For part one of this study, click here: Have
the prophecies concerning the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7 already been
fulfilled? (Part one)
In light of everything said thus far in this study, it’s reasonable to conclude that the events prophesied in Daniel 2:44-45 and 7:23-27 (as well as in Revelation 13 and 17) are future events. None of these prophesied events correspond with anything that has happened in the past.
Nevertheless, there are some who believe that the prophesied events being figuratively depicted in these visions occurred in the years that led up to, and concluded with, the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. For example, Andrew P. has argued that the fourth kingdom prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7 is first-century “apostate Israel” (or “Zealot-led Israel”). In defense of this view, Andrew states that, in Matthew 21:42-45, “…Jesus seems to implicitly identify Daniel’s fourth earthly kingdom with apostate Israel itself. Therefore, the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ refers to the vindication of God’s people that took place at the destruction of apostate Israel in AD 70” (Olivet Discourse Notes.pdf).
As argued in part one of this study, Daniel’s vision of the “the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven” was fulfilled at the time of Christ’s ascension to heaven. That which is prophesied in Dan. 7:27 was not fulfilled in AD 70.
In addition to being inconsistent with the prophecies concerning the fourth kingdom found in Daniel 2 and 7, Andrew’s view that the fourth kingdom prophesied in Dan. 7 is “apostate Israel itself” is not supported by what we read in Matt. 21:42-45. Here’s how these verses read in the CLNT:
Jesus is saying to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures, ‘The stone which is rejected by the builders, this came to be for the head of the corner. From the Lord came this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore am I saying to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and shall be given to a nation producing its fruits. And he who is falling on this stone shall be shattered, yet on whomever it should be falling, it will be scattering him like chaff.” And the chief priests and the Pharisees, hearing His parables, know that He is saying this concerning them.
The “nation producing its fruits” refers to the believing Jewish saints to whom the kingdom is going to be restored at Christ’s return (i.e., the “saints of the Most High” referred to in Daniel 7). It would make no sense to say that “apostate Israel” is going to be taken from the Jewish leadership and given to the saints of the Most High. The kingdom that’s going to be taken from the Jewish leadership and given to “a nation producing its fruits” (the Israel of God) is “the kingdom of God.” Rather than being the kingdom of God, “apostate Israel” is comprised of those from whom the kingdom is going to be taken. But in what sense will the kingdom of God be taken from apostate Israel and given to the Israel of God?
Answer: In some instances – such as, I believe, the above passage – the expression “kingdom of God” denotes the geopolitical territory that will belong to (or the realm/domain of) the people of Israel after Christ returns. Understood in this way, the taking away of the kingdom of God from apostate Israel refers to the removal of unbelieving, wicked Israelites from the geopolitical territory of Israel (where the kingdom of God is going to be established) at the time of Christ’s return. In contrast, the giving of the kingdom of God to believing Israel refers to the assembling of believing, righteous Israelites to the land to dwell in it. The same idea is expressed in the following passage:
Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50
The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness, and they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just be shining out as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Thus shall it be in the conclusion of the eon. The messengers will be coming out and they will be severing the wicked from the midst of the just. And they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.
The “culling” of the wicked “out of [Christ’s] kingdom” by Christ’s messengers refers to the forceful removal of wicked, unbelieving Israelites from the land of Israel. After this removal of the wicked takes place, the righteous alone will remain in the kingdom of God (where, in accord with Christ’s promise in Matthew 5:5, “they shall be enjoying the allotment of the land”).
In his commentary on Revelation (Revelation Commentary (4th Draft).pdf - Google Drive), Andrew correctly equates the seven-headed beast described in Revelation 13 and 17 with the fourth beast/kingdom described in Daniel 7. However, just as Andrew believes that first-century apostate Israel fulfilled the prophecies concerning the fourth beast/kingdom described in Daniel 7, so he believes that the seven-headed “wild beast” of Revelation 13 and 17 is a symbol of apostate, Zealot-led Israel as well. Concerning the identity of beast described in Revelation 13, Andrew wrote the following:
The identity of the sea-beast is disputed between the different interpretive schools of Revelation. Futurists believe that it represents a future world empire or ruler, historicists typically believe that it represents the papacy, idealists argue that it symbolizes all powers that oppose Christ, and preterists typically view it as the Roman Empire. A minority of preterists, including myself, understand the sea-beast to be apostate Israel, more specifically Zealot-led Israel.
