Antonia as the prætorium of the procurator Pontius Pilate

 

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

Moving on, Herod ‘the Great’ was well and truly dead by the time

that Simon Maccabee undertook his immense restorative work in Jerusalem.

Though Herod was a formidable builder (including the Pantheon),

he never built any third Temple in Jerusalem.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

That the Antonia was the praetorium is a traditional Christian view:

Antonia Fortress Explained

 

“Traditionally, Christians have believed for centuries that the vicinity of the Antonia Fortress was the site of Pontius Pilate' praetorium, where Jesus was tried for high treason. This was based on the assumption that an area of Roman flagstones discovered beneath the Church of the Condemnation and the Convent of the Sisters of Zion was 'the pavement' which John 19:13 describes as the location of Jesus' trial”.

 

And this is the traditional view as to how it got its name, Antonia?

 

“The Antonia Fortress (Aramaic: קצטרא דאנטוניה) was a citadel built by Herod the Great and named for Herod's patron Mark Antony …”.

 

But this view brings with it certain chronological difficulties from a conventional perspective:

 

“The construction date is controversial because the name suggests that Herod built Antonia before the defeat of Mark Antony by Octavian in 31–30 BCE and Mark Antony's suicide in 30 BCE. Herod is famous for being an apt diplomat and pragmatist, who always aligned himself with the winning side and the "man in charge" of Rome. It is somewhat difficult to bring this date in accordance with the presumed date for the construction of the Herodian Temple”.

 

It brings even greater difficulties when “Herod”, here, meaning King Herod ‘the Great’,

is properly identified in relation to Octavian. For we are actually in the Greek, Seleucid, era of the Maccabees. Octavian is Julius Caesar Augustus, a Greek - the infamous emperor Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - and Herod is his right-hand man, Marcus Agrippa, a great builder in antiquity:

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(2) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

He was a barbaric Phrygian (2 Maccabees 5:22).

 

Names, at this time, can be Greek: Caesar, Pontius, Pilate, praetorion, lithostrōton:

 

Pontius Pilate chose Greek before Latin

 

(2) Pontius Pilate chose Greek before Latin

 

The emperor Hadrian, who was a Grecophile, was the Seleucid monster, ‘Epiphanes’:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

He was probably also that marvellously mixed together Julian-Antiochus character, Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus:

 

Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ Tripled?

 

(2) Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes' Tripled?

 

This was the era of the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and so, of course, there has to be a rebel Judas at the time of the Census (a duplication of Judas Maccabeus):

 

Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”

 

(2) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”

 

And there has to be war going on in and around Jerusalem:

 

Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

(2) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

Moving on, Herod ‘the Great’ was well and truly dead by the time that Simon Maccabee undertook his immense restorative work in Jerusalem. Though Herod was, as said, a formidable builder (including the Pantheon), he never built any third Temple in Jerusalem:

 

Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem

 

(3) Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem

 

How did the Antonia Fortress really get its name?

 

It was, as we have learned above, the prætorium of Pontius Pilate.

 

Well, according to my newly revised article identifying:

 

Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

(3) Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

Pontius Pilate must have been named, also, Marcus Antonius, which, again, can be a Greek name, Markos Antonios:

Marc Anthony Name » AstroInsightz

“The name Anthony, or “Antonius” in Latin, is believed to be derived from the Greek name “Antonios” (Αντόνιος) …”.

 

Pontius Pilate Markos Antonios, a late contemporary of the Greek emperor, Augustus, must have been the matrix for that legendary character, the colourful Mark Antony, close friend of the regally ambivalent legend, Julius Caesar:

 

‘ARE YOU A KING THEN?’

JOHN 18:37

 

 

 

Dating the biblical books before 70 AD

 

 

“As it relates to the dating of New Testament books, the pioneering labor of

John A. T. Robinson in his scholarly work Redating the New Testament 

is of great importance. He argues persuasively that all the books of

the New Testament were written before 70 A.D.”.

