AN ANSWER TO:
"A STUDY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION",
BY R. "DUKE" STIDHAM
By Windell Wiser
A dearly beloved brother asked me to write an answer to Brother Stidham's book. I have never met Brother Stidham. All I know about him is what I read in his book. The first thing I did was read the Forward and Introduction at the beginning of his book. At first I thought he was just a sincere brother who thought the early date (A. D. 68) was the correct date for the writing of the book of Revelation. If this was all there was about his book that I disagreed with, I was not interested in writing a reply to his book, even though I believe in a later date for the book of Revelation (about A.D. 96). I am not interested in getting into debates with brethren about the date the book of Revelation was written. I am not interested in trying to get people to line up with my view about the date. I am not interested in pushing my view, about the date of the book, to the point of division. I am not interested in pushing my view about the date of this wonderful book to the extent that brethren will feel the need to go and worship in some other congregation. I understand that some have pushed the early date to the point of division, and driving some people away.
However, as I started reading his book I was shocked at all the perversions of Scripture I found. I was amazed to find how the Scriptures were "wrested", "twisted", and taken out of context. The statement Peter made about the writings of Paul kept going through my mind. Peter said, "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15, 16). When I read his book, I decided I must write an answer to this material. I am not saying Bro. Stidham deliberately "wrested", and "twisted", and "perverted" the Scriptures. If I thought he did this deliberately, I would not take the time, put forth the effort, and spend the money that will need to be spent to answer this material. I have spent hours of study. Much more time will be required to put this answer into print. I hope and pray that Bro. Stidham will examine carefully what I am about to write. I hope and pray he will understand that what I am doing is trying with all my being to follow the teaching of James, the Lord's brother. James said, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know , that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins" (Jas.5:19, 20). I am not only concerned about our dear Brother Stidham. I am also concerned about all those brethren in the Xenia Ohio church, in the Bible class, where this material was taught. Because our brother said, "At the close of the class there was a strong bond of unity and a feeling of accomplishment on the part of the class members" (His book in the Forward). From this statement, I come to the conclusion that all those brethren supported him in his teaching. This would mean they endorsed all of the "wresting", "twisting" and "perversion of Scripture." I don't believe these brethren realized what they were doing. I am sure they are all sincere people. However, if we condone error, we are a partaker in the evil deed (2 Jno. 10, 11). I, therefore, felt compelled to answer this material. I hope everyone will read this book clearly understanding my motives in writing it. I hope we will be able to "hide a multitude of sins" (Jas. 5:19, 20). I sincerely hope and pray that only good will come from this answer. I realize some will think I am terrible for exposing the error of our dear brother, and the error of Max King. The false teaching of Max King has done so much damage to the cause of Christ in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and many other states. This is due to the fact that many do not have the courage to oppose error, for fear of criticism. Many others are not as noble as those in Berea who did not even swallow what the great Apostle Paul said, without checking the Scriptures to see if it was so (Acts 17:11, 12). Many good preachers have been influenced by this false teaching, because they didn't take the time to examine the Scriptures to see how King was misapplying them.
I am indebted to numbers of preachers for information I have in this book about the Max King doctrine. I made use of The Nichols-King Debate, from the library of Hiram Hutto of Athens, Al. I have also profited greatly from written material by Bill Reeves of Hopkinsville, Ky. and Bob Waldron of Athens, Alabama. I am also indebted to Wayne Jackson and his excellent book about the King doctrine. Thanks to all of these men. Thanks to other good men who offered criticism of my material, and influenced me to make some changes which they thought would help our dear brother, and others to see the truth. Also thanks to my grand-daughter, Melissa Bozeman, for correcting grammatical errors. Thanks also to E. R. Hall of Wise, Va. for correcting grammatical errors.
You can never write a book, or preach a sermon that meets the approval of every one. My primary concern is to please God. I have spent much time in study and prayer to make this book pleasing to God. If you think I am being too rough with our beloved brother, read what Paul said to Peter in Gal. 2. You might also read what Peter said to Simon in Acts 8. Remember, God approved what Peter and Paul did. I believe God will approve what I have written. However, I know I will face Him in the day of judgment (Jno. 12:48) to answer for what I have written. Since Max King, and many of his followers, believe the judgment has already occurred, they do not believe they will answer for their false teaching!
An Answer To Stidham's Arguments In The Introduction Of His Book
Our brother's first argument, in the Introduction, is Jesus said these things must "shortly come to pass." He makes this argument a number of times in his book. I do not deny that these things were to "shortly come to pass." I believe this as much as our brother does. Our dear brother thinks this proves the book was written in A. D. 67 or 68. However, it does not prove such. If the book was written in A.D. 96 it would deal with things which must shortly come to pass, too. The fact that the book deals with things which "must shortly come to pass" does not prove the date of the book. If he is right with his date of A. D. 67 or 68, then the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would shortly come to pass. But, if the book was written in A.D. 96, then the destruction of Rome would be part of the things which must shortly come to pass. Our beloved brother did not prove, from the argument, his 70 A.D. doctrine about the book of Revelation.
On page 1, in his introduction, our brother perverts Mt. 16:18. We find this perversion of this passage numbers of times in his book. It is found on page 44, and 87, and possibly other places. The Greek word in Mt. 16:18 is Hades, not Gehenna. Jesus is saying the Gates of the Hadean world would not prevail against His building the church. Even though they crucified Him and he went to Hades (Acts 2:27), the gates of the Hadean world would not hold Him and prevent Him from building His church. He did come through the Gates of Hades and built His church on the day of Pentecost. It may be true that the Gates of Gehenna, the place of eternal punishment, will never prevail, i.e. be victorious over the church; but using Mt.16:18 to prove it is wresting the Scriptures.
On page 2, of his book, he tells us who wrote the book, to whom it was written, and why. I agree with him that the apostle John wrote the book. I agree with him that it was written to seven churches in Asia. I also agree with him that it was written "as encouragement and instruction to the church to hold fast and remain faithful to God", and that all these things "must shortly come to pass." However, some questions are in order! Why was not this book written to the church in Jerusalem? If the book deals with persecution administered by the city of Jerusalem, why was not the book written to the church in Jerusalem, located in the very city that was responsible for the persecution? I have seen no proof that Jerusalem was persecuting Christians in Asia. I agree that some Jews were persecuting Christians, where ever they went. Paul went to Damascus to bind Christians, but he brought them back to Jerusalem (Acts 9:2). The persecution Jerusalem administered was not universal, but more localized. However, Rome ruled the world, and the persecution under Domitian would affect the churches in Asia Minor more than persecution administered by Jerusalem. If, as I believe, the book was written in A.D. 96 during the persecution of Domitian, the Roman Emperor; the churches in Asia would need this encouragement, and instruction to hold fast and remain faithful to God during this persecution which "must shortly come to pass." According to Fox, "Domitian banished John to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation" (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P.5). Our dearly beloved brother says, "In this study we want to consider both internal and external evidences and see which date harmonizes with what the Bible says. That is always the safest procedure" (P. 2). I agree with our dear brother. However, I want him to check what Fox says, on Page 5 of his book. This is some of the external evidence that I want him to consider. Evidence that shows the book was written around A.D.96, and deals with persecution administered by Rome and her emperor Domitian. I will look carefully at his internal evidence and point out (as kindly as I know how) his many perversions of Scripture (internal evidence) in the process. I will show how he wrests, and perverts the internal evidence. He does not do it on purpose, but he trusted someone else who perverted the Scriptures. He should have done like the noble people of Berea and searched the Scriptures to see if the things spoken were so (Acts 17:11). If people in Berea needed to search the Scriptures to see if what the Apostle Paul taught was so, then certainly our beloved brother and I need to do the same thing. In the section below, as well as other places, our beloved brother puts almost word for word what he read out of a commentary. He did not give credit to the person who wrote this material. He gave it as though it was his own material. If he is not guilty of plagiarism, it certainly borders on it. The word plagiarize means "to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one's own" (Webster's New World Dictionary).
Symbols And Types Used In Revelation
1. "The Air - To the sphere of life and influence (Eph. 2:2)." Our dear brother borrowed this from a commentary. Since he took credit for it, I will answer it as though it were his idea. The passage you gave for proof does not prove what you say. In Eph. 2:2 the "air" is the course of this world where the prince of the power of the air, the Devil himself, works in the children of disobedience. It is not "the sphere of life and influence", as you call it. Where the Devil works is the sphere of death, not life. It is true the devil has influence where life is, but his influence does not result in life, but death. There is no proof that the word "air" in Eph. 2:2 is the same place, or sphere each time you find the word "air" in the book of Revelation!
2. "The Earth - Particularly the area of Palestine (Revelation 13:11, 12)." The passage you gave as proof doesn't say the earth was particularly the area of Palestine. Look at Rev. 13:11, 12. The passage does not say the beast which came up out of the earth, came from the area of Palestine. Dear beloved brother, it doesn't say the earth is particularly the area of Palestine. There are many passages in the Book of Revelation where the earth cannot be particularly the area of Palestine. In fact, there is no passage were the earth is said to be particularly the area of Palestine. Get you a concordance and look up the passages. It is sad that your position forces you to make the earth mean the area of Palestine. It is true the book of Revelation is full of symbols. However, much of the book is literal. In the book of Revelation, there are literal churches, literal people, a literal God and Christ, literal Christians, a literal devil, the literal earth, etc.
3. "Earth Quaking - Shaking up of the nations or an upheaval of nations (Revelation 16:18)." You know I am surprised he thinks the nations are literal! This is interesting! The passage he gave for proof says there was a "great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great." According to him the earth here was particularly the area of Palestine, thus the shaking of the nations or upheaval of nations would be nations particularly in Palestine. I suppose he thinks there was more than one Jewish nation particularly in Palestine, shaken up. Also, since there never was an earthquake as mighty as this one, no nation was ever shaken as badly as the nations in Palestine. He should have named the nations in Palestine!! According to him, it was not a literal earthquake. Therefore, "The voices, thunderings, and lightnings" were not literal, but he failed to tell us what they were. I wonder how the "great city" could be literal Jerusalem divided into three parts, when everything else was symbolic. The man just goes through the book and makes what he wants literal and what he wants symbolic, without any logic at all behind his choices. I find nothing to show the "earthquake" was not literal!
4. "The Sea - Society and its condition, troubled or peaceful." The man just says this and offers no proof whatsoever. Of course he copied it almost word for word from a commentary. I suppose the Sea could never mean the Sea, in the book of Revelation. It would always be "Society and its condition, troubled or peaceful." Of course he expects all of us just to accept his definition without proof.
5. "Heaven - Governments; authority or dominion (Revelation 12:1, 8." Since these are definitions of Symbols and Types in the book of Revelation, he must think Heaven always means "Governments, authority or dominion" in the book of Revelation. I suppose he thinks heaven can never be heaven in the book of Revelation. According to the Bible there is a "third heaven". Paul was caught up to this heaven ( 2 Cor. 12). This is the heaven where God's throne is located (Mt. 5:16). If there is a third heaven, there must also be a first and second heaven. The region where the birds fly is called heaven (Mt. 6:26) in the American Standard Version. The region where the stars are (2 Pet. 3:10) is also called heaven. These three regions make up the three heavens.
6. "Stars - Rulers and officials of the government. (Matthew 24:29; Revelation 6:13)." He may be right that the Stars in Mt. 24:29 refer to the Rulers and officials of the government in Jerusalem. Jesus is discussing the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in Mt. 24. There is no question about that. However, this does not prove that John was discussing the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. Neither does it prove that the Stars of Rev. 6:13 are the Rulers and officials of the government in Jerusalem. If it is talking about Rulers and officials of government, it could be talking about Rome just as easily as Jerusalem. Our beloved brother assumes it to be Jerusalem, but he hasn't proved it. In fact I will show you over and over again how he wrests and perverts the Scripture to try to prove it.
