Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

There is an old adage to the effect that silence is golden.” Much has been written most of it true-concerning the evils of the tongue and the care that should be exercised with reference to our speech. There is probably no subject more frequently discussed in the word of God than this. On the other hand, grievous wrong is often done by saying nothing when something ought to be said. Another familiar saying is “Silence gives consent.” Silence is often the refuge of the coward and the compromiser. It is quite often an effective means in perpetuating a vicious lie. Many an individual, who would not think of voicing a vicious falsehood about his neighbor, will give consent to and assist in perpetuating such a lie by silence when a word from him could have corrected and stopped the matter. Many permit Satan’s lies to triumph over God’s truth by their silence at vital moments. Well did Robert Louis Stevenson write: “The cruelest lies are often told in silence.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 11-13
May 3, 1973

By Terry L. Sumerlin

I trust the reader understands, as I am convinced Brother Wright does, that I am not led to reply to the articles of my good brother in Christ by a negative attitude or a feeling of animosity toward one with whom I differ. My sole purpose is, rather, to present what I believe to be the truth on this subject, just as I endeavor to contend for the truth on any Biblical matter. With this in mind, I address myself to some final remarks regarding Brother Wright’s last article.

I ask that the reader take note of the fact that throughout this reply I will be following, for the sake of clarity, the subject headings used in the affirmative article. The usage of the word ‘misunderstanding’ in these headings, though, I believe, deserves a little consideration. This word, as it was used, implies one of two things: (1) The affirmative case was not stated clearly to begin with or (2) there was faulty reasoning in the mind of the one in the negative. Though I am not saying that something was deliberately insinuated in the usage of the word, I do think that these things should be brought to the attention of the reader so that he might be able to form his own conclusions relative to which one of the above things resulted in the “misunderstandings.” Now, we turn to the misunderstandings.”

Misunderstanding No. 1

In connection with this section, I wish to insert a statement, which was made by Brother Wright under “misunderstanding No. 5”: “I do believe the Christian who marries a non Christian commits an act of sin.” Though we will have occasion to deal with this statement more in detail when we come to it, I mention it at this point in order to show one thing: For the purpose of the statement of Old Testament passages in the affirmative case of this issue to be valid and useful, they must show beyond doubt that God has always condemned “mixed marriages.” (Otherwise, what is the point in using such passages except to add force to a line of suppositions, which are taken from the New Testament, which in reality would not need support from the Old Testament if they were anything more than suppositions?) Yet, if this fact existed before New Testament days, then everything said prior to such a time has to be consistent with such a supposed attitude on God’s part. Yet, such is not the case. As Brother Wright points out, there were “old worthies” who became involved in “mixed marriages,” to whom nothing was said about sin being involved as a result of the marriage, itself.

One is made to wonder, if such a marriage constituted sin on the part of Moses, why the sister of Moses, who seemed to have justifiable reason for objecting to the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian woman, was made a leper instead of Moses. Notice, also, that in the same account, God said of Moses, “who is faithful in all mine house” (Num. 12:13). Such sounds rather strange as a statement in reference to one who had just sinned. Thus, I again reject such an interpretation of Old Testament scripture as has been considered, and submit my understanding of them as stated in my first review.

Yet, I call one thing more to the attention of the reader, in reference to these Old Testament passages: If for some reason I have erred in my reasoning on these passages (though I do not believe I have), such would prove nothing except the fact that I have erred. In other words, such would add no force to the opposite position. The burden of proof for the affirmative rests upon passages in the New Testament. If the passages necessary for proof cannot be found in the New Testament, the affirmative fails for lack of support. Thus, let’s see about the “support” of the affirmative.

