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 the literal earth being shaken. He is also talking about the literal heaven. Not the place where God's throne is, but the heaven where the sun, moon, and stars are. The Hebrew writer is not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. He is talking about the end of time, the second coming of Christ, the same time Peter is talking about in 2 Pet. 3. When the heavens "pass away with a great noise" 2 Pet. 3:10, they will certainly shake. Of course, Max King teaches that the events in 2 Pet. 3 occurred in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. No doubt our beloved brother has picked up on this King doctrine. The truth of the matter is, Heb. 12; 2 Pet. 3 and Rev. 6 have nothing at all to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Neither does Haggai 2:6, 7 have anything to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Haggai is prophesying in the time of Zerubbabel at the time of the completion of the temple, when the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. The prophet is comparing this temple with the one Solomon built. Now look at verses 6 and 7. Haggai said, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." Dear brother, please notice. At the time this shaking takes place, God will "fill this house with glory". This house was the one Zerubbabel and other children of Israel had built. This house was destroyed by Antiochus Epithanes during the Maccabean period. This house did not exist in 70 A.D. The house that was destroyed in 70 A.D. was built by Herod. Therefore, the time God would shake the heavens, and the earth, etc. was while the temple built by Zerubbabel was still standing, and this was the house God would fill with glory. The prophet Haggai cannot be talking about 70 A.D. This is just some more perversion of the Scriptures.
To sum up this section, in the last paragraph under verses 12-17, on page 54, he said, "After the Gospel of Christ was completely revealed and the Jewish system eliminated, a Christian could take the Gospel and defeat any enemy of truth; whether it was Jewish or pagan." Is my brother implying that the Apostles, and Philip and other evangelist could not "take the Gospel and defeat any enemy of truth", before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? This seems to be what he is saying, but I don't believe a word of it. He is also saying that before 70 A.D. they could not defeat enemies of the truth as successfully as after 70 A.D. Somehow, in his thinking, as long as the city of Jerusalem was still standing, they were unable to defeat the enemies of truth. This doesn't make sense to me! Max King, and his students, think there was no way for the church to be successful until the city of Jerusalem, and the temple was eliminated. It is true Christ eliminated the city of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, by making use of Titus the Roman general of the Roman Army. This does not mean the church grew more and was more successful after the destruction of Jerusalem than before. It does not mean they were able to better defend the truth and defeat the enemies of truth after the destruction of Jerusalem than before. This reasoning HAS NO LOGIC behind it whatsoever!!
Now we need to consider some things he says in his explanation of verses 15-16. He says the stars that fell upon the earth were Jewish and Roman powers that were removed during the destruction of Jerusalem. Then he says, "Here we get some idea as to how these stars, mountains and islands would respond to the conquering lamb, the judgment of God." He then said, "They would try to hide in the dens and rocks of the mountains and they would cry for the rocks and mountains to fall on them and protect them from destruction." He uses a plural pronoun they to refer to the stars and mountains, which refer to rulers symbolically, he says. Then he has these stars and mountains (political rulers) trying "to hide in the dens and rocks of the mountains (I suppose LITERAL MOUNTAINS). Thus our dear brother has symbolic stars and mountains dwelling in literal mountains begging the literal rocks in these literal mountains to fall on them and protect them from destruction. He then tells us that Peter "identifies these kings of the earth as Jews" in Acts 4:26. He tells us he understands these Jews of Acts 4:26 to be the same ones referred to as "stars" and "mountains" in Rev. 6. Please turn now to Acts 4:26 and 27 and read. This would mean that the "Kings of the earth" and "rulers" which were gathered against Christ at His crucifixion, which would be "king Herod and the governor Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and children of Israel who crucified Christ, are the stars and mountains that were removed from power at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It would also mean that king Herod and governor Pontius Pilate crawled in dens and hid themselves in dens and in the rocks of the mountain and said to the mountains and rocks "fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb", now that "the great day of His wrath is come" in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Believe it if you want to my dear brother. But I don't believe a word of it.
At the top of his book, on Page 55, he says, "Jesus quoted from Hosea in describing the doom of Jerusalem." He then said "See Luke 23:28-30. This quote seems to pin down the time which is being described. See also Luke 21:21-23." He then said, "The time is A.D. 70 when the City was destroyed." The quotation from Hosea is in chapter 10, verse 8. Hosea said, "The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come upon their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us." I will agree with him that both passages in Luke are talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This does not prove that the statements in Rev. 6:15-17 are referring to the same time. Hosea is not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem that Jesus described in the book of Luke. Neither is he talking about the destruction of Rome that John describes in Rev. 6. Hosea is talking about the destruction of Samaria (Hosea 10:5) when Israel would be carried into Assyrian captivity (Hosea 10:6). The high places of Aven in verse 8, refer to the place where Israel had worshiped idols. Hosea chapter 10 has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But this doesn't bother our dear brother. He just picks out all passages of Scripture that talk about the mountains and rocks falling on people, and applies all of them to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Context means nothing to Max King and his disciples. Dear brother, you can deny it if you want to, but I suspect you got these arguments from Max King and his disciples!
In his discussion of Revelation six, verse 17 he says, "This great day of the Lord has reference to the time when God and Christ brought their retributive judgment upon the enemies of the Church. John calls it "The great day of His wrath." He then refers to Nahum 1:5, 6 to what he calls "similar language to describe the mighty powers of God ...with a people." He does not tell us who the people are. I was surprised that he did not pervert this Old Testament Scripture also, by applying it to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Nahum tells us the people were the people of Nineveh, in verse one. Our dear brother then asked, "What day are we talking about?" He says many say, "these references to the great day of the Lord in Revelation 6:17, Lk. 23:28-31 and Acts 2:16-21 refer to the final day of judgment, the end of the world." I wondered why he would change the statement "great day of His wrath" to "great day of the Lord!" Don't you suppose he knows he changed the wording?? Why would he change the wording, thus perverting the Scriptures?? Could it be because he wants us to believe "the great and notable day of the Lord" in Acts 2:20 is the same as "the great day of His wrath" in Rev. 6:17? He lists these two passages of Scripture with Lk. 23:28-31 to try and make us think that all three passages are talking about the same event. What our dear brother is doing is wresting the Scriptures. There is a warning about doing this in 2 Pet. 3:16. Dear brother, you need to take very seriously the warning! The great and notable day in Joel's prophecy was not a day of wrath, but a day when men could "call on the name of the Lord and be saved." This was the day of Pentecost when about 3000 souls called on the name of the Lord and were saved. It was a day of rejoicing and not a day of wrath. Our dear brother says, "Many say that these references to the great day of the Lord...refer to the final day of judgment, the end of the world." Not me, my dear brother! I believe the "notable day of the Lord" in Joel 2 and Acts 2 was the day of Pentecost. I believe the "great day of His wrath" in Rev. 6:17 had to do with the destruction of Rome. I believe Jesus was not talking about any one day in Lk. 23:28-31, but days during the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. But let me remind you again. Joel 2 and Acts 2 do not tell us when miraculous gifts would end. I Cor 13:8 tells us miraculous gifts would end "when that which is perfect is come." "That which is perfect" is the New Testament. Our dear brother tells us miraculous gifts ceased in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no way we can know of certainly when some books of the New Testament were written. However, there are many who contend that first, second, and third John, Jude, and Revelation were all written after 70 A.D.

