ghtan

Enoch, I did not answer your questions because they are irrelevant to the main issue that divides us, i.e. whether there is a time jump in Dan 9:26-27. But we do seem to be getting somewhere. Your attempt to separate Mt 24 and Lk 21 as two different conversations is an admission that your case cannot hold up if they are the same conversation. But the two reasons you provide for believing that they are different conversations should really be quite worrying for you if they are your best efforts: 1. The difference between "then" and "before all this" is really minor. In any case, the greek word behind "then" can also mean "at that time" and is often translated as such, e.g. Mt 25:1. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Mt and Lk. 2. You say the conversation in Mt 24 happened AT NIGHT? Where in the text does it say that? I hope you are not making things up to suit your view. I have not come across anyone else suggesting that the conversations in Mt 24 and Lk 21 occurred at different times. It does seem to me like a desperate move. Perhaps you should rethink that. Regards.

How so? It's Natural? Except when it's not. Sure ought to send up caution flags when you're reading PROPHECY in DANIEL concerning End Times (which Christ just told you to go and read) and you've just been given, Two Passages prior (Dan 9:24), A Time Demarcation: "Seventy Weeks are determined upon they people..." the first words of the Prophecy. Most generally agree? Then it must be true and hold up to any and all scrutiny and common sense, eh? You have a Begging The Question (Fallacy) that a covenant was confirmed between Titus and Jews and then Extrapolate that he went back on his covenant by attacking Jerusalem.....which therefore ended the Sacrifice and Oblation----From Verse 27. 1. Please show a "Covenant" confirmed with the many and Titus 3.5 years prior to the attack? 2. You also forgot that Verse 27 also says "abominations he shall make it desolate".... the same Language that Christ used in Matthew 24:15 (Olivet Discourse) to tell you when "great tribulation" will begin in the END TIMES. Which just so happens to be 3.5 years...."great tribulation": "Time and Times, and a Dividing of Time": Dan 7:25, Dan 12:7, Rev 12:14; "1260 Days": Rev 11:3, Rev 12:6 ; "42 Months": Rev 11:2, Rev 13:5. 3. The Abomination of Desolation (Stand in the Holy Place; SEE: Revelation 13:6 that depicts this exact scenario) is the ac Blaspheming and Claiming He is GOD. 4. (Daniel 9:24) "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." This is the culmination of Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy. ERGO--- For your position to hold any water whatsoever----- that these are contiguous weeks, which also means Daniel's 70 weeks are in the past.... A. Please show a "Covenant" confirmed with the many and Titus 3.5 years prior to the attack in 70 AD? B. Please show Titus as the anti-christ AND put him in the Holy of Holy's Blaspheming GOD....that everyone can SEE -----you know why? Christ in Matthew 24 makes a Technology Statement....(Matthew 24:15) " When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)" How can the Jews SEE this event in the Holy of Holy's and flee in 70 AD when only the High Priest can enter and that's only Once a Year!! Let me tell you how they can SEE....CNN!! C. Please show Specifically the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in Matthew 24 and in Revelation? D. Please depict the Events of Revelation from 70AD - 73.5 AD......? E. Please Show the ac's Armies Gathered in Armageddon.....? F. Please show Christ's Return to the Earth on a White Horse with HIS Bride and Armies to save the Jewish Remnant....? G. Please show the ac and false prophet thrown into the lake of fire and satan being chained for a Thousand Years.....? H. Please show Ezekiel's Millennial Temple and Christ ruling from Jerusalem on David's Throne with a Rod of Iron.....? I. Since it's been well over a thousand years since 70AD, Please show satan being loosed, final battle, satan in the lake of fire, and the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven. J. Please show: Transgression Finished, End of Sins, and the bringing in Everlasting Righteousness. This is just for Starters!! Look Up You see sir, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, two Mutually Exclusive events can't happen @ the same time. All that must be accomplished is to SUMMARILY Rule Out One....leading to the other being Ipso Facto TRUE. The only recourse left, to avoid Preposterous Ludicrousness, is to Somehow make Matthew 24 and Luke 21....the same (That's a mirage, read them closely). Even then, your position has Battleship/Air Craft Carrier size holes in it. regards From your reply, it is obvious that you cannot find something WITHIN the text of Dan 9 to support your case, otherwise you won't have to resort to Mt 24:15. It is important to recognise this. If one uses a text alien to the passage to support an interpretation, then it had better be a text that undoubtedly says what you claim it says. Unfortunately, Mt 24:15 is far from that, because its interpretation is disputed. Many - I daresay the majority of commentators - understand it to refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. You obviously realise that otherwise you won't mention Luke 21. Luke has indeed rephrased that verse in 21:20 so that his gentile readers - like us too - would understand what the prophecy was referring to, and he understands it to refer to AD70. Even you agree he does. You have to argue that Jesus in Mt and Lk was talking about two different things. Where is the warrant for that? Look at how the words in Luke 21:20-23 are so similar to Mt 24:15-21. Are we to suppose that Jesus repeats himself about the flight of pregnant women and nursing mothers in the same conversation in reference to two different events? Not likely. Therefore, if Luke indicates Dan 9:27 is fulfilled in AD70, that is good enough for me.