Misunderstanding No. 2

I believe it is important that, in connection with 1 Cor. 9:5, as mentioned in this section, we focus upon the issue as to whether or not this is an approved apostolic example. This is the point of contention, which has to be resolved. I agree with Brother Wright in regard to principles on the establishment of authority and his application of such principles to singing, communion, etc. Yet, we also know that not all examples are approved apostolic examples binding. For example, I call your attention to the fact that we have often proven that the example of eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room is not a binding one. Similarly, though 1 Cor. 9:5 is an example, I fail to see how it is binding, for the following reason: For an example to be binding, it has to be of such a nature that when it is bound it still harmonizes with all other teachings. Thus, if 1 Cor. 9:5 is a binding example, one has a contradiction between how one would repent of violating this law and scriptures which teach that fornication is the only grounds for divorce. Though Brother Wright, I feel, never gave full treatment to the idea of repentance (and I will deal more with this in another section), it is a serious problem when one starts talking about sin.

Misunderstanding No. 3

I must say that there appears to be more, problems with the sophistry that appeared in the affirmative under this heading, than there does with my “amplified translation.” First of all, Brother Wright tried to negate my point on “in the Lord” in 1 Cor. 7:39 by asking if I would take the same position on the expression as it is found in Gal. 3:27 as I do in its occurrence in 1 Cor. 7:39 and Eph. 6: 1. I feel confident that Brother Wright simply overlooked this fact, but the same expression is not in Gal. 3:27. Berry translates the expression to which Brother Wright referred in Gal. 3: 27: “to Christ were baptized.” He also translates the expression found in 1 Cor. 7:39 and Eph. 6: 1: “in (the) Lord.” I fail to see a parallel in wording or context. I have just shown the wording to be different, and ask the reader to examine the contexts.

Furthermore, if my “amplified translation” is incorrect, I wonder if “in the Lord” in Eph. 6: 1 is to be translated in the same manner as Brother Wright would translate the expression in 1 Cor. 7:39. If not, why not? The expressions are identical in construction and I fail to see how the contexts would alter the meaning of one or the other. Therefore, according to the affirmative, why would not Eph. 6: 1 mean that children are only obligated to obey parents who are Christians, as widows are only to marry men who are Christians? Beyond this, though, there is absolutely no way, assuming the affirmative’s position on the passage is correct, that anyone but a widow can be put into 1 Cor. 7:39, except by supposition!

Misunderstanding No. 4

In this section great effort was expended that the affirmative might be able to “have its cake and eat it too.” As I have previously stated, I disagree with the interpretation that Brother Wright has sought to place upon 2 Cor. 6:14. Yet, though I do disagree with such an interpretation, I do agree with the fact that in whatever sense the passage applies to marriage, it “does not apply to marriage alone.” Yet, if one is going to apply the passage to marriage in Brother Wright’s manner (in spite of the fact that it does not apply to marriage alone), he has to be consistent with the context. I also agree that we have to take all of what the scripture has to say on a given subject. Yet, when we find a passage that we think deals with that subject (in this case, the subject being: it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian), let’s take it all! I do not feel that Brother Wright has done such with this passage; and thus he has “jumped the track” on my argument.

Misunderstanding No. 5

This is the section, which I see as most destructive to the affirmative position. Brother Wright admits in no uncertain terms “the Christian who marries a non-Christian commits an act of sin.” From this point he proceeds to tell one about seeking forgiveness from such “sin,” while “hedging” I am sure in all sincerity) on how one repents. Brother Wright talked about the alcoholic repenting by quitting his drinking. Then he mentioned the fact that he still had to live with the physical problem of sclerosis, in many cases. While such facts may he true, I hasten to point out that he quit what caused the sclerosis. He could not have repented and failed to do this. In a similar fashion, if the Christian sins in marrying a non-Christian, the only way penitence can be shown is by divorce. Now if Brother Wright wants to parallel the problems of the drunkard, which he is forced to live with, with the problems that the Christian in a mixed marriage incurs, that’s fine. Yet, he will need to find the problems and not the cause. One repents of the sin, the cause of these problems (which are sometimes present in the “mixed marriage”). The sin is the marriage, according to Brother Wright. So, he will have to find other problems. Thus, I ask: How does one repent of this sin, in view of the fact that fornication is the only grounds for divorce?