As Andrew acknowledges, the more traditional and commonly-held view among preterists is that the beast of Revelation 13 represents the Roman Empire. Andrew’s view (i.e., that this beast represents “Zealot-led Israel”) is the minority position among preterists. Now, I doubt that Andrew believes that the majority of preterists are simply less intelligent or perceptive than those who hold to his understanding. Those preterists who hold to (or who have held to) the more traditional and commonly-held view must think (or must have thought) that there are enough good reasons – both scriptural and historical – to hold to the view with which Andrew disagrees. Although Andrew thinks that the historical data (as found primarily in the writings of Josephus) supports his view better than it does the majority preterist view, I think he would agree that, for those who are already committed to the preterist view, one can find at least some historical data that can be used to support both the majority view and his view (views which, it should be noted, are mutually exclusive).
Now, even if Andrew’s position doesn’t have the same problems that the more commonly-held preterist view does, I think that, ultimately, his understanding of Revelation 13 (and related passages) is just as untenable as the view that he rejects. As is the case with the majority preterist view, there is certain historical data that one can appeal to in support of his interpretation (and certain ways of interpreting and explaining a certain prophecy in light of such data, or ways of reconciling a certain prophecy with the historical data). But upon closer analysis, I think it can be shown that the “facts don’t line up,” and that there is, ultimately, a lack of correspondence between what’s said in the historical record (e.g., the writings of Josephus) and what’s prophesied in Scripture.
But if, as I believe and have argued, the futurist position is correct, why is it that there is some historical data to which preterists are able to appeal in support of their position (and which, at least superficially, seems to “match” what’s prophesied in Scripture)? Answer: Since it’s clearly God’s intention that some students of Scripture (whether they identify as “Christian” or not) hold to the preterist position – just as it’s God’s intention that others hold to other positions – I think God caused certain historical events to occur as they did so that this would be possible. That is, God caused history to unfold in such a way that even the most intelligent students of Scripture (among whom I would include Andrew P.) would be able to see their position as having at least some degree of plausibility, and as being, to some extent or another, consistent with the historical record.
If there wasn’t at least some historical data that could be appealed to in support of certain key preterist interpretations of prophecy, it’s unlikely that the preterist position would have developed (or be considered a viable position by any reasonable, truth-pursuing student of Scripture). Since God clearly wants there to be erroneous positions that can “compete with” the correct view, he had to make sure history unfolded in such a way that a preterist interpretation of certain passages could be considered at least somewhat plausible by those already committed to (or already inclined toward) this position. Andrew would agree that this is the case with regard to the more commonly-held preterist interpretation of Revelation 13. However, I believe that the same can be said with regard to Andrew’s own position.
Andrew went on to appeal to Rev. 1:1-3 in support of this claim that only the two preterist views of Revelation 13 are possible:
Only these last two views are possible in light of the short time-frame of Revelation (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10), which I argued for in my commentary on Rev 1:1-3. Therefore, in my commentary on Rev 13, I’ll present both the Roman and Israelite views of the Beast with their strengths and weaknesses.
In response to Andrew’s claim (and his appeal to the verses referenced), the words translated “shortly” (or “swiftly” or “speedily”) and “near” in Rev. 1:1-3 are relative. The sense in which the era is “near” is simply that it’s prophetically imminent. That is, the era referred to in Rev. 1:3 is “near” (and that which is prophesied must occur “shortly”) relative to the prophesied events that need to occur before this era can begin. There is no long sequence of prophecy-fulfilling events (or long period of prophecy-fulfilling time) that must unfold or transpire before the era referred to in these verses can arrive. Rather, the nearness of the era in which the prophesied events of Revelation will be occurring means that the first prophesied events that will be occurring during this era are among the next prophetic events to occur in the future.