7. "War - Conflicts and hostilities among governments (Revelation 12:7, 17 and 19:19)." It is true that wars between men are "Conflicts and hostilities among governments." However, the passages of Scripture he gave do not prove this. Rev. 12:7, 17 is talking about a war fought between angels and demons. I suppose you could call these governments, but they are certainly not within the scope of our brother's definition. I do not believe this war was fought in heaven, i.e. where God's throne is. Neither do I believe it was fought between governments on earth. It may have been fought in the first or second heaven. The war of Rev. 19:19 was not a war fought among governments either. The war under consideration is not carnal war. I believe Jesus is the one on the white horse (Rev. 19:11-14), and those who make up his army, are faithful followers of Christ. The governments that make war with Him are "the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies" (Rev. 19:19). In the Forward of your book you mentioned four books which you said were the "most valuable" books you had consulted in your study. Two of these books, God's Prophetic Word and The Book Of Revelation were books written by Foy E. Wallace, Junior. Worthy Is The Lamb by Ray Summers was another of these books. The fourth one was the Jewish Wars by Josephus. Ray Summers says this war in Revelation 19 was fought between Jesus Christ and the Beast of Rome which was Domitian. Summers says the False Prophet was "the Roman Concilia, state religion priesthood" (Worthy Is The Lamb, P. 199). Jesus, with His army, was victorious in this war. The Beast (Domitian) and the false prophet (The Roman Concilia, state religion priesthood) which enforced emperor worship was cast into "a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Rev. 19:20). This is what one of "your most valuable books" says. I agree with one of "your most valuable books." The wars fought in the Book of Revelation were not what your definition claims they were.
I will skip your definition of colors and numbers. I do want to notice your NOTE on Page 5. You say, "These numbers are not intended to be understood with real numerical value but are symbolic in their use" (Page 5, at the top of the page). I agree with you that some times this is the case. However, this is not always the case. The seven candlesticks were seven literal churches which are named. The seven stars were seven actual angels or messengers of seven literal churches in Asia. There is much in the book of Revelation that is literal. It is not all symbolic.
The Coming Of Christ
On page 6, our brother says, "The following Scriptures speak of the coming of Christ. They must be studied in context to see what coming is referred to." I agree with this statement. However, I am amazed how he can see so many things in a context that are not there. I will point out some of these things. I am happy to read some statements, in his book, that prove he does believe in a literal second coming of Christ, and a final judgment, and a literal bodily resurrection, and a literal destruction of the world in the last day. There is false doctrine taught by Max King, and several others, that the end of the world, the resurrection, and the second coming of Christ all occurred in 70 A.D., at the destruction of Jerusalem. Our beloved brother makes most of the same arguments they make about the 70 A.D. doctrine. I thank God he has not gone as far as they have gone with this nonsense. I am persuaded that he has been influenced by them more than he knows. I pray God I will be able to help him.
On Page 6, No. 3, he says both Mt. 24 and Rev. 22:12 refer to "His coming in judgment upon the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish nation, in A.D. 70." He can prove from Mt. 24 that Jesus Christ was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ to do just that. This took place in 70 A.D. He can prove that Jesus gave signs to show his disciples when they needed to flee the city. He said all of that would occur in that generation (Mt. 24:34). Jesus also talked about the end of the world (Mt. 24:3). He was not talking about the end of the Jewish world which some claim ended in 70 A.D. Jesus knew when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place and gave signs to show the disciples when it would be. Jesus said, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt. 24:36). Jesus himself did not know when the end of the world would come. He could give no signs to show when the end of the world would be. However, he gave signs showing when the destruction of Jerusalem would be. All the signs Jesus gave came in that generation (Mt. 24:34). The end of the world was not the end of the Jewish world, as Max King and our dear brother teaches. The Jewish world ended at the cross. This was the world referred to as "time past" (Heb. 1:1, 2), when God spoke to the fathers by the prophets. This world ended at the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15), not in 70 A. D. The last days began at the cross of Christ. God now speaks to us by His Son (Heb. 1:1, 2). The Jewish world (time past) was subjected to angels (Heb. 2:5). The world to come (the last days) has not been subjected to angels, but has been subjected to Christ (Col. 1:18). During the Jewish world, the law of Moses was "spoken by angels" (Heb. 2:2), and "ordained by angels" (Gal. 3:19). The doctrine that the Jewish world ended in A. D. 70 is a false doctrine. It matters not whether it be taught by Max King, or our dearly beloved brother, it is a false doctrine. In Mt. 24 when Jesus talked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it would occur in that generation (Mt. 24:34). In Mt. 24 when Jesus talked about the end of the world, and the second coming of Christ, He spoke of it "But of that day and hour" (Mt. 24:36). The coming of Jesus in Mt. 24 to destroy the temple and Jerusalem did not occur in any one day and hour. 70 A. D. was a year. It was certainly not any certain day and hour. Jerusalem was not destroyed on a certain day and hour. The second coming of Christ, however, will be on the last day, possibly at the first hour of that day (Jno. 12:48; Jno. 5:28, 29; Mt. 25:31ff; Jno. 11:24). If all Jesus is talking about in Mt. 24 is the destruction of Jerusalem, then that would be what Jesus is talking about in Mt. 25 as well. This would mean Max King is right and the world did end in 70 A.D., as well as the second coming of Christ and the judgment!! If we do not recognize the division that occurs between verses 35 and 36, there is no way we can answer the Max King arguments. There are three questions asked in Mt. 24:3. There are two comings of Christ in Mt. 24. Jesus came, with Titus and the Roman Army, in 70 A.D. to destroy Jerusalem. This is when the temple was so destroyed that one stone was not left upon another. There is also the second coming of Christ in Mt. 24:36-Mt. 25. This will be at the end of the world, when the dead are all raised (Jno. 5:28, 29), and the final judgment will take place. If our dear brother, and others, do not recognize this they will be forced to accept all of the Max King doctrine!!!
On Page 6, No. 4 he lists John 5:27-29; I Corinthians 15:1ff; II Peter 3:1ff and he says, "While some of these passages could have had a first century application, I also understand them to refer to the final coming of Christ and the end of this physical earth." When I read this I wonder why he would make such a statement. I have thought about it very much. There is only one logical explanation for it. This man has been tremendously influenced by the Max King Doctrine! There is no other explanation for this statement. Let's examine (Jno. 5:27-29). Jesus said, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." No one can see any day in that passage except the last day, the resurrection day, and during one hour in that day (Jno. 11:24). Jesus is no doubt talking about the hour of the general resurrection on the last day. This has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, though Max King and his followers think so. Our beloved brother has been influenced by them to where he thinks this passage "could have had a first century application." The man has been influenced by Max King's 70 A.D. doctrine, but he cannot persuade himself to try and explain the teaching of this passage away, and teach that "the resurrection has past already and overthrow the faith of some" like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17, 18). Let's examine I Corinthians 15:1ff. I have read that passage many times. There is not the space here to examine it in detail. I find nothing in this passage about 70 A.D., and neither does our brother. But he has been so influenced by the Max King 70 A.D. doctrine that he thinks this passage could have a first century application. If our beloved brother keeps on associating with the Max King teaching, keeps on being silent instead of condemning the doctrine, eventually he will accept the rest of it! In I Cor. 15 Paul is talking about the general resurrection of the last day, and no other resurrection. In verse 10 he says, "If in this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable", plainly showing he is talking of the general resurrection, because we cannot enter into that life until we arise from the dead first. In verse 23 he talks about the resurrection "at His coming." This is referring to His second coming, not his coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A. D. In verse 24 he talks about the end when He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father. This did not occur in 70 A. D. It will occur at the second coming of Christ and the general resurrection. Oh well, there is much more that we could say but you get the picture. There is nothing in I Cor.15 about the resurrection that had a first century application. Now look at 2 Pet. 3:1ff. There is nothing in this passage that could have a first century application. Those who teach the Max King 70 A. D. doctrine pervert this passage to make it refer to Jesus coming to destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Those who follow the Max King 70 A.D. doctrine think the second coming of Christ has already taken place. They think A. D. 70 was the second coming of Christ. Our beloved brother won't go that far yet, but he is leaning. He is willing to concede that it could have a first century application. Now, dear brother, how could it? Peter plainly tells us about the coming of Christ. What they were skeptical about is the "day of judgment" when the earth and the heavens will be on fire. There is nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., that is described in 2 Pet. 3. You have been influenced too much by the Max King 70 A.D. Doctrine.
On Page 6 at No. 5 he says, "Revelation 21 - The description of the church, the New Jerusalem, is a perfect symbol for the home in heaven for all the children of God. The only difference I can see in the Church on earth and the Church in heaven is that while we are here on earth in our physical bodies we have to contend with temptation and sin and many types of physical problems." Dear brother, stop and think about what you said! If you will just think a little, you can see many more differences. When you and I get to heaven, we will be amazed at all the differences. We will be in a "glorified body" (Phil. 3:21). We will be like Jesus and can see Him as He is (I Jno. 3:1-3). We will never experience pain, sorrow, death, or tears any more. I am sure you and everyone else gets the picture.
On Page 6, No. 6 he says, "The destruction of Jerusalem is symbolical of the destruction of the world." Oh, but dear brother, you have to prove the Book of Revelation tells about the destruction of Jerusalem. You have not proven it does. I will show you have not proven it.
Support For The A.D. 96 Date Of Revelation
Our dearly beloved brother lists four numbers supporting the A.D.96 date for the Book of Revelation. He lists eight numbers to support the A.D. 67-68 date for the Book of Revelation. I suppose he wants his readers to think this is proof for the early date. Our dear brother mentions the church historian Eusebius, writing about Irenaeus and Polycarp, who saw the apocalypse near the end of Domitian's reign. He could have mentioned many other members of the church immediately following Domitian's reign, who believed the book was written in the nineties. Under point No.3, he says one support for the later date is the problems in the church during the fifties and sixties were different from the problems during the nineties. He lists the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, etc. He then says, "These are simply symbols of false teachers and evil influences." Dear brother, these are not just simply symbols of false teachers and evil influences. The truth is, Paul and Peter and John never mentioned the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in any of their books which were written prior to 70 A.D. However, John did mention the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in his book written during the time Domitian was on the throne, about A. D. 95 or 96. Remember, Fox says Domitian banished John to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5).
Under point No. 4 our brother said, "The evidence for this later date seems to be very inadequate for any solid proof." Dear brother, I have already shown where Fox, on page 5 of his history of persecution against the church, wrote that Domitian banished John to the Isle of Patmos where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Is this not some "solid proof"? He goes on to say, "It seems to be an assumption which has been taken for granted." My dear brother, your book is full of assumptions which you have taken for granted. Our dear brother went on to say, "What event, after A.D. 96, would fulfill John's prophecy? We have no history of any such event ever occurring after A.D. 70." My dear brother, Fox's Book Of Martyrs is a history of such an event which occurred after A.D. 70. The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon is a history of the persecution the city of Rome brought upon the Christians after 70 A.D. It is also a history of "such event." Gibbons says, "The edification of the new Jerusalem was to advance by equal steps with the destruction of the mystic Babylon; and as long as the emperors who reigned before Constantine persisted in the profession of idolatry, the epithet of Babylon was applied to the city and to the empire of Rome" (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbons, Vol. 1, Page 405). Dear brother, just because you don't know of such event after A.D. 96 does not mean it did not occur. The New Jerusalem which you say is the church in Revelation 21, following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., is what Gibbons calls a place of edification following the destruction of mystic Babylon, and thus Mystery Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots, was the city of Rome as well as the empire of Rome. On the same page, Gibbons went on to say, "All these were only so many preparatory and alarming signs of the great catastrophe of Rome, when the country of the Scipios and Caesars should be consumed by a flame from Heaven, and the city of the seven hills, with her palaces, her temples, and her triumphal arches, should be buried in a vast lake of fire and brimstone." Jerusalem was never known as the city of the seven hills. My dear brother, now you have some of the history, which you did not know exists. You are so wrapped up in the 70 A.D. doctrine that you can't see any thing of a catastrophic nature in either the Old Testament, or New Testament that does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. You have become so influenced by the Max King A.D. 70 doctrine that you have swallowed all of it but the literal resurrection from the dead and a literal second coming of Christ and a literal judgment. I believe you have swallowed the rest of it.