Agreed. However, since we do know by virtue of retrospect....it's good to be Precise. Begging The Question (Fallacy)------ What Agreement? Are you suggesting that Verse 27 (Daniel's 70th Week) already happened? If so, Please Elucidate a Timeline depicting the events of Revelation from 70AD until 73.5 AD.......? I'll get the popcorn. From directly above, Yep you are (SEE: If so....?). Are ya Kidding? (Daniel 9:27) "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." 1. No need to mention it, eh? As elucidated quite succinctly in my previous post... The scenario that you acquiesced to, goes: Confirm a Covenant by Titus------->Destruction of the City and Temple --------> Then to Verse 27 (This is Daniel's 70th Week) -----> Confirm a Another Covenant ?? -----> Then what? And you're Assuming/Begging The Question (Fallacy) that what led to the Destruction of the City and The Sanctuary (Verse 26, 70 AD) was a "Breaking of the Covenant". Please show.....? Moreover, Please tell us why the City and The Temple were destroyed in 70 AD....? 2. Christ point's you to these specific passages in Daniel as an answer to the "End Times" question in Matthew 24 (The Olivet Discourse). He specifically points to the Abomination of Desolation as beginning the "Great Tribulation" which lasts: "Time and Times, and a Dividing of Time": Dan 7:25, Dan 12:7, Rev 12:14; "1260 Days": Rev 11:3, Rev 12:6 ; "42 Months": Rev 11:2, Rev 13:5. ERGO...As queried above, Please Elucidate a Timeline depicting the events of Revelation from 70AD to 73.5 AD.......? I'll get the popcorn. Can you also Elucidate the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary in the Book of Revelation.....? You have got it the wrong way around. The fulfilment of the cutting off of the Anointed One in 9:26 by Jesus' death firmly anchors that verse in the first century. It is therefore natural to read the next verse to also refer to the same time period. This is what I see most of us on this board has done. We may not agree on the exact way that the covenant was confirmed and the sacrifices were ended but we generally agree that it happened in the first century. If you think the story takes a quantum time leap to the end time at this point, the burden is on YOU to prove it. So far, you have not provided anything remotely like proof.

Hi argosy, I take it from your long reply that you could not find any occurrence of the word 'destroy' with city or temple as the object where it means ruin rather than physical destruction. The examples you quoted previously do not have city or temple as the object. The weight of evidence is then on physical destruction. To quote you: You know that is right even though you won't admit it. The rest of your reply is a bit confusing but, crucially, I think you did not explain how Jesus can confirm a covenant and abolish the sacrifices in the 70th week when he is already dead by the end of the 69th week. I think someone else posed the same question to you. Unless you can provide an answer, there is a logic gap in your scheme.