Now, contrary to Andrew’s claims, the prophecies concerning the seven-headed beast of Revelation 13 – and, by implication, the fourth kingdom referred to in Daniel 2 and 7 – could not have been fulfilled in the past (and certainly not by “Zealot-led Israel” in AD 66-70). The people who were defeated in AD 70 were Jews who, in 66 AD, revolted against the gentile kingdom that had dominion over them (the Roman Empire) in an attempt to establish an independent Jewish state at Jerusalem, and thereby restore the political independence that was lost when Rome conquered the Hasmonean kingdom. Thus, the only kingdom that was involved in “the destruction of apostate Israel in AD 70” was the Roman Empire. Not only did the nation of Israel lack a legitimate king during this time, but the Rome-appointed, officially recognized king at this time – i.e., Herod Agrippa II – fled Jerusalem in 66 AD and supported the Roman side during the First Jewish-Roman War.
We also know that the fourth kingdom is going to be destroyed by the kingdom of God. In contrast, it was by means of the Roman Empire – a gentile kingdom that was just as distinct from the kingdom of God as were Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece – that the Jewish Zealots were defeated during the first Jewish-Roman War. We also know that the fourth kingdom “shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces” (Dan. 7:23). As we’ve seen, the “whole earth” that the fourth beast is said to devour and trample down is not simply the land of Israel. It’s a territory that necessarily includes the land of both Israel and the nations surrounding Israel. In contrast, the Zealots who rebelled against Rome in AD 66 controlled only a relatively small territory at any given point during First Jewish-Roman War. They initially controlled territory in Galilee but were eventually forced out. They then entered Jerusalem, took control of the city, and held it until the Roman siege and the city’s destruction in AD 70.
The idea that the zealot-led movement even came close to qualifying as a kingdom that we’re told would “devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces” is contrary to both scriptural and extra-biblical historical facts. The only first-century kingdom that can be said to have resembled the fourth kingdom referred to in Daniel 7 – and that could possibly be identified with the first stage of this kingdom (as represented by the legs of iron) – was the Roman Empire. No other first-century kingdom on the earth came close to being a kingdom that could be described as a kingdom that “shall be different from all the kingdoms” preceding it, and which “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.” In fact, rather than trampling down and breaking into pieces other kingdoms, the Jews who rebelled against Rome ended up being “trampled down” and “broken into pieces” by Rome.
Concerning the fact that this beast was seen coming out of the sea, Andrew wrote:
“Elsewhere in the book of Revelation, “the sea” is said to represent gentiles, which is a common symbol throughout the Bible (Rev. 17:15; cp. Ps 65:7; Isa 17:12; 60:5; Jer 6:23; Luke 21:25).”
In accord with this insight, we read that all four beasts seen by Daniel came out of the sea. Since we know that the first three kingdoms were gentile (and not Jewish) kingdoms, we can conclude that the fourth kingdom was/will be a gentile kingdom as well. In accord with this point, Andrew went on to write:
“If the Beast is the Roman Empire, then it’s easy to see how it came up “out of the sea” (the gentiles).”
It is, in fact, easy to see how the Roman Empire was a gentile kingdom, for it originated outside of the land of Israel and was ruled over by (and largely comprised of) gentiles. However, Andrew then attempts to argue that the zealot movement came up “out of the sea” in the same sense in which the Roman Empire did:
“This also fits the Israelite/Zealot interpretation of the Beast, because the Zealot movement first arose in “Galilee of the gentiles” (Isa 9:1; Matt 4:15). The first leader of the Zealots was Hezekiah of Galilee, whose followers overran large parts of Syria (Antiquities 14.9.2-3; Wars 1.10.5), and his son Judas the Galilean brought the Zealot philosophy to Judea (Antiquities 18.1.1, 6). According to Josephus, when the Romans subdued Galilee in the summer of AD 67, Vespasian “sat upon his tribunal at Taricheae, in order to distinguish the foreigners from the old inhabitants; for those foreigners appear to have begun the war” (Wars 3.10.10).