 Jim Seghers

 

Dates of the New Testament – Preterist Archives

 

DATING THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT – OR –
THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES
by Jim Seghers

 

The majority of modern scripture scholars attribute late dates to the composition of the New Testament books in the form that we now have them. This is particularly true of the four Gospels. It is usually claimed that Mark was the first gospel written around A.D. 70. Matthew’s composition is dated in the 80’s, followed by Luke in the late 80’s. The Gospel of John is given a composition date in the 90’s.

 

One may be inclined to think, “So what! After all, regardless of the dates attributed to their composition, each book remains the written word of God because the Holy Spirit is the principal author. What does it matter?” Actually, it matters a great deal.

One naturally assumes that the proponents of late composition dates, men with academic degrees, base their conclusions on sound scholarship that is rooted in recent discoveries in History, Archeology, Patristics, Papyrology and other related fields. This is especially true because these scholars pride themselves on their “scientific” approach to biblical interpretation. Certainly, it would seem that their arguments must be buttressed by the data coming from objective research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those supporting late authorship base their statements solely on the wobbly foundation of their own fanciful imaginations. Why is this so?

Late authorship fits conveniently into their first principles, which rejects the possibility of any reality that is beyond the scope of their personal experience. They make the limits of their finite intellects and narrow experiences the measure of God’s activity in the world he created out of nothing. Thus accounts of miracles, the resurrection, claims that Jesus is God, the definition of his mission, the founding of the Church with its hierarchical authority, and statements attributed to Jesus cannot be part of what is the actual inspired word of God. Rather these “beliefs” are explained away as a late editing which merely reflects the tenets of Christians far removed from eyewitnesses and the actual words of Jesus. These claims, of course, have no documented foundation in any historical sense of the word. In order to support this evolutionary flight of fancy it is necessary to claim that the gospels had late compositions.

 

Starting from this faithless, secular viewpoint it is easy to understand why Mark was selected as the first gospel written and the source of Matthew and Luke. This is expedient because Mark lacks many of the “embellishments” found in Matthew and Luke, for example, the institution of the Church on Peter, and the miracles surrounding Jesus birth. Support is drawn from another fashionable invention the Q document, so called from the German word quelle, “source.” “Q” is a hypothetical source from which it is claimed the Synoptic Gospels drew common material. There is no historical evidence that Q ever existed except, of course, in the fertile imaginations of revisionist scholars. The result of this foolishness is a whole system of biblical interpretation based on the myths fabricated by their creators who, themselves, have become the embodiment of the fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In the fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes, it required the uninhibited innocence of a child to proclaim, “The king is Nude!”

 

The resulting interpretations of many modern biblical scholars are so methodologically flawed that they should be the subjects of derision not serious study.

 

Unfortunately, just as in the fable there were many that gawkishly admired the Emperor’s invisible attire, so today there are many who fawn over these illusionary conclusions based on invisible data. At the college and university levels these speculations are taught with indiscriminate dogmatism. Woe to the inquiring student who dares to challenge these pronouncements! One is left to wonder if St. Paul foresaw these times when he prophesied: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:4). Fortunately, amid this academic madness there are voices that are exposing the nudity of much in modern biblical studies.

 

As it relates to the dating of New Testament books, the pioneering labor of John A. T. Robinson in his scholarly work Redating the New Testament is of great importance. He argues persuasively that all the books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. Modernists have refused to seriously investigate his scholarship, choosing instead to ignore it. However, Robinson’s thesis provides a reasonable assumption of composition dates based on sound scholarship not ideological illusion.

 

Recently the scholarly work of the papyrologist, Carsten Peter Thiede (d. 2004), has received widespread notice. He persuasively argues that Matthew’s Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. His pathfinding book written with Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, published in 1996, argues that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written around A.D. 60.

 

Between Robinson and Thiede other persuasive voices have also challenged the late dating nonsense.