I was not suggesting the Roman figure is Titus; I think the identity of the prince is not important as long as he represents Rome. I think we kid ourselves if we think we have enough information about that time to know exactly who did what. But we can see the results. The covenant might just be an understanding that allowed the Jews to practise their own religion, and that was what Rome did. However, by invading and destroying Jerusalem, Rome broke the agreement. Verse 27 does not follow the destruction of the city - there is no "then" - but explains the circumstances behind the destruction. So there is no need to mention the destruction of the temple in vs 27. Your problem would be to prove that the 'he' in verse 27 is someone else in the future. There is no evidence of that in the text.

Hi Argosy, Sorry I missed the earlier posts because I live in a different time zone. With regards to the meaning of 'destroy' in Dan 9:26, revelant supporting examples should use the same object. Thankfully, there is a second object here, i.e. "city". I think you will find that most if not all other occurrences of shacahth with "city" as its object implies a physical destruction, e.g. that of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18/19. I understand your logic that when the same word is used in successive verses - in this case "prince" in v 25 and 26 - they should normally refer to the same subject. However, in this case, there is reason to believe that they do not. If the anointed one is cut off after 69 weeks - presumably, you would agree that this refers to Jesus' death - how can he confirm a covenant with many or put an end to sacrifices during the final week? Therefore, Daniel probably meant a different prince. It is after all a fairly common word. It is easy enough to read the second prince as a Roman figure who confirmed a covenant with the Jews but then broke it and ended sacrifices by invading and destroying Jerusalem in AD70. Then, the first half of the final week was fulfilled historically, as you suggest.

Hi argosy, Interesting suggestion, but is there any other place in the OT where the destruction of the temple was not physical but moral? You will need support from elsewhere in the OT for your figurative interpretation. Otherwise, Daniel would have understood it to be physical. In your scheme, is the destruction of the city and sanctuary the same event as the ending of sacrifices in verse 27? If they are, you would also have to find instances of 'moral' ending of sacrifices in the OT. I think it far more natural to read them both as physical events. Perhaps I am missing something, but what have you against the more natural physical reading?

Hi Retrobyter, Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

Hi Retrobyter, Isn't there a period between verse 26 and verse 27 in the Hebrew text? Then, isn't it the case that the subject of the verbs in verse 27 need not be the same third person singular subject in verse 26? I think that would be true in English. Furthermore, the actions of the subject in verse 27 seems inappropriate for the anointed one in verse 26 if the latter is referring to Jesus. For example, the ending of sacrifices elsewhere in Daniel (8:11, 11:31) is always done by an evil person. I doubt Daniel, who had no access to the New Testament, would have understood the ending of sacrifices as a righteous act.

Yes, I agree that being ready is more important. If you are post-trib - sorry for using the term again - you would be the most ready among the futurists. Of course, that does not necessarily make it right! You take care too, brother. Regards.

Hi Last Daze, You are right that the resurrection of the two witnesses does not specify that they have imperishable bodies. However, we understand the others that were resurrected, e.g. Lazarus, died later because they continued to live on earth; so they could not have received imperishable bodies. On the other hand, the two witnesses go up to heaven after being resurrected, so they should have the "heavenly bodies" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:40. I think I understand why you want to see the rapture at the 7th trumpet and coincide it on the same day with the 7th bowl. It is because you are post-trib, correct? Fair enough. No offense meant, but if I were post-trib, I would be concerned that John offers no clue of the rapture happening at that point despite the importance of the event to his readers. Therefore, those who see the rapture there have to use the "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 to provide support. But they have to assume that Paul - who wrote much earlier than John - was also told about the series of trumpet plagues that was shown to John, and so both were talking about the SAME last trumpet. That is a big assumption. Instead, many writers understand the last trumpet to refer to the last in the series of trumpets used by the Roman army to organise the moving out of their soldiers. Note Paul had used the trumpet imagery earlier in 1 Cor 14:8 in the context of a battle. Something similar is also found in Numbers 10. The rapture is like "moving out." I doubt we will change each other's view about the rapture but it is nice to be able to discuss these things in a non-confrontational way.