Chapter 7

Just about the time I think our dear brother has exhausted all the ways he can pervert the word of God, he comes up with more perversions! In verse one of chapter seven he says the four angels are "agents of Rome"standing on the four corners of the earth which means Palestine to "intercept the Word of God, hold or hinder it so that it could not blow on, or influence, the nations." He perverts the passage to make the "winds" the gospel of Christ, or word of God. The angels, whom he says are "agents of Rome" are holding back the wind which he says is "the Word of God, to keep the wind "the Word of God" from blowing on the earth "which means Palestine." This would mean they are keeping the Word of God from being preached in Palestine, thus the word preached to Palestine would hurt the earth (Palestine). But these angels, "the agents of Rome", according to him keep the gospel from being preached to the sea, or any tree. Of course our dear brother didn't tell us what the sea, or trees were, at this point. But whatever they were, the gospel could not be preached to them, because the agents of Rome prevented it. But as we read on we find out that these angels, which he says were "the agents of Rome" were to hurt the earth and the sea with the wind (V. 2). They were to hurt the earth with the wind that would blow on the earth, trees and sea. Yet he says the wind is the Word of God. Therefore, the word of God is to be preached by the angels, who are "the agents of Rome", to hurt the earth (Palestine). The word of God which was preached by the angels, who are the agents of Rome would hurt people, rather than help people. This would mean the agents of Rome were the ones who were going to hurt the earth (Palestine) and the trees and the sea, by preaching the gospel to them. Our dear brother failed to tell us who the trees and the sea were at this point! But he did tell us the earth was Palestine. But let's read on.
Verse 3 tells us these angels, agents of Rome, could not hurt the earth (Palestine), by preaching unto them the gospel until the servants of God were sealed to protect them from the winds ("the gospel preached by the agents of Rome") who would hurt them by preaching the gospel to them. Ridiculous you say! Amen brother. To top it all off, down near the bottom of page 56, of his book he says, "The four winds stand for the angels or messengers of Christ, who were to proclaim His Word." Earlier he said the four angels (agents of Rome) were to intercept the word of God, which would be the four winds. Now he says the four winds which is the word of God stood for the angels or messengers of Christ. Now, brother which is it? Is the "wind" the gospel of Christ, or is the "wind" the messengers of Christ? He finally got around to telling us who the trees and sea were. He tells us at the top of Page 57. He says, "the wind could blow on and represents everybody, everywhere who may be affected by the Gospel." My dear brother, if this is what it means, then it means the gospel was meant to hurt people, not save them, because the winds were to hurt the earth, the sea, and the trees according to verse 3.
Under verse four, our brother said the number 144,000 "would seem to represent the total number of redeemed, i.e., the whole church." In the next paragraph he says, "This symbolic figure seems to represent all Christians, from the day of Pentecost until the Lord comes at His final coming." If this is the case, why were they all taken from the twelve tribes of Israel? Also, our dear brother, needs to tell us who makes up the "great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" which "stood before the throne, and before the lamb, clothed with white robes" (Verse 9)?
Under verses 11-14 our dear brother says, "The great multitude of verse 9 is identified here as those who had survived the great tribulation." Of course he believes this was the great tribulation associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If this great number "included Christians from all nations", as you suggest; why would they need to be saved from the great tribulation which occurred in Jerusalem? There is no logic, or consistency in what you are saying!

Chapter 8

Under verse 7, in chapter eight, our dear brother is guilty of perverting Rom. 9:27-31. Our dear brother says, "The hail, fire and blood here are a symbol of devastation upon the earth. The earth here is limited to the place of power and applies to Jewish power. See Romans 9:27-31. If God had not shown mercy to the Jews and saved a remnant, they would have been as completely destroyed as Sodom and Gomorrah." There is nothing in the context in the Book of Revelation, in Rom. 9:27-31, or any place else in the Bible to prove the earth is limited to the place of power and applies to Jewish power. Romans 9:27-31 says absolutely nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Paul is quoting Isaiah in Rom. 9. The quotation is found in Isa. 1:9. The prophet said, "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah." The statement of Paul in verse 27, "about Isaiah saying a "remnant shall be saved", is a quotation from Isa. 10:21, 22 where Isaiah said, "The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return...". Isaiah is talking about a remnant being saved, or returned from Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem. According to Paul the Lord did a work here and cut it short. A part of the work of the Lord was sending the House of Judah to Babylonian captivity. He could have wiped them out completely. However, he saved a "remnant", a small number of them. There is absolutely nothing in the book of Isaiah, or in the book of Romans, about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If our beloved brother wants a passage to say something, he will tell us it says it!

Chapter 9

John sees a "star fall from heaven unto the earth" Verse 9. Our dear brother says this star is a "persecuting ruler." I would ask our dear brother, "How do you arrive at this?" He offered no proof. I suppose he expects us to accept it just because he said it. If this is so, then we have some persecuting ruler, who has fallen from his position of power, to the earth, which he says is dominions of man, "particularly the area of Palestine." If he has fallen from power, he has lost his power. Never the less, he has power he never had before, because now he has the key to the bottomless pit. He has power now with the keys to the bottomless pit, which you call the "abode of Satan" to release locusts from the bottomless pit to "the devastation and destruction of the great harlot and her people", which you believe is the city of Jerusalem. If the bottomless pit is the "abode of Satan", then the locust which are down there with him, must be all the army of Satan the devils or demons, which one day will be in hell with Satan himself. Our dear brother says, "This evil star had to bite the dust, had to be brought down. See Isaiah 14:12 where Lucifer (brilliant star) was kicked out of his heavenly position. He was the wicked king of Babylon, not Satan." I agree with you that Lucifer was Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and not Satan. Therefore, according to you, this star (persecuting ruler), like Nebuchadnezzar the great, fell from his exalted place of rulership on earth to a position of power in the hadean world, where he received the key to the Hadean world (bottomless pit), where he could turn loose all the demons of the Hadean world upon the earth to hurt men and torment them for five months. He, the fallen star, now has power to release the locusts to so torment men that men will desire to die, but can not. My dear brother, I can not see how this mighty ruler could fall from power and now have more power than any man we ever knew!!!
Under verse seven, our dear brother says, "These tormenting locusts had the composite appearance of a horse prepared to do battle. This most likely had reference to the cavalry battalions of the Roman generals, Vespasian and Titus." This is interesting. I am sure the stars (political rulers) who rose to power in Jerusalem, after the great star or political ruler that bit the dust and went to the bottomless pit, and released all the demons of the bottomless pit upon the earth to torment men, for five months. I am sure they would be surprised to learn, that these locusts are now working in "the calvary battalions of the Roman generals, Vespasian and Titus.
Our dear brother then says, "See Joel 1:1-6 and 2:1-4 for a depiction of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar about 584 B. C." Brethren, I feel sorry for this man. However, I cannot allow my sympathy for him to let him get by with all these perversions of Scripture. There is absolutely nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Joel. The prophet is talking about literal locusts following "the palmerworm", being followed by the "cankerworm and caterpillar" (Joel 1:4). Joel is talking about literal insects destroying the land. All of this devastation of the land was followed by drought and famine.
Under verses 13 and 14, on Page 68 of his book, he claims the city of Rome cannot be the object of destruction because "they were stationed 1,000 miles too far to the east." My dear brother, if this is the best argument you have to prove it is Jerusalem and not Rome, you don't have much proof. Worthy Is The Lamb, by Ray Summers is one of the books you gave in the forward of your book, along with two books written by Foy E. Wallace Jr. and the history of Josephus. Mr. Summers said, "The whole picture presents the Parthian cavalry from the land of the Euphrates. This group was Rome's most dreaded enemy and a constant threat to her eastern boundary" (Page 159).