Conclusion

It seems that with hardly an exception, those who take the, opposite view from mine talk as if those who are of my persuasion (1) walk on shaky ground and (2) wind up agreeing with them when kill is said and done. Thus, some words of clarification are in order. First, let me say that I will never agree (with my present understanding of scripture) with those who say that a “mixed marriage” is sin. I ask you not to confuse the fact that I say it is best for a Christian to marry a Christian with the conclusion that it is sin for a Christian not to marry a Christian. There is a difference in pointing out a way as the best of two ways, and pointing it out as the only way. It is at this point that I fail to see my ground as any shakier than those who differ with me. As I see it, the Bible condemns, just as surely, the binding of that which has not been bound as it does loosing what has not been loosed. All I am contending for is what I believe to be the truth, by which we determine who is a sinner and is to be dealt with accordingly, and who is not a sinner and should be left alone.

I assure you that my attitude toward Brother Wright (and all other brethren who do not hold my view) is only one of love, and ask that these things be considered in that light.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 11-13
May 3, 1973

By William B. Wright

Due to some apparent misunderstanding of sonic of the points I advocated in my article, “The Beginning of Sorrows,” which appeared in the September 28, 1972 issue of Truth Magazine, I wish to attempt to clarify some of those misunderstandings, which have been called to my attention. This additional statement is intended to accomplish this goal.

As a first consideration, however, I suggest that the interested reader try the following procedure:

1. Write on paper all the scripture references contained in my article plus any others that may seem to be relevant.

2. Read those references carefully and in context.

3. Then, using his powers of common sense, ask: “What is the inspired writer saying?”

This should help him considerably. Now let I s look at some of the principal misunderstandings known to me.

Misunderstanding No. 1

Nehemiah 13:23-27 condemns the “mixing of races” and secondarily deals with possible spiritual damage. The object, according to some, of this teaching is to maintain a pure lineage for Christ.

I urge the candid reader to read Nehemiah 13: 23-27 carefully along with Deut. 7:1-4 and Josh. 23:12-13. The conclusion is inescapable that the leaders of Israel who feared God and were in receipt of His teaching condemned mixed marriages and cited as a reason why it should not happen that God’s people would be led away from Him by mixed marriages.

In my article I cited Old Testament passages to point out a principle-nothing more. That some of the old worthies married women not of the family of Israel is beyond question. Boaz married Ruth (a Moabites) and their son was in the lineage of Christ. Evidently Rachab (or Rahab) was not of the family of Israel, but her son was in the lineage of Christ. Joseph married a lady of Egypt. The mother of Rehoboam was an Ammonites and her son was in the lineage of Christ. The point in all of this is not that men of God married women who by the incidence of birth were born to people of Moab or Egypt or Ammon, but the fact that God did not want His people corrupted by false gods, false worship, and false practice. These things were in integral art of the ways of other nations. Thus, warnings were issued more than once, in effect, “Marry your own!”

Today, it isn’t the incidence of what family one is born into that matters nor his previous condition of religious servitude, but whether the two partners to marriage bring to each other a full and unreserved submission to Christ so as not to corrupt the worship and work of each other. That is the real issue! It is exceedingly poor reasoning to think that a non-Christian did not subtract something from the Christian who is married to him. regardless of how moral the non-Christian is supposed to be.