Hi Last Daze, I don't think we should read 1 Cor 15:21-23 as a full listing of all the resurrections that will occur. If it were, there would be only two resurrections - Jesus, and those that belong to him when he comes. The third that you mention simply says Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God when the end comes; I see no mention of a resurrection there. If we are stuck with only one resurrection other than that of Jesus, we would have a big problem because the raising of the two witnesses in ch 11 is a resurrection (albeit of only two people but then Christ was only one person and he is listed); that in 20:5 is actually called a resurrection; and there should be one together with the Rapture, as 1 Cor 15:52 implies. That makes three altogether. So I think 1 Cor 15:23 is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of resurrections. I think quite a number of people put the rapture at the seventh trumpet of ch 11 but you seem to be suggesting that the 7th trumpet and 7th bowl are different events that happen on the same day. Do you mean a 24-hour day? If so, there is a lot to fit in on that one day itself, not least the first 6 bowls. I can't see how that can be done. Am I reading you correctly or have I misunderstood your meaning?

Hi Peter, Nice to meet someone new on this forum. I do not know anything about this Frank Logsdon and so I will limit my comments to what you have in your article. First, if Frank wrote the preface to the NASB and now suddenly does a flip-flop, I would question his credibility. He couldn't have been forced to work on the NASB, nor to write its preface, so why does he change his mind now? I think a person who does such an about-turn is not a reliable witness. (That is provided all this is even true.) Second, the translation of the NASB was not done by him alone but by a team - apparently, there were 58 translators in all - so have the rest recanted? If not, why do we believe one man against the rest? If ten preachers came to your church and preached a similar idea but one comes and preach a completely different idea and even says that the idea preached by the previous ten was wrong, would you believe the one or the ten? Surely you would give the benefit of doubt to the ten until you carefully investigated the claims of the one. Have you carefully investigated the claims of the one? (Especially if there is any truth in the article.) I don't read any proof in your article, only rambling. Third, as you noted, Frank has probably exaggerated by saying that the KJV is 100% correct. But if he did indeed say that, I would question his objectivity. No translation can claim to be 100% correct; the translators do the best that they can using whatever is available to them at that time. I doubt even the KJV claims to be a perfect translation. If instead Frank is prone to exaggeration, then might he not have exaggerated many other things in his version of events? Therefore, I think if we believe Frank, it is because we choose to and not because the evidence supports him. (And this applies only if he did say what the article says he said). Cheers!

Ah well, I rest my case. You live in a world where all our bros and sisters who work tirelessly on the UBS and NA greeks texts, and the various translations, are conspiring against the KJV. On the other hand, I give those hundreds of scholars who form those committees that translate the bible versions the benefit of doubt that they have no hidden agenda against the KJV. If they unanimously disagree with the KJV on any particular verse, it indicates to me that they are convinced that the KJV is wrong on that verse. I certainly would not pin my hopes for the timing of the rapture on a certain reading of a verse that nearly all other translations disagree with, because the chances are very high that I would be disappointed.

Hi Enoch 2021, Thanks for naming all the other translations that do not agree with the KJV. I did not know there were so many. Reading the NIV preface, it says its NT translation is an eclectic one, i.e. it based its translations on ALL available greek manuscripts not just Westcott and Hort. (And there are thousands of greeks manuscripts.) So to say that the non-KJV translations just follow W&H is plainly wrong. I have not checked the prefaces of the other english versions but I would be surprised if the rest just rely on W&H. (Actually, the W&H has been largely superseded by the UBS and NA greek texts.) Now, just specifically on Rev 5:9-10, if the KJV alone is correct and all the other versions are wrong even though they refer not only to the W&H text, there must be a conspiracy among the translators and editors of all those other versions to disagree with the KJV. Is that logical? (I think we can safely eliminate the possibility that they are ALL too naive or deluded to be able to tell right from wrong.) Or is it much more likely that all these translators and editors can see that the KJV is wrong on Rev 5:9-10?

