[MOVED] End of the world predictions are a dime a dozen and always wrong. :)

[Ronald]

Parousia already supplied this list of verses, but I rewrote it with a few additional links.
There is a claim that says Jesus can only return when “all nations” have been reached with the gospel, but the bible seems to indicate that this was pretty much achieved by the end of the New Testament era 2000 years ago!

Me >That's ridiculous, the spread of the gospel just got started back then with the disciples. Please.


Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Me >All over the world (which was throughout the Roman Empire and by 95 AD we have confirmation of the Epistles and areas of travel that the Apostles accomplished -- then it continued. Was it spread to the Far East and all of Africa by then? No.


The New Testament is clear. The Great Commission was about taking the gospel into the whole world, and it remains our gospel imperative to continue doing this today. But as far as Paul is concerned, the gospel had already left the ethnic constraints of Israel and expanded out into every nation. This is a Jew celebrating God’s kingdom going out into the non-Jewish world. And that is a remarkable fulfilment of Acts 1:8.

Me >It wasn't fulfilled 2000 years ago, that was the purpose but please, the spread of Christianity was in its early stage.
Has Christianity grown in 2000 years? Yes! Here's a very strong rebuttal: If it had spread to every nation, the end would have come 2000 years ago.

 

[eclipsenow]

It's all interpretation. What else did you think about my post? I shared quite a bit and put a fair bit of thought into it so I'm keen to hear more than just, "I interpret 'short' differently to you therefore there is zero chance your interpretation could have any merit".

I also put a fair bit of work into my post, and you have ignored everything in it. I think that the moment someone is a futurist, they've put great big rose coloured glasses on that inhibit their ability to read anything in Revelation accurately, so until we can agree on the basic interpretative framework about how to read the book, everything futurist is irrelevant and I'm just bored to tears by yet another end-times-table.

While you're dealing with Point 1, here's another point grounding Revelation in John's generation.

2. JOHN SPECIFICALLY SAYS HE *ALREADY* SHARES IN THEIR *TRIBULATION*

Rev 1:9 "I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." (NASB)

John shares their tribulation which had *already* started! It started 2000 years ago, and continues to this day. We see it in history and around the world *any* time a 'beast' government starts to kill God's people.

John wrote in the apocalyptic genre, a style heavy with symbolism which was common from 200BC to 200AD, and he neatly incorporates a number of Jewish numbers and symbols into a well rounded sermon all about Christians living under persecution. Jewish Christians probably still expected the Messiah to save Israel from her enemies and kick out the Romans. What was the point of belonging to this 'new' Israel if it didn't guarantee any national or personal security? How were Christians to understand the eventual fall of the temple? Why was God letting his forgiven people suffer so much? John answers these questions. Revelation is primarily a theological sermon that covered where the true temple now lives, true security exists, and how our true home is being prepared. It’s about how eternal life intersects with worldly philosophies and temptations. It’s about remaining true to our calling under various temptations.

Note that it was written *to* them and was, generally speaking, *about* them and their trials and tribulations: but in doing so it is to *all* Christians in *all* times of trial and tribulation and temptation. Just as 1 Corinthians was written specifically to the Corinthian church but is also God's word to all generations, so Revelation was written to specific Christians but the themes and message are timeless. (Well, for all Christians living in these Last Days which started in Acts 2!)

 

[Endtime Survivors]

John shares their tribulation which had *already* started! It started 2000 years ago, and continues to this day. We see it in history and around the world *any* time a 'beast' government starts to kill God's people.

I don't see anyone arguing that John didn't suffer persecution. All people who follow God (or just try to be good in general) will suffer persecution and tribulation, but there will be one "Great Tribulation" (Matthew 24:21) .

Anyway, what is the point of watching, if there is nothing to watch for? (Matthew 24:42-51)

 

[Hazrus]

Endtime, you're missing the point here again. Of course we are to watch. Jesus will return like a thief in the night. We must ensure we are right with God, just like our fathers had to, and our grandfathers, and all people back to John's time.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't see anyone arguing that John didn't suffer persecution. All people who follow God (or just try to be good in general) will suffer persecution and tribulation, but there will be one "Great Tribulation" (Matthew 24:21) .

What if Matt 24 is switching between discussing "That day" (when the Lord returns) which is universal, a surprise, and completely inescapable, and the temple being destroyed in the disciple's generation, which is local, predictable, and escapable?