The Zealots comprised a multitude of people “from all parts” (Wars 4.3.3) and recruited thousands of Galilean and Idumean soldiers to their cause (Wars 4.4.1f; 9.3, 10).”
The fact that a movement originated in Galilee does not make the movement (or the people of the movement) “gentile.” The expression “Galilee of the gentiles” refers to a region in the land of Israel, and the people who belonged to the Zealot movement that originated in this region were Jewish. The Zealots were a Jewish political party, and their very identity was rooted in their shared Jewish nationality and faith, and their desire to expel the Roman Empire from the land of Israel. And there is nothing said by Josephus in the sections referenced by Andrew that in any way contradicts this fact.
The “foreigners” referred to by Josephus weren’t “gentiles.” They were Jews who weren’t native to the port city of Taricheae. It was the native Jewish inhabitants of Taricheae (the “old inhabitants”) who were hesitant to fight the Romans. However, a large number of heavily armed Jewish rebels from outside of this city had flooded into the city and forced them to resist.
When Josephus referred to people “from all parts,” he wasn’t referring to non-Jews from all parts of the gentile world. Rather, he had in mind Jews from all parts of the Jewish nation (i.e., throughout the land of Israel). This is clear from both the immediate and the broader context of what Josephus wrote.
Andrew went on to write:
The only difficulty with this view is that the “whole land” (Gk: holē hē gē) is said to follow after the Beast because of its resurrection. This is presumably the same “land” whose inhabitants are later mentioned as “the inhabitants of the land” (Gk: hoi katoikountes epi tēs gēs), a phrase which refers to the inhabitants of the land of Palestine in the Old Testament. By the time that the Roman Empire was ‘resurrected’ under Vespasian, however, the “land” was controlled by anti-Roman extremists who killed anyone suspected of wanting peace with Rome (Wars 5.1.5; 8.1; 10.5).
In the context, “the earth” (in the expression “all who are dwelling on the earth”) refers to “the whole earth” (Rev. 13:3). It’s the same territory referred to in Dan. 7:23 (where we read that the fourth kingdom “shall be different from all the kingdoms” and “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces”). And as demonstrated earlier in this study, the territory that’s being referred to as “the whole earth” in Dan. 7:23 is the same worldwide territory that’s being referred to in (for example) the following verses:
Isaiah 14:26
This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations.
Jer. 50:23
How the hammer of the whole earth is cut down and broken! How Babylon has become a horror among the nations!
Thus, the words “all who are dwelling on the earth” refer to far more than merely those dwelling in the land of Israel. It should also be noted that, in the sections from Josephus referenced by Andrew, it’s only the city of Jerusalem that’s being controlled by the Zealots. Thus, when Andrew wrote that “the ‘land’ was controlled by anti-Roman extremists,” it was only a relatively small portion of the land of Israel (and not the entire territory of the land of Israel). Thus, not only did the Zealots not “devour the whole earth,” they didn’t even devour the entire territory of the land of Israel.
Andrew: “This beast has characteristics of the first three beasts in Daniel’s vision, which also came out of the sea (Dan 7:3-6). Each of those beasts represented an evil kingdom (Dan 7:17, 23), which implies that the sea-beast of Revelation also represents a kingdom, empowered by the devil. This fits with both the Roman and Israelite views of the Beast. It’s worth noting that the unbelieving Jews who persecuted Christians in the first century are said to have been a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9; cp. John 8:41-44).”
There’s no question that the unbelieving Jews who persecuted Christians in the first century were doing what Satan wanted them to do (and that any synagogue that they comprised was a “synagogue of Satan”). However, the Jewish Zealots who rebelled against Rome in AD 66 were not a kingdom (and the leaders of the Zealot movement were not “kings”). It is, therefore, impossible for this movement to have fulfilled the prophecies concerning the beasts referred to in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. What we read in these passages in no way “fits with the…Israelite view of the Beast.”