Misunderstanding No. 2

Let’s look at the matter of 1 Corinthians 9: 5. At issue here in the minds of some is the question of whether Paul’s statement thus forbids the marriage of a Christian to a no Christian. I consider this “the wrong end of the stick.” We who are members of the church of Christ has repeatedly told our religious neighbors that God told us to sing and said nothing about mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship. Therefore, we sing-which is safe and commanded-and reject mechanical instruments of music in worship because they are excluded from reference or condemnation. They just aren’t discussed in the Sacred Scriptures. We have followed similar arguments on sprinkling and quarterly communion. Since God said through Paul it is right to have a Christian companion, why not practice that which is safe? Why should I exempt the question of marriage from this interpretation of Scripture? I can positively prove that marriage of a Christian to a Christian is right. I need make no excuses for it or argue from a negative standpoint. No one will challenge this position its to its being right and safe. It is the best thing a Christian can do. Why not stand here? One need not worry about recommending or having recommended this position to young and old alike.

Misunderstanding No. 3

Another matter which some suggest which varies from the position I took in my article is that the phrase, “in the Lord,” in 1 Cor. 7:39, does not mean the marriage partner of a Christian widow must be a Christian. Some offer what I consider to be an amplified translation saying of it along with the same phrase in Eph. 6: 1; “The expression, rather, seems to mean widows are to marry and children are to obey their parents only to the extent that they would not be caused by ‘obedience’ or marriage’ to disobey the Lord.” I believe this point of view is quite labored. Would one be willing to argue the same in regard to ‘in Chris- in Gal. 3:27? In both cases, Paul was instructing Christians how to conduct themselves. In Ephesians Paul has some instructions for all members of a Christian home. He is not speaking to non-Christians. He had instruction, first, for wives and husbands (Eph. 5:22-23), then children (6: 1-3), after that fathers (6: 4), and finally servants (6:5-9). If one can explain away “in the Lord” saying it does not mean Christian, there are an infinite number of possibilities for explaining away many passages. I conclude that the argument above cited is a matter of extracting an expression that happens to contain exactly the same three words from two contexts and causing them to govern both situations in a very narrow word “strait-jacket.”

While I do not consider the words of a commentator to be inspired, I do feel that when someone expresses a truth better than I it is proper to quote that individual. Therefore, I wish to insert at this point a quotation by Lipscomb and Shepherd on 1 Cor. 7:39 (Gospel Advocate Commentary on First Corinthians, pp. 114-115):

“This prohibits the widow marrying one not a Christian. I know no reason why a widow should be more restricted as to whom she marries than a virgin. Under the Law of Moses the man was prohibited marrying out of the family of Israel, save when the woman would identify herself with the chosen people. The reason given was lest they should draw them into idolatry. Solomon violated the law, and, despite his wisdom and power, his wives drew him into idolatry. Influence is frequently more potent for evil than authority or power.”

Then, a paragraph later:

“The whole drift and tenor of the Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, is that in the close and intimate relations of life the people of God should seek companionship of servants of God, that they might help and encourage each other in the Christian life. “

Misunderstanding No. 4

Another point that I believe is misunderstood by some is the meaning and use of 2 Cor. 6: 14-18. One must recognize that every principle and teaching must be first interpreted within its context and its application may have some limitations. I said in my article: “He also admonished the Corinthian Christians to avoid being unequally yoked with unbelievers, (2 Cor. 6:14) Now in what condition is a person more ‘unequally yoked’ to an unbeliever than in the marriage relationship?” I have heard preachers who preached excellent sermons on such questions as marriage, the danger of marriage to those not Christians, 2 Cor. 6:14-18 etc., then turn around in the same sermon and say these verses do not apply to marriage and it is no sin to marry one not a Christian. Concerning these verses (2 Cor. 6:14-18) some argue that it is contradictory to teach that they apply to marriage because verse 17 states that one is to come out from among them and Cor. 7:12-13 suggests that the Christian who is married to a non-Christian is to remain with his non-Christian mate as long as that one is content to dwell with him.