 

[keras]

There's simply no way to insert 2000 years. None. Zero. Futurists are adding to Revelation!

How the 2000 years fits in, is the 2000 [nearly] revolutions of the earth around the sun, since the time Jesus commenced His ministry.

 

[eclipsenow]

How the 2000 years fits in, is the 2000 [nearly] revolutions of the earth around the sun, since the time Jesus commenced His ministry.

But that still doesn't make John flippant when he says "Soon" and "Time is near" and that he "shares in their sufferings". He means those things!

 

[keras]

But that still doesn't make John flippant when he says "Soon" and "Time is near" and that he "shares in their sufferings". He means those things!

Time is relative; it's different between an adult and a child.
It is certainly different between us and God. There are several verses where prophesies say they will happen 'soon'. The fact they haven't yet, simply proves the prophet was talking in God's timing.
To think that the 'soon' in Revelation, means all of that Book is past history, is quite ridiculous.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

What if Matt 24 is switching between discussing "That day" (when the Lord returns) which is universal, a surprise, and completely inescapable, and the temple being destroyed in the disciple's generation, which is local, predictable, and escapable?

I'm fine to consider "what if" scenarios, but prophecy isn't a series of random, isolated events. There is a consistent, interconnected, "bigger picture" to the prophecies given by Jesus in the Gospels, prophecy from the Revelation, and prophecy from various old testament contributors like Daniel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.

For example, "great tribulation such as the world has never seen nor will see again". Compare that with reference from Daniel about the AC fighting against Christians for 42 months (Daniel 7:25). It's the same "time, times, and dividing of time" (Revelation 12:14), or 42 months (Revelation 11:2), or 1260 days (Revelation 12:6) referenced in the Revelation.

It's the same for descriptions about the AC and the final world empire relating to that specific time period. It's the same for the two witnesses who warn the world for 1,260 days (Revelation 11:3).

Daniel prophesies that the final 7 years (out of the original 480) will be kicked off by the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecy is written in such a way that it has a duel meaning; while the AC makes an agreement (for one "week" or 7 years) with the Jews to rebuild the physical temple, Jesus will organize his followers into a spiritual temple (i.e. the 144k). However, in the middle of the week, (i.e. 3.5 years) the AC reneges on his part of the deal, sets himself up in the temple to be worshiped as God and officially begins the Great Tribulation against those who witness against him.

There does not appear to be any time period for when the Mark of the Beast will be standardized, but since it is the AC who causes it to happen, it's likely to be at some point during his rule. However, the infrastructure for that system has been developing for thousands of years. The Mark is described as a global economic system used to control all buying and selling. There is no civilization or system in history which can accurately be called a fulfillment of this prophecy. It is only now, with the advent of cashless technology, that such a system could possibly work. A computer scan can automatically process exchange rates for any currency so it would not matter where in the world you tried to buy or sell; it would all be processed through the same standardized system via scannable microchips.

These prophecies are all predicting a precise period on the timeline of humanity, a period which has not yet happened. We don't know when this period of 7 years will start, as of now, but that's quite different to saying we can never know. We've been given information on what to look for and we're instructed to watch (Matthew 24:44) precisely so that we will not be taken by surprise like a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

 

[Endtime Survivors]

But that still doesn't make John flippant when he says "Soon" and "Time is near" and that he "shares in their sufferings". He means those things!

So, you're suggesting that when John says, "soon" he means "soon"? It's circular reasoning. It doesn't quantify what soon means from God's perspective.

There are several references to the lord taking longer to appear than what we expect.
Matthew 24:48
Matthew 24:26 (Note: the context here is that of people believing Jesus should have already returned when he obviously hasn't)
Matthew 25:5
Mark 13:34

Isn't your interpretation of "soon" just a convenient way to justify complacency?

 

[eclipsenow]

Time is relative;

Rubbish! John said it would begin soon, and he wanted HIS generation to obey his message! How are they going to obey something about a political and worldly situation 2000 years away?

it's different between an adult and a child.

Tell that to Roman Christians forced to watch their children being sawn in half. Did God have anything to say to them or not? Would God explain why his new 'kingdom' didn't seem safe, like the land of milk and honey was supposed to be?

It is certainly different between us and God.