Andrew: “If the Beast represents Zealot-led Israel, as I’ve argued, we should be able to identify seven Zealot leaders that fit the angel’s statement. According to Josephus, the very first Zealot leader was Hezekiah of Galilee, who led a band of “robbers” (freedom fighters) throughout the provinces of Syria and Galilee (Antiquities 14.9.2; Wars 1.10.5). He was followed by his son Judas the Galilean, who, along with Zadok the Pharisee, introduced the Zealot philosophy to Judea (Antiquities 18.1.1, 6; cp. Acts 5:32). Judas’ sons Jacob and Simon led the movement after him, and were crucified in AD 47 (Antiquities 20.5.2). Another son of Judas named Jair, who is mentioned in passing in Wars 2.17.9, likely became the sixth Zealot leader.
The seventh Zealot leader was another son (or a grandson) of Judas the Galilean, named Menahem. In August 66, he raided the fortress at Masada, and “returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem... the leader of the sedition” (Wars 2.17.8). This shows that the Zealot leaders could indeed be called “kings.” But after only one month of rule, in September 66, Menahem was murdered by political enemies who believed that “if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would fall to the ground” (Wars 2.17.9). Thus, the seventh king of the Zealots indeed “remained only a little while” in line with John’s vision (Rev 17:10).”
In the section from Josephus referenced by Andrew, we read that Menahem “broke open king Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem…” The irony here is that Menahem was only able to return to Jerusalem “in the state of a king” because he broke into the armory of a man who was officially recognized as a king, and whose authority was derived from the Roman Empire – i.e., King Herod.
Not only was King Herod officially recognized as a king, but the various 1st century rulers who belonged to the Herodian dynasty are, in Scripture, referred to variously as “Herod the king,” “King Herod” or simply “the king” (Matt. 2:1-3; Mark 6:14, 22; Acts 12:1, 20). Unlike these men, Menahem was no more a king than were the other six leaders of the Zealot movement (and even if Menahem claimed to be the Messiah, such a claim no more made him a king than it made him the Messiah). And yet, the seven heads of this beast are explicitly identified as “seven kings” (Rev. 17:9).
Moreover – and as noted in part one of this study – one of the seven heads of this beast (i.e., the head that was healed after suffering a “death blow”) clearly represents the same individual who was, in Daniel’s dream, represented by the 11th horn of the fourth beast (the “little horn”). And the fact that the 11th horn of the fourth beast represents an 11th king over the fourth kingdom is further confirmation that the seven heads of the beast represent seven kings. Thus, despite Andrew’s claims to the contrary, Menahem and his Zealot-leading predecessors are disqualified from being represented by the heads of the wild beast referred to in Rev. 13 and 17.
But let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Menahem was an actual king. If, as Andrew suggests, each of the seven heads of the beast represents one of the leaders of “Zealot-led Israel,” then which leader is represented by the head that had a mortal wound and was healed?
It couldn’t have been Menahem, for he was killed before the time period that Andrew thinks the 42 months of Rev. 13 refers to began, and was succeeded by another Zealot leader (or rather, by two more Zealot leaders). But as already noted, it’s the head of the beast that appeared to have been “slain to death” whose “death blow was cured.” And it’s the king represented by this head who is the focus of Revelation 13. It’s this king who is in view when we’re told that the beast “opens its mouth in blasphemies toward God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and those tabernacling in heaven.” It’s this king who is in view when we’re told that “the whole earth” will “marvel after” this beast, and that “all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshipping it.” And it’s this king who’s in view when we’re told that the beast will have authority “to do what it wills forty-two months,” will “do battle with the saints and to conquer them” and will be given “authority…over every tribe and people and language and nation.”
So again, which leader of the Zealot movement is in view here? The only possible answer is, “none of them.” None of the heads of the seven-headed beast represent a leader of the Zealot movement. None of them did any of the things that we’re told the beast will do. And not only this, but they all died before the time period that Andrew thinks the 42 months of Rev. 13 refers to began.