Chapter 10

Our dear brother says the mighty angel of verse 1 is "most likely Christ Himself." How my dear brother comes up with this conclusion is strange indeed! Christ is not an angel, though some false teachers have claimed He is Michael the archangel. If this angel is Christ, as my dear brother says "is most likely", then Christ lifted up His hand "And sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and things which are therein, that there should be time no longer." And yet, Jesus who is one of the three persons in the godhead, who liveth for ever and ever is said to have created all things that are in heaven, and that are in the earth (Jno. 1:1, 2; Col. 1:16, 17). In fact, God created all things by Christ (Eph. 3:9). In fact, Jesus was worthy to receive glory and honor and power: for He had created all things, and for His pleasure they are and were created (Rev. 4:11). The claim that this angel is Christ is without any foundation whatsoever.
Under verse two, our dear brother said, "Here we see this mighty angel of God declaring His power over both of them, ruling with a rod of iron." There is nothing about "a rod of iron" in these verses. Both of them, according to him, is the "sea beast" and the "land beast." Neither of these beast are introduced until chapter 13, but our dear brother can read about anything he wants to in between the lines, and does that over and over again, without any proof what so ever!
Under verse 7 his imagination goes wild again. He imagines "the mystery of God", "as he hath declared to his servants the prophets", is the mystery about the destruction of Jerusalem, because he said, "See Luke 21:22." The context in Lk. 21 shows Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the context in Rev. 10 shows no such thing. In the context of Lk. 21 "all things which are written" does not refer to all things which are written by all of the Old Testament prophets, but all things the Old Testament prophets wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem. Our dear brother then said, "What is that mystery?" He responded, "It was the revealed Word of God, which tells of His divine plan of salvation. See Eph. 1: 9, 10 and 3:3-6." And then he said, "Jesus said the gospel had to be preached before the end would come. See Mt. 24:14. The end, according to him, would be the end of the Jewish age." Our beloved brother is perverting the Scriptures again. The "end" in Mt. 24:14 is not the end of the Jewish age, as taught by Max King, and his followers. The end in Mt. 24:14 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Jewish age, or world ended at the cross in 33 A.D. The Hebrew writer explains this quite well. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son" (Heb. 1:1). "Time past" was before Jesus died on the cross. This was the world subjected to angels (Heb. 2:2-5). In the Jewish world God spoke by the angels (Heb. 2:2). The law was "ordained by angels" (Gal. 3:19) in the hands of the mediator, Moses. This was all before the cross. When Jesus died on the cross "time past" ended and "the last days" began. The law of Moses was abolished (Eph. 2:15), nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). The Jewish world ended. The new world that has not been subjected to angels began (Heb. 2:5). The old world, i.e. the Jewish world, ended when Jesus was nailed to the cross, not in 70 A.D., contrary not withstanding to Max King and his followers.
Our brother says, "It was at the time of the sounding of this seventh angel that the full and complete revelation of God was made through and by those who were inspired by God to make such revelation." In the next paragraph he said, "I believe Joel, Christ and Peter all teach that this time was the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the age and the end of God's patience with these people." My dear brother you are wresting the Scriptures again! John does not say, "The full and complete revelation of God was made." These are your words as you twist the Scriptures. John said, "The mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." Let's not be guilty of lifting this passage from it's context. Mystery, in this passage, has to do with the persecution of Christians by whomever the book of Revelation deals with, whether it be by Jerusalem, or Rome. It has nothing to do with finishing the "complete revelation of God". If this is what it means, the Book of Revelation would end with Chapter 10, and John would not continue to write twelve more chapters. Joel, Christ and Peter say nothing about the mystery of Rev. 10. We have already shown that Joel says nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem. You have perverted the book of Joel. You have not convinced me that Peter said anything about the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ did in Mt. 24, but He never referred to it as a mystery. He gave them signs to show when it would be!
On Page 74, of his book, our brother made some very strange statements. We must point out some of them. He said, "John survived the predicted catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem and could very well be one of the messengers Jesus said would go to the four winds to gather the elect from one end of heaven to the other." Our dear brother has some imagination, if he did not borrow this from Max King, too! He is referring to either Mt. 24:31, or Mk.13:27, or both. He is connecting these passages in Matthew and Mark to Rev. 10:11, and the statement to John, "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." My brother does a great deal of assuming here. Of course this is nothing new. He does a bunch of that throughout his entire book. In the first place he assumes angels in Mt. 24:31 and Mk.13:27 are humans, and that John "could very well be one of the messengers" (angels). In the second place he assumes, without any proof whatsoever, that Revelation 10:11 is talking about prophesying John would do after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the book of Revelation deals with the destruction of Jerusalem. In the third place he assumes Jerusalem has been destroyed already in chapter 10 of the Book of Revelation. However, Mystery Babylon The Great, which he says is Jerusalem, is still standing after Rev. 10:11. Mystery Babylon The Great is still standing in Chapters 17 and 18. John truly did prophecy again in Chapters 11-22. He is prophesying again about the destruction of Mystery Babylon The Great who was still persecuting Christians. He was prophesying again to many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings! This means he had already prophesied to "Many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings", in the first ten chapters of Revelation. Now he must prophesy again to "Many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings", in chapters 11-22. Based on all this assuming, our dear brother says this "seems to lend support to the earlier date of the writing of Revelation. If the later date of A.D. 96 were true, John would have been approximately 96 years old. History tells us that at the age of 96 John was so feeble that he could hardly talk, much less travel to many people nations and tongues". If John was so feeble, how could he have gotten out of that "cauldron of boiling oil" (Fox's Book Of Martyrs, P. 5), in which Domitian had him cast? How could this be, in view of the fact you teach miracles ended in 70 A.D.? The truth is "prophesy again", does not mean some prophecy outside of the Book of Revelation. This is pure assumption on your part!