Support for the A.D. 67-68 date of Revelation
Under Point No. 1 on P. 8, he lists Philip Schaff who lists 20 recognized historians who believe that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. I do not have Philip Schaff in my library. Our dear brother could have also listed Max King and his followers. You could have told us that Max King believes that the Resurrection, second coming of Christ, Judgment day, and the end of the world all occurred in 70 A.D. You could have then listed numbers of preachers who believe this. You could have told us that you believe and teach some of it. You might even mention some historians that believe it. But this would not prove it.
Under Point No. 2, on Page 8 you say, "Historians also record the fact of the burning of Rome which occurred in A.D. 64. This event was significant in bringing on the Roman persecution of Christians." This is all true. But it is also true that persecution increased when Domitian became the emperor. You could have also told us that Domitian banished John to the isle of Patmos where he wrote the book of Revelation (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5). You could have also told us that Edward Gibbons said the city of Rome bore the epithet Babylon that John talks about in Revelation 17 and 18 (Vol 1 of Gibbons' Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, P. 405).
Under Point No. 3, you say, "Revelation 2:2 speaks of false apostles. Since John was the only apostle to survive beyond A.D. 70 such a claim in A.D. 96 would have been foolish and totally untenable." There was only one church before A.D.70. There is only one true church now. Is it foolish and totally untenable to say there are hundreds of false churches now?
Under Point No. 4, you say, "Revelation 17:10-12 seems to put the time of writing during the reign of the sixth king. This, according to Bible scholars, was the reign of Nero." Dear brother, it all depends on which Bible scholar you consult. The Bible scholars cannot agree on this. Some say Julius Caesar should be number one, and others say no, he was not actually an emperor. Some count Galba, Ortho and Vitellius, but others reject them because they ruled briefly and were never recognized as emperors by the provinces. Some date the book during the reign of Vespasian, but he never persecuted the church. Both Nero and Domitian persecuted the church. Some Bible scholars say Domitian was the emperor who demanded emperor worship, not Nero. Some Bible scholars make use of the Nero Redivius Myth. According to this Myth, Nero did not actually die from his self-inflicted wounds but escaped to the east, where he was received and appreciated by the Parthians, and he was gathering an army to come back and take possession of Rome. John did not believe this Myth, but the Holy Spirit made use of it so the Christians would understand the book, but the persecutors would be confused by it. Nero would be the beast that received a "deadly wound" which was healed (Rev. 13:3). He was healed when he was re-incarnated in Domitian. The beast that "was" Nero came back in the beast that "is" Domitian. In view of all this we see that our dear brother just mentions what some Bible scholars say. He, naturally, mentions the ones that agree with him.
Under Point No. 5, he says "Revelation 1:3 states the time is at hand." He thinks this means all things that are in the whole vision. He thinks that this puts it in the time frame of the first century. My dear brother, that may be true. But A.D. 96 is in the same century that A.D. 68 is in. It is only 22 years later. My dear brother, you have no argument here.
Under Point No. 7, he says, "No New Testament writer mentions the fall of Jerusalem as a past event. Doesn't this seem very strange if any of them wrote after A.D. 70 since this was such a great event?" Yes, if you accept the teaching of Max King and his followers. So far as they are concerned, the world ended in 70 A.D., along with the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment. All of which will occur on the last day (Jno. 12:48; Jno. 11:24; Jno. 5:28, 29; Mt. 25:31ff; 2 Pet. 3). May I remind you, dear brother, that you accept most of the Max King doctrine. As far as you brethren are concerned, A.D. 70 is the most important year in the history of the world. The truth of the matter is, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is no more significant than the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, or the destruction of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, during the Maccabean period of Jewish history. Why make such a big ado about one destruction of Jerusalem and not even consider the other two? I am sure Jeremiah and Isaiah and other faithful Jews thought the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was a big thing. I am also sure Judas Maccabees and his brothers thought what Antiochus Epiphanes did to Jerusalem was a big event, too. John is probably the only New Testament writer that wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. John wrote what the Holy Spirit gave to him. Possibly the Holy Spirit did not consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. worth writing about? Perhaps the Holy Spirit was revealing to John information about the destruction of Rome. Perhaps "Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots" is the city of Rome and not the city of Jerusalem.
Under Point No. 8, our brother points out that the Book of Revelation deals with things that much shortly come to pass. Under Point A. he says, "Things that would come upon that generation" (Mt. 23:36). Did you notice he did not give a verse in the Book of Revelation that says "In that generation?" He makes his assumption that the Book of Revelation is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. This is an assumption he cannot prove. In fact we will prove from his own argument, later, that it's altogether possible that it cannot be Jerusalem that is called Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots. Under Point C. he mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 A.D., and gave Matthew 24:34 as proof. I agree he proves from Mt. 24:34 that the destruction of Jerusalem would occur in that generation. History shows this took place in 70 A.D. What he has not proved is that the Book of Revelation is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, that would occur in that generation. He then says, "This earlier date seems to have solid internal, as well as external, support." My dear brother, you have given external support, by quoting Foy Wallace Jr. and Philip Schaff, etc. I have countered that evidence by quoting Fox's Book Of Martyrs, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Gibbons, etc. Now what does all this mean? It means the external evidence is contradictory. It is not dependable. It does not agree. I agree with you that "the internal evidences are even stronger." However, the internal evidence does not support your view. In fact I will show that the internal evidence, which you give, with one of your main arguments, may not show that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Was Revelation written about the fall of Jerusalem or the fall of Rome?
Under Point No. 1, in this section, our brother mentions Lk. 21:20-22 to show that when they saw Jerusalem compassed with armies they would know that "all things which are written may be fulfilled." "All things which are written" cannot include any New Testament book, including the book of Revelation, because no New Testament book was written when Jesus made that statement. "All things which are written" refers to prophecy in the Old Testament. And only prophecy in the Old Testament that referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is just one of the many times our dear brother wrests, perverts, and twists the Scriptures to make them support his theory.
Under No. 2, our dear brother lists Revelation 10:7 where John says, "The mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." He makes this refer to everything the prophets have said, both in the Old Testament and New Testament. Dear brother, this is Max King's argument, to support his A.D. 70 doctrine, that everything ended in A.D. 70, the final judgment, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the end of the world. Our dear brother is assuming that the Mystery of God in Rev. 10:7 is the same Mystery of God in Eph.3:1-7. In Ephesians the mystery of God has to do with God's plan to send Jesus into the world to die on the cross, to purchase the church with his blood, and to make both Jews and Gentiles a part of the plan. The Mystery of God in Rev. 10 has to do with the persecution of Christians and the final overthrow of Mystery Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. Mystery, in both cases refers to something hidden in the mind of God that would be revealed.
On Page 9, under this section of his book, our dearly beloved brother reaches a conclusion. His conclusion is that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, all prophecy, in both the Old and New Testaments was fulfilled. This would mean our brother is making Max King's Argument that the prophecy of Peter in 2 Pet. 3, about the end of the world, and everything being burned up and dissolved has been fulfilled. If all prophecy was fulfilled when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, then the prophecy of Jesus in Jno. 5:28, 29 was fulfilled, too. Therefore, the resurrection has come already and Hymenaeus and Philetus were right to overthrow the faith of people ( 2 Tim. 2:17, 18) and Paul was wrong to condemn them, and dis-fellowship them. This would also mean that since all prophecy was fulfilled that the prophecy of Jesus Christ in Jno. 12:48 has been fulfilled, and thus we have already been judged by the words which Jesus spoke. Dear brother, you might as well go ahead and accept all of Max King's 70 A.D. doctrine, because your arguments, as we have shown, will force you to do so.
Under Point No. 3, our brother mentions the souls under the altar who had been slain for their testimony of God. Under Point A, he then mentions Revelation 17:6 to show the great city, which he believes is Jerusalem, was filled with the blood of saints. Then under Point B, he mentions Revelation 18:24 where he says, in what he believes was Jerusalem, was the blood of prophets, saints and all that were slain upon the earth. Under Point C, he then list Mt. 23:35-37 where Jesus said that upon Jerusalem would "come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from Able to Zacharias." He stops there with his quotation, but Jesus went on to say, "whom you slew between the temple and the altar." The reason he stopped quoting Jesus, where he did, could be he wants to get all blood on Jerusalem which was shed in the entire world, for all time. He makes them guilty of all of blood shed of prophets and saints for all time. He then connects the book of Revelation to it, and makes the book of Revelation deal with the same blood shed for his so-called proof that the Book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. This is some of his so-called internal evidence, which is nothing more than an example of his wresting, twisting, and perverting the Holy word of God Almighty. My dear brother, shame on you. Under Point D, he then goes to Lk. 13:33 and tries to tie it into the Book of Revelation and his view that all prophecy has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. He quotes Jesus, "For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." He then ties this in with Revelation to try and prove the Book of Revelation was written before 70 A.D. There is no question, Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in Lk. 13:33. Jesus made that statement around 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. At the time Jesus made that statement, no prophet was perishing anywhere, but in the city of Jerusalem. Jesus did not say for it cannot be that a prophet will never perish out of Jerusalem. This is another example of this man wresting and twisting the Scriptures. Peter and Paul were prophets, were they not? Jerome said, Peter "was crucified, his head being down and his feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was" (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 4). Fox is quoting Jerome. Fox says this took place in Rome, not in Jerusalem. This occurred thirty something years after Jesus made His statement in Lk. 13:33. Fox tells us Paul also gave his neck to the sword, in Rome, not Jerusalem, during the persecution of Nero (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 4). Many other prophets perished out of Jerusalem, both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70. However, each one of them perished thirty something years after Jesus made His statement. I want to take the space to mention some of them. All of this information is taken from Fox's Book Of Martyrs. Philip "suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia" in A.D. 54 (P. 3). Matthew was martyred in Ethiopia in A.D. 60 (P. 3). Andrew was crucified in Edessa (P. 3). Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria (P. 3). Jude, who was commonly called Thaddeus was crucified in Edessa in A.D. 72 (P. 4). Bartholomew was beaten and then crucified in India (P. 4). Thomas, called Didymus was martyred, in Parthia, or India, being thrust through with a spear (P. 4). Luke was hanged on an olive tree in Greece (P. 4, 5). Simon, surnamed Zelotes was crucified in Britain in A.D. 74 (P. 5). Barnabas was killed about A.D. 73 apparently in his home in Cyprus (P. 5).