I deny that any contradiction results from applying 2 Cor. 6:14 to marriage. Obviously it does not apply to marriage alone. It applies to any circumstance (marriage, business, social organization, fraternal organization) where a Christian is bound to a non-Christian. But the difference is I can dissolve a business partnership, or cease attending a social group, or resign from a fraternal order without God ordained penalties being visited upon me. With marriage a prior restriction exists, namely, a man is not to put away his wife for every cause. Thus, in all circumstances that I can think of save one, I can come out and be separate. But, from marriage, I cannot. For Paul to have spent his time writing to the Corinthians setting forth all the exceptions would have turned the letter into a 900-page doctoral dissertation instead of the small book of simplicity which provides us with precepts, approved examples, and necessary inferences adequate to our needs.

What would one know about baptism if be chose to use only the 16th chapter of Acts without using, the 8th chapter of Acts and other passages such as Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12? What would one know about the Lord’s Supper if he used only Acts 20:7? See what I mean?

Misunderstanding No. 5

1 gather that it is not clear to some that I fully understand the implications of what I said about the treatment accorded a couple where a Christian marries a non-Christian, once the event had taken place. Further, some suggest that I contradict myself in this. So let’s have another look.

First, I do believe the Christian who marries a non-Christian commits an act of sin. Make no mistake about that! This must follow from my view of 1 Cor. 7 :30 and 9: 5. At no time in all of this did I think otherwise or have I tried to imply otherwise.

Second, if I understand the New Testament correctly, the only prerequisite for a male and female being validly married is that there be no disability to it in the eyes of God. The only disability I can identify that would make it no marriage is a previous marriage undissolved in the eyes of God. If a Christian and a non-Christian are married where no such disability exists, then the marriage is a valid one. The Christian cannot put away his wife just because he wishes to do so (1 Cor. 7:12-13).

Third, but what does that Christian do about his act of sin? Seek the forgiveness of God. Can he thus remove the problem of living with someone who has no interest in the Christian faith? Of course not! He can no more remove that (with God’s approval) by his own action (except through conversion) than a Christian who becomes an alcoholic and then repents can remove the physical problems (sclerosis, for example) that were caused by his sin. He has to make the best of it.

Fourth, what should other Christians do about brethren who sin in this or any other circumstance? Try to help them in every way possible to do right! There are brethren who feel as I do about this matter who seem to think we ought to ostracize brethren after they marry out of the church. I can think of no good thing coming from such an attitude. The object of the true Christian is to take his fellowman (Christian and non-Christian alike) where he finds him and to do his best to insure his eternal, salvation leading him to completeness in Christ.

Therefore. I solemnly affirm that my attitude is consistent with the truth as it is in Christ and is in no way inconsistent with truth.

A Word Of Counsel Especially For Preachers

I wish to counsel brethren who feel that I am wrong in my approach to this question, and especially to preachers who make “much to do” about the position I bold in this matter. They make much of what we say and teach on this subject though they must acknowledge the way we propose is unquestionably safe. They lend all the encouragement in the world to Christians who have formed romantic attachments outside the church. They always say, “we don’t recommend it,” yet they spend so much time arguing that “God didnt say not to do it,” that the Christian so inclined does not hear the recommendation. I know quite a number of young people who have made that unfortunate decision to marry out of the church and have either been completely destroyed as Christians because of it, or have most certainly been much weakened because of it.

How much encouragement would it be to Brother Preacher, who is sound in the faith and knowledgeable of the importance of obeying the Scriptures, to go home at the evening hour to put his arms around a wife who did not share with him the common faith? How would it be for him, if at the approach of the hour of worship, it was not taken for granted that all members of the family were going to the place of worship? How would he react if his mate were to tell him she did not see the point to giving as he is prospered’! Suppose his mate saw nothing wrong in gambling a little or a social drink? How can we expect one not a Christian to be governed by any of the laws of Christ unless that one first embraces the faith in Christ? If this would be a major problem for Brother Preacher who is sound in the faith and trained in the faith, what is it for the young sister or young brother who does not bear the preacher’s recommendation because he protested so loudly that “God didn’t say not to do.”

