Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (32 page)

The rapturist position has already been proven inadequate in every passage we have so far examined, so we could probably skip the entire Apocalypse. But then I am afraid rapturists would cry, “Foul!” They have an elaborate scheme of how this book will one day be fulfilled, a scheme that deserves to be rebutted. It is not within our purpose to attempt an exhaustive commentary of this beautifully crafted book. Instead, we will read it with an eye always focused on its meaning, and whether the rapturist scheme can be reasonably derived from the text.

It was an ordinary September day, and the man who commanded the world’s most powerful army looked over the great city in silence. Just a few weeks earlier, thousands had died in an attack on it. The burning at the city’s heart could be seen from miles away.

The attack on this major center of world trade was the result of the religious fanaticism of a group of zealots in the Middle East, who, according to other adherents of their religion, had hijacked the meaning of their faith. The whole world witnessed the massive destruction visited upon the city that day.

The man who quietly looked over the destruction was the scion of a powerful political family. At this point in history, he was in charge of the only superpower remaining in the West. The man was the oldest son of the one person who might have, maybe even should have, ended the conflict with these extremists years earlier. Instead, the resentment continued to brew for years, and more than a few cheered and celebrated at the destruction.

Who was this man in charge?

Caesar Titus of Rome. And Caesar Vespasian was his father. The city that was overrun was Jerusalem, and the building that burned was Herod’s Temple. In The Apocalypse, we will investigate a day that changed the world forever: August 10, 70 A.D.

If you thought we were describing September 11, 2001, do not feel bad. You were caught in the “Winkle Warp.” As the story goes, Rip van Winkle fell asleep for twenty years in the Catskill Mountains. When he awoke, an entire generation had died off. He looked for his young daughter, only to find her holding a child of her own. He saw himself leaning against a tree, only to realize it was actually his grown son. Rip van Winkle had experienced a time warp, a “Winkle Warp.”

Rapturists experience a Winkle Warp when they read The Apocalypse. They look at the descriptions of events and misplace them by two thousand years. They are still waiting for Daniel’s seventieth week, when in fact it encompassed the seven decades of covenantal transition during the first century. The Apocalypse is a series of visions describing this transition, including the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse and the casting out of Hagar explained in Galatians. The bulk of the visions are not primarily about our future, and only a Winkle Warp can make it seem as if they are. True, we must not make the mistake of assuming that the lessons of The Apocalypse do not apply to our daily lives. When we meditate on the evil in our modern world, we need to keep the lesson of The Apocalypse before us. Yet the book must be interpreted within its frame of reference: 68 to 70 A.D. (GR3).

I believe one reason for the rapturists’ Winkle Warp is their doctrine of
sola Scriptura
. In Church-history class, they doze off at the end of the Acts of the Apostles and do not wake up until the Great Awakening (the first major Protestant revival in America, in the 1730s). Some pay slight attention to St. Augustine, but otherwise miss all of the Church’s development from 65 to 1700 A.D. Their Winkle Warp spans more than one and a half millennia!

In the process of our examination, we will try definitively to answer the question, “Will you be left behind when Jesus returns?” We have already come to a solid conclusion, but there are those who still will withhold their decision until we examine the last book of the Bible. That suits our purposes just fine, as this is the only book of the Bible that promises a special blessing to anyone who reads it: “Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near” (1:3).

Authorship, date, and frame of reference

I will interpret The Apocalypse on the premise that the apostle John was its author. This has the weight of long tradition in its favor.

As far as the frame of reference, there is substantial agreement among scholars, except rapturists, that St. John intended much of the book to be read as though it were written during the reigns of Nero and Vespasian. The switch between the two dynasties took place in 68 A.D., when Nero committed suicide. This scholarly conclusion is very well accepted for at least a major part of these visions and is the crucial conclusion for our purposes.

I go a step further than most modern scholars in that I believe the 68 A.D. frame of reference was also the actual date of authorship. Therefore I will refer to the author as St. John and to the frame of reference and the date of authorship as 68 A.D.

Although my conclusions on the author and frame of reference of The Apocalypse are very broadly accepted, that is not true as regards the date of authorship. I have discussed thoroughly my reasons for rejecting the more commonly accepted 96 A.D. date in Appendix Four. Whether you read it or not, remember the important point: there is wide scholarly support for the position that 68 A.D. is the frame of reference intended by St. John, regardless of the actual date of authorship.

Although we have discussed this period, let us review the events that scholars widely agree form the intended backdrop to The Apocalypse. Until 63 A.D., Rome considered Christianity to be a sect within Judaism, a recognized religion within the empire. The Romans had a policy of tolerating indigenous religions. Thus, Christians were free to practice their Faith without state interference.

In July of 64 A.D., that all changed. Nero finally agreed with the Sanhedrin that Christianity was not a part of Judaism. For the first time, Rome started to persecute Christians. Many Christians died, and even more deserted the young Church. The epistle to the Hebrews is evidence of the Church’s concern about this trend toward apostasy.