I think the confusion here is over the correct rendering of Rev 5:9-10, esp vs 10. The one quoted by Enoch 2021 - which say "we/us" - is from the KJV which is based on poorer manuscripts. Hence why nearly all other versions, e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV, etc.., correct it to read "them/they" because they had access to better manuscripts. Then, as Last Daze rightly points out, since the 24 elders say "they/them," they cannot be the raptured church. (I know there are some die-hard KJV fans but it would be unwise to base our belief on a reading that nearly all other versions disagree with.) I am somewhat amused that Enoch 2021 is vigorously defending that the 24 elders is the raptured church when he said earlier that the rapture cannot be found in Revelation. Is it a tacit admission that without evidence of the rapture in chaps 4-5, pre-trib really has no case? (No offense; I trust we can have a dig at one another on this forum without getting all worked up about it.) As for Hebrews 11, it shows that the men and women of faith did not go to heaven - hence "heavenly" in v 16 - when their lives ended here on earth. That was the promised reward they did not receive IN THEIR TIME. It was because Jesus had not died on the cross to pay for all their sins. But once Jesus died and his blood washed away all their sins, they went to heaven (Eph 4:7-10). Otherwise how could they serve as the "crowd of witnesses" in 12:1? And so they were already in heaven when John got there in Rev 4. Just out of curiosity, Marilyn, where do you think people like Noah, Moses, etc. are now if they are not in heaven?

Hi Marilyn, still not sure I understand you completely but let me take a stab at it. I agree that sometimes we may wonder whether a topic is worth discussing if it degenerates into unpleasantness. However, I think that if it is in the bible, then it is a valid topic for discussion and we cannot avoid it. We should just be more responsible in the way we do it. A parallel in the bible may be the practice of speaking in tongues in Corinth. It was obviously a divisive issue there yet Paul did not tell them to stop speaking in tongues, only to do it in an orderly fashion. Of course, it does not mean everyone should be interested in talking about the rapture, just like not everyone is interested in speaking in tongues. There is no right or wrong in this. It is the other part of your reply that I am still confused over, i.e. the relationship of Rev 3:21 and 4:4 to the rapture. If you are suggesting that the 24 elders represent the raptured church in heaven, then I respectfully disagree. Simply because nothing in the text implies it. Instead, that they are called elders suggests they are the spirits of prominent servants of God - perhaps Noah, Moses, Elijah, etc.. - from the past. Maybe including some of the apostles, all of whom except John had been martyred by then. But it would be somewhat anachronistic for the raptured end time church to be speaking to its first century apostle, e.g. in 5:5. I doubt that I have addressed all the points that you made, but I hope at least some of them.

Hi Marilyn, glad to meet someone roughly in my time zone. Unfortunately, I can't understand how your question relates to what I said. Perhaps you can make it clearer for me. What I was trying to say, and I said it in an earlier post, is that if Revelation does not contain the rapture, then post-trib wins by default because other passages generally link the rapture with the second coming. Take for example 1 Thess 4:16; Paul is talking about the rapture, but what is the context? It is "the coming of the Lord" in verse 15. Another passage is Mt 24:30-31. Therefore, if the rapture is not found in Revelation, verses like those would represent strong support that it happens together with the second coming. I am not post-trib but I do recognise that the body of evidence outside Revelation favours post-trib.

It is OK, Enoch 2010. I think Enoch 2021's problem (why do you two have so similar monikers?) is that he cannot find the rapture in Rev 4-5 where pre-trib must find it for their scheme to work. The alternative is to argue that the rapture is nowhere found in Revelation. But I think that is not an option; it is inconceivable that God has not included the rapture somewhere in Revelation given that it is his most complete word on the end time. Unfortunately for pre-trib, chaps 4-5 just do not have it.

Quite true, it is only the church alive at that time that will be raptured. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Apart from that, pre-tribbers have this idea that the church cannot go through the great tribulation, but where does that come from? Is there a scripture that says so? Btw, that there are two harvests in chapter 14 is recognised by the vast majority of bible commentators; they argue over the meaning of the first harvest but they nevertheless recognise that there are two harvests.