Chapter 11

Our dear brother contends that the temple which is being measured, in Chapter 11, is the church. However, John not only measures the temple, but the "alter" and "them that worship therein." Of course, his reasoning is all wrong, because "them that worship therein" would be the church. Therefore, the church is not the temple, but the ones who worship in the temple. John is not to measure "the court which is without the temple, for it is given unto the Gentiles." But the holy city wherein the temple is located "shall they tread under foot forty and two months." In Revelation 21, you teach the "Holy City, New Jerusalem" is the church.This Holy City has no temple in it (Rev. 21:22). How can you switch gears? Of course this is no problem to you. You just make things mean what ever you want them to, even if you have to make it different in some other passage! Most people who contend for the early date argue that the temple in chapter 11 is the temple Herod built. They argue that since John is told to measure the temple, is proof the temple still stands; thus this was before the destruction of Jerusalem, because the temple was not still standing after A.D. 70. This is a better argument than the one you make. However, it would not prove the Book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Because, the prophet Ezekiel measured the temple in Jerusalem, after Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed, while they are in Babylonian captivity (Ezekiel 41).
Under verse two he says "the holy city is, no doubt, talking about the city of Jerusalem." Yet he tells us the temple in the holy city is the church. However, the church was not limited to the Holy City, Jerusalem. There were seven churches in Asia, to whom the Book of Revelation was written. I keep wondering why this book was written to seven churches in Asia, instead of the church in Jerusalem, if it deals with Jerusalem persecution, and the destruction of Jerusalem!!
Under verse 3, our dear brother says, "What great city was under siege for this period of time?" He then said, "there was none, other than Jerusalem." Now there are some very important observations we need to note here. Observation Number 1. Rome, with the "beast, that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" is killing "God's two witnesses." It has nothing at all to do with Rome, with the beast (Nero) destroying Jerusalem and sinful Jewish leaders in 70 A.D. In fact, Nero died in 68 A.D. according to one of your reference books, Worthy is the Lamb by Ray Summers. The "beast, that ascended out of the bottomless pit" is Nero, reincarnated in Domitian (Worthy Is The Lamb, P. 165, and 192). Thus, "The beast that ascended out of the bottomless pit" that makes war with the two witnesses and kills them is Nero, reincarnated in Domitian.
Observation Number 2. God gives power unto His two witnesses. These two witnesses prophesy, they are not false prophets, what you call later the land beast of Rev. 13. These two witnesses are the two olive trees and two candlesticks, standing before God. Thus, they are not Jewish political leaders that Titus the Roman General has come to destroy in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Observation Number 3. These two witnesses have miraculous power. They can do as Elijah, "cause it not to rain in the days of their prophecy." They can do as Moses and Aaron, "have power over waters to turn them to blood." Thus they are not Jewish political leaders that Titus the Roman General came to destroy in 70 A.D.
Observation Number 4. These two witnesses are killed, lie in the street of the great city unburied for three and one half days. These two witnesses had tormented people that dwelt upon the earth. People rejoiced and sent gifts to one another after they were dead. But these two witnesses arose from the dead. Thus, these two witnesses are not Jewish political leaders that Titus the Roman General came to destroy in 70 A.D., which arose from the dead and were back in power shortly afterward!!
Observation Number 5. Our dear brother says the Holy City was "under siege" for 42 months. The word siege is not in the passage. This is an addition to the word of God. This is another perversion of the Scriptures. The passage says the Holy City "shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
Observation Number 6. These two witnesses "ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them." Thus these two witnesses are not Jewish political leaders that Titus the Roman General came to destroy in 70 A.D. which ascended up to heaven in a cloud while Titus and the Roman army observed them.
Observation Number 7. The same hour the two witnesses ascended up to heaven, there was a great earthquake and the tenth part of the city fell killing 7,000, and the remnant left were affrighted, and gave glory to God. Thus this is not the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., because the entire city was destroyed by Titus and the Roman army, rather than one tenth of the city destroyed with an earthquake. Furthermore there were no wicked Jews left to give glory to God for what happened.

Chapter 12

Our dear brother says "the woman" is the church. "The child" the woman brought forth was "the first born ones of the kingdom of Christ." He says, "the man child" was "the martyred saints which were caught up to God to sit on thrones of judgment (verse 11 and Revelation 20:4)." They would include the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:12). He says, "The remnant of her seed" "were those left alive who could survive the persecution." Now I want to call attention to some more very important observations.
Observation Number 1. He says the woman is the church. John said, "The woman brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron." David said "The Son would break them with a rod of iron" (Ps. 2:7-9). The foot note in the New American Standard Version says rule them. Man child is singular, i.e. one child. Our dear brother makes it many children. If the woman is the church, then the church gave birth to Christ (the man child), which means the church existed before Christ was born, and Christ could not have built the church (Mt. 16:18).
Observation Number 2. If woman is the church and her first born son is many Christians, then in view of the fact that "the man child was caught up to heaven" would prove all the early Christians who were martyred are already in heaven. Further more, if the man child, singular, represents only the first to become Christians, (martyred saints), and they are already in heaven; what about all the other first to become Christian saints, who were not martyred?? Where are they?
Observation Number 3. He says, "The remnant were those left alive who could survive the persecution." Therefore, he must be saying, The man child is all those first to become Christians, who were martyred. The "remnant of her seed" (verse 17) would be those who escaped the persecution as they fled into the wilderness. But this doesn't add up. In the first place, Titus and the Roman Army did not come to destroy the church in 70 A.D. They came to destroy the Jewish leaders and the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish temple; not the church of the Lord. He thinks this has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But Titus, and the Roman Army did not come to persecute Christians. Titus and the Roman army came to defeat the Jewish leaders and destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem!! Christians fled to the mountains to avoid being destroyed by Titus and the Roman army who came to Jerusalem to destroy the city and the temple in 70 A.D. There is no connection between the destruction of Jerusalem and what took place in Revelation 12. It is simply a figment of my dear brother's imagination.
Observation Number 4. Our dear brother said, "See Galatians 4:26 where Paul says she was the mother of us all." Paul did not say, in Gal. 4:26, that the church is the mother of us all. This is another example of your perverting the Scriptures.

Who Is The Woman Of Revelation 12?

Our beloved brother tries to use the Bible as his commentary frequently in his book. He is to be commended for that. The Bible truly is the best commentary of the book of Revelation. However, my beloved brother frequently perverts the Bible, when he attempts to use it as a commentary. My dear brother uses Galatians 4:21-31 as a commentary of Revelation 12. I don't believe he could have found a better commentary. However, he perverts the commentary. He says the woman (Sarah) which answers to Jerusalem "which is above" is the church. This is a perversion of the passage! The truth is "we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Gal. 4:28). We, the children of promise, are the church. The church is made up of, or composed of, the children. We are not the mother. We, like Isaac, are the children. Our mother is Sarah, the New Testament, who answers to Jerusalem which is above. This passage (Gal. 4:21-31) contains an allegory. There are two women: Hagar, a bondmaid, and Sarah a freewoman. There are two children: Ishmael, the son of the bondmaid, and Isaac, the son of the freewoman. The two women are the two covenants. This would mean the mothers are the covenants. Hagar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia "which gendereth to bondage." Hagar is the law of Moses, which is a "yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1). Sarah is the law of Christ, which is the "perfect law of liberty" (Jas. 1:25). Those who keep the law of Moses are the children of Hagar. Those who keep the law of Christ are the children of Sarah. The son, born by Hagar, was "born after the flesh" (Gal. 4:23). Whereas, the son, born by Sarah, "was by promise" (Gal. 4:23). Ishmael, was "born after the flesh," in that human flesh planned it and designed it. This was Sarah's plan, and not God's plan. Whereas, Isaac was the son born "by promise." He was the one planned and promised by God. The law of Moses was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:10). Just as Hagar, the bond woman and Ishmael her son were cast out (Gal. 4:30), so the son of the bond woman could not be heir with the son of the free woman; so the law of Moses and those who keep the law of Moses are cast out; so, those who keep the law of Moses cannot be heirs with the children of the New Testament. The two women answer to two Jerusalems (Gal. 4:25, 26). Hagar answers to "Jerusalem which now is" (Gal. 4:25). Therefore, Sarah would answer to Jerusalem which is above. Hagar, Jerusalem which now is, "is in bondage with her children." Sarah, "Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all." Therefore, the woman of Revelation 12 is Sarah, which is the New Testament, and Jerusalem, which is above, and the mother of us all. The man child is Christ who rules the nations with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9). God said to Abraham, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Rom. 9:7). The seed is Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ being the seed of Abraham, through Isaac, means Sarah is the mother of Christ; as well as us all. Sarah answers to Jerusalem which is above, which is the mother of us all. This means the church is not the mother, but Sarah, the freewoman, the New Testament, Jerusalem which is above, is the mother "of us all." This means the church is not the mother, but the children of the mother. Therefore, if we are going to use Gal. 4 as a commentary, use it properly.
Under verse 7, he says, "Here we have a heavenly war being fought between the dragon and his angels (the bad) and Michael and his angels (the good)." He tells us, "The meaning of this is that the forces of Judaism (and possibly pagan Rome) were warring against the forces of Christianity and truth. This battle was taking place in heavenly places - governmental, political or religious authorities or powers." My dear brother just says this! He offers no proof what so ever. He expects us just to accept what he says! However, we will not accept it just because he says it. We will look at some more important observations. The Bible says the war was in heaven, but our dear brother says the war was "taking place in...governmental, political or religious authorities or powers." Thus, according to him, the Dragon which was the devil was defeated and cast out of heaven, i.e. governmental, political or religious places. I wish our dear brother was right, but I believe the devil is still in governmental, political and religious places. I don't believe he has been cast out of these what he calls heavenly places at all.
Under verse 8, he says the forces of evil were being kicked out of the church, and that the church is the heavenly places. Now dear brother, which is it? Is heaven here the church, where the war is taking place, or is heaven the governmental, political or religious places?
Under verse 9, our beloved brother says, "There was no place for evil in heaven (the Church) so the dragon with his evil influences was cast down to earth among those not in the Church." At this particular time, when he made this statement, he thinks heaven is the church. Therefore the devil has been cast out of the church, because there is no place for evil in the church, therefore the evil influences of the devil are no longer in the church! My dear brother, I wish you were right, but I am afraid you are wrong. I am persuaded there are some very evil influences from the devil in the church that has resulted in all these perversions of Scripture that you are engaged in!
Under verse 10 he asked, "Who was the accuser?" He then said, "It was someone who accused true Christians before God." He then asked, "Would this have been Romans or Jews?". He then said, "It was the Jews." John tells us the "accuser of the brethren" which was cast down is the devil (Rev. 12:9, 10). Our dear brother takes issue with John. He says the accuser was the Jews. May be our dear brother thinks the devil is the Jews. Under verse 11 he says, "These brethren, or saints, were able to overcome the accuser" (whom he thinks is the Jews), but John said he was the devil. But my dear brother thinks the accuser was the Jews, because the Christians were set on following Christ even unto death.