One Of His Main Arguments
Now we come to Point E, on Page 10. This is where we find what he considers to be One Of His Main Arguments. This is his strong Internal Evidence for dating the Book Of Revelation before 70 A.D. Our dear brother says, "Revelation 11:8 - John said that great city was where our Lord was crucified. Now what city are we discussing?" Dear brother, you could be wresting, twisting, and perverting the word of God. Revelation 11:8 does not say that great city Mystery Babylon the Great was where our Lord was crucified, i.e. Jerusalem. The words Mystery Babylon the Great are not found in Revelation 11:8. You are assuming "the great city", in Rev. 11:8, is "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" in Revelation 17:18. You think "the great city" in Rev. 11:8 is Jerusalem. However, Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth. Rome is the city that ruled over the kings of the earth. You are assuming "the great city", in Rev. 11:8, is that great city, which is "the great whore that sitteth upon many waters" in Rev. 19:1. However, the many waters are "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" (Rev. 19:15). Jerusalem did not sit upon peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Rome is the city that sat upon peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. You are assuming "the great city", in Rev. 11:8, is the woman, (whore), that is riding on the beast in Rev. 17:3-5 which was Mystery Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. However, the beast was one of the kings of the Roman empire that received a deadly wound which was healed (Rev. 13:3). He is the beast that "was and is not", and "yet is", which ascended out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 17:8). The woman that sat upon this beast was Rome, and not Jerusalem. Jerusalem never did ride upon the beast of the Roman empire. Rome is the harlot that rode upon the scarlet colored beast. Our dear brother is assuming "the great city", in Rev. 11:8 is the woman who is riding upon the beast with seven heads, "which are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth" (Rev. 17:9). However, Jerusalem is not the city that sat upon seven hills, or mountains. Rome is the city that sits upon seven hills, or mountains. Rome is the city that sat upon the kings, or emperors (Rev. 17:7-11) not Jerusalem. Our dear brother does much assuming. However, there is no way Jerusalem can measure up to the description of "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots." Rome is the only city that can fit that description. Remember Gibbons in his book The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume one, Page 405 said, "The epithet of Babylon was applied to the city and to the empire of Rome." Both internal and external evidence point to Rome and not Jerusalem.
What Great City Is John Speaking Of In Revelation 11:8?
This passage is a difficult passage. Many scholars have had difficulty with it for many generations. It is possible that "the great city" where the bodies of the two witnesses lay unburied is Jerusalem. This would not mean that "that great city Mystery Babylon The Great" is the city of Jerusalem. We have already proven that it cannot be. It would simply mean that the Roman emperor, who was the "beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit" (Rev. 11:7) had killed them in Jerusalem instead of Rome. Domitian, the Roman emperor was not only killing Christians in Rome, he was killing Christians in the seven churches in Asia, the Christians to whom this book was written to encourage. And no doubt Domitian was killing Christians in Jerusalem, too. If this is the proper interpretation, John is saying the great city Jerusalem is spiritually, or mystically called Sodom. This would mean that the great city Jerusalem, where the bodies of the two witnesses lie, is just as immoral and corrupt as Sodom was. John would also be saying Jerusalem is spiritually, or mystically called Egypt. This would mean that the great city Jerusalem is as corrupt as Egypt was. However, as corrupt as Jerusalem was, Mystery Babylon the Great, the woman who was a harlot, could not have been Jerusalem. Jerusalem could not be the woman riding the scarlet colored beast. The city of Rome is the only city that can fit the description.
On Page 10, under his NOTE, he says, "These verses seem to support the idea that Revelation was written about the destruction of Jerusalem and would therefore necessitate the early date of writing." My dear brother, these verses do not seem to support the destruction of Jerusalem. The truth is these verses support what the historians Fox and Gibbons say with reference to dating the Book of Revelation in A.D. 95, or 96 when Domitian was the emperor of Rome. Gibbons would be right when he says, "The epithet of Babylon was applied to the city and to the empire of Rome" (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, P. 405).
When our brother, Max King, and many others read Revelation 11:8 where John said, "where also our Lord was crucified"; they jump on it like a dog jumping on a bone. They think they have found the magic passage that proves the Book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. They read, "where also our Lord was crucified" and they jump with glee, because Jerusalem is the city where our Lord was crucified. However, when you look at the passage closely, the "bone" does not taste so good. Also, those who jump with glee, do not jump as high and gleefully. In the first place "the great city" of Rev. 11:8 is not "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" of Rev. 17:18. This is true for the simple reason that Jerusalem did not reign over the kings of the earth. But let's just give them their bone to jump on, for a moment. Let's just let them jump for glee for a moment. Suppose they are right? Let's look at the consequences of their being right! John would be saying, that great city which is Mystery Babylon The Great is spiritually (or mystically NASV) called Sodom and Egypt, and also Jerusalem! John would be saying, therefore, the great city Mystery Babylon The Great would not be Sodom, Egypt, or Jerusalem; but spiritually, or mystically called Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem. Therefore, the great city Mystery Babylon The Great is not geographically Sodom, Egypt, or Jerusalem; but spiritually, or mystically called Sodom, and Egypt, also where our Lord was crucified, i.e. Jerusalem. This great city, Mystery Babylon The Great, was not geographically Sodom. Therefore, the Book of Revelation was not written prior to the destruction of Sodom, and thus telling us about the fall of Sodom; but the great city was spiritually, or mystically called Sodom, because it was just as corrupt and immoral as Sodom was. This great city, Mystery Babylon The Great, was not geographically Egypt. Therefore, the Book of Revelation was not written prior to the destruction of Egypt, and thus telling us about the fall of Egypt; but the great city was spiritually, or mystically called Egypt, because it was just as corrupt and immoral as Egypt, and persecuted the people of God as Egypt did. This great city, Mystery Babylon The Great, was not geographically the place where our Lord was crucified, i.e. Jerusalem. Therefore, the Book of Revelation was not written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and thus telling us about the fall of Jerusalem, but the great city was spiritually, or mystically called Jerusalem, because it was just as corrupt and immoral as Jerusalem, and persecuted the people of God as Jerusalem did. You now have your bone, so jump on it! You can jump with glee. However, honest people, who examine this carefully, will not be enjoying the bone, or jumping with glee!
Further Evidence
On page 10, of his book, our dear brother proceeds to mention what he considers as further evidence for the destruction of Jerusalem instead of the destruction of Rome. Under Point No. 4 he says "The destruction of Rome occurred some 400 years later." I suppose he means some 400 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, since under Point No. 5 he says the fall of Rome occurred in 476 A.D. Our brother gave no proof at all that Rome fell some 400 years after Jerusalem fell. He just said it did and gave no proof to back up his claim. His argument is, "shortly come to pass" could not possibly be 400 years. Yet, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). Paul said, "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth" (Rom. 9:27, 28). The Lord's work , thus had to do with the call of Abraham and the promise of Jesus who is the seed of Abraham, and that a remnant of Israel would be saved. Paul spoke of this as a "short work." It took more than 400 years for God to complete this "short work." Job said, "Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble" (Job 14:1). Yet, in Job's day men were still living to be nearly 200 years old. Just a few years earlier they were living to be almost a 1000 years old.
Under point No. 5, on Page 10, he asked if miracles continued until A.D. 476? He says these miracles continued until the seventh angel sounded, Revelation 10:7. He does a lot of assuming here. In the first place he assumes the statement "the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets" (Rev. 10:7), is the same mystery of God in Eph. 3. This he cannot prove. He then assumes that the mystery of God which was declared to his servants the prophets was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He then assumes that since the mystery of the gospel about the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 70 A.D. that all miracles ceased in 70 A.D. We will say more about this later, when we get to his argument about the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. At this point, we will simply refer to what happened to the Apostle John years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and ask him if this was a miracle? Notice this quote from the historian Fox. "From Ephesus he (John) was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury" (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5). Do you think a man could be thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil and escape without injury and it not be a miracle? Our dear brother appears to have accepted the Max King 70 A.D. doctrine that miracles ceased in 70 A.D. I find nothing in the Bible to prove this. We will have more to write about this later, Lord willing.
Strongest Evidences That The Revelation Was Written
Prior To The Destruction Of Jerusalem
The above statement is found at the bottom of Page 10 of his book under the number 6. He makes his arguments under A through H. Under Point A. he says, "Daniel is foretelling the coming of Christ, the establishment of the Church, and the elimination of the Jewish economy." Daniel does talk about the coming of Christ. However, I do not read anything about the establishment of the church, in Daniel 9. Neither do I read anything about the elimination of the Jewish economy. I do find prophecy about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, but nothing about the Max King Doctrine about the end of the Jewish economy, or the Jewish world. In verse 24, our brother mentions "To seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." Max King and our dear brother think this means when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. that all miracles, visions, and prophecy ceased. They argue that all the Apostles, who were still living after 70 A.D. lost their baptism of the Holy Ghost, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Our dear brother, and Max King, think that is what Daniel is saying. Thus, according to them, John could not have written the Book of Revelation, and First, Second, and Third John, after the destruction of Jerusalem; because "all miracles, visions, and prophecy had ceased." Our dear brother and King need to tell us that if "to seal up the vision and prophecy" means all spiritual gifts ended with the destruction of Jerusalem, would not "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins", mean all sin and transgression was eliminated in 70 A.D.? The truth is sin and transgression ended at the cross. Not in the sense that there has been no sin and transgression since the cross, but that sin and transgression was taken care of at the cross. Daniel is talking about the cross too, and transgression and sin ended at the cross. If they are saying transgression and sin ended at the cross and miracles and inspiration ended in 70 A.D., at the destruction of Jerusalem; they still have a problem. If miracles and inspiration ended so no more books of the Bible could be written, why didn't sin end so no one could ever sin again? We will say more on this later, Lord willing. The truth of the matter is Daniel is not saying what they make him say. Transgression and sin was taken care of when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Taken care of, not in the sense it could never be committed again, but in that it could now be removed, instead of "remembered" (Heb. 10:3, 4) . The truth is, the prophecy and vision of Daniel is what was to be sealed up in verse 24. There is no evidence Daniel is saying there would be no more visions and prophesies after 70 A.D.
Under Point B he says, "Zechariah 13:1-5 - This prophet also speaks of the time when prophets and evil spirits will pass out of the land. Chapter 14 shows this to have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70." I agree that Zechariah, in Chapter 13 teaches that God would cause the prophets and unclean spirits to pass out of the land. He also says "He would cut off the names of the idols out of the land." He also said, "in that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness." I don't believe our brother can prove all this happened in 70 A.D. Our dear brother picks up on Max King's 70 A.D. Doctrine here, as he does in many other places. I don't believe the fountain for sin was opened in 70 A.D. (Zech. 13:1). I don't believe the prophets passed out of the land in 70 A.D. I find no reason to believe John ceased to be a prophet in 70 A.D. I find no reason to believe John ceased to do miracles in 70 A.D. I find no reason to believe the "shepherd was smitten" (Zech. 13:7; Mt. 26:31), in 70 A.D. Jesus is the Shepherd. He was smitten at the cross, and His sheep, the Apostles were scattered (Mt. 26:56). I do not believe (Zech. 14:2) where the prophet said, God would "gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle" is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Reason Number 1, It was all nations gathered against Jerusalem in Zech. 14:2, but only Rome, was gathered against Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Reason Number 2, when Rome was gathered against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and Jerusalem was destroyed, all nations who came against Jerusalem did not go up to Jerusalem to worship God and keep the feast of tabernacles. Neither were those who refused to go up punished by "no rain" (Zech. 14:16, 17). If Zech. 14 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. then "the pots in the Lord's house" (the temple) are still holy unto the Lord of Hosts: and animal sacrifices continued (Zech. 14:20, 21) to be offered after 70 A.D. In addition to this, the temple would still be standing after 70 A.D. My dear brother, you are perverting Zech. 14.