There are two harvests in ch 14 - the first in v 14-16 and the second in v 17-20. This is evident from the fact that the first harvest is conducted by "one like the son of man" (v 14) - i.e. Jesus - whereas the second harvest is conducted by "another angel" (v 17). The crop in the first harvest is not stated - but silence normally indicates a wheat harvest (e.g. John 4:35) - whereas the second harvest is undoubtedly of grapes. The first harvester swings his sickle OVER the earth; the second swings his ON the earth. Nothing is mentioned about what happens to the first harvest but the second harvest is thrown into the winepress. The differences are sufficient to indicate that these are different harvests. Believers participlate in the first harvest and do not have to worry that they face the same end as the unbelievers in the second harvest. Notice that chap 15 goes on to mention a crowd singing praises in heaven. Where does this crowd come from and why does John talk about them at this point? It is because they are the product of the first harvest, i.e. they are the raptured church in heaven. The bible regularly uses different imageries to describe the same event. Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God is different ways, e.g. in Matt ch 13. Therefore, the thrusting of sickle need not be found in the Thessalonians passage just as we need not expect to find a trumpet in the rapture passage in Revelation. If we insist on similar imagery, we have a problem because the only place in Revelation that describe the dead being raised - which is found in both the Corinthians and Thessalonians passages on the rapture - is in chap 20. Surely, the rapture does not wait till ch 20. (Oops, I forgot - Rev 11 does mention the two witnesses being raised. But should we take that to be the rapture then?)

Hi there! Thanks for instruction on adding quotes. I think if the rapture is not found in Revelation, the post-trib case is most likely correct because the default would be that the rapture occurs together with the second coming as the latter is the context in which passages like 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4 are found. But wouldn't it be odd for God to exclude such an important event as the Rapture from his latest and most extensive explanation of what to expect for the end time? I think it would be very odd, and so the rapture should be found somewhere in Revelation. Mid tribs unfortunately cannot agree where in ch 6-19a to place the Rapture, but the clearest is the first harvest in 14:14-16. A harvest is an ingathering and what is gathered here are believers, as opposed to unbelievers in the second harvest. How are believers gathered? Either they are martyred or raptured. Martyrs would be gathered progressively as they are killed but the first harvest is gathered by "one like the son of man," a description that points to Jesus. I doubt that Jesus would come repeatedly to gather martyrs - that job would be left to angels - and so this is likely an important and one-time event. I think it has a good claim to be the rapture.

Hi there Enoch2021! Like you, I too believe in a rapture but I do not see the source of your statement which I attach below. (I have not found out how to show quotes the proper way yet.) Surely if the bible does say the church goes through the tribulation (and I do not know which verse you have in mind), it would simply mean that the church alive at that time, not including dead believers too. I am a mid-tribber and so I too do not think the rapture is found in Rev 19, but by the same token I think a pre-trib rapture is not found in Rev either. If I am not mistaken, the standard pre-trib view is that the rapture is symbolised by the ascension of John in Rev 4:1. But I think you will find that most other futurists and significantly non-futurists, who do not have any vested interest in the debate over the timing of the rapture, think that it would be reading too much into the text to say that John symbolises the church. Quoting Enoch2021: Any other position than the Pre-Trib position has "The Church"/Born Again Christians going through the Great Tribulation.... Well 98% of "The Church"/Born Again Christians are DEAD (From Pentecost until now or when it's time). So for "The Church" to go through the "Great Tribulation" on the Earth, They would have to be RESURRECTED and Walking around on the Earth so as to go through The Great Tribulation. So unless you can show this scenario in Scripture, welcome to Pre-Trib.

Hi there! Yes, I too think this refers to the rapture but wouldn't verses like 1 Cor 15:51 and 1 Thess 4:17 more plainly talk about the event? By the way, I think most period lengths in Revelation are symbolic and so the 7 years are probably not literal.

I think what is important is what John intended the image to be. His primary audience were the seven churches; he would have written in a way that they could understand and so he would have used words that were familiar to them. They lived during a time when images of the emperor were put in places e.g. temples to be worshipped. I think the first-century readers knew what John meant by images and worship. I don't think they would have thought of codes.