Chapter 13

Under verse five, paragraph two, our brother says, "Many commentators in the brotherhood feel that this sea beast and the man of sin described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 are the same and that Paul and John could not be any more clear in identifying Nero, the emperor of Rome, without increasing the persecution of the church." It matters not how many in the brotherhood think this, it is absolutely false. Our dear brother never told us whether he agreed, or disagreed. If this beast is Nero, the emperor of Rome, and the "man of sin" in 2 Th. 2, then Nero, the emperor of Rome is still reigning in Rome claiming to be God!!! Why, you say? Because Paul said this wicked one, who claims to be God, would be "consumed with the spirit of His mouth", i.e. the Lord's mouth, and be destroyed by the Lord "with the brightness of His coming." Therefore, this argument forces all who make it to accept the position of Max King, i.e. the second coming of Christ occurred in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. But, my dear brother, you cannot make that argument. According to you, the coming of the Lord to destroy Jerusalem was "as hand", would "shortly come to pass." However, the coming of the Lord in 2 Th. 2 was not "at hand", but a "falling away" would come first. The "man of sin" of 2 Th. 2 is still with us, because the coming of the Lord, in 2 Th. 2 was not "at hand", but Nero is not still with us. The "man of sin" will be with us until the Lord comes back, at the end of the world. However, Nero has been gone for years! It could be my dear brother agrees with Max King here, and that when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. it was the second coming of Christ. If so, it's just a matter of a short time until he accepts all of the Max King doctrine!!
Under verse 15, our dear brother says the land beast was Jewish authorities who promoted the worship of the sea beast, which he claims was Nero the Roman emperor. He has no proof at all for this claim. He has no proof that Nero ever demanded that people worship him. He has no proof that any Jewish leaders ever tried to influence Christians to worship Nero, or any other emperor. If he had proof, he would have given it. The best he could do was refer to the high priest who said "we have no king but Caesar", in John 19:35). This priest was not worshiping Caesar, or even suggesting that anyone do so!!

Chapter 14

I agree with my brother that Number 1, the great red dragon is the devil in Chapter 12. I agree that Number 2, the sea beast is the Roman Empire, and one of his heads was "as it were" wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed. I agree with Ray Summers in his book Worthy Is The Lamb that the head which was "as it were" wounded to death was Nero, and his deadly wound was healed as he ascended up out of the bottomless pit being reincarnated in Domitian (Worthy Is The Lamb, By Ray Summers P. 192). I do not agree with Number 3 that "Judaism, led and governed by the Jewish religious leaders, under the control of Rome ever tried to get anyone to worship the Roman Emperor." You have absolutely no proof of that whatsoever. In the rest of his Chapter 14 comments, he makes the same claims he has made over and over, which he cannot prove, and which I have already answered. I will not go over them again, because this book is too long already.

Chapter 15

In this section our brother makes the same old arguments he has made over and over again that inspiration stopped in 70 A.D. The Jewish Age ended at the destruction of Jerusalem. I have already answered this, and need not to repeat all of it again. I don't need to say the same thing over and over again, just because he does.