 

Gunther Zuntz, the internationally recognized authority on Hellenistic Greek, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark’s composition. Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43. Reicke’s “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, 1972, give the years 50-64 A.D. for the composition of Matthew. Eta Linnemann’s two works: Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? and Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels provide a piercing debunking of the myths of modern biblical scholarship. What makes her arguments so penetrating is the fact that she studied under Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs.

 

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in his doctoral dissertation, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, argues persuasively that John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70 A.D. David Chilton in his excellent commentary on the Book of Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, comes to the same conclusion. Dating of the Book of Revelation is important since even most revisionist scholars affirm that it was the last New Testament book written.

 

The impressive work of Claude Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, confirms Robinson’s thesis. He bases his arguments on language and archaeology. He points out, for example, that in John 5:2 that “there is [estin in Greek, not “was”] at Jerusalem, at the sheep gate, a pool named in Hebrew Bethzatha. It has five porticos.” This makes no sense if Jerusalem was reduced to a heap of stones 25 or 30 years earlier. (See: Claude Tresmontant, The Hebrew Christ and The Gospel of Matthew.) Father Jean Carmignac of Paris also assigns early composition to the four Gospels. Carmignac, a philologist with exceptional skills in biblical Hebrew, was a noted scholar of the Dead Sea scrolls and the world’s most renowned expert on the Our Father. His The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels is a lucid summary of his thesis.

 

 

As a result of the persuasive erudition of these and other scholars a shift is occurring away from the blind acceptance of late New Testament authorship. An example of this shift is reflected in Fr. George H. Duggan’s fine article in the May 1997 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review titled: “The Dates of the Gospels.” By the grace of God may this trend continue!

 

February 7, 1998

 

+ + + + + +

 

 

Damien Mackey comments:

 

Read also:

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

(4) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac

 

(4) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac

 

 

 

Great Harlot Antichrist City

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

  

“Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope,

Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power

that will rise up to persecute Christians”.

 

prererist.org

 

 

Introduction

 

Thanks to the influence of Preterist (as they call themselves) commentators, many of whom are presumably Protestants, a lot has changed since the days when the Beast of the Apocalypse was the pope (papacy) and the “Babylon” of Revelation was his Rome.

 

I, often inspired by writings of a Preterist nature, have written articles such as:

 

Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

(2) Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

(4) Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

(4) Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

(4) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

(3) Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

(3) Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

(4) Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

(4) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

Stephen ‘Protomartyr’ is key to understanding ‘Beast’ of Revelation 13

 

(4) Stephen 'Protomartyr' is key to understanding 'Beast' of Revelation 13

 

Michal Hunt, writing for Agape Bible Study, has written well on the subject in:

 

CHAPTER 17: Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

 

Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

Succession Arrangements Continued

 

"....and the peace of God which is beyond our understanding will guard your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7

 

"Their corpses lie in the main street of the great city known by the symbolic names Sodom and Egypt, in which their Lord was crucified." Revelation 11:8

 

 "At the end of the Passover meal after everyone has received the wine of the Cup of Acceptance, the host announces the completion of the meal and the recommitment to the Covenant by calling out 'teltelestai' which means "it is finished" or "it is fulfilled."  Christ in the Passover

 

"A jar full of sour wine stood there; so putting a sponge soaked in the wine on a hyssop stick, they held it up to his mouth. After Jesus had taken the wine he said, "it is fulfilled'; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit." John 19:30

 

"The 7^th angel emptied his bowl into the air, and a great voice boomed out from the sanctuary, 'The end has come (IT IS FULFILLED)."  Revelation 16:17

 

*Old Testament reference: "The Great Harlot" Ezekiel chapters 16 & 23

In Revelation 11:8 the "Great City" was identified symbolically as both Egypt and Sodom.  After the sacrificial "pouring out" of the 7 chalices by the 7 angel/ministers of the Heavenly Temple it should be clear why this "Great City" is identified as both Egypt and Sodom. 

