Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (63 page)

This last piece of internal evidence makes sense only when The Apocalypse is understood in the broader contexts of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse. Since we have been careful in our examination of these two earlier sources, we are able to catch a phrase that many might easily overlook. St. John starts his book by writing, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, everyone who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him” (1:7).

What event is in view here? This is the same language surrounding Daniel’s “Son of man” vision. This is the same language Bertrand Russell misunderstood in the Olivet Discourse. In both instances, we discovered that this language refers to the events of 70 A.D. St. John is letting us in on the secret to understanding his visions. The events of Daniel’s final week of covenantal transition will take center stage for the great bulk of this book.

These nine internal evidences can let us rest assured that if The Apocalypse was not written in 68 A.D., its author certainly planned meticulously for us to think that it was. This has been the conclusion of many scholars, including the eminent scholar Philip Schaff (
HCC
, I). Because the visions purport to be prophecy, and since we do not reject the possibility of supernatural prophecy, the best understanding of the internal evidence points to a date of authorship around 68 A.D. (GR1).

“But wait,” you may ask. “What about the isle of Patmos?” St. John tells the reader he was on that isle when he saw these visions. Doesn’t everyone know that St. John was on the isle of Patmos in 96 A.D.?

Actually, there are two traditions in the very early Church concerning the imprisonment of St. John on the penal isle of Patmos. Irenaeus dated St. John’s imprisonment during the reign of Domitian, between 81 and 96 A.D. Since Irenaeus claimed the acquaintance of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, his testimony is given great weight. Yet Epiphanius states that St. John was first imprisoned under Claudius, who reigned from 41 to 54 A.D. (
HE
, II, 12, 33). Since Claudius was another name used by Nero, Epiphanius is certainly an early witness to the possibility of an earlier, 68 A.D. authorship.

So what do we make of Irenaeus? Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons until his death in about 200 A.D. Every scholar, whether ancient or modern, who holds to 96 rather than 68 A.D. bases it on Irenaeus’s witness. But Irenaeus’s testimony is not without its difficulties. Simply stated, we cannot be absolutely sure of what Irenaeus meant!

Here are the details. Speaking of the man behind the 666, Irenaeus wrote, “If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that [he/it] was seen, but almost in our own generation, towards the end of the reign of Domitian” (
AG
, V:30:3). I have put the disputed words in brackets.

The dispute centers on what or whom was seen. Was “he” (St. John) seen toward the end of the reign? Or was “it” (the visions) seen by John toward the end of the reign? The grammar of the text gives no clue as to the proper understanding (
BAP
, 256–257). The first would allow an early dating, but the second would not.

The larger context, however, seems to imply the former understanding. Earlier in this passage, Irenaeus refers to “ancient copies” of The Apocalypse. If there were “ancient copies” already in Irenaeus’s day, would this not presuppose that the original was even older? That would mean the original could not have been from 96 A.D. The context of Irenaeus’s quote turns it into a persuasive argument for an earlier dating of The Apocalypse!

Is there any other evidence to corroborate this understanding of Irenaeus and the unambiguous witness of Epiphanius? Yes. We find more external evidence in a second-century Syriac Version of the New Testament, the
Peshito
. It is the earliest of all the actual translations of the Bible, dating from within a century of The Apocalypse. The title page of The Apocalypse reads, “The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island Patmos, into which he was thrown by
Nero Caesar
.” As we have already noted, Nero died in 68 A.D. This is not irrefutable on its own, but when added to Irenaeus and Epiphanius, it is very strong evidence.

Some have tried to translate the last two words of this title page as
Domitian
rather than
Nero
. Dr. Robert Young was a meticulous student of biblical languages who compiled
Young’s Analytical Concordance
without a computer. He wrote that the emperor
(Domitianou)
being referred to on the title page was Domitius, another name for Nero
(COR)
. Dr. Young held that the original word
Domitianou
was later “stupidly mistaken” (his words) as
Domitianikos
by Sulpicious and Orosius.
Domitianou
would refer to Nero, who died in 68 A.D., while
Domitianikos
would refer to Domitian, who began his rule in 95 A.D.

But that is not all. Theophylact, Arethas, and other early writers all firmly confirmed that “John saw these visions in the reign of Nero, and that they were written by him during his banishment by that emperor”
(CCO)
. Origen referred to St. John’s banishment to Patmos as being decided by the “king of the Romans,” a title that was used only of the Julian emperors. Nero was the last of these
(BJF)
. The list goes on and on.

The best solution to all this evidence is to hold confidently to 68 A.D. as the date of authorship. Major objections to an early date come from two sources. The modernist freely admits the subject of the book is the persecution and the Jewish-Roman War of the late 60s, but would like to date the book later to avoid any appearance of true prophecy. The rapturist argues that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem so that he can still look for a future fulfillment. But the internal evidence argues persuasively against him. Even Irenaeus wrote in his treatise
Against Heresies
that much of The Apocalypse referred to the first advent of Christ.

