The Twenty-four Elders

24 is a significant, symbolic number in the Apocalypse.

It's symbolic content can be understood in terms of two: two covenants and two flocks becoming one in Christ, the Good Shepherd. Twelve is an obviously significant number since there are 12 tribes in Israel and twelve apostles. 24 is merely the whole of twelve times two, and so represents the one people redeemed by Christ out of Israel and the Gentiles. That is clearly a major theme in the Apocalypse, though it leads dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists to vastly different conclusions.

This theme is visited rather dramatically for the last time in chapter 21 as the New Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven to a new earth is described. The eternal home of the saints has twelve foundations and twelve gates. The combination of 12 and 12 in the structure of the New Jerusalem (which is 24, though not explicitly mentioned) is used to encompass the entirety of God's salvivic people, and picks up the theme which streams throughout the Apocalypse. Jew and Gentile who believe in Christ, though distinctive in some ways, form one eternal people of God.

The 24 are elders (presbyters) which means, basically, they are old men who are wise and worthy of respect. I think the use of the generic term, "elders," accentuates their symbolic quality, and yet excludes seeing them as non-human living creatures, or even angels, because those things are specified in the Apocalypse when they are meant. How long they've been there, or how they got there is not mentioned, so it's either unimportant or so obvious it's assumed to be known. Could they represent the sons of Jacob and the twelve apostles?

Although John is viewing and recording the vision, not much of an objection could be raised to the 24 representing the 12 Apostles (Paul substituted for Judas). It's a bit more difficult to see them representing the actual, less than exemplary, sons of Jacob. Throughout biblical history the names of the twelve tribes was always more important than the twelve people that gave those tribes their names, so specification as to person is not so important with the twelve representing Israel, which fits well if this was merely a generic identification. They could represent some exemplary member of each of the associated tribes, but that is not actually necessary if the identification is purely generic.

They are given thrones placed in close conjunction with that of God, which, along with their victory (but not regnal) crowns, implies they are engaged in judgment and administration with him. That jives well with Matthew 19:28, which would tend to verify seeing at least twelve of them as representing Christ's Apostles. If that is the case, then it's hard to avoid the math and see the other twelve as faithful representatives from each of the twelve tribes. They are clothed in white which is always associated with purity or righteousness in the Apocalypse, so, in effect, the 24 elders are clothed in righteousness.

Aside from judgment, the 24 seem occupied with worship. They hold censers and harps. They fall to their knees (the implication of proskuneo), cast their victory crowns at the feet of God, extol the Creator's virtues, and sings songs of praise to God and the Lamb. The force of their worship is to attribute to God the action that accomplishes his salvivic and magisterial aims--God is the actor, everyone else is the benefactor.

We are told explicitly that the incense signifies the prayers of saints. That is not an endorsement for the doctrine of the Intercession of the Saints, but merely represents that the prayers of the saints rise directly before God. The elders, though themselves men and therefore representative in some fashion of all believing humans, are not the makers nor mediators of the prayers (interceders), but, really, only witnesses of such. The harps, in very similar fashion, signify the praise of those same saints.

So the prayer and praise of the saints rises to the throne of God, symbolically carried by those representative of all who follow. As they are before God in prayer and praise, symbols in the heavens, so are those they represent also before God as they praise and pray on earth.

The Coming Temple

As I have said elsewhere, the reference to an earthly Temple in Revelation 11 cannot be used to say anything about the date of the prophecy's writing. I accept the traditional dating of the Apocalypse as 95 CE, which I think is consistent with scripture and history. Of course, if that is so, then what does the reference to an earthly temple mean in chapter 11? The most straightforward answer would be that at the time the prophecy envisions, there will be a Temple in Jerusalem.

There are Jews and Christians who are looking for a third Temple. Daniel's prophecies make one necessary at the advent of the final King of the North. Revelation 11 makes one necessary at the advent of the two witnesses, and 2 Thessalonians 2 makes one necessary at the advent of the man of lawlessness. Suffice it to say, these passages are speaking of the same thing--at the end of the age, when the Antichrist is here, there will be a Temple in Jerusalem.

If one walks back from that premise, it means that before the Antichrist can reach the epitome of his wickedness, the Jewish temple must be rebuilt. For that to happen the Jews will have to have control of the Temple Mount. For that to happen some kind of agreement would have to be reached with the Muslim powers that be in the area...

Though there is not one there now, make no mistake, in the days to come a temple will be in built in Jerusalem.  

The Temple A Temporal Clue?