Chapter 16

Our dear brother continues his assertions without proof, and perversions of Scripture. He says, "We see judgment upon the beast, false prophets, and idolatrous worshipers, the apostate city, the temple and Satan." Our dear brother perverts the Scripture by adding an "s" to the word false prophet, in verse 13. The false prophet, was the land beast (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). The false prophet in Chapter 16 is not false prophets. The temple that is mentioned is in heaven. He says nothing about the Jewish temple. He gave no proof that the apostate city was Jerusalem. The "great city" was not completely destroyed, "but divided into three parts." It was the cities of the nations that fell (Verse 19). "Great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath" (Verse 10). Remember, it was Rome that historically had the "epithet" Babylon attached to it (The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol. 1, Page 405). Under verse 2 he says those who turned to idolatry were Jews. He thinks the Jews in Jerusalem worshiped Nero. He gave us no proof that anyone ever worshiped Nero. I have never seen any proof that anyone ever worshiped Nero, before his death. Titus did not come to Jerusalem to destroy the city and the temple in 70 A.D., because the Jews were worshiping Nero. There is no logic to what our dear brother is saying. Under verse 3 he said the sea was "society of people." Did he give us any proof? None what so ever! I can understand how the literal sea could turn to blood (Exo. 7:14-18). Our dear brother's imagination has run wild. "Society of people, turning to blood." Amazing, to say the least. Under verses 4-7 he says, "the fountains and rivers were the source of idolatry and false teaching. What is the source of idolatry and false teaching? Could it be the devil? If the devil is the "source of idolatry and false teaching", then the devil was turned to blood!!
Under verses 8-9 he says the sun is "those who assumed power and position which was not lawful for them to have." He thinks they "took the prerogative of having people worship the image of the beast instead of God." Dear brother, where's your proof? Who are these people who assumed power and position which was not lawful for them to have? If they are the sun, then they scorched people! Whom did they scorch? Did they scorch men with heat for worshiping the image of the beast? Or did they scorch men with heat for refusing to worship the image of the beast? Did Titus and the Roman army come after them in 70 A.D. and destroy them with the destruction of Jerusalem? If so, did the Romans destroy them because they scorched men with heat for worshiping Nero, or for refusing to worship Nero?
Under verses 12-16 he says "the sixth plague would dry up the Euphrates River...This would allow the enemy easy access to come in and destroy the Palestinian territory and march right on into the city of Jerusalem." This puzzles me! Rome is West of Jerusalem. The Euphrates river is east of Jerusalem. I can see how Titus and the Roman army might come from the north into Jerusalem to destroy it. Why would they travel all that far to the east to cross the Euphrates river to come to Jerusalem to destroy the temple and the city??? Since this puzzled me, I decided to check what Josephus, the Jewish Historian said about it. I learned that Vespasian, along with his son Titus were sent by Nero to destroy Jerusalem. I learned they began the war in Galilee, not the Euphrates river (Wars Of The Jews, Book IV, Chapter I). When Vespasian was making preparation for the siege of Jerusalem he learned of the death of Nero. He, upon learning of the death of Nero, returned to Rome where he succeeded in becoming the emperor (Wars Of The Jews, Book IV, Chapter IX, and X). After he became emperor, he sent Titus from Alexandria, Egypt to destroy Jerusalem. Titus came from Alexandria across the Mediterranean sea to Cesarea where he gathered all his army together. From Cesarea he marched to Jerusalem to destroy the city (Wars Of The Jews, Book IV, Chapter XI, and Book V. Chapter I).
On page 115, of his book, he tells us, "The dragon (devil), sea beast (Roman empire headed by Nero, the emperor) and the land beast (false prophets - Jewish leaders) came spewing false teaching (frogs, unclean spirits) at all the people." He then tells us Jesus in Mt. 24:4, 5, 11, 23-28 said "False prophets would deceive many. Even the very elect would be challenged." This is puzzling indeed! According to him, the emperor Nero, the dragon (the devil) and the land beast (false prophets who are Jewish leaders) are all pulling together to get people to worship Nero. While they are pulling together in perfect harmony, all of a sudden Nero sends Titus and the Roman army to Jerusalem to destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and all those Jewish leaders who have been pulling together with them to get everyone to worship Nero!!! He then tells us, "These three evil forces (Satan, Nero, and false prophets) WOULD GATHER ALL THE POWERS TOGETHER THEY COULD FOR A GREAT BATTLE AGAINST CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH." He then tells us according to Zech 14 and Mt. 24 this was "the great battle of Armageddon." The further the man goes, the stranger he becomes. The battle in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was not really Jesus Christ coming with the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem and the temple because of Jerusalem's killing all the prophets and righteous men! What really happened is the devil, Nero, and false prophets gathered all the powers together they could for a great battle against Christ and His church. We now have a different picture altogether about the destruction of Jerusalem, as to who actually did it, and why!!! Truly amazing, the battle of Armageddon occurred in 70 A.D. It was not Jesus Christ coming with Titus and the Roman army to destroy the temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It was really The devil, Nero, and false prophets coming with Titus and the Roman army to fight against Christ and the church!! Our dear brother says, "The battle was fought by Christ and Christians on one side and Judaism and heathenism on the other." In the next paragraph he says, "A brief analysis of Zechariah 14 and Matthew 24 may help us to understand this point." The further he goes the more mixed up he gets. Mt. 24 has nothing to do with the battle of Armageddon. Zechariah 14 has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., as we have already shown. Neither does it have anything to do with the battle of Armageddon. Jesus Christ was involved in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He came with the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus Christ was involved in the battle of Armageddon. In this battle the Devil and the Roman Empire were on one side of the battle and Jesus Christ on the "other." In Mt. 24 Jesus was on the side of the Roman army fighting against Jerusalem. I feel sorry for my dear brother. I hope and pray with all my being he will see the truth and repent of perverting the Scriptures, the Holy Word Of God.
I have been sitting here debating with myself about what I should do with his comparison of Zech. 14 with Mt. 24, and trying to tie it all in with the Book of Revelation. I could write pages more showing all his perversions, contradictions, and wresting of Scripture. This book is already too long. I have already covered everything he says, in this book. Therefore, I have decided to skip it.

Chapter 17

Our brother continues to insist that the harlot is Jerusalem instead of Rome. Yet, he tells us Nero was the emperor of Rome and used the Jewish leaders who were the land beast (false prophet) to force people to worship the emperor Nero. Now, in his comments under verse 8, he tells us Nero died in A.D. 68. He tells us the battle of Armageddon was fought when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., on Page 115 of his book. Under verse 8, our dear brother tells us Nero was dead in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed, because he died in A.D. 68. However, under verses 9-11, he tells us Nero was the sixth king who was now reigning, and the seventh one, is not yet come." The sixth king, Nero, was thus the one reigning in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed. And this was the battle of Armageddon, when Jesus fought against Nero and the Roman army, yet Nero died two years earlier in 68 A.D. Need I say more?
Under verse 16, our dear brother says, "The ten horns (Roman kings) shall hate the harlot. This should be proof enough that the harlot is Jerusalem and not Rome. The Roman kings would not be likely to hate their capital city." This is another example of perverting the Scriptures. The ten horns which are ten kings which hate the harlot are not Roman emperors, (Kings). Verse 10 says there are seven kings (not 10). These seven kings are emperors. Five of these kings are fallen, i.e. dead. The sixth one, our dear brother told us was Nero. The seventh one has not yet come, and when he is come "he must continue a short space." Even though there are seven, there are actually eight (V. 11). The eighth one is of the seven, which means two of them are counted as one. There were actually 8 kings, but two of them are counted as one, which explains the statement "There are seven kings." According to the Nero redivivus myth, Nero was reincarnated in Domitian, counting the two as one. They are counted as one, because both of them persecuted Christians. "The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast" (Rev. 17:12). These are kings like the Herod's who ruled in Palestine. These are the kings who hated Rome, because they wanted to be in full control and not have to answer to Rome. This is the reason they hated the harlot. I believe I have answered all of his material, that he gives under Chapter 17. I have answered it throughout this book. Some of it more than once.

Reasons Why The Harlot Is The City Of Rome
And Not The City Of Jerusalem.

1. She sits on many waters (Rev. 17:1). The waters are "Peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" (Rev. 17:15). This fits Rome better than it fits Jerusalem.
2. The kings of the earth committed fornication with her (Rev.17:2). Fornication here refers to idolatry. Even though Jerusalem had worshiped idols in the past, such as Baal, etc. there is nothing in the New Testament to indicate they worshiped idols prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
3. The harlot was sitting upon a scarlet colored beast (Rev. 2:3). This beast had seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 2:3), which shows it is the Sea beast of (Rev.13:1), which had seven heads and ten horns. This beast was in Rome, which means the woman riding the beast was in Rome, and was thus the city of Rome and not Jerusalem.
4. This woman had on her forehead Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev.17:5). Rome was known in history as the city to which the epithet of Babylon was applied (The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbons, P. 405).
5. The woman was carried by the "beast that had seven heads and ten horns." This is the beast "that was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition" (Rev. 17:7, 8.) The city of Rome rode upon the back of the Roman emperors, not Jerusalem.
6. The woman sits on seven mountains where there were seven kings, five of which had fallen, one is, and the seventh has not yet come (Rev. 17:9, 10). There may have also been seven mountains in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem had no king. Rome is the city that had the seven Kings.
7. The harlot is "that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:18). Jerusalem was reigning over no one in the years prior to A.D. Rome was ruling over the world, including all kings of the earth. The Herod's answered to Rome.
8. Rome falling would affect world trade more than the fall of Jerusalem would. Our dear brother tells us that neither Rome nor Jerusalem was located on the sea shore. When he made that statement, he knew Rome was closer to the sea than Jerusalem was. He also knew Jerusalem was high on a mountain top. I am sure Jerusalem was a great trade center, and that her fall would affect the shipping industry. However, he knows, and all of us know, that the fall of Rome would hurt the shipping industry more than the fall of Jerusalem!
9. All nations had drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication (Rev. 18:3). There is no proof that Jerusalem from the time of Christ until A. D. 70 worshiped idols.
10. The kings of the earth have committed fornication with her. This is spiritual fornication, because it was committed with a city called a woman. There is no proof Jerusalem from the time of Christ until A.D. 70 worshiped idols.