I believe that the case for a 68 A.D. authorship by St. John is very strong indeed. However, as in Daniel, it is enough if we settle for what is agreed to by many scholars. Andreas of Cappadocia, who wrote the earliest Greek exposition of The Apocalypse in the middle of the fifth century, stated, “There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus” (
ITR
, Apoc. 6:12). He continues, “These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews” (
ITR
, Apoc. 7:1). If we can agree on that, it is enough.

Starting with the reformers of the sixteenth century, Protestantism has found it virtually impossible to resist using The Apocalypse against the Catholic Church. They spoke of the Pope as the false prophet, the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, and Rome as the great city, Sodom. As a result of this apologetic ploy, they have been forced as a group into some variation of Joachim’s historicism when interpreting these visions.

But these methods do not do justice to the original intent of St. John. Recently, Evangelicals have discovered that much of The Apocalypse can be best understood through the lens of the first century. This method of interpretation has been labeled “preterism”
(ZPE)
. Evangelical preterists have done valuable work in interpreting The Apocalypse. As we have noted, however, this interpretation of these visions is not recent by any means. Andreas of Cappadocia made it clear that this view was widespread a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation (
ITR
, Apoc. 6:12; Apoc. 7:1). I believe St. John intended us to see the first century in his descriptions, and then apply those lessons to our own times.

As so often happens in Protestantism, however, the valuable rediscovery that preterism makes has recently led to an overreaction. It entails the transformation of a valid hermeneutic (interpretive) tool into a theological system: hyperpreterism, or strict preterism. Hyperpreterism emphasizes the events of the first century to the exclusion of all else that the Bible teaches about the future. They end up denying the future return of Christ at the final eschaton. They believe that even these promises were fulfilled in 70 A.D. Obviously, this is not a valid option for loyal Catholics.

There are two major difficulties with hyperpreterism that are immediately obvious. First, the Church has always cherished those passages that clearly speak of Christ’s return at the final eschaton. Second, strict preterism has no adequate explanation for the existence of death in our present experience.

There are certain passages that clearly teach a still-future return of Christ. We see evidence of this in His Olivet Discourse (see Chapter 6). The second half of Christ’s answer is awkward for the hyperpreterist. Of course, there are others that predict the second coming as well. The Apocalypse looks to a future consummation of the world order at Christ’s second advent.

All of this hints at a problem that makes hyperpreterists squirm. The early Church, without exception, hoped for a physical resurrection and a literal return of Christ. The hyperpreterist tries to separate the beliefs of the early Church from the Bible passages they examine. They believe in
sola Scriptura
on steroids!

In this way, preterists are similar to rapturists. The preterist begins with a theology and then seeks to force all Bible passages and Church belief into conformity with that presupposition. They both try to fit the biblical data into a pre-existing system. As a result, they are left with “problem passages” that do not support their theology and must be explained away.

An example of early Church belief exists in the Didache, written just after 100 A.D. It says, “May your grace come and this world pass away!” The Didache was written after the events surrounding 70 A.D., but still within the generation of people who had known some of the Apostles. The Church was still awaiting the final eschaton: the final consummation had not yet occurred by their generation.

Although we believe that here “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the Kingdom” has begun, we still wait “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells” (
LUM
, 3:5). “The pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the Son of God” (
LUM
, 48ss3).

The ancient prayer of the Church has always been, “Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!” It still is. The second coming is proclaimed in every Mass: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Christians have always believed that the Bible teaches there will one day be a second coming.

This brings us to a second problem for the hyperpreterists: death. Because they do not anticipate any future, bodily resurrection at Christ’s return, they are forced to claim that death has already been destroyed. They know that Scripture tells us that death is the last enemy to be conquered, and it will happen at Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:26). Because the hyperpreterist believes there is no future second advent of Christ, he is forced into the rather foolish argument that death has already been destroyed! Without repeating his claims, let me assure you that they do not match present reality. Death is the separation of our soul from our body, and that event is occurring throughout the world even as you read this page.

Justin Martyr reminds us that “death is a debt which must at all events be paid,” even today (
ACR
, XI). Yet, as Catholics, we remind ourselves that death is not final. At death, Catholics point their hearts and minds to Christ’s second advent. At funerals, we pray that we will “share in Your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see You, our God, as You are. We shall become like you and praise You forever through Christ our Lord.”

If the only victory over death is the present one, with no hope of a future resurrection, then “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19).

Hyperpreterists fail to understand the Bible adequately for several reasons: they hold to a radical sense of
sola Scriptura
, they come to passages with a preset agenda, and they impose a twenty-first-century American mindset on a book written by and for first-century Christians.

For an example of this third failure, we will examine the biblical use of the word
temple
. The Bible uses this word in many ways, but it always signifies a specific physical place where God dwells.

By that definition, of course, the ultimate Temple is the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Of course, the two buildings that stood in Jerusalem are the most obvious Temples. God did dwell in the Old Covenant Temple. When Jesus stood in the Temple courtyard, He used the different understandings of the word
temple
. Speaking of His own physical body, He said, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Later His disciples realized this was a clear reference to His impending Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Jews, however, confused His reference to the Temple of His body with the Temple building that Herod had built of stone (Matt. 26:61).