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" identified with Egypt after the Chalice judgments? See Rev. 11:8. 

Answer: Egypt because of the "plagues" contained in the chalices, which correspond to the plagues of Egypt (see the Chart comparing the Chalice and Trumpet judgments to the Plagues of Egypt).

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" also identified with Sodom (see Rev. 11:8). Hint: What happened to Sodom?

Answer:  The "Great City" is like Sodom because Sodom was destroyed by fire and like Sodom, the destruction will be complete!  After 31/2 months of the Roman siege and the intense suffering of the population, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by fire on the 9^th of Ab 70AD the same day Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon was destroyed in 586(7)BC.

 

The "Great City" where Christ was crucified (Rev. 11:8) had become a "false prophet" in her testimony to the world that Jesus was not the Messiah, and in her apostasy she had become a "great harlot" and a "false bride." This "Great City" that will be destroyed by fire and who has become a "False Bride" identifies both Biblically and historically with the city "once full of fair judgment," the city of Jerusalem.  In this chapter the "Great City" will be symbolically identified as "Babylon." 

 

…. Jerusalem was meant to be the true "gate of heaven"; God's holy witness to the nations of the world.  But Jerusalem, whose name means "will provide peace" rejected God and the "peace of God which is beyond our understanding" when she rejected Jesus, the Messiah, God come in the flesh.  "The faithful city, what a harlot she has become: Zion, once full of fair judgment, where saving justice used to dwell, but now assassins!" Isaiah 1:21 (circa 740BC)

Please read Ezekiel chapter 16

Ezekiel 16:35-36 (Yahweh to Jerusalem) "Very well, whore, hear the word of Yahweh!  The Lord Yahweh says this:

 

For having squandered your money (literally "poured out [ekcheo] your bronze" [meaning "lust"]) and let yourself be seen naked while whoring with your lovers and all the foul idols of your loathsome practices and for giving them your children's blood for this I shall assemble all the lovers to whom you have given pleasure,... (v.58) "You have brought this on yourself, with your lewdness and your loathsome practices" declares the Lord Yahweh.  (Yahweh's message to Ezekiel 5 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586(7)BC)

 

Please read Revelation 17:1-7 Babylon the Great Harlot; the False Bride

Revelation 17: 1-2 "One of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came to speak to me and said, 'Come here and I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute (harlot) who is enthroned beside abundant waters, with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves, and who has made all the population of the world (those who dwell on the land) drunk with the wine of her adultery.'"  This is the 11^th time the phrase "those who dwell on the land" is used in Revelation. As you will recall, I have mentioned that this phrase is symbolic for apostate Israel and is used 12 times in Revelation; once for each of the 12 tribes of Israel: Rev. 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10 [twice]; 13:8, 12, 14 [twice]; 14:6; 17:2,8). 

 

Question:  In what verses was "the city" symbolized as Babylon in previous chapters and what was the judgment prophesized for "the city"?  Hint chapters 14 and 16. 

Answer: John has already been told that "the city" is symbolized as Babylon by the second of the three sets of angels of the Temple in Revelation 14:8 "a second angel followed him (the first angel), calling, 'Babylon has fallen, Babylon the Great has fallen, Babylon which gave the whole world the wine of retribution to drink.'" And again he was told in Rev. 16:18c-19 "The Great City was split into three parts and the cities of the world collapsed; Babylon the Great was not forgotten: God made her drink the full winecup of his retribution."  The original city of Babylon no longer existed in the 1^st century.  It had been the site of the building of the infamous tower of Babel in the land of Shinar … and had become the capital city of the Babylonian Empire, the world power that had destroyed Judah and Jerusalem in 586(7) BC. 