Though he does not intend it, Brother Preacher inadvertently leads young men and women into destructive circumstances that will destroy the soul. I do not say this with any intent to be harsh. But it is just as important that I call forcefully to the attention of the preachers who choose to read this article what is really happening as it is for them to preach on adultery and sectarianism which also destroy the soul. I personally feel that preachers would be better advised to give a much stronger emphasis to the wise action young people should take, namely, select their mates in Christ, and less emphasis to their disagreement with me over the question of whether it is a sin or not. They unquestionably agree with me that it is wiser-far wiser to marry in Christ. Our difference then becomes somewhat academic. God will judge whether it is a sin or not. But the end product in both instances should be to urge young people to marry in Christ. I believe all – nearly all- of them feel that way. If they do not, then we are truly at issue and the question is not academic. They are entirely within their rights to question whether I have practiced sound hermeneutics. I can think of no reason why they should refrain from so doing. But I urge them in challenging my point of view on this question to be certain that their teaching now is something they can be certain they will be content to live with for the rest of their lives and will not be ashamed of in the judgment.

In Conclusion

To the candid reader I say from the depths of my being, do not be influenced by what “seems” to be the case, or what some man thinks, or conclusions drawn from negative judgments, or by amplified renderings of the Scriptures which read into the text that which is not or may not be there, but rather be influenced by that Which is right and cannot be wrong!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 8-11
May 3, 1973

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Late Date

Before the end of the second century Irenaeus spoke of the vision of the Apocalypse and said that it “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians’ reign.” (Against Heresies V: xxx: 3.) Domitian reigned from 81 A.D. to the latter part of 96 A.D., when he was killed. William Barclay combines some interesting historical information that helps to pinpoint the time of John’s exile on Patmos.

Tertullian says: “The apostle John was banished to the island” (On The Prescription of Heretics, 36). Origen says: “The Roman Emperor, as tradition tells us, condemned John to the island of Patmos for witnessing to the word of truth” (Homilies on Matthew) Clement of Alexandria tells us: “On the death of the tyrant John returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos” (The Rich Man’s Salvation, 42). Jerome says that John was banished in the fourteenth year after Nero and liberated on the death of Domitian (Concerning Illustrious Men, 9). This would mean that John was banished to Patmos about A.D. 94 and that he was liberated about A.D. 96. . . 39

Besides the consistent tradition which favors dating the Apocalypse in the days of Domitian there are several other evidences. Before proceeding to an examination of these, a word about Domitian is in order.

Domitian was the son of Vespasian and a brother to Titus. He was a proud and power hungry man who had much in common with Tiberius. If, as has been suggested, Tiberius was led into false positions through hesitation and uncertainty, Domitian knew exactly what he wanted from the start. Tacitus and Pliny were filled with horror, not by occasional acts of vengeance but by a calculated and deliberate cruelty carried out in order that a definite aim might be achieved. Domitian sought control of the Roman Senate, the people and the army. By Biblical standards he was an immoral man. Having divorced his wife he lived with his niece as his mistress; after a short time his wife returned and both women lived with him in his palace.

With a good source of information, Domitian was able to eliminate any foe that in any sense seemed dangerous to his purposes. Philosophers and astrologers were banished from Rome in 89 A.D. Domitian was in no position to trust even his influential generals or governors. His policy of terrorism was aimed primarily on senatorial and upper class persons.

Domitian styled himself “Master and God” and liked for men to so address him. In the second half of his reign he accepted a form of address which implied his divinity and lordship. In public documents men swore by the genius of the living Emperor. Some wishing to flatter him began to offer sacrifices to his genius. It seems that he seized upon this and turned it into a test of loyalty. Out of all of this arose the concept of the eternity of the Roman Empire. There were two groups who could not acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor: Jews and Christians. They were charged with atheotes, which is equivalent to ungodliness or atheism; the faithful Christians of the Domitianic period were atheists by Empire standards. 40

We shall summarize the arguments for the late date of writing under five headings. (1) The General Condition of the Churches. It is argued that the general situation of the churches mentioned in Revelation presupposes the late date. The low moral conditions, particularly of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, are indicative of a time later than the period of Nero. Scott suggests that the heresies, “apparently of a Gnostic character, which were working mischief” in some of the churches did not become a danger until near the end of the first century.41 However, the Colossian epistle was written some thirty years previously, and one could hardly doubt that it dealt with Gnosticism as a present threat to the church.