Agreed, but irrelevant to this letter. You haven't addressed the many times John says he is writing to HIS generation, for the suffering is going to start soon, indeed, he already shares in their tribulation! Will you address these verses and stop dancing around them?

There are several verses where prophesies say they will happen 'soon'.

Show me?

The fact they haven't yet, simply proves the prophet was talking in God's timing.

Possibly, but I'm yet to be convinced that ANYTHING in Revelation is prophetic. It's all a gospel declaration, including the numerous times we see the Lord's return depicted in various images. For the Lord returning is part of the gospel!

To think that the 'soon' in Revelation, means all of that Book is past history, is quite ridiculous.

No, it's quite sensible actually, and the majority of the Reformers thought Revelation was written to suffering Romans and primarily about the gospel to suffering Christians then, and therefore applicable to all Christians being persecuted in all generations. What is TRULY ridiculous is that John would write to his suffering generation and say, "Well, if you think YOU'RE suffering, wait till you hear what God's got in store for people in 2000 years! So nyer nyer nya nyer nya!" Now THAT is ridiculous.

As I have said many times:

A FUTURE TIMETABLE MAKES IT COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO JOHN'S GENERATION.

* Covenant Amils see it as an incredibly PRACTICAL book for all Christians in all ages. It encourages them to not give into suffering and refuse to follow the worldly short-term gains of materialism and worldly power and success and sensuality.

* Futurists make it irrelevant to all but the last generation.

* Covenant Amils see Revelation as clear symbolic sermons that interpret themselves according to other symbols in the bible, and are applicable to all Christians in all situations. It's immensely practical, encouraging stuff.

* Futurists see it as utterly dependent on today's headlines, and therefore inaccessible to everyone before this generation. It's confined to the last generation, and ... every generation argues over how it applies, as of course they think they're the special last generation.

* Covenant Amils use a consistent symbolic hermeneutic.

* Futurists use an inconsistent 'literal' hermeneutic which contradicts itself so frequently the system implodes. Does Jesus have 7 horns and 7 eyes or not? Is the book literal or not? Nothing futurists have said addresses the fundamental point that their literal hermeneutic is inconsistently applied.

* Covenant Amils see John as COMFORTING his generation of suffering Christians with the message that God is still in control, even if bad things are happening, and some of those bad things (EG: natural disasters) are God’s reminder that this world is under His judgement.

* Futurists imply John is SNEERING at his generation of suffering Christians. “You think you’ve got it bad: wait till you see what happens in 2000 years!”

 

[eclipsenow]

So, you're suggesting that when John says, "soon" he means "soon"? It's circular reasoning.

Circular? No, try again. John defines 'soon' for us in the same chapter.

Rev 1:1 “…SOON take place."

1:3 "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR!"

Note that John wanted his generation to *obey* the message! How do you obey a message all about people 2000 years in the future, and not even about you? You don’t. You can’t. But John expected them to *obey* this message. Futurists just wipe this under the carpet, but it’s all here in Chapter 1: the guide for how to read this entire book! Then when John also says that he shares their tribulation, it's clear. He's writing about things that have happened, are happening, and are just about to happen. There's simply no way to insert 2000 years. None. Zero. Futurists are adding to Revelation!

It doesn't quantify what soon means from God's perspective.

It sure does, you're just not reading it.

There are several references to the lord taking longer to appear than what we expect.
Matthew 24:48
Matthew 24:26 (Note: the context here is that of people believing Jesus should have already returned when he obviously hasn't)
Matthew 25:5
Mark 13:34

None of this disproves that John wanted his generation to take his message to heart and keep it!

Isn't your interpretation of "soon" just a convenient way to justify complacency?

No way! You've got to prove that John actually writing to his generation and Matthew 24 are somehow incompatible. They're not. Not at all! In fact, a first century reading of Revelation is entirely consistent with Revelation being applicable to us and having a message of encouragement to us, just as Paul's writing to Corinth still applies today! If it's to some group in the future, what do I care?

 

[Postvieww]

Preterism stands or falls with the time of the writing of Revelation.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written


When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.


The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

Arguments for the Early Date Answered

In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.

Writing Style Differences

It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel—when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.

In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:

Archaeological discoveries and literary studies have recently demonstrated that along with Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek was commonly spoken among first century Palestinians. Thus John must have known and used Greek since his youth (1970, 365).