Notwithstanding these considerations, Andrew attempts to reconcile the details of the prophetic vision with his preterist understanding of their fulfillment, as follows:
The Beast (Zealot-led Israel) was severely, even fatally, wounded by the death of Menahem (cp. Rev 13:3). Many Jews were slaughtered over the next few months, not only in Judea, but all throughout the eastern Roman Empire (Wars 2.18.1ff; 20.2). But when the Zealots won an unexpected and massive victory against the Romans in November 66, their movement ‘resurrected,’ and they ruled over the land of Palestine for the next 42 months until the start of the Jerusalem siege in April 70 (Wars 2.20.3f; 3.2.1; cp. Rev 13:4f). This ‘resurrection’ was led by the Zealot leader Simon ben Giora and his nephew Eleazar ben Simon (Wars 2.19.2; 20.3), either one of whom may be the “eighth” king of Rev 17:11; both were killed at the end of the war (Wars 6.4.1; 9.4).
After being captured by the Romans, Simon ben Giora was later executed in Rome in AD 71, while the circumstances of Eleazar ben Simon’s death are unknown. In any case, neither of these leaders of the Zealot movement were “kings.” This, again, is contrary to the fact that the seven heads of this beast are explicitly identified as “kings” (Rev. 17:9). And not only this, but we’re specifically told that the beast has “seven heads.” The beast doesn’t have eight heads. The eighth king “is from among the seven,” and is one of the seven kings represented by one of the seven heads (i.e., the head that had the “death blow” and was healed). But if the seven heads represent the first seven Zealot leaders that Andrew mentioned earlier (with the last leader being Menahem), then it’s impossible for either Simon ben Giora or Eleazar ben Simon to be the “king” represented by the head that suffered the death blow and was healed.
Thus, even apart from the considerations that rule out the preterist interpretation of Rev. 13 and 17 in general, we have good reason to believe that the “Zealot-led Israel” interpretation of the seven-headed beast of Rev. 13 and 17 is false. It’s simply not in accord with what’s prophesied by John.
Andrew goes on to say that the 42-month period of time referred to in Rev. 13:5 and Rev. 11:2 “…refers to the three and a half years when the Zealots had control over “the land” (Judea), from the ‘resurrection’ of the Zealot movement in November 66 until the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in April 70. It may also refer to the three and a half years of the First Jewish-Roman War from Spring 67 until September 70, when Jerusalem fell to the Romans and the Zealot movement lost all power.”
But again, which Zealot leader is represented by the head of the beast that we’re told would say and do the things referred to in Rev. 13? Which Zealot leader is represented by the head that received a death blow and was healed? For it’s an individual (i.e., a certain king) – and not a “movement” – who’s being represented by this head, and who will be in power during this 42-month period. Andrew says that “the Zealots spoke ‘blasphemous’ words against God,” and “spoke very arrogantly.” But the boastful, blaspheming and saint-persecuting king who’s represented by the head that is the focus of Rev. 13 is not a group of people (whether a group of kings or a group of Jewish Zealots). He’s the same boastful, blaspheming and saint-persecuting king who’s represented by the 11th horn seen by Daniel (and, I believe, referred to in Daniel 11:36-45). Paul referred to him in 2 Thess. 2:3-12 as “the man of lawlessness” and “the lawless one.”
Andrew attempts to reconcile what we read in Rev. 13:7-8 with his “Zealot-led Israel” view by appealing to the fact that “the Jewish diaspora comprised people “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11), and they numbered more than 2.7 million in AD 70 (Wars 6.9.3).” But it’s over “every nation” (and over “every tribe and people and language”) – and not over certain Jews who were from every nation – that the king who is the focus of Rev. 13 will be given authority. And according to the messenger’s interpretation of the fourth beast, the dominion of the fourth kingdom will be worldwide in scope (Dan. 7:23). Thus, the reference to “every tribe and people and language and nation” in Rev. 13:7 is a reference to mankind in a general sense (including both Jews and gentiles). It is not, in other words, a reference to just one kind of people who were born outside of the land of their ancestors (such as the Jews who were dwelling in Jerusalem for Pentecost, but were “from every nation under heaven” [Acts 2:5]). And can it really be said that the Jews over whom the Zealots had control and influence during the years AD 66-70 were “every people?” As far as I can tell, Scripture refers to the Jewish people – whether believers or unbelievers – as one people (Matt. 2:6; Acts 13:17, 31; 28:26; Rom. 10:21; 11:1-2; Heb 10:30; Jude 1:5).
