presence after the arrival. Parousia is not JUST the judgment day, but it surely will include it. There is actually no problems at all in extending the length of the parousia to include many years. Since the disciples grammatically referred to it as virutally the “same thing” as the “sunteleia”, which can clearly be shown to include many years, there is every reason to think that it is a long event, not some momentary spurt of activity.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

From your own definition (or perhaps convoluted explanation) hopefully you can see that there is a difference between an arrival and a subsequent presence and the JW version which is a presence with a subsequent arrival. If by “grammatically” you are still referring to the Granville Sharp rule, I still think you are mistaken in applying that to Matthew 24:3 — as you have claimed in the past. Not that I think they are much different, because I don’t see any reason to stretch out the syn-telos (“end of [all] things together”) into a 100-year long “conclusion”. You stretch out the syn-telos (synteleia) and make it something completely different from the telos, even though the Bible uses the terms nearly interchangeably. This stretch isn’t necessary, except to your doctrine.

But it looks like we agree that verses AFTER Rev 4:1 are more likely to refer to Parousia than verses BEFORE Rev 4:1

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I did not see anything that you said about parousia to really overturn the idea that the holy ones do not go to heaven until the parousia. I think you actually agree, which solidifes the point about the timing of the revelation visions which were to be AFTER the writing of the book of Revelation especially starting with chapter 4 verse 1.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As long as we’re in agreement now that at least the visions before Rev 4:1 are more likely to refer to the contemporary present – instead of the future – then this would be a good time to remind you of what John calls Jesus in Rev 1:5. Please watch the tenses in the context carefully.

“The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

And all that was BEFORE John was supposedly transferred forward in time “on the Lord’s Day” in verse 9. Our entire discussion, remember, is supposed to be about whether Jesus was Ruler of the Kings of the Earth before the Parousia. Most of this entire discussion appears to be merely a diversion so you don’t need to deal with the fact that the scripture already takes away your argument, even before you barely get into the book of Revelation.

That’s actually a good stopping point for now. I’ll put the rest in a second post.

Regards,
Bill

Hello Bill,I am currently preparing a response to your first part, but I have a question that could help in that preparation.

Why would a highly prophetic book, which speaks of Gentiles trampling the city of Jerusalem, not mention the imminent and impending destruction of that same city and warnings for God’s people to flee out of it?

Rotherham

OK Bill,Thankyou for the response. So if the book was written pre-70CE you would have to narrow the window to about 68-70 CE. I’ll await the rest of your coverage of the remainder of my post before responding. Any idea when that might be?

Regards,
Rotherham