B. B. Warfield contends that:

the Apocalypse betrays no lack of knowledge of, or command over, Greek syntax or vocabulary; the difference lies, rather, in the manner in which a language well in hand is used, in style, properly so called; and the solution of it must turn on psychological, not chronological, considerations (Schaff and Herzog 1891, 2036).

R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.

Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:

It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, “in the Spirit,” while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle’s mind, and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve (1064).

No Mention of Jerusalem’s Destruction

It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.

In response we note the following points.

First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.

However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).

Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:

difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure—surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision (1904, 238).

Nero Associated with 666

Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.

To come up with such an interpretation one must:

add the title “Caesar” to Nero’s name;

compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and

alter the spelling of “Caesar” by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.

All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.

Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).

In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.

REFERENCES

Gundry, R. H. 1970. Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Harrison, Everett. 1964. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Horne, Thomas H. 1841. Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 2. Philadelphia, PA: J. Whetham & Son.

McClintock, John and James Strong. 1969. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Morris, Leon. 1980. The Revelation of St. John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Orr, James, ed. 1939. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Salmon, George. 1904. Introduction to the New Testament. London, England: John Murray.

Schaff, Philip and Johann Herzog. 1891. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls.

Zahn, Theodor. 1973. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Ephesians 1:15; 1 Thessalonians 5

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Jackson, Wayne. "When Was the Book of Revelation Written?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: May 5, 2016. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-

 

[eclipsenow]

Who said 666 had to spell Nero? The numbers are symbolic of a false trinity, man (who was created on the 6th day and works 6 days a week) repeated 3 times in competition with the 777. In the context of the other major players of the passage, it's quite clear that Satan is the dragon behind the Roman empire, the beast is the ruling Emperor, and the false prophet is the pro-consul of Asia minor who encouraged everyone to go see Christians being tortured in the arena. How we understand this message to the Roman Christians then becomes relevant to all Christians in all situations of persecution. But if all these details are about some final generation, what good are they to me now? What if the Lord doesn't return for another 50 years? 500 years? 50,000 years? What good would it be to us? It wouldn't. It would be irrelevant: about as irrelevant as it has ALREADY been to Christians across the last 2000 years if the majority of the book is about some 'spooky, only decoded in the last generation' sort of message. That's just a freaky-weird futurist reading of Revelation influenced by Hollywood movies like "The Omen" more than any good theology!

 

[Luke17:37]

Daniel prophesies that the final 7 years (out of the original 480) will be kicked off by the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecy is written in such a way that it has a duel meaning; while the AC makes an agreement (for one "week" or 7 years) with the Jews to rebuild the physical temple, Jesus will organize his followers into a spiritual temple (i.e. the 144k). However, in the middle of the week, (i.e. 3.5 years) the AC reneges on his part of the deal, sets himself up in the temple to be worshiped as God and officially begins the Great Tribulation against those who witness against him.

Daniel 9:27 doesn't say all these things about the temple.

Daniel 9:27
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

The temple may be rebuilt, but it doesn't call for it in the beginning of the verse, it just says that in the middle of the week there will be an end to sacrifice and offerings, and that the abomination that causes desolation will be set up.

The temple could be rebuilt, but it seems like it's saying the Antichrist's covenant with many is the start of the seven years.

I think we should be watching for the covenant with many as opposed to a third temple. Who knows if there will be an actual 3rd temple? Could it be possible that the abomination that causes desolation refers to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, for example if a Christian desecrates their bodily temple by taking the mark of the beast in/on their bodily temple, making their temple unholy and unfit for the Spirit of God to dwell there? What if stopping sacrifice and offering is the act of making practicing Christianity a capital offense (absolutely no public freedom to worship Jahweh as we desire). It would be easier to recognize if the abomination that causes desolation refers to a physical temple in Jerusalem, but I just don't think the prophecy is specific enough that we can guarantee it.

 

[parousia70]

Well, He did say this:

“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more.." (Jn 14:19)

How long is "No more" in your view?

Context, context context!

OK, And the context here makes "no more" = how long?

It is today as Paul said:
2Co 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

Again, in whatever context you believe this to be, how long is "from Now on"?
How long is "NO LONGER"?

Post #270 I believe it is a bodily resurrection just as Jesus.