 

But John's city is not the original Babylon, instead ancient Babylon is a symbolic image of this city.  The clue lies in the description that this city sits or "is enthroned" beside "abundant waters."  This phrase can also be translated "many waters."  It is polus hydra in the Greek.  This is an image of the prophet Jeremiah's description of Babylon in his great oracle judgment against the city in Jeremiah chapters 50-51. "Enthroned beside abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging." (Jeremiah 51:13).  J

…. But ultimately the term "many waters" is used Biblically to refer to the abundant blessings that God bestows on His people. Yahweh even gave His blessing to Babylon but she prostituted those blessings for her own glory and rejected Yahweh.  Later in Rev. 17:15 we will told of an important aspect of the symbolic meaning of the term "many waters" but in this verse the point is the identification of the Harlot city with the ancient city Babylon who accepted God's blessings but turned from Him. 

 

Question:  So what is the connection between 'blessings' and Babylon and Jerusalem?

Answer: No other city in the world received more of God's blessings than the city of Jerusalem, but like Babylon she turned from Yahweh, prostituted herself and rejected God the Messiah and in doing this Israel (Judah) the Old Covenant Church and her priests have led "those who dwell on the Land" astray and into adultery.  They became "drunk with the wine of her adultery"; they become seduced into such a spiritual stupor that they did not even recognize their own Messiah and therefore have forfeited God's many blessings.

           

Let's look at the Biblical use of the words "many waters" or "abundant waters" and its significance in Scripture.  Biblically this expression is set within God's Covenant relationships reflected in His "abundant" blessings and in His liturgical interaction with His people.  In all the passages the Greek is the same "polus hydra" (Greek translation of Old Testament and Greek New Testament). Examples:

 

1.      Jeremiah 51:13: Babylon's abundance granted by God: "Enthroned beside        

abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging."

2.      Ezekiel 1:24: the voice from the Glory-Cloud sounds like many or abundant

waters and is produced by the innumerable angels in the heavenly council: "I also heard the noise of their wings; when they moved, it was like the noise of flood-waters [polus hydra], like the voice of Shaddai, like the noise of a storm, like the noise of an armed camp.."

3. Revelation 1:15: God's voice from heaven "as the sound of many waters" as His voice is similarly described in Ezek. 43:2 "like the sound of the ocean" (literally "many waters" polus hydra) and Rev. 14:2 "like the sound of the ocean" (literally many waters polus hydra)

4.  Revelation 17:1 "the great prostitute who is enthroned beside abundant waters" (polus hydra); the "city" to whom God has given many blessings.

5.  Rev. 19:5-6 "Then a voice came from the throne; it said, 'Praise our God, you servants of his and those who fear him, small and great alike.'  And I heard what seemed to be the voices of a huge crowd, like the sound of the ocean (many waters/ polus hydra) or the great roar of thunder, answering, 'alleluia!  The reign of the Lord our God Almighty has begun.." = Liturgical praise.

 

Given the Biblical background and context of the phrase "many waters" or "abundant waters" (polus hydra) it would be no surprise to John's readers that the Bride of Yahweh would be seen seated on "many waters"; the surprise is that she is a whore!

 

This Bride has received God's blessings and has prostituted them.  (I refer you again to Ezekiel chapter 16 in which Yahweh condemns Israel in a long allegory as a faithless wife, a "whore" of alien gods, and Romans 2:17-24 (verse 23-24 "If, while you are boasting of the Law, you disobey it, then you are bringing God into contempt.  As scripture says: It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations.")

           

I should mention that a number of commentators identify the "harlot city" as Rome, the geographic center of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  John's 1^st century readers certainly would not have accepted this interpretation.  Martin Luther championed this interpretation when he was excommunicated from the Church in the 16^th century.  Luther saw the Church of Rome as the Harlot Bride and the Pope as the Antichrist.  Interestingly enough, Pope Leo X in turn saw Luther as the Antichrist! 

 

But the Church, which is founded by Christ through Peter, His Vicar, stands on the promise that Jesus made in Matthew 16:16 that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against her" because she is the True and Holy Bride of Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ is full of sinners yet she is the sinless Bride. 