Andrew: “John also says that “all the inhabitants of the land” (Gk: pantes hoi katoikountes epi tēs gēs), which almost always refers to the land of Palestine in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, worshipped the Beast. This wasn’t true of the Roman Empire, because the people of Judea were extremely anti-Roman during this period.”
Given the fact that most of the Old Testament is focused on Israel, the fact that the expression “all the inhabitants of the land” was most often used in the Old Testament to refer to those living in the land of Israel is exactly what we would expect. However, as Andrew notes, this expression was not used exclusively for the land of Israel. In other contexts, the expression refers to territory outside of the land of Israel (Psalm 33:14; 75:3; Isaiah 51:6; Daniel 4:35; Jeremiah 46:8; Ezekiel 32:15).
Moreover, the prophetic context that should inform our understanding of the words “all who are dwelling on the earth” in Rev. 13:8 – a context that includes the book of Daniel – supports the view that the territory referred to by “the earth” in this verse is far greater than the land of Israel (or certain parts of the land of Israel). In fact, the first occurrence of the expression “those dwelling on the earth” in Revelation is found in Rev. 3:10. And here, “the earth” clearly refers to territory outside of the land of Israel. Here's how this verse reads in the CLNT:
“Seeing that you keep the word of My endurance, I, also, will be keeping you out of the hour of trial which is about to be coming on the whole inhabited earth to try those dwelling on the earth.”
According to Andrew, the expression “the whole inhabited earth” in this verse refers to “the ‘civilized world’ of the first century” and “the entire Roman Empire.” This understanding is actually consistent with my understanding of Revelation as a whole (for my view doesn’t require that the seven ecclesias are future ecclesias, or that “the hour of trial” is a future event; in fact, I'm inclined to believe that the seven ecclesias existed in the first century, and do not refer to future ecclesias). Now, if “the whole inhabited earth” refers to “the entire Roman Empire,” then it necessarily follows that the words “those dwelling on the earth” do not refer exclusively, or even primarily, to those dwelling in the land of Israel. Since the purpose of “the hour of trial” was to “try those dwelling on the earth” – and since “the hour of trial” was to come on “the whole inhabited earth” – then “those dwelling on the earth” are those dwelling within the territory of “the whole inhabited earth” (on which “the hour of trial” was coming).
This also follows from the fact that those whom Jesus promised to keep “out of the hour of trial” – the ecclesia of Philadelphia – were not even living in the land of Israel/Palestine. They were living in Asia Minor. There would’ve been no need for Jesus to promise to keep this ecclesia in Asia Minor “out of the hour of trial which is about to be coming on the whole inhabited earth” unless they were living in a part of the world in which “those dwelling on the earth” would be going through this trial. We can thus conclude that, in Revelation, the expression “those dwelling on the earth” has a broader meaning than “those dwelling in the land of Palestine.” When, therefore, we read in Rev. 13:8 that “all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshipping [the wild beast],” we can conclude that John had in mind a state of affairs that will involve “the whole inhabited earth” at the time when this prophecy is fulfilled.
Moreover, according to Rev. 13:8, it’s a certain king – the king represented by the head of the beast whose death blow was cured – who “all who are dwelling on the earth” will be worshipping. Since there was no king being worshipped by all (or even some) of the inhabitants of the land of Israel in AD 66-70, we can conclude that Rev. 13:8 was not fulfilled by anything that took place during this time period.
No comments:
Post a Comment