Just as?

So you believe we will retain our death wounds, if any, in our resurrected bodies "Just as" Jesus did?

Bullet holes, stab wounds, mangled limbs from an auto accident, beheadings?

You know it is possible Jesus had black hair and brown eyes do you think I mean every resurrected person would have matching hair and eyes? Absurd, another diversionary tactic. Resurrected “as Jesus” in a real flesh and bone, immortal body. None of us have or will die for the sins of the world I’m sure there will be no nail scars.

Again, once you allow for one difference, you're claim of "just as" fades away...

Just as you allow for the specific reason we will not retain our wounds in death because that was a "special" feature reserved for Christ alone, the reason there are MATERIAL differences in the way we are raised and the way in which Christ was raised is because of those Biblically defined differences between Christ's body and ours. Differences such as:

Christ is the only one who is both fully God and fully Man -- God incarnate. (John 1:1-18). Christ is the only one who was virgin born, and, therefore, born without original sin. (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 7:4-11; etc.). Christ is the only one who ever lived a sinless life. (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only one promised that his flesh would not suffer decay. (Acts 2:27,31).

His human body was not subject to original sin, nor corruptible (i.e. He was "impeccable"), nor did He ever commit sin and become corrupted. Because of this, He could keep His selfsame body, whereas, we cannot.
Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to Hades and had been resurrected.

The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual, to which it was tied. While the physical resurrection of our bodies, just as the retention of any wounds in them would have no point.

As St Paul says, "it is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a spiritual Body"

Ever crack open a seed? When sown, the outer shell dies and decays while the life inside springs forth. As St Paul also Says "36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

We are clearly not raised in the natural Body that is sown as you contend, wee are raised in the Spiritual Body that "God Gives us", while our Natural Body "Returns to Dust" (Gen 3:19)

And while I do, perhaps you could state as briefly as possible what you believe Hymenaeus was saying and why it was gravely false compared to what Paul taught?...

2 Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

In YOUR view, what precisely is the error of Hymenaeus that Paul is rebuking? Is it timing that Paul has problems with? If yes, why?

Yes timing, they said the resurrection was past. Paul had a problem because it had not passed.

And WHY was is such a problem for Paul that he claimed that?

I don’t know what you are looking for just say it. Must you always be so cryptic?

Well, I'm attempting to see if you understand what the implication was that Paul was so concerned about.

But Here's your answer.

Paul links 1 Thess 4 to the desecration of the temple in 2 Thess 2 (thus Paul has a first-century mindset for both and is clearly linking up with AD 70). 1 Cor 15:54-56 explicitly mentions the victory of the dead over Hades would only be achieved once the Law (of Moses) ceased holding them back (thus bolstering my argument about 1 Thess 4).

I've now answered that Hymenaeus had a timing error, according to scripture, and that the timing error was hugely important. To answer why, I'd like to identify the damning, faith-destroying error Paul continuously addresses throughout his epistles:

Galatians 3:1-2,10
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse

Galatians 2:16,21
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified....I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly

Galatians 5:2-4
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I could post a dozen other Pauline verses that repeat what was damming everyone in that generation, but those suffice. Belief that justification/salvation came from the Law Covenant of Moses was the damning, faith-destroying error Paul continuously had to address in his epistles.

It was for this same error that Hymenaeus was also being condemned by Paul, for Hymenaeus claimed that the release of the OT dead from Hades occurred within the Mosaic Covenant era, instead of at the destruction of the Law Covenant at AD 70. Hymenaeus was thus boldly claiming that the OT dead were saved through the Law Covenant of Moses, in direct contradiction to Paul's and Christ's teaching about the significance of the destruction of the Temple and OT priesthood and sacrifices. Hymenaeus was teaching salvation by the works of the Mosaic Law. He thus was "bewitched," "under a curse," had "fallen from grace," and was in essence saying "Christ died needlessly."

Rev 2: 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly

Rev 3:3b If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

This is what the text says, I’ll stick with that.

I'm sticking with it too... the problem for you seems to be the avalanche of scripture that supports my assertion that the condition "if" was not placed on the timing of the coming, but on the EFFECT of the coming. Don't watch, and the coming of punishment overtakes you as a thief, WATCH, coming of reward does not overtake you as a thief... but the coming still "comes", the only condition is placed on whether or not one would receive reward or punishment at the coming.