           

Question:  But is there a warning for us in the 21^st century Church?  Did the Old Covenant Church believe that judgment could lead to destruction of their Temple and  the transformation of their Covenant?

Answer:  Even though the True Bride, New Covenant Church has the promise of Christ's protection we should never become so overly comfortable that we fall into complacency and therefore fall into the danger of unfaithfulness through unorthodox belief. 

 

We have so many blessings but how many Catholics truly understand their faith? 

…. It is only through ignorance that we lose Catholics to other denominations.  After all, if one truly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist how could one leave Him?  And yet, every year thousands of Catholics leave Mother Church.

 

Biblically the imagery of the "False Bride" is a familiar image.  In Biblical symbolism the motif of the Bride falling into adultery and harlotry identifies God's Covenant people falling into apostasy.  To go after false gods and to abandon the sacred Covenant is equaled with adultery and harlotry.  This metaphor of harlotry is exclusively used in the Old Testament for a city or a nation that has abandoned God's holy Covenant and rejected God.  This imagery is always used for faithless Israel, "Bride of Yahweh" with only 2 exceptions:

 

1.      The Phoenician city of Tyre and

2.      the Assyrian capital city Nineveh. 

 

These are the 2 cities, outside of Israel, that had both been in covenant with God.  See 1Kings 5:1-12; 9:13; Is. 23:17; and Amos 1:9. 

 

The city of Tyre was converted to the worship of Yahweh during King David's reign in the early 11 century BC and her king contracted a covenant with Solomon (David's son) and assisted in the building of God's Holy Temple on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. The passage in Revelation 17:2"with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves.."  is taken from Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre where it primarily refers to her international commerce through which her influence and beliefs spread (Isaiah 23:15-17). 

 

The other city is Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire.  The city of Nineveh was converted through the work of God's prophet Jonah and her king declared Yahweh the true God.  See Jonah 3:5-10.

Later the apostasy of these 2 cities would be considered unfaithfulness to Yahweh expressed as harlotry.  Pagan Rome of the 1^st century never entered into such a covenant relationship.

 

The other important point in the identification of the "False Bride" city is that she will be identified in contrast to another city.

 

Question:  What is the second city that is described in contrast to the Great City identified as the Harlot, the False Bride?  Hint: see Rev. 21:1-2. 

Answer: the "True Bride", the Church of the New Covenant founded by Christ, the "New" Jerusalem.  The identification of the "False Bride" as opposed to the "True Bride" only makes sense if the "New" Jerusalem is in contrast to the "Old" Jerusalem that has rejected Christ as her bridegroom and has become a False, Harlot Bride!  She has become like the builders of the tower of Babel that was built on the site of the city of Babylon.  Babel literally meant, "gate of God," but in rejecting Yahweh He judged them, cast down their tower and scattered the nations and confused their tongues. 

 

Question:  What was the reversal of the "confusion of tongues" at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9? Hint: see Acts chapter 2. 

Answer:  The second great Pentecost was the reversal of the Tower of Babel.  God the Holy Spirit came in "tongues of fire" and all the people present understood one language and the one message of salvation which would once again unite all nations in a Holy Covenant that would open the gates of Heaven through Christ the Savior, the Bridegroom of the New Covenant, universal Church and once again God's blessing would flow as "many waters;" Rev. 22:1 "Then the angel showed me the river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb and flowing crystal-clear."  

 

Revelation 17: 3-4 "He took me in spirit to a desert, and there I saw a woman riding a scarlet beast which had seven heads and ten horns and had blasphemous titles written all over it.  The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and glittered with gold and jewels and pearls, and she was holding a gold winecup filled with the disgusting filth of her prostitution..."