(2) The Persecution. There were several periods in which the Christians were persecuted. Some religious persecution was carried on by Caligmla (c. 41 A.D.); Christians were driven from Rome by Claudius (c. 52 A.D.); Nero (c. 64-68 A.D.) carried on intense persecution in Rome; Vespasian (c. 69-79 A.D.) did very little to persecute the disciples of the Lord. But Domitian “is the emperor who has gone down in history as the one who bathed the empire in the blood of the Christians.” 42 It is debatable, but the persecution by Nero seems to have been confined primarily to the city of Rome. Gibbon says, “It is evident that the effect, as well as the cause, of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of Rome. ” 43

(3) Emperor Worship. In our discussion of Domitian we have shown the beginning of Emperor worship. This spread throughout Asia Minor. Some of the cities in which churches were addressed in the Revelation had vied for the right to erect a temple for the worship of the emperor; Pergamurn was the first to do So. 44 Thus, the cultus in Asia became as much a threat to the Christians as if they had lived in Rome itself; Caesar worship covered the whole empire. The attitude that prompted such worship also produced a change of attitude on the part of the Christians toward the empire. We will discuss this as a separate point.

(4) Change in Attitude toward the Empire. William Barclay presents a refreshing study showing the difference in the attitude shown in the book of Acts toward Rome and the Empire and that shown in the Revelation. In the early days of Christianity the safest refuge of the Christian from a mob of angry Jews was the tribunal of the Roman magistrate. Paul seemed quite proud of his Roman citizenship. He used it to good effect in Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem. He was protected by the empire on the way to Caesarea, and exercised a citizens right in appealing directly to Caesar.45 Paul urged the Romans to be subject to the powers that be because they were ordained of God and was a terror only to the evil. (Romans 13: 1-7), Peter gave similar instructions to Christians. (1 Peter 2: 12-17).

“But in the Revelation there is nothing but blazing hatred for Rome. Rome is a Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs (Revelation 17: 5,6). John looks and hopes for nothing but the total destruction of Rome.” . 46

(5) Nero Redivivus Myth. Nero had made such a strong impression on the Roman world

that after his death there were many who at least claimed to believe that lie continued to live. Some of them claimed that lie would return shortly. In fact. there were several pretenders who claimed to be the returned Nero. Others told that Nero was in Parthia and would come back some day as the leader of a Parthian army. Swete suggests that

“Nero is doubly the Antichrist, the historical Nero persecuted the Church, the Nero of popular myth caricatured the faith. When the Apocalypse was written. Nero had in truth returned in the person of Doinitian (17: 11). ” 47

 

Footnotes

39. Barclay, 1, 5 L.

40. Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S.A. Cook. F.E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. Vol. XI: The Imperial Peace, A. D. 70-192 (Cambridge: University Press, 1954). For the history of Domitian, from which this has been summarized see pp. 22-45.

41. E. E. Scott, The Book of Revelation (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1939, p. 29.

42. Summers, 83.

43. Robert Maynard Hutchens (ed.) Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 40: Gibbon: I (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1952), p. 214.

44. Thomas Cosmades, “Ruins of the Seven Churches,” Christianity Today, IX (December 4, 1964), 17.

45. Acts 16:36-40; 18:1-17. 19: 13-41; 22:22-30; 23:12-31; 25:10,11

46. Barclay, I, 18.

47. Swete, lxxxiv.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 6-7
May 3, 1973