Nowhere in scripture is it taught that the timing of Christ's coming is a floating target based on the repentance or lack thereof of men. It is taught rather to happen at an "appointed time" Fixed before the foundation of the world.

Your view simply requires we toss out all those other scriptures.

On what authority do you remove heavens and earth from this passage only to focus on "stoicheion"?

Heavens and earth mentioned. Literal or symbolic? I believe literal.

Well, as I said before, whenever I have a question like this about the proper usage of a partucular word or phrase in front of me, I look elsewhere in scripture to let it inform my view.

COMMON OLD TESTAMENT USES OF "HEAVEN AND EARTH"

(1) The witness to the Covenant between Jehovah and Israel was "Heaven and Earth"

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.

Deuteronomy 4:26
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it;

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:

Leviticus 26:19
And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

Psalms 50:4
He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.

Isaiah 1:2
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me


(2) Israel's institution as a Nation under Moses and Joshua was the planting of Heavens and Earth

Isaiah 51:15-16
For I am Yahweh your God, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar: Yahweh of Hosts is his name. I have put my words in your mouth, and have covered you in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and tell Zion, You are my people.

Deuteronomy 31:28
Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.


(3) The "shaking/removal of Heavens and Earth" describes any of Jehovah's judgments upon nations and individuals

Against Ancient Babylon
Isaiah 13:13
Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Jeremiah 51:48
Then the heaven and the earth, and all that [is] therein, shall sing for Babylon: for the spoilers shall come unto her from the north, saith the LORD

Against King Saul
Psalms 18:7-10
Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills removed and were shaken, because he was wroth ... Hebowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.

Against Persia during Zerubbabel's Day
Haggai 2:21
Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth

So, getting back to the use of the phrase as it was used by Jesus, Peter and the writer of Hebrews, we can see that they didn't mean the physical planet -- rather, it meant the passing away of the Old Covenant World and the planting of the New Covenant Kingdom.

As the great Charles Spurgeon wrote:

C.H. Spurgeon On New Heavens and Earth (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The physical world perished in the flood, literally.

Actually it didn't. Ungodly people did, the material cosmos remained undestroyed. The material substance of Heaven and Earth was not destroyed at all. How many fish do you say perished in the flood?
How many fish do you say Noah brought on the Ark?

Soon to the Lord is obviously different that you define soon.

God doesn't have "soon" Postview. Nothing is "soon" to God, nothing is "far" to God. God doesn't have to wait "shortly" for anything, Just as He doesn't have to wait "a long time" for anything. God is Time-LESS.
Worth repeating.
GOD IS TIME-LESS.

"Near and Far" are HUMAN time indicators God uses to communicate accurate passages of Time to Men. even though God is timeless Himself, Contrary to your assertion God knows how to tell time CORRECTLY and know how to CORRECTLY communicate it's passing to Men.

3 if we remove Hebrews from your list. What allows you to ignore the fact the passage says the heavens and earth will be destroyed no matter how you define elements?

Isaiah 51:15-16
For I am Yahweh your God, who stirs up the sea, so that the waves of it roar: Yahweh of Hosts is his name. I have put my words in your mouth, and have covered you in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and tell Zion, You are my people.

This particular Planting of the heavens and laying the foundations of earth took place AFTER God parted the Red Sea and led the Hebrew people out of Egypt and formed them into a Nation. The Heavens and Earth God Planted in this verse were indeed Burned with fervent Heat in AD 70.

Now, let me ask you this:
"For verily I say unto you, Until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19)


You I assume you would agree that "until heaven and earth pass" is a key eschatological indicator. I think we both agree it is the eschatological "passing of heaven and earth" spoken of many times in the N.T..

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Postview, this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day. However there is a bit of a problem with #2 -- namely, that, since AD70, no human being on the planet is able to do and teach even 50 percent of the Law of Moses, much less every jot and tittle concerning the LEAST of its 600+ commands. Therefore heaven and earth must have passed.

Conclusion:
Heaven and earth have indeed passed away and we live in the New Heaven and Earth of Christ's covenant. As Jesus said concerning the demise of the 2nd Temple, "Heaven and earth will pass away BUT MY WORDS will never pass away" (Mark 13:31).

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Daniel 9:27 doesn't say all these things about the temple.