Chapter 18

Our beloved brother contends that the harlot is the city of Jerusalem. He thinks Chapter 18 is "the final doom of Jerusalem." We will consider what he has to say. Our dear brother tells us the angel came down from heaven, and the earth was "lighted with his glory", and the light was the gospel of Christ. Therefore, according to him, we have an angel coming from heaven to preach the gospel of Christ. Yet Paul said "we have this treasure in earthen vessels" (2 Cor. 4:7). But this would be no problem for our brother. He would probably make the angel some person, and he could probably tell you who the person is. If he can make a "mighty angel" Jesus Christ, then he can make an angel whomever he wants to. He says, at the top of Page 130, of his book, "Jerusalem was listed as the fourth largest city in the Roman world." This would mean that business would suffer, if the city was destroyed. Yes, but not like it would if the number one city fell! It's not just the merchants in Palestine. Neither is it the ship masters of Palestine. It is "every ship master, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea" (Rev. 18:17). My dear brother you know this fits Rome, better than it does Jerusalem.
In the last paragraph on P. 133, of his book he says, "No other event in history, nor any event which could possibly occur in the future, could provide a more perfect fulfillment for these symbols, than did the persecution of the Church by Judaism and the judgment of God which He brought upon the Jews by the hand of Nero and the Romans." Yet this destruction took place in 70 A.D., and Nero died in A.D. 68. Our brother has even admitted this, as we noted earlier. Vespasian, was the emperor when Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. Titus, the son of Vespasian, was the General of the army under Vespasian, not Nero.

Chapter 19

In verses one through six there is a "great multitude" in heaven (American Standard Version, and New American Standard version) praising God for the fall of the great harlot. The King James version says, "much people." Possibly, the use of the word "people", in the King James Version, caused my dear brother to think it was the "entire church", praising God, for the fall of the harlot. The context shows heaven is not symbolic of the church, in this passage. In this passage heaven is just that, heaven. The twenty four elders are in heaven, along with the four living creatures (beasts), before the throne worshiping God who is in heaven. There is not one member of the church in this group.
In verse seven, the passage says "the marriage of the lamb is come and his wife hath made herself ready." This is the first time, in this chapter, the church has been mentioned. The bride made herself ready on earth. She will be presented to Christ, in heaven. Down here she is pictured, as my brother says, as being espoused, or engaged to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). Of course he thinks that was before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But contrary to his teaching, the wedding will not take place until we get to heaven, when he will "present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27). The church, as the bride of Christ, was not presented to Christ immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem as my dear brother, and Max King and his followers falsely teach. Under verse 9, our dear brother says, "Every person who hears the preaching of the gospel and responds by repenting of their sins, confessing their faith in Christ and being baptized with Christ in baptism is at that point married to Christ and receives all the blessings of such an arrangement." Of course he believes this is the case following the destruction of Jerusalem. However, he agrees with Max King that before the destruction of Jerusalem they were only espoused, or engaged to Christ.

Chapter 20

Our dear brother says, "Jerusalem (the great harlot city) has fallen. The beast and false prophet have been cast into the bottomless pit (oblivion). Now the old dragon who instigated all the problems for Christ and His church is ready to be put out of the way, sent back to where he came from, in total defeat. By this time, God's complete revelation has been given, i.e., ‘that which is perfect' in I Corinthians 13:10"). The word oblivion means, "1. A forgetting or having forgotten; forgetfulness 2. the condition or fact of being forgotten 3. official overlooking of offenses; pardon" (Webster's New World Dictionary). In view of the fact, our dear brother says the beast and false prophet are in oblivion, (the bottomless pit); which definition do you suppose he would have us to use? Does being in the bottomless pit mean we have simply forgotten them, or forgetfulness has taken hold on them? Or does it mean they are simply in a condition where we have forgotten them, while they are in the bottomless pit? Or does it mean God has overlooked their terrible sins and has pardoned them? From what I have read of the Max King doctrine, I do not find any proof many of them believe in hell, i.e. eternal punishment. Statements like this causes me to wonder if my dear brother believes there is any punishment in that place where the king of Babylon went, when he died (Isa. 14). Does he believe the rich man was punished when he died and went to the Hadean world (Lk. 16)? He says, here on this page, page number 141 in his book, that the old dragon, which is the devil, was the "great star", in Rev. 9, which had the key to the bottomless pit and loosed all the locust into the earth. However, back on page 65, he said some political ruler like Lucifer, the king of Babylon, who was a servant of Satan was the one, who bit the dust, who had the key to the bottomless pit. Now, an angel comes down from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. Our brother tells us that Christ is that angel who took the key away from the devil, or was it a political ruler who lost his power. I wish our brother would make up his mind! How he knows this, we will never know, the word of God certainly didn't tell us! Our dear brother is good at making the Bible say whatever he wants it to say! According to him, Jesus bound the devil and chained him "with the gospel" in the bottomless pit. Now, our dear brother has the beast, the false prophet, and Satan all in the bottomless pit, what he calls (oblivion). According to him, they are all forgotten, or possibly pardoned!! But now we read on in Revelation 20 to verse 10 , where John said, "The devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are." Apparently he believe the bottomless pit and the lake of fire and brimstone is one and the same place. But this gets him into trouble! He has Jesus taking the key to the "bottomless pit" which is, according to him, "the lake of fire and brimstone." Thus Jesus chained the devil in the bottomless pit which is, according to our brother, the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, at the beginning of the thousand years (Rev. 20:2). When the thousand years were over, "expired", Satan was loosed out of the place he was chained which, according to our brother was "the bottomless pit" which is "the lake of fire and brimstone." When Satan was loosed from his chain, he went "out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev. 20:8-10). Our dear brother says the passage about being loosed for a little season "is a difficult one" (Bottom of Page 141). On the next page, he said the short time "was probably three and one half years, the time just prior to the final destruction of Jerusalem while the church was in hiding, for safety." This is interesting. "The church was in hiding, for safety." In spite of this, the Devil found the church, apparently in the "holy city." The Devil, along with nations from the four quarters of the earth, "Compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city." Fire then came down from heaven and devoured Satan and the nations from the four quarters of the earth. The devil then, that deceived all these nations, was cast back into "the lake of fire and brimstone", which is the bottomless pit (according to our brother) where he had previously been bound for one thousand years. There is nothing said about the devil being tormented, while he was chained, in the bottomless pit. Now that he is cast into the "lake of fire and brimstone" he is said to be "tormented forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10). I wonder if our dear brother believes the lake of fire and brimstone is hell? If so, I wonder if he believes the bottomless pit is hell, too? If so, he must believe Nebudchadnezzar went to hell the day he died, and is still there; thus will not be resurrected in the last day, and judged in the last day, and then cast into "the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." I am beginning to wonder if my dear brother believes in an eternal hell!
On page 142 he said, "After this last attempt to destroy the Church the Devil is cast into oblivion along with the beast and false prophet forever and ever." Again, he calls this place oblivion. According to our dear brother, the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast, false prophet, and Satan is "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10) is oblivion. Please go back to pages 85 and 86 of this book and notice Webster's definition of oblivion. Does our dear brother take all three definitions of the word, or just one, or two of the definitions? Does he take the first one and believe that the Devil is forgetful, and has forgotten about us and his torment? Or does he take the second definition and tell us that we have all forgotten him? Or will he take the third definition and believe God is overlooking his offenses and has pardoned him?? The truth of the matter is the judgment of the beast, false prophet, and Satan took place when Mystery Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots was destroyed, which I believe was Rome. However, in the background, there is the final judgment day, which is yet to come, when all of us will be judged by Jesus Christ by the words which Jesus has spoken (Jno. 12:48).