This woman is in a "spiritual desert," an abode of demons (Matt 12:34 Jesus said: "When an unclean spirit goes out of someone it wanders through waterless country looking for a place to rest, and cannot find one.")  In chapter 12 we saw the Woman, the True Bride, being forced to flee from the Dragon into the desert for a time where God protected her.  But to the False Bride, the wilderness is her element where she chooses to remain instead of accepting the Messiah and following Him to her inheritance: the Promised Land.  Therefore, the "wilderness" becomes her destiny and her heritage (see Num ch 13-14; Zech 5:5-11).

 

….

Some commentators point out that the Red Dragon of Revelation chapter 12 is connected by the same color to the Red Beast of Revelation chapter 17 but the Greek does not indicate the same color.  Instead the color of the Beast in chapter 17 (Gr. kokkinon) matches the woman's own dress in verse 4 whereas the Red Dragon in Revelation 12:3 is the color of fire (Gr. purros). 

Kokkinon is crimson blended with dark blue (see Isaiah 1:18).  It was a color used to attract attention (for example, the scarlet thread attached to the first twin of Tamar in Genesis 38:28 and to the home of Rahab in Joshua 2:18). 

 

Question:  What is significant about the way the Harlot is clothed? 

Answer:  Some commentators suggest the color is an indication of ungodly conduct (for example Isaiah 1:18 "sin like scarlet" and Psalms 51:5) and that the color stands in sharp contrast to the white garments of the elect.  But other commentators suggest that she is not dressed as a prostitute.  Please see Gen. 2:11-12; Ex. 3:22; Proverbs 31:21-22; Isa 54:11-12; 60:5-11; Ezek 16:11-14; Ezek 28:9-29; Rev. 4:3-4; Rev. 21:18-21.  In these passages the description of her clothing is in keeping with the Biblical descriptions of the glorious "City of God" in Isaiah and Revelation.  There is also a connection to the pattern of the jewels that covered the high priest's garments in Exodus chapter 28 and the Throne of God in Rev. 4:3-4.  Exodus, Ezekiel and Proverbs all describe the dress of a Bride with such finery.  In other words, it is possible that to first century readers that this woman is dressed as a "righteous woman", as a Bride.  She is adorned in the beautiful garments of the Church.  If this interpretation is correct, the Harlot Bride is still carrying the outward adornments of the chaste Old Covenant Bride of Yahweh!

 

Revelation 17:4 "she was holding a gold winecup.."

Question:  What is the wine of her fornication and what contrast or parody is there to the winecup of Holy Eucharist?  See Revelation 17:6

Answer:  The wine of her fornication is the blood of the Saints and the blood of the witnesses (martyrs) of Jesus it is in contrast to the holy and pure golden cup of Christ's blood that He offers those of the Covenant who are in a state of grace. ….

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indications that Apostle John authored the Gospel of John

 

“Most conservative and many moderate scholars affirm Johannine authorship—whether by John directly or by a Johannine community under his leadership.

Some critical scholars propose that the Gospel was shaped over time by disciples

of John, with the final form reflecting layers of editorial work”.

Pastor Jason Elder

 

Taken from:

Who Wrote the Gospel of John? — Pastor Jason Elder

 

 

Gospel of John

Jun 19 [2025]

 

Written By Jason Elder

  

Introduction

 

The Gospel of John stands apart from the other Gospels in tone, structure, and theological depth. It begins not with a genealogy or nativity, but with eternity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Such a lofty introduction naturally raises a question: Who wrote this Gospel?

 

This question has fascinated Christians for nearly two millennia. Tradition, internal evidence, and modern scholarship offer converging—but sometimes contrasting—answers.

 

A Word from the Greek: Personal Insight on Style

 

As someone who studied Koine Greek over six semesters, I first encountered John’s voice not in the Gospel but in 1 John. Every Friday morning at 8 am, Dr. Douglas Bain would say, “Okay, it’s time for your test.” Every Friday of every semester, we tested. I studied 1 John every day - vocabulary, conjugation, syntax . . . all the things.