Daniel 9:27
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

The temple may be rebuilt, but it doesn't call for it in the beginning of the verse, it just says that in the middle of the week there will be an end to sacrifice and offerings, and that the abomination that causes desolation will be set up.

The temple could be rebuilt, but it seems like it's saying the Antichrist's covenant with many is the start of the seven years.

I think we should be watching for the covenant with many as opposed to a third temple. Who knows if there will be an actual 3rd temple? Could it be possible that the abomination that causes desolation refers to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, for example if a Christian desecrates their bodily temple by taking the mark of the beast in/on their bodily temple, making their temple unholy and unfit for the Spirit of God to dwell there?

Hi Lk17. You're right that there are no guarantees. There will always be an element of mystery to any prophecy right up to the point that it is actually fulfilled.

However, I think the most likely fulfillment is that "sacrifices and oblations" refers to a literal temple. This concept of the physical temple vs the spiritual temple is a pretty consistent theme throughout the NT. I believe the prophecy is written in such a way that it has a duel meaning; it refers to two different princes. Jesus is the prince of peace while Satan is the prince of this world. While the AC makes an agreement to rebuild the physical temple (an act of rebellion in itself considering that Jesus has become our sacrifice) while Jesus organizes his spiritual temple (i.e. the 144k).

Jesus makes reference to the "abomination of desolation standing in the 'Holy place'" (Matthew 24:15) suggesting that it is indeed a rebuilt temple. However, again, I think this prophecy has a duel meaning; the more common being a reference back to the physical temple, but that place is no longer Holy (Matthew 27:51 , Revelation 11:8). The real Holy city is the body of believers and it is that "city" which is trampled underfoot. Jesus goes on to suggest this is the start of the Great Tribulation and that the believers should flee as they are able.

What if stopping sacrifice and offering is the act of making practicing Christianity a capital offense (absolutely no public freedom to worship Jahweh as we desire). It would be easier to recognize if the abomination that causes desolation refers to a physical temple in Jerusalem, but I just don't think the prophecy is specific enough that we can guarantee it.

I think there's room for both interpretations to be consistent; the spiritual and the physical. What the AC does to Christians really will be abominable to God. The rebuilding of the temple will do the same because it acts as a reminder that Jesus was, and still is rejected.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Circular? No, try again. John defines 'soon' for us in the same chapter.

Rev 1:1 “…SOON take place."

1:3 "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR!"

Yeah, circular. Your argument amounts to "soon is defined as soon and near is defined as near". Those arguments don't deal with the specifics of the various events and time lines in prophecy from Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, the Gospels, Paul's writings and the Revelation.

Anyway, I get it that soon and near have a commonly understood meaning, and thousands of years falls outside that commonly understood meaning. But it's fairly clear to me that there are events in prophecy which have not happened yet and so there must be something more happening than a casual observation of what "soon" and "near" commonly mean.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

None of this disproves that John wanted his generation to take his message to heart and keep it!

It is evidence that there is plenty of room for how time is interpreted when it comes to the return of Jesus. One verse says "soon" while another verse says, "his coming is delayed". Of course John wanted people to take his message seriously. That argument doesn't address at all the issue I raised about how we interpret concepts like "soon" and "delayed".

 

[parousia70]

So, you're suggesting that when John says, "soon" he means "soon"? It's circular reasoning. It doesn't quantify what soon means from God's perspective.

There are several references to the lord taking longer to appear than what we expect.
Matthew 24:48
Matthew 24:26 (Note: the context here is that of people believing Jesus should have already returned when he obviously hasn't)
Matthew 25:5
Mark 13:34

Isn't your interpretation of "soon" just a convenient way to justify complacency?

How many of these verses of "delay" above stretch longer than the lifespan of one Human being?

Matthew 24:8, the Evil servant is the same servant who was Left, and the same servant who the master returns to. The master does not return to some other generation of servants than the ones He left.

Mathew 25:5, those who originally fell asleep awaiting the bridegroom are the same Bridesmaids who awoke when it was too late.... they are not some other generation of Bridesmaids thousands of years later.

Here's the Kicker for the folks who say God's soon is different from ours.

GOD DOES NOT HAVE SOON.
NOTHING IS "SOON" TO GOD
GOD DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT "SHORTLY" FOR ANYTHING

GOD IS TIME-LESS.