Under Point No. C, our brother says, "Joel 2:28-32 - This prophet spoke of the coming of the Spirit of God to guide and direct His people in the early church and spoke of the day of the Lord with reference to the destruction of Jerusalem." My dear brother, Joel did tell us that the Holy Spirit would come upon all flesh (Joel 2:26-32). Peter quotes Joel and told the people on Pentecost "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16-21). Joel said, "afterward" (Joel 2:28). Peter said "last days" (Acts 2:17). Joel said, "The great and the terrible day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31). Peter said, "That great and notable day of the Lord." Neither Joel, nor Peter said this day was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Our dear brother, Max King, and most all of King's followers say this was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. My dear brother, and all readers, please listen carefully. The "terrible" day of the Lord (Joel 2:31) and the "great and notable" day of the Lord (Acts 2:20), was not the day of the destruction of Jerusalem. Because Jerusalem was not destroyed on a terrible, or notable day, but during a terrible and notable year, the year, 70 A.D. The "great and notable day of the Lord" was the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Max King, and his followers, including our dear brother read in Acts 2 Peter's quotation of Joel 2. Peter and Joel said, "I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2:19). They then read what Jesus said in Mt. 24, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Mt. 24:29, 30). They then jump to the conclusion that both passages are talking about the same thing. But they are not talking about the same thing. Jesus, in Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in the year70 A.D. Peter and Joel are talking about the Great and Notable day of the Lord, which was the day of Pentecost. The sun was turned into darkness, and the moon into blood while Jesus was being crucified (Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33; Lk. 23:44, 45). Of course not literally, either while Jesus was being crucified, or in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. In the case with the crucifixion, since there was three hours of darkness (Mt. 27:45), the sun would be darkened, and the moon would give the appearance of blood. This happened before the day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost was a "great and notable day of the Lord" for many reasons. It was the first day that men could "call on the name of the Lord" and be saved. It was the first day the Gospel of Christ was preached in fact. It was the first day men were baptized with the Holy Ghost. It was the first day of the church. Indeed, it was a great and notable day of the Lord. When Max King and his followers, including our dear brother, read about any day of importance, to them it's the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Let me remind you again, A.D. 70 was not a day of the Lord, but a notable year of the Lord.
Under point D our brother says Joel was quoted by Peter to show that spiritual gifts lasted "until the great and notable day of the Lord." He assumes, again, that the great and notable day of the Lord is A.D. 70, which is not a day, but a year. Joel did not say spiritual gifts would last until the "great and notable day of the Lord." Peter is showing that this is when spiritual gifts began. Peter and Joel say nothing at all about when spiritual gifts would end. He says, "If we apply this to the final coming of Christ, then miracles still exist." Dear brother, we do not apply this to the final coming of Christ. If we do people can call on the name of the Lord and be saved the day the Lord comes back. Of course, Max King applies it to the final coming of Christ. King teaches A.D.70, at the destruction of Jerusalem, was the final coming of Christ. It is refreshing you do not agree with him on that, YET.
Under point E our dear brother says, "Mt.24:29-30, Mk. 13.24 and Luke 21:11 Christ is quoting from Daniel and Joel's prophecy." This is not so my friend. You are wresting, twisting, and perverting Scripture again. Those who read this book will look at Joel chapter 2 and see that none of it is quoted in Mt. 24:29-30, Mk. 13:24, and Lk. 21:11. Daniel is quoted in Mt. 24, etc., but not Joel. Daniel and Joel are talking about entirely different dates and different things.
Under Point F he argues that in Micah 7:15 the prophet predicted that miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit would continue for 40 years, the same amount of time the children of Israel were in the wilderness. He thinks the "marvelous things" of Micah 7:15 is the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. No proof at all for such a conclusion. Our dear brother sure does have a vivid imagination, or could this be plagiarism again? The truth of the matter is, the church of the Lord is not mentioned in Micah chapter seven. The church is mentioned in chapter four. Micah says, "in the last days" the house of the Lord would be established in the top of the mountains. Isaiah gives the same prophecy in Isa. 2:2. In both passages the law of the Lord would go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. There is nothing in the book of Isaiah or Micah about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Micah did say, "Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest" (Micah 3:12). This was fulfilled when the Babylonians came and took them away into captivity for 70 years. Then in the next chapter, chapter 4, the prophet talked about the establishment of the church "in the last days" (Micah 4:1, 2). Now let's look at Micah 7:15. In fact let's begin reading with verse 14. The prophet said, "Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvelous things" (Micah 7:14, 15. Notice, the passage says nothing about miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, in the church. The "him" is the children of Israel who dwell in the wood, in the midst of Carmel, Bashan and Gilead. They are the ones who see the "marvelous things." The passage does not say they will see the "marvelous things" for forty years. The statement, "According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt" does not say according to the NUMBER of days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt. Those who put number in this passage add to it, pervert it and wrest it! The New American Standard version reads, "As in the days when you came out from the land of Egypt, I will show you miracles." Nothing is said about 40 years in this passage. The days have reference to coming out from the land of Egypt. Nothing is said about wandering in the wilderness for forty years. They saw the miracles when they came out of Egypt at the Red sea. Nothing, in this passage, says anything about the Lord's church in the city of Jerusalem. It certainly does not begin with the first miracle Jesus did in 30 A.D. and continue until 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. I want us also to notice the passage in the American Standard Version of the Bible. The passage says, "As in the days of thy coming forth out of the land of Egypt will I show unto them marvelous things." This translation, as well as all others I checked, says nothing about 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Neither do they say people in the last days will see miracles for the same number of days of wandering in the wilderness. My brother, like all false teachers, is reading between the lines what he apparently wants the passage to say, but it does not say what he says it says!!
On Page 12, our dear brother issues a challenge for us. He asks us to read the book of Acts and "determine the number of times we find Christian persecution being instigated by Jews in comparison with the number of times it was instigated by Romans." Dear brother, we would not expect to find any persecution instigated by Rome in the book of Acts. The book of Acts was written before Rome started persecuting Christians. Rome did not start persecuting Christians before Nero's reign, which is about the time you think the Book of Revelation was written.
Chapter 1
We will now turn our attention to his actual commentary on the book of Revelation. Earlier he told us, in his book, he didn't like to consider it as a commentary, just a "study guide." Therefore, we will refer to it as his "study guide." We will not refer to everything he mentions in his "study guide." We will only give attention to those points which he appears to think are the most important. We will also give attention to his perversions.
On page 13 in paragraph No. 6, he says, "If we fail to see that this vision was to be fulfilled in the lives of those early Christians, then we have a serious indictment made against the inspiration of John and what he said." By this statement he is implying those early Christians were Christians who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. May I remind him that John was one of those early Christians that lived before A.D. 70, but he also lived until after the reign of Domitian. He was still living when Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him from the Isle of Patmos where Domitian had banished him (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5). If they were early Christians, because they lived between A.D 30 and A.D. 70, why would they not also be early Christians if they lived until A.D.96, which was just 26 more years? How can this man expect people to agree with him making blunders like this?
In the last paragraph, on Page 13, he said, "Churches at that time had spirit-inspired men who could interpret the symbols for other Christians." He assumes at that time was before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He also assumes spiritual gifts ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem. He uses the Max King argument on Joel 2 about the great and notable day of the Lord to attempt to prove this. We have already noticed this argument. We have already shown this is a perversion of the Scriptures. Joel says nothing about when spiritual gifts would cease. The great and notable day of the Lord was the day of Pentecost, when spiritual gifts began, not ended. 70 A.D. was a notable year, not a notable day.
Under verse 3, on Page 14, our dear brother argues, that the Christians "could save their physical lives by doing what Christ and the apostles had told them (flee out of the City Matthew 24:15-18)." This is an excellent study guide! John is writing to seven churches in Asia to let them know when to flee out of the city of Jerusalem!
Under verse 4, on Page 15, he says, "The seven spirits of the seven churches are before the throne of God. This seems to be saying that the spirit of those Churches are in complete harmony and unity with God and Christ." My dear brother, please look at the verse. It says, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness..." My dear brother, the seven spirits cannot be the seven spirits of the churches, whatever that means; because the epistle is sent to the seven churches from God the Father, "which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits" which are in Heaven before the throne, "and from Jesus Christ." This epistle is sent to seven churches from three persons who make up Deity, who are in heaven. The number seven is a complete number, simply referring to the complete Holy Spirit. The letter was written to seven churches in Asia, from all three persons who make up Deity.
Under verse 5, on Page 15 he tells us that Jesus being the "first begotten", or "first born" in the New American Standard Version, was not the first person to rise from the dead, but "the first one to raise who had totally conquered death and would die no more." He list the following Scriptures to try and prove this: Rom. 6:9; Acts 13:33-37; 26:23; Rev. 1:18. All the Scriptures he gives prove Jesus would never die again. However, they do not prove that is what "first born" or "first begotten" means. God tells us what He means by "first born" in Ps. 89. God said He would make David his first born king, "Higher than the kings of the earth" (Ps. 89:27). Look at Ps. 89:20-29. David was made God's first born king, i.e. the pre-eminent king. Under the Old Testament, the first born son was the pre-eminent son who inherited twice as much as all the other sons (Dt. 21:17). Therefore, the first born son was the pre-eminent son. Jesus, being the "first born" from the dead is pre-eminent in the resurrection. Jesus being the "first begotten" one brought into the world was the pre-eminent One whom the angels were told to worship (Heb. 1:6). Jesus being "the first born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29), is the pre-eminent one among all brethren. Jesus being "the first born of every creature" (Col. 1:15) means Jesus is pre-eminent over all creatures, because all creatures were created by Him, in heaven, or in earth, both visible and invisible, including all ranks of angels (Col. 1:16). Jesus is "the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first born from the dead ; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence" (Col. 1:18).
Under verse seven, on Page 15, our brother said, "The coming of Christ here is His coming in judgment upon those who are persecuting the Church and killing many of the Christians. This coming is referred to in Mt. 26:64; 24:30; Zech. 17:1ff; 12:10-14." Not so, my dear brother. My dear brother has been so influenced by the Max King doctrine that he cannot read about the coming of Christ without thinking it was in 70 A.D. in judgment to destroy the city of Jerusalem. The coming of Christ in Mt. 26:64 is the same coming of Christ in Mt. 25:31. In both cases it refers to the end of the world and the judgment day, which shall be the "last day" (Jno. 12:48). Our dear brother says he believes in the second coming of Christ, a final judgment, and the end of the world. However, he uses the same passages of Scripture Max King and his followers use to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, as the end of the world. Max King and his followers believe the destruction of Jerusalem was the end of the world, the resurrection day, the judgment day, and the second coming of Christ. Our dear brother claims he doesn't, but the more I read his book, the more I am convinced that if he has not gone all the way with Max King, he is getting close. Mt. 24:30 is talking about the coming of Christ to destroy the city of Jerusalem, because of the context in which it is found. Jesus is answering the question about when the temple would be destroyed, and the fact He said it would occur in that generation. However, the context is different in the other passages. We have already shown how Zech. 14 cannot be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., because the feast of tabernacles was observed after the destruction of Jerusalem, in that passage (Zech. 14:16-19); and the Lord's house was still standing, after the destruction of Jerusalem in that passage (Zech. 14:20). Zech. 12:10-14 has nothing at all to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This chapter is not talking about the Lord coming to destroy Jerusalem, but to defend Jerusalem (Zech. 12:8). In Zech. 12, the Lord is not coming to destroy Jerusalem, but to "destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." (Zech. 12:9) You talk about twisting the Scriptures, this is a brazen example of such. In Zech. 12:10 when they look upon "me whom they have pierced" will not be when Jerusalem is destroyed, but when "God will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and of supplications." When they look upon Him "whom they have pierced" will not be a time of destruction, but a time of "grace and of supplications."
He then asked us to look at Isaiah 19:1 about the Lord coming on a swift cloud to judge Egypt, and says that can't be a literal cloud, because we are talking in "code language - not literal language." My dear brother, Rev. 1:7 is not talking about the coming of the Lord to destroy Jerusalem. It is talking about the second coming of Christ to destroy the world. When Jesus came to destroy Jerusalem in A. D. 70 no human eyes saw Him literally, because they would have to be like Him to see Him as He is (I Jno. 3:1-3). When Jesus comes in Rev. 1:7, at the final judgment, "every eye shall see Him." Every eye from the first man, Adam, unto the last person born in this world. Those who pierced Him will see Him, because when Jesus comes on the last day, it will be the judgement day (Jno. 12:48). It will also be the resurrection day (Jno. 11:24), when all will be raised in incorruptible bodies, and thus be able to see Him as He is! Therefore, those who pierced Him will be present and see Him too. All nations will be gathered before Him (Mt. 25:31). He will come in literal clouds, because this is the way he was taken up (Acts 1:9). The two men in white apparel said "This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." Our dear brother knows no one saw Christ literally when He came to destroy Jerusalem, because he says, "Every eye would see the results of His coming, both Jew and Gentile." Some more wresting of the Scriptures. The Bible did not say every eye would see the RESULTS of His coming. It says "every eye shall see Him."