 

Dr. Bain was an excellent teacher who guided us well.

 

When our class transitioned to Paul’s letters, I immediately noticed how different the Greek felt—denser, more complex, filled with long compound sentences and intricate argumentation. You could literally see a visible difference and say, “A different person wrote this book [Philippians].”

 

Later, flipping over to the Gospel of John, I experienced a kind of homecoming. The same vocabulary, rhythm, and simplicity I saw in 1 John was present here too. Words like logos, zōē (life), phōs (light), agapē (love), and menō (abide) appear again and again. The sentence structures were familiar—short, almost poetic, filled with repetition for emphasis.

 

That internal coherence between 1 John and the Gospel of John doesn’t prove authorship on its own, but it does point to a unified theological and linguistic voice—one that sounds far more like the fisherman-turned-theologian of John than the rhetorician Paul.

 

Early Church Tradition: John the Apostle

 

From the earliest days of the Church, the fourth Gospel was attributed to John the Apostle, one of the Twelve. This attribution is remarkably consistent across a range of early sources.

 

Around 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyons, a bishop and theologian, wrote:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, himself also published a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

— Against Heresies 3.1.1

 

Irenaeus claims to have received this tradition from Polycarp, who had known John personally. That makes this testimony both early and relational—just two degrees removed from the apostle himself.

 

Other early sources echo this tradition:

 

• Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 AD) described John as writing “a spiritual Gospel.”
• Origen (c. 230 AD) affirmed John’s authorship based on apostolic tradition.
• The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD), one of the oldest canonical lists, also names John as the author.

 

These witnesses consistently refer to John the son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ closest followers, as the author—not merely a namesake.

 

Internal Evidence: The Beloved Disciple

 

Curiously, the Gospel itself never names its author directly. Instead, it refers multiple times to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (e.g., John 13:23, John 19:26, John 21:20). The final chapter adds this note:

 

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

 

This passage suggests that the author is the beloved disciple, a close companion of Jesus. Many have connected this figure with John the Apostle, especially because of his presence at the Last Supper and at the cross—intimate moments shared by only a few.

 

 

 

Key internal clues:

 

• The author is Jewish and familiar with first-century Palestinian geography and customs.
• He was an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry (John 1:14; John 19:35).
• He had close access to the high priest (John 18:15–16), suggesting social prominence.

 

These clues fit what we know of John son of Zebedee—a fisherman by trade, yes, but also part of Jesus’ inner circle alongside Peter and James.

 

Scholarly Views: Unity and Questions

 

Most conservative and many moderate scholars affirm Johannine authorship—whether by John directly or by a Johannine community under his leadership. Some critical scholars propose that the Gospel was shaped over time by disciples of John, with the final form reflecting layers of editorial work.

 

Trusted commentaries that support and explore Johannine authorship:

 

1. D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary):

“The external evidence supporting Johannine authorship is impressively early, widespread, and consistent. Internal evidence does not contradict this, and in some ways supports it.”

 

2. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT):

“The beloved disciple is best understood as John the Apostle. Tradition and internal hints point us in this direction.”

 

3. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Yale Bible):

While Brown is more cautious, he affirms that the Gospel reflects a Johannine circle with roots in the Apostle’s teaching. “The Gospel is deeply grounded in the memory and theology of someone who walked with Jesus.”

 

Even among more critical scholars, there is growing appreciation that John’s Gospel contains firsthand insight, even if its final literary form was carefully shaped for theological reflection.

 

Confidence in the Gospel’s Testimony

 

Whether penned directly by the Apostle John or finalized by his close followers, the Gospel of John bears the unmistakable mark of intimacy with Christ. Its words come not from detached historians but from those who lived in the light of Jesus’ presence.

When we read John, we are reading the voice of someone who heard Jesus speak, saw the signs, and stood at the foot of the cross.

 

“These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in His name.” ….