This state-sponsored persecution lasted from July 64 until February 67 A.D. At that point, the empire changed its mind about where the real danger to the empire lay. Jerusalem had revolted in 66 A.D. The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem stopped daily sacrifices for the emperor. This enraged Nero (who may have actually believed his own claims to divinity), and Rome soon mobilized a massive army to defeat the Jews. In turning upon Jerusalem, Rome’s attention was diverted from the intense persecution of the Church. The Roman war upon the Jews lasted precisely forty-two months, from February 67 until August 70 A.D.

St. John clearly wanted the reader to understand that his visions were a commentary on events of his time. He says that the visions describe “what
is
and what is to take place hereafter” (1:19).

John also references the prophecy of the Olivet Discourse to reaffirm that his visions are the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions concerning the end of Daniel’s final week of covenantal transition. “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, everyone who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth [better translated as “land”] will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen” (1:7). St. John obviously believed that Jesus’ predictions were occurring within the generation He mentioned. His book supplies us with the details.

One important note concerning translations should be made. The Revised Standard Version uses
earth
for the Greek word
ge
. St. John uses this word profusely throughout his visions. But this Greek word is translated as “land” about two-thirds of the time in the New Testament. That is a better translation much of the time in The Apocalypse as well. The land of
Israel
was the one suffering under these seals, because the Sanhedrin had first rejected their Messiah and then the message of His followers. This word will rear its head again and again in The Apocalypse. Rather than call attention to it each time, as in the quotation above, I will simply translate
ge
as “land” when appropriate.

When we read the book as a divine commentary on the events of Daniel’s seventieth week, it comes alive. This was an exciting time of covenantal transition. The first nineteen chapters are short, intense glimpses of the events affecting the Church during this period. It is apocalyptic literature to be sure, and so its imagery is vivid (GR 5, 6, 7); but the events that God says “must soon take place” (1:1) did just that! God kept His promise, just as the Messiah did in the predictions of the Olivet Discourse.

The theme of The Apocalypse is identical to that of Daniel: “The mystery of Christ’s Kingdom: proof that Christ is coming again.” The only difference is generated by the six hundred years of events that transpire between the two books. While Daniel envisions the time from the re-establishment of the
earthly Jerusalem
Temple to the
first
advent, St. John envisions the time from the establishment of the
New Jerusalem
Temple to the
second
advent.

Here is an outline of the structure of The Apocalypse:

The roots of this general outline are in the Church’s earliest understanding of The Apocalypse. Until the thirteenth century, virtually everyone in the Church believed that the initial vision of the seals (chs. 6–7) and trumpets (chs. 8–9) are recapitulated in the ensuing visions. The visions are linked like the visions of Daniel: they tell the same story from different angles and perspectives, while the time periods of the individual visions overlap. This is perfectly normal in apocalyptic literature and would have been understood by St. John’s initial readers—especially since they were familiar with Daniel’s outline (GR8).

St. Augustine certainly taught that the visions were not chronologically related, but that they repeatedly reviewed the time span from the first advent to the Last Judgment (GR8). In fact, this view concerning recapitulation of the visions can be traced at least as far back as Victorinus of Pettau (Victorinau), a martyr under Emperor Diocletian in 303 A.D. His is the earliest extant commentary on The Apocalypse. Some have questioned its authorship and integrity, but modern scholarship has put those issues to rest (
NCE
, XIV, 651).

Victorinus understood the visions as recapitulating the same events from different perspectives to provide emphasis and new information. Referring to the seals, trumpets, and bowls, he writes, “Although the same thing recurs in the phials [bowls], still it is not said as if it occurred twice, but because what is decreed by the Lord to happen shall be once for all; for this cause it is said twice. What, therefore, He said too little in the trumpets, is here found in the phials. We
must not regard the order
of what is said, because frequently the Holy Spirit, when He has traversed even to the end of the last times, returns again to the same times, and fills up what He had before failed to say.
Nor must we look for order in The Apocalypse
; but we must follow the meaning of those things which are prophesied” (
COA
, VII). In other words, the visions are not chronologically organized (GR8).

The
New Catholic Encyclopedia
states that this original understanding is still the best. “Section 12:1–21:8 covers the same period (as the initial vision), but centering on the role of the Church.… Even the description of the heavenly Jerusalem [recapitulates this period] (21:1–22:5), although it offers a transcendent image of the Church” (
NCE
, I).

Recently, however, this original view has been drowned out by the cacophony of rapturist voices trying to understand these visions chronologically. This system of interpretation did not really gain credence until the thirteenth century, winning more notoriety when the Reformers insisted on using this novel interpretation to justify their identification of the Pope with the antichrist. It is difficult at times to believe that, even today, interpretive choices are uncolored by the common rapturist desire to use The Apocalypse to condemn the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon.

If you have a good memory, you may have noticed that the theme and outline of St. John’s Apocalypse are identical to Daniel’s! This is very important. Here is a combined outline of Daniel and The Apocalypse.