On page 17, of his book, as he comments on Rev.1:9 he says, "John was on the Isle of Patmos for (dia - for the sake of) the purpose of receiving the Word of God and giving the testimony of Jesus to the early Christians." Our dear brother does not tell us who his authority is to prove "(dia is for the sake of)." He just says that's what it means. He then mentions the preposition which is translated "for" in Acts 2:38, and tells us baptism is not "because their sins had already been forgiven as many people teach." He must be implying that the English preposition "for" is from the Greek preposition "dia" in both passages. If this is not what he is saying, I see no connection to Acts 2:38 in Rev. 1:9. The truth is, the Holy Spirit used two different prepositions, in the two passages. In Acts 2:38 the Holy Spirit uses the preposition "eis", whereas the preposition "dia" is found in Rev. 1:9.
What our dear brother is trying to do is prove John was not banished to the isle of Patmos by Domitian during the persecution administered by Rome, instead of Jerusalem. He then tries to back up his position by perverting Rev. 10:11. He finds, in Rev. 10:11, what he considers as proof that not only could John leave, but that he had plans to do so. Our dear brother has some more imagination! John has been prophesying, up to this point in the book of Revelation, to "many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings"; all the while he has been in the aisle of Patmos. Why would John have to leave in order to "prophesy again", from this point on in the book of Revelation to many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings? There is no proof in this verse John is going any place any time soon. Mr. Thayer, a Greek scholar and authority, commented on the preposition "dia" in his Greek-English Lexicon. He says, "or to suffer or have suffered something, Mt. xxiv.9; xxvii. 19; Lk. xxiii. 19, 25; Acts xxi. 35; 2 Cor. iv.11; Col. 3:6; 1 Pet.3:14; Rev. 1:9; vi. 9"(Thayer, P. 134). Dear brother, I hope you, and all who read this book, will look up each of those verses of Scripture. Not one of those passages will back up your interpretation of "dia" in Rev. 1:9. Not one of those verses teach John was on the Isle of Patmos to receive a revelation, as you contend. In all of these verses, "dia" translated "for" has reference to suffering persecution. I remind you again, Fox says Domitian banished John to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the book of Revelation (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5).
On page 17, under verse 10, he argues "John is not necessarily speaking of the first day of the week which we often call the Lord's day." Our dear brother then lists two Old Testament passages of Scripture to try and prove this. He mentions Isaiah 13:9 and Zechariah 14:1 and says the "day of the Lord is the day of God's destruction on these two wicked nations." In Isa 13:9 "the day of the Lord" was when Babylon was destroyed by the Medes (Isa. 13:17). In Zech. 14:1 "the day of the Lord" was when God gathered "all nations against Jerusalem to battle" (Zech. 14:2). We have already shown it could not be when God gathered Rome against Jerusalem in A.D. 70. However, our dear brother's logic falls flat here. In both Old Testament passages, the day of the Lord, was the day the destruction took place. Whereas, in Rev. 1:10, the Lord's day, was the day the Lord appeared to John to tell him to write the Book of Revelation, that tells about the persecution the seven churches in Asia would undergo up until the destruction of Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots takes place. In both Old Testament passages it's the day of the Lord, whereas in Rev. 1:10 it's the Lord's day. At the top of Page 18, our dear brother then says, "We need to be careful not to read into this passage what is not there." I want to say, "Amen, Brother". Also I want to say, "Practice what you preach!" You have certainly been guilty of reading much into many passages of Scripture that is not there!
Under verse 11, on Page 14 of his book he says, "Some claim that the fact that there were only seven churches in Asia at this time is proof that John saw the vision before the destruction of Jerusalem. After the A.D. 70 event, the churches became numerous in that part of the world." My dear brother you have made a big blunder again. There were more than seven churches in Asia before 70 A.D. There was a church in Colosse, and Hierapolis, and in the home of Nymphas (Col. 4:13-16). All of these churches were in Asia by the time Paul wrote the book of Colossians in the early sixties, i.e. before you think the Book of Revelation was written in 67 or 68 A.D.
Under verse 20 on Page 19 he says, the seven stars which are the seven angels of the seven churches could possibly be the seven spirits before the throne in verse 4. Is this some more possible plagiarism dear brother? If he is right in his fanciful imagination, the angels or messengers of the churches did not receive the revelation from God and Christ along with the seven churches in Asia; but they sent the message, along with God and Christ to the seven churches in Asia. We made this point earlier on pages 33, 34.
Chapter 2
On Page 21 of his book, he discusses the first seven verses that are addressed to the church at Ephesus. He thinks that since there were some who claimed to be Apostles which the church at Ephesus had tried and found them to be liars, proves the Book of Revelation had to be written before 70 A.D. He has no argument here, at all. It is true John was the only Apostle still living in A.D. 96. However, this does not prove there could not still be men who claimed to be Apostles. Has my friend never heard of the Mormon church? There are men in the Mormon church who still claim to be apostles. Under verse 3 he said the church at Ephesus was not about to let false teachers lead them back into the bondage of Judaism. There is nothing said about Judaism in these seven verses. John mentions the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which my dear brother says is "probably the same as the false teachers of Baal." My dear brother is dreaming again. There is nothing in the text to suggest this. At the bottom of Page 25 of his book he says, "The Old Testament prophet Baal (or Balaam) used a two-fold method to try to pollute the Israelites." He is referring to what happened in Numbers 23, 24, and 25:1-3. He went on to say, "The doctrines of Baal in this situation probably has reference to some type of false teaching in the Church, most likely Judaism." My beloved brother thinks Baal and Balaam are the same person. I am embarrassed to call this to your attention. I feel sorry for my dear brother. Baal was an idol god the Israelites frequently worshiped (Judges 2:13; 6:28-32; 2 Ch. 17:3; 21:6, etc.). This Baal was sometimes called Baalim (I kings 18:18). However, he was never called Balaam. Balaam was a man, who was a sooth sayer (Joshua 13:22). Therefore, the doctrine of Balaam cannot be the doctrine of Baal. Balaam made no pretense of serving Baal. Balaam claimed to receive his messages from God (Num. 22:8).
On Page 23 of his book, in his comments about verse 7, he tells us the tree of life is in the paradise of God, which he says is the church. If we do what God says we have access to it. I understand him to be teaching that we are eating of the tree of life now, if we are doing what God says. God protected the tree of life in the Garden of Eden with Cherubims, and a flaming sword to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life and living forever (Gen. 3:22-24). Now, he says, we have access to the tree of life. We are now eating of it. He went on to say, "If we are obedient children of God, we already have everlasting life. We don't have to wait for it." My dear brother is not only teaching much of the Max King doctrine about 70 A.D. He is also teaching Baptist doctrine, because we "already have everlasting life." He said, "We don't have to wait for it." Evidently, we can't fall!
On page 23, our dear brother, makes comments about the letter to the church at Smyrna. This is found in Revelation 2:8-11. He makes an argument that it would be absurd for someone to claim to be a Jew after 70 A.D. This is his argument that the Book of Revelation was written in A.D. 67 or 68. I suppose he thinks this is an excellent argument. The brother's reasoning?...is all wrong. A.D. 70 brought the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, just like Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Empire brought the destruction of Jerusalem nearly 600 years before Christ, and Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed Jerusalem nearly 200 years before Christ. Jerusalem was destroyed three different times. After each destruction of Jerusalem, the city still existed. After each destruction of Jerusalem there were still Jews. In spite of their destruction, there were still men who were proud to be Jews. The city of Jerusalem still exists today, in spite of it's destruction in 70 A.D. There are many men today who proudly call themselves Jews, in spite of what happened in 70 A.D. There were men in Smyrna who said they were Jews, but Jesus said they were not, but rather were the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9). My dear brother has no argument.
On Page 25 of his book, in the letter to the church at Pergamos, at verse 13, he supposes "Antipas was probably a symbolic name for some faithful servant who gave his life for the cause of Christ." Why does my dear brother suppose such? There is absolutely no reason at all to suppose such. Antipas is Antipas, just like John is John, and the church at Pergamos is the church at Pergamos. Under verse 15 he says, "The Roman emperor Nero instigated emperor worship and anyone refusing to worship him as a God was taking his life into his own hands." Our dear brother gave us no proof for his statement! In all of my studies concerning the Book of Revelation I have never seen any proof that Nero instigated emperor worship. Our brother listed Worthy Is The Lamb, by Ray Summers, as one of the books he had used in his study. Mr. Summers said, "Domitian appropriated to himself the titles of deity. He demanded that he be addressed as ‘Supreme Lord and God'" (Worthy Is The Lamb, P. 175). Summers went on to say, "When Trajan came to be emperor, he had many of the golden images melted and turned to better purposes" (P. 175).
On Page 26, our dear brother, gives comments about the letter to the church at Thyatira. Our beloved brother thinks Jezebel "is symbolic of a very sinful and heathenistic influence." He said, "she could also depict a female Judaizer who was trying to promote the old law, or it could be one who was trying to influence the Christian to idolatry or even emperor worship." In my judgment the latter is the correct view. Our dear brother tells us the fornication was not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual fornication has always been associated with idolatry (Jer. 3, and the book of Hosea, etc.). Jezebel's teaching involved "commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols" (Rev. 2:20). This was the same teaching as that done in the church at Pergamos, identified as the doctrine of Balaam, not Baal (Rev. 2:14). There is nothing in the letter to Thyatira to indicate Jezebel was a female Judaizer influencing Christians to return to the law of Moses. But, our dear brother, has to make it mean this because of the word tribulation. To him there was only one great tribulation. This being the one in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, as mentioned in Mt. 24. It is true the great tribulation of Mt. 24, the one in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, was "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Mt. 24:21). However, this great tribulation is not the only great tribulation. Our dear brother mentions a number of possibilities about this woman Jezebel. But he settles on the Judaizing position. He says, "This false doctrine, the Jewish system, is most likely what is being symbolized here and God did destroy it soon after John saw this vision. Remember the problems Paul and the other apostles had with Christians wanting to go back under the old Jewish law? God fixed it so that it would be impossible for them to revert to Judaism. He eliminated it." My dear brother, Judaism was not eliminated in 70 A.D. The temple was destroyed and never has been rebuilt. However Judaism is still here, still in Jerusalem. There is a war going on over there between Judaism and Mohammedanism. The problem in both Pergamos and Thyatira was spiritual fornication, i.e. idolatry, not Judaism (Rev. 2:14, 20). People still follow Judaism today. It has not been eliminated.
In his comments on Rev. 2:26, 27, on Page 28 of his book, he lists the following passages of Scripture: (Jer. 1:10; Isa. 11:9; Ps. 2:9; 110:2; I Cor. 6:2; 4:21). He says, "All of these passages refer to Christians and to the Gospel of Christ as instruments that will conquer and defeat everything that opposes Christ." My dear brother, this is not so! You are wresting some of these Scriptures. I think you have been influenced by the Max King A.D. 70 doctrine here. I beg all the readers to look at these passages. They do not ALL refer to Christians and the Gospel of Christ. Jer. 1:10 is talking about Jeremiah. Jeremiah was not a Christian and he never used the gospel of Christ. Isa. 11 is talking about the coming of Christ and verse 9 is talking about the peaceful nature of the church. It has nothing at all to do with fighting. In both Ps. 2:9 and Ps. 110:2 they have reference to Christ ruling the nations with a rod of iron and not Christians. You have to turn to Revelation 2:26, 27 for the first, and only passage that talks about Christians ruling with a rod of iron.