Though the temple is mentioned many times throughout the Apocalypse, the only reference in the entire prophecy which could even remotely be taken to refer to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem is in the beginning of chapter 11. Generally, temple references in the Revelation have everything to do with God's abode in heaven and nothing to do with the earth or Jerusalem. However, since both Temples are mentioned in chapter 11 (see 11:19), I think it is quite clear that the earlier reference is definitely to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem. Does that help date the prophecy in anyway? No, I don't think so.

The language of Temple measuring in chapter 11 is reminiscent of Ezekiel's, which was written many years before. That prophecy was made 14 years after the destruction of the first Temple (586 BCE) during the exile of the Jewish people to Babylon. Though Ezekiel's descriptions are vivid, down to measurement and dimensions, there was no such Temple in Jerusalem when he wrote it--not then, not since (even though a Temple was built by Zerubbabel in Jerusalem and remodeled by Herod the Great). In other words, by biblical precedent, a detailed reference to a Temple in Jerusalem in biblical prophecy is not proof whatsoever that such a Temple existed at the time of its writing.

Since all other references to the Temple in the Revelation clearly refer to the heavenly Temple, there is nothing about any Temple reference which could justifiably be used to infer that the earthly Temple was still standing because of those references. In fact, at the end of the prophecy, perhaps as what could have been an ameliorating salve to those concerned about the earlier loss of the earthly Temple, we are told that no Temple is necessary in the grand scheme of things. I would think that the last treatment of the Temple in the work would be at least as significant in pointing to a post-destruction dating of Revelation, as the middle treatment could be in suggesting a pre-destruction dating.

A Rapture? Actually, There's Three

What I'm about to share with you I'd wager you've never heard anywhere else before. Don't let that scare you, though you may suspect I'm a Gentile short of the full number before it's over.

Before we go any further, let's define an important term: rapture. The word itself is generally considered to be a non-biblical term, but that is not quite true. It is a fair translation of the Koine, harpazó, found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, as the dictionary clearly demonstrates. For the sake of accuracy, let me define rapture in this way: an event in which God translates the body of a believer not only from its earthly location to a heavenly one, but also, and more importantly, transforms it from its earthly form to its eternal one. Both the living and the dead are included, and the fullest treatment of the circumstance is found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57.

The most important consideration, quite apart from all that, is whether or not the term does justice to biblical thought, and that it does quite well!

If you've been a Christian for a minimum of 5 minutes, you've probably been assaulted by the arguments as to the timing of this event. Although there are those who would argue against the existence of the event at all, that perspective is so out of harmony with scripture, it's not worth the words it would take to refute it. That aside, there are pre-, mid-, and post-tribulationists who subscribe to the event but differ as to its timing. There are even so-called pan-tribulationists, cheeky monkeys who say they could care less, figuring it will all pan out in the end.

What I can say in regard to this question, that may be unique and is definitely outre, is that they're all right! 

Haven't I said in prior articles that the Gentile church was raptured out at the beginning of the 70th week? Yes, but let me say here that each of the viewpoints (pre, mid and post) can cite solid scriptural references to back up their viewpoints. For each view, those that hold the others can shoot holes in their arguments. Why? They are, in fact, all right, they just don't realize it. What the Bible actually teaches is that the rapture has a pre-, mid-, and post-tribulational component. What!?! Yup, all three pre-millenial rapture theories are correct, but not exclusively so, whereas post- and a-millenialism are out to lunch.

I lay out the pretribulational rapture of the Gentile church in another post, so let me lay out the rest for you. 

In Revelation 7 we are introduced to 144,000 Jews who believed in Christ at the beginning of Daniel's 70th week. They are sealed and protected from the wrathful events falling upon earth at that time for three and a half years. Their time on earth during the 70th week runs concurrently with the two prophetic witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11. Those witnesses are killed at the midpoint of the Tribulation and left unburied on the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days. At that point, God calls for them from his abode and they rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. 

That experience for those two witnesses most certainly fits the definition of Rapture. As it so happens, the next mention of the 144,000 is in Revelation 14, but, quite noticeably, their location then can no longer be said to be clearly on earth. They're with the Lamb, singing a special song before the throne and the elders. How did they get there? They were raptured, like any other humans who get there, along with the two witnesses. And smack dab in the middle of Daniel's  70th week!

What about the post- component?

That's found in Revelation 20, where we discover that those (they will be Jews) who were executed in the last three and a half years of the 70th week, will be raised from the dead and join the ranks of those ruling and reigning with Christ. Rather than buy into THE lie and take the mark of the beast, they stayed true to Christ and paid the price with their lives. They will find the same reward as all who have done similar before them. And, it meets the definition of Rapture!

There you have it. The completion of the first resurrection-- a rapture for sure, but in three distinct, biblically attested phases.