Chapter 21

Under verse two, our dear brother says old Jerusalem is the harlot Babylon, or Judaism which had fallen. He then says new Jerusalem coming out of heaven is the church. He attempts to prove this by listing as proof Gal. 4:26; Eph. 5:23-33 and Hebrews 12:22ff. Our dear brother is wresting these Scriptures, for they do not say what he claims they say. In Paul's allegory in Gal. 4:21-31 he teaches there were two women, Hagar and Sarah. He says these two women are the two covenants (Gal. 5:23, 24). Hagar, is the Old Covenant and was Mt. Sinai in Arabia where the Old Covenant began. Hagar answered to Jerusalem "which now is", or Old Jerusalem. She is in bondage with her children who are those who keep the law of Moses. Sarah is the New Covenant and answers to Jerusalem which is from above, or New Jerusalem. Her children are free. Christians who are the children of the New Testament, i.e. Sarah, are free. The church, then, is not Jerusalem which is above, but the children of Sarah, the New Covenant, which is Jerusalem which is from above. Eph 5:23-33 pictures the church as the bride of Christ, not Jerusalem which is from above, the New Testament, which is the mother of us all. Our dear brother also perverts Heb. 12:22ff. The Hebrew writer is drawing a contrast between the Mt. Zion that we have come to and Mt. Sinai to which the Jews came. Mt. Sinai was a mountain that could be touched (Heb. 12:18). It was a mountain that was shaken with the voice of God (Heb. 12:26, 27).
Our dear brother said, "The new heaven (system of religion) was the church. The new earth (place of religion) was no longer limited to Jerusalem and the Jews, but now includes the whole world with every creature under the sun. (Go into all the world, to every creature is the message of Mark 16:15)." From this statement, our dear brother would have us to believe that Jerusalem had to be destroyed in 70 A.D. before the Apostles could go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He would have us believe that the place of religion was limited to Jerusalem and the Jews up until Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Jesus told the apostles to go into all the world in Mk. 16:15. He did not intend for them to wait until Jerusalem was destroyed before they carried out the great commission. In fact Jesus said the gospel would be preached in all the world before Jerusalem was destroyed (Mt. 24:14).
Under verse 4, our dear brother says, "A similar picture is given by God in Isaiah 65:17-19 where God is drawing a contrast between the pain and agony of being in Babylonian bondage and being freed to go back to their homeland and living in peace." I agree with my brother to some degree on this. The prophet Isaiah does record the word of God where he would create new heavens and earth and also where He would create Jerusalem, wiping away tears, etc. Ancient Babylon was destroyed by God sending the Medes to destroy the city. When God brought the children of Israel back to Jerusalem, he created Jerusalem and his people had tears wiped away from their eyes. The same thing happens in the Book of Revelation. Mystery Babylon the great falls, just as ancient Babylon fell. Ancient Babylon persecuted God's people. Mystery Babylon the great also persecuted God's people. When Mystery Babylon the great was destroyed, God created Jerusalem again and wiped away tears from the eyes of Christians who had been suffering persecution. However, in the Book of Revelation, Mystery Babylon the great is Rome and not Jerusalem.

Chapter 22

Under his comments on verses 18 and 19 of this chapter, he says, "This most sober warning in all of God's Word is that we do not add or subtract from what it says. The idea that we are free to do our own thing is a dangerous philosophy in any area of life. It is disastrous when it comes to misusing God's Word." My dear brother, I want to say amen. I have pointed out many times where you have perverted and twisted the Scriptures in your book. I sincerely hope you will repent and correct the many times you misused God's word. I certainly do not believe you intended to do so. Others, whom you have confidence in, were guilty of the perversions. You just copied them.
I agree with my brother that Chapters 20-22 deal with the judgment of Mystery Babylon The Great, and creating a place where there is no tears, and a place of rejoicing for those Christians who were so severely persecuted. However, in the back ground is a picture of the final judgment day, when all nations will stand before Christ (Mt. 25:31-43) to be judged. Also, in the back ground, is heaven itself with the tree of life, etc. described in chapters 21 and 22. I agree that the Book of Revelation deals with the destruction of Mystery Babylon, the Great. However, I believe that city to be Rome and not Jerusalem.

Summary

Our dear brother, and those who agree with him, switch gears in the middle of the Book of Revelation. Or, it might be more correct to say, they try to run their vehicle in two gears at the same time. In the first half of the book, they teach Jesus Christ is coming with the Sea beast (Nero) to fight the Jewish leaders in the city of Jerusalem; which results in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. Thus, Jesus Christ, as an ally with Nero, is fighting with Nero against the wicked Jews which results in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in agreement with Mt. 24 in 70 A.D. In the second half of the book, however, Jesus Christ, on the white horse (Rev. 19) is fighting against the Sea beast (Nero) and the land beast (the Jewish leaders) in the battle of Armageddon! In the first half of the book Jesus Christ and the Sea beast are fighting on the same side, against the city of Jerusalem. In the second half of the book Jesus Christ and the Sea beast are enemies fighting against each other, and yet all of the book has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.This is strange indeed. I hope that all readers will observe this thoroughly and carefully.
I hope and pray that all of you who read this book will profit from it, including our dear brother Stidham. Bro. Stidham, I love you dearly. I also love the truth which you so frequently perverted. I hope and pray you will repent.
If you decide to reply to this book, I will be very happy. The more you rub the truth up against error, the brighter the truth will shine, and error becomes more and more ugly.
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their position about dating the Book of Revelation. The lesson for Christians today is the same, whether the book was written in 67 or 68 A.D. about the destruction of Jerusalem; or whether the book was written in 95 or 96 A.D. about the destruction of Rome. We should not push our views to the dividing of churches. We should not push our views to try and get people to line up with us, to where some have felt forced to go some other place to worship. We certainly should not lift passages of Scripture out of their context, pervert them, wrest them, and misapply them; in order to justify our position!!!
If you would like to obtain a copy of our dear brothers book, you may contact him. His address is:

Ruthford Stidham
55 Washington Road
Xenia, Ohio 45385

Your Brother In Christ

Windell Wiser
16334 Evans Rd.
Athens, Al. 35611

Back To Truth And Error Page