Chapter 3
On page 30 of his book, under verse 3 he says, "They were told to remember and repent. If they did not, their spiritual death would come upon them like a thief in the night." My dear brother! The passage does not say what you said it said. Jesus did not say "their spiritual death" would come on them as a thief in the night. Jesus said, "I will come on thee as a thief." They were already dead spiritually. It was not death coming as a thief, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ coming as a thief.
In the letter to the church at Philadelphia, verses 7-13, our dear brother is guilty of more perversions. He speaks the truth when he tells us Jesus is the one who has the key of David who opens and no one can shut, and shuts and no man can open. However, Isaiah 22:22 is talking about the priest Eliakim the son of Hilkiah (Isa. 22:20) being the one who had the "key of David", and not Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not mentioned in Isa. 22. Isa. 9:6, 7 is a prophecy of Christ. This prophecy tells us Christ would sit on the throne of David, but says nothing about the key of David. Our dear brother also said, "See Amos 9:11-15." In verse 11, God did say He would "raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen", but he was not talking of the time of Christ. He was talking about the return of the people of Israel to "build the waste cities, and inhabit them." This has nothing at all to do with Jesus having the key of David in Rev. 3:7. My dear brother pays no attention to context. He thus perverts the word of God over and over again.
On page 33, under verse nine, our dear brother says, "Throughout the New Testament we find that it was the Jews who initiated the persecution of the Church. They used the Romans and their laws to carry out their persecution but the source of the persecution was the Jews and their leaders." This is true in the Book of Acts. However, it is not true in the Book of Revelation. Revelation is a part of the New Testament. Therefore, my dear brother makes a false statement. The beast that came up out of the sea in Revelation 13, the Bible says "it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Rev. 13:7). In your book you claim this beast was Nero, the Roman Emperor (P. 123). I believe this beast was the Roman Emperor Domitian. Never the less, we both believe it was the Roman Emperor. The Roman Emperor was not controlled by the Jews in Jerusalem. The Roman Emperor ruled over the city of Jerusalem, as he did over all the rest of the world.
Under verse 10, he says, "The church is not promised exemption from trials and temptations but rather preservation through the great tribulation which was to come upon the entire Jewish world." My dear reader, please turn to Rev. 3 and read verse 10. Notice our dear brother changes the words "hour of temptation" to great tribulation. Notice also, our dear brother adds the word Jewish to world. He just takes all kinds of liberties with the Holy Word of God. If he needs to change a word to suit his false doctrine, he does so apparently without any compunction of conscience what so ever. If he needs to add a word to the text to make it say what he wants to, that doesn't seem to bother him in the least. My dear brother needs to read Revelation 22:18, 19 and repent and beg for forgiveness while he still has opportunity to do so. He then proceeds to pervert and twist the scriptures, on page 33, under his letters A through F. Under A he lists Mt. 24:29, 34 to get tribulation in that generation, when Rev. 3:10 does not say tribulation, but instead "hour of temptation." He desperately has to make them one and the same to date the Book of Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem. Somehow, it doesn't matter with him that he has to pervert the word of God to do so. Under point B he list Romans 16:20 about "the bruising of Satan, which would occur shortly" to mean the destruction of Jerusalem. Our dear brother cannot prove the city of Jerusalem ever persecuted Christians in Rome. However, this does not bother him to make it mean whatever he wants to. Under point C he makes the present distress at Corinth refer to persecution administered by Jerusalem, without any proof the city of Jerusalem ever persecuted the Christians in Corinth. Under E he makes "the coming of the Lord" in James 5:8 mean the Lord coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D., instead of the coming of the Lord at the end of the world. The context shows that the persecution is coming from rich men who have kept back by fraud wages they owed (Jas. 5:1-6). There is nothing in the context to indicate James is talking about persecution administered to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (James 1:1) by the city of Jerusalem. However, it doesn't bother our dear brother to make it mean what ever he wants to. Under point F he mentions I Peter 4:7 "the end of all things is at hand." He applies this to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Max King, and his followers, teaches "all things ended" in 70 A.D. My dear friend, "all things" began on the first day of creation (Gen. 1). "All things" were created by Jesus Christ (Col. 1:16, 17). In the last day the Lord will return and "all things", including the earth and the heavens will burn up and be dissolved ( 2 Pet. 3). "All things" did not end in 70 A.D., contrary to Max King, and our dearly beloved brother. Under Point G he mentions I John 2:18 teaching "the last time", or "hour", was the "time", or "hour" just before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The King James Version says "time", while the American Standard and New American Standard say "hour." The "first hour", or "time" was the "first hour" on the "first day" of creation (Gen. 1:5). The "last time", or "hour" will be the day the Lord comes back and puts an end to time. Time did not end in 70 A.D. even though Max King and his followers think so. Under Point H he mentions Revelation 3:10 which says, "I will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." This description fits persecution brought on by Rome rather than the city of Jerusalem. Rome ruled the world, Jerusalem did not. The temptation, or trial of Rev. 3:10 "came upon all the world."
Under verse 11 our brother says, "Jesus promises the church at Philadelphia that He will come quickly with His judgment to punish and reward." He then said, "see Rev. 22:12." But this passage says "every man according to his works." This is the end of the world, my dear friend. "Every man" was not in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Max King, and his followers believe A.D. 70 was the end of the world, the judgment, the second coming of Christ, and the resurrection. Dear brother, you might as well go ahead and join them. You make practically every argument they make!
Under verse 12 he argues the "new temple would be in "New Jerusalem" of Rev. 21. This New Jerusalem would have pillars. He tells us Paul gave us an example of those pillars in the temple. These examples would be Peter, James, and John based on his perversion of Galatians 2:9. He says "the old temple was to be demolished, but the new temple made up of the faithful would never be destroyed." Peter, James, and John were to be pillars in the new temple. If this wasn't so serious it would be funny. He has Peter, James, and John pillars in the temple after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but only John was still living, after the destruction of the Old temple. James had been beheaded by Herod (Acts 12). When he saw it pleased the Jews he intended to do the same thing to Peter. However, the Lord delivered Peter from the hands of Herod. However, Peter died in Rome, as we have already pointed out, before the destruction of Jerusalem. Our dear brother then perverts Amos 9:11-15 to argue no one could ever be run out of this new temple. We have already shown Amos 9:11-15 was fulfilled when God brought Israel back from captivity. The temple is not even mentioned in this passage. I don't have the space, nor time, to quote all he says at the top of Page 35. Amos teaches none of what he says. You read what this man says and you would believe the church was not the temple of God until after 70 A.D. However Paul says it was in I Cor. 3:16 and this was definitely written before 70 A.D. If he is right, Peter and James were never in the temple of God, because John is the only one still living after 70 A.D. The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26), but according to our dear brother, Christian was a new name to distinguish the members of the church from the old Jewish system. Our dear brother asked us to "See Revelation 21:4; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Hebrews 12:22-24; and Isaiah 65:17-19." The Jerusalem God created in Isaiah followed the destruction of ancient Babylon. The new Jerusalem of Rev. 21 followed the destruction of Mystery Babylon the Great which we have shown cannot be the city of Jerusalem. 2 Cor. 5:17 has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, because if any man, at any time, be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature, old things have passed away and all things become new. This has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. Our dear brother is wresting and twisting the Scriptures again. If Heb. 12:22, 23 is talking about only the time after the destruction of Jerusalem, then Peter and James, as well as Paul never came "unto Mt. Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." They had not come, because Hebrews was written before 70 A.D. How ridiculous, dear brother! We will skip his comments about the letter to the church in Laodicea. This book is going to be much longer than I intended. He did a pretty fair job here. It is the perversions, and wresting of Scripture that we want to give our attention to. It's not so much the early date, but how he arrives at the early date for the book of Revelation. Also the fact that some are pushing the early date to the dividing of churches and running some off. The message is the same for Christians today, whether the Book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, or before the destruction of Rome.
Chapter 4
In verse 2 he says, "John, in a highly spiritual state of mind." Dear brother, why not just say John was inspired of God? Christians can be in a "highly spiritual state of mind" today when we worship God, but this is not the case with John. He was inspired of God. This will make people wonder if you believe John was inspired of the Holy Spirit.
Under verses four and five, our dear brother suggest the twenty-four seats were occupied by the twelve tribes of Israel of the Old law and the twelve apostles under the New Testament. He said this symbol could also have reference to the complete church including the redeemed from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. This seems so strange to me. John was looking into Heaven through an open door (verse 1). John saw a throne set in Heaven (Verse 2). John saw the one sitting on this throne (verses 2-3). It seems to me we can all figure out who is sitting on the throne in Heaven. Don't we all agree it was GOD? John saw round about the throne in Heaven twenty-four elders sitting upon twenty-four seats. If they are in Heaven, how could this be human beings? How could this be the church? Now if he had suggested angels as a possibility, that would make sense. In verse 5 he mentions the seven lamps, which are the seven spirits of God. Earlier on pages 15 and 19 he suggested the seven spirits of God are the spirits of the churches, or stars, angels, or messengers of the seven churches. Who ever they are, they are in Heaven before the throne of God, worshiping Him. Human beings were not in Heaven when John saw this vision, with the exception of Enoch, and the possible exception of Elijah. John is a part of the church, but he was not seated, as an apostle, on one of those twenty-four seats. John was on earth looking through a door into Heaven where he saw those twenty-four seats occupied with occupants who were in Heaven at that time. How could John be in heaven on one of those twenty-four seats, and at the same time be on the earth looking through the door into heaven?
Under verse six, our dear brother says, "The sea of glass describes the peace and tranquility which would be in the New Jerusalem, the Church, when it came in its fulness." My dear brother this cannot be. In the first place the "sea of glass" was in heaven, on the inside of the door John was looking through. Furthermore, if what you say is so, the church did not come in its fulness until after 70 A.D. This is some more of Max King's doctrine. Paul said, the church is "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Paul wrote this before 70 A.D. Jesus Christ is the "fulness of the God head bodily" (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The church has been from its very beginning "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23). The church did not have to wait until 70 A.D. to become the fulness of Christ.
Under verse 7 he says the four living creatures "assure Christians that if they would live by the Word of God they would have all of the characteristics mentioned here." My dear brother, the four living creatures were in Heaven, inside that door John saw opened. The things that characterize them do not characterize Christians. They occupied Heaven, along with the 24 elders and they were engaged in worshiping Him who sat on the throne, and the Lamb who symbolized Christ, who was found worthy to open the book and loose the seven seals. All you are saying here is your fanciful imagination gone wild.
Chapter 5
In Revelation chapter 5, verses one through five, we have a scene in heaven. God is seated on His throne and there is a book in his hand sealed with seven seals. Only Christ was found worthy to open the book and loose the seven seals. Our brother said, on page 42 at the bottom of paragraph one of his book, "This book is probably the one which Daniel was told to seal up until the time of the end. See Daniel 12:4." Our dear brother then said, "If this is not that book we still have a sealed revelation of God somewhere." Our dear brother forms a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. They do not have to be the same book, and our dear brother does not prove they are the same book. He just says probably they are the same book, knowing he cannot prove the two books sealed are the same. Daniel was told to "seal the book even to the time of the end." My dear brother, like Max R. King, believes the end here is the end of the Jewish world in A.D. 70. Neither brother can prove this. It is true Daniel, among many other things, talks about the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. I know this to be true because of what Jesus said in Mt. 24:15. This does not mean "the abomination that maketh desolate set up" in Dan. 12:11, and the one in Dan. 11:31 is the same abomination and desolation as the one of Dan. 9:26 and 27. In fact they are not the same. The one in Dan. 9:23, 27 follows the Messiah being cut off (Dan. 9:26). The Messiah is Jesus Christ. He was cut off when He was crucified. Forty years after Jesus was crucified, i.e. "cut off", "the people of the prince" came to destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the sanctuary, i.e. the temple (Dan. 9:26). The prince was Titus the general of the Roman Army. Titus, the prince, along with the Roman army destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. This was the "abomination and desolation" Jesus was talking about in Mt. 24:15. In Daniel chapters 11 and 12, the prophet is talking about an entirely different time in history, and entirely different "abomination and desolation." At the time Daniel received some of his revelation from God, was during the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan. 11:1). At that time, there would be three more kings in Persia, followed by a fourth that would be "far richer than they all" (Dan. 11:2). When the Medo-Persian kingdom fell, the third kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's dream came to power (Dan. 2:31-45). The first kingdom was the Babylonian empire under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar the Great. The second was the Medo-Persian. The third world kingdom was the Greek kingdom headed by Alexander the Great. The fourth world kingdom was the Roman empire. This third world kingdom, the Greek kingdom had the "mighty king stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will" (Dan. 11:3). This great king, was Alexander the Great. He had conquered the world when he was a young man. About the age of 26 he sat down and wept because there was no more territory to conquer, according to historians. According to history, Alexander died at an early age. According to the Bible and history, his kingdom was "divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled" (Dan. 11:4). In fact historians tell us his kingdom was divided into four kingdoms ruled by the four generals in his army. Daniel refers to two of them in chapters 11 and 12. The kingdom of the north was Syrian, and the kingdom of the south was Egypt. The kingdom that brought on the "abomination that maketh desolate" in Dan. 11:31, was the kingdom of the north with it's wicked king Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, the northern emperor, i.e. the emperor of Syria, robbed the temple of all of its valuable assets, and offered swine upon the altar every day for awhile (Josephus, Antiquities Of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 5).
The book that was sealed to the "time of the end" had nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. This book that was sealed to the "time of the end" had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel begins chapter 12 of his book talking about the same time, i.e. "the time of the end." It was the time of the end of the city of Jerusalem and the temple when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed it, and not the time when Titus the general of the Roman army destroyed it in 70 A.D. Daniel begins chapter 12 by saying "At that time." It is the same time he has been talking about in chapter 11:30-45. He is talking about the same "abomination and desolation" in Dan. 12:11 that he is talking about in Dan. 11:31. It occurred when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple, offering swine flesh upon the altar. Daniel is talking about the time of Judas Maccabees and his brethren. Dear brother, you can read about it in the history of Josephus Antiquities Book 12, Chapter 6. No, my dear friend, we do not have a "sealed revelation of God somewhere." The book Daniel was told to seal up til the time of the end was revealed at the time of the end of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes. The book that was sealed in Rev. 5 was opened by Christ which revealed not the time of the end of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., but the time of the end and destruction of Mystery Babylon the great, which we have shown already cannot be Jerusalem.
Under verse 6, our dear brother mentions the lamb as being Christ. The lamb, who is Christ is described as "having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." This would mean Christ, has seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. In his comments on Chapter 1, back on Page 15 of his book, he says the seven spirits are the spirits of the seven churches. He said the church today should have the same spirit of harmony. This would mean the seven eyes of Christ are the spirit of harmony of the seven churches sent forth into all the earth. Sounds like nonsense to me! Now he says the seven spirits are "perhaps symbolic of the all-seeing, all power and all authority and all-knowing perfection of the truth or testimony sent forth to conquer the world. This describes Jesus with all His wonderful characteristics." My dear brother, you are right that Jesus is described with all His wonderful characteristics. Jesus is truly like a lamb, because He was offered as a sacrifice for our sins. He is truly like a lamb with seven eyes "which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the world." The Holy Spirit, i.e. the seven Spirits of God (the complete Spirit), was sent into all the world when the Gospel was preached in all the world (Mk. 16:15). Our dear brother then said, "Jesus will rule over the whole world and not just over the Jews in the land of Palestine." This is strange indeed. John said the seven Spirits of God were sent into all the EARTH. Earlier he defined earth as "Particularly the area of Palestine" (His book, P.3 ). Now he tells us Jesus would rule over all the world. Now earth means all the world. Everything means just what he wants it to mean!!
Chapter 6
In the second seal, our dear brother, tells us the red horse symbolized bloodshed. He said this was fulfilled "in the first century when non-Christian Jews killed Christian Jews and generally speaking, Jews killed Jews." He then quotes Josephus to show Jewish citizens were killed by Jewish generals. I do not question what Josephus said at all. However, John did not say anything about Jews killing Jews. John said "that they should kill one another" (Rev. 6:4). John said nothing about the first century. Our dear brother then said, on Page 48 of his book, "See Matthew 10:21 and 24:10. These two passages have reference to the decay and destruction of the city of Jerusalem." My dear friends, let's look at those two passages. Mt. 10:21 is talking about the time before the destruction of Jerusalem. The "end" in verse 22 is the end of Jerusalem. Therefore Jesus and Josephus say the same thing about conditions which existed before the destruction of Jerusalem. However, John did not say in Rev. 6:4 what Jesus said in Mt. 10:21. In Rev. 6:4 they were killing "one another." It was reciprocal. If Christians were the ones being killed, then Christians were killing in return, because they were "killing one another." In Mt. 24:10 Jesus said, "Then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another." My dear brother Mt. 24:10 does have reference to the time just before the destruction of Jerusalem. Mt. 24:10 says nothing about non-Christian Jews killing Christian Jews. Neither does it say non-Christian Jews betrayed Christian Jews. It says they "betrayed one another." If Christians are involved in Mt. 24:10, they are guilty of betraying people. If Christians are involved in Mt. 24:10, they are guilty of hating people. The two passages you ask us to look at have no connection at all to Rev. 6:4. The truth of the matter is Rev. 6 has nothing at all to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. Max King and his followers believe it does. Our dear brother believes it does. The truth is, they are all wrong.
When the fourth seal was opened the "pale" horse came forth. He said the wild beasts "has reference to people becoming like wild beasts, killing and eating each other during the height of the persecution and tribulation." He went on to say, "People turned into ravaging beasts, becoming cannibalistic and eating other humans, even their own children, to stay alive." I find nothing in Rev. 6:7, 8 to support any of his comments. The passage says, "power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." None of this fits our dear brother's teaching. He says the earth is "particularly the area of Palestine" (Page 3). Therefore, one fourth of Palestine is where they were to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. But our brother doesn't want the earth to be "particularly the area of Palestine" here. He wants it to be the city of Jerusalem. He doesn't want the "beast of the earth" to be literal beast of the earth. However, he wants the sword, and hunger, and death to be literal. Our dear brother just fixes it like he wants it, without any proof to back up the way he wants it!! Those who date the book in A.D. 95, or 96 can let the beast be literal just like the sword, hunger, and death is. The reason is, persecution administered by Rome included using the beasts of the earth, as well as literal swords, hunger, and death, to persecute Christians.
When the fifth seal was opened John saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God. Our beloved brother asked, "Who were the persecutors?" He then asked us to "Take a look at Mt. 23:35 and 24:9." We have already looked at these passages, in this book, and shown he has no proof here. He then says, "Even though the Romans persecuted and killed many Christians, it was instigated and brought on by the rebellion of the Jews against God and the Roman authority." My dear brother this is just not so. The first persecution from the Romans came from the emperor Nero. This persecution was not brought on "by the rebellion of the Jews against God." Neither was it brought on because of rebellion against the Roman authority. It was brought on because Nero set fire to Rome and decided he would blame it on the Christians. The persecution brought on by Domitian was because the Christians refused to worship him, when he called himself God. We have already answered most of what he says on Page 51 of his book. At the bottom of the page he says, "What city are we talking about?" He lists several passages which we have already covered showing him to be wrong. He list one passage (Isa. 1:21) which we have not yet covered. The passage says, "How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers." This was true when Isaiah lived and prophesied. Jerusalem had been a faithful city in the days of David, etc. However, after Jehoram became king, the faithful city became a harlot. Jehoram married Atthalia the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel and the faithful city worshiped Baal, thus becoming a harlot (2 Kgs. 8:16-19). Isaiah is not talking about Jerusalem in 70 A.D. However, that does not bother our brother. He just uses anything he can grab to teach what he apparently desperately wants the Bible to teach! On Page 52, of his book, he says "See I Peter 5:13. The name Babylon has come to symbolize the ultimate in corruption and Peter here refers to Jerusalem as Babylon. There is no indication from history, or the Bible, that Peter was ever in the physical city of Babylon. However, we all know that his headquarters, as an apostle and an elder of the Church was in Jerusalem." Of course Peter was never in the physical city of Babylon. The physical city of Babylon was destroyed by the Medes and Persians, years before Peter was born (Isa. 13:17). The city never has been rebuilt, and never will be rebuilt (Isa. 13:19-22). Therefore, Peter could never have been in the physical city of Babylon. However, Peter was in the city of Rome. We have already shown from the Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol. 1, Page 405 that the "epithet of Babylon" was applied to the city of Rome. Peter was not always an elder in the church in Jerusalem. According to historians he was in Rome when he wrote the book of I Peter. He sent greetings to the brethren from the church "that is at Babylon" (I Pet. 5:13).
Now I want to consider some things our dear brother says about the sixth seal. We have already covered most of this. Therefore, we will make our comment as brief as we can. He asks us to "Compare the language of this seal with Joel 2:28ff, Mt. 24:29-31 and Acts 2:16-21." I suggest all those who read this book study and make the comparison. You will find the only statement in Joel similar to Mt. 24:29-31 is in verse 31. You can check in a good concordance and find numbers of similar statements in the Old Testament. In each case it is talking about a different situation. Jesus is not quoting Joel in Mt. 24. Peter is quoting Joel in Acts 2. Peter is quoting Joel in regards to the events on the day of Pentecost. The great and notable day of the Lord was the day of Pentecost. Joel says nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Jesus does not quote Joel in Mt. 24. This is the same perversion of Scripture that Max King does when he refers to these verses. Our dear brother either picked it up from Max King, or else he picked it up from one of the followers of the Max King A.D. 70 doctrine. These brethren have no conscience when it comes to handling the word of God. Dear brother, I am persuaded better things of you than this. I pray God you will search the Scriptures, and your heart, and repent of what you are doing while you still can. Our dear brother says, "In verse 12 the earthquakes mentioned have reference to agitations and upheavals resulting in the revolutions and wars which will shake the nations and break apart the political and religious system of things." Brother, please tell us why? I thought you believed it was the city of Jerusalem being destroyed by the Roman Empire! What nations is it? Why can it not be a literal earthquake, sent by God on the city of Rome, to warn or punish them for persecuting the church? There is only one earthquake mentioned. At the top of Page 53, of his book, he says, "For a better understanding of this, see Matthew 24:29, Hebrews 12:26-29, Haggai 2:6, 7." For a "better understanding of this" refers to this sixth seal in Rev. 6:12-17. However, these Scriptures will not help us understand the sixth seal at all. The reason being, they are not talking about the same thing. The only thing similar between Mt. 24:29 and Rev. 6 is in verse 12. You will find numbers of such verses in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament they are not always referring to the removal of the same political rulers in every case. In Mt. 24:29 Jesus is definitely talking about the removal of political leaders in the destruction of Jerusalem. However, that does not prove John is talking about the removal of the same political leaders. Our dear brother assumes it, but our dear brother has not proven it. Heb. 12:26-29 says, "Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." The Hebrew writer is referring to the time when God shook Mt. Sinai when the children of Israel were in the wilderness (Exo. 19). The Hebrew writer is not using symbolic language in the book of Hebrews. The Hebrew writer is talking about th