Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[robycop3]

I'm afraid God Himself says otherwise in Ezekiel 36:8-12. This was a prophecy which would be fulfilled after the Babylonian exile. We know that the decree of Cyrus would out into his entire kingdom, inviting all Israelites who had been driven into exile to return to their own land (Ezra 1:2-3). Not everybody returned; even Cyrus acknowledged in Ezra 1:4 that there would be some who would remain among the nations. We know that by the NT texts you mention (the "twelve tribes scattered abroad", for instance). But that does not change the fact that God spoke about the entire house of Israel's tribal members being represented in the post-exilic period for Israel.

God prophesied to the mountains of Israel in Ezekiel 36:8-12, saying, "But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the Lord."

God kept His promise to have the houses of both Israel and Judah restored to the promised land in the post-exilic period; the two sticks of Israel and Judah joined into that single stick in Ezekiel 37:15-22. At that time, they made a covenant with Him again, and He made a covenant with them - a "covenant of peace" (Ezekiel 37:26). But according to the typical pattern for this rebellious nation, they once again broke their covenant and God was obliged to punish them for being the "betrayers and murderers" of their own Messiah.

No; just a few members of other tribes joined Judah when they returned to their land. The fulfillment of Ez. 37 is still future.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Normally many of us read this chapter as being about the end of the temple and then suddenly jumping to the Return of Jesus, way before Jesus uses the famous phrase in verse 36 "But about THAT DAY or hour no one knows."

Why do we make that jump? Because we don't know the context and meaning of the Old Testament verses being quoted, and so it sounds an awful lot like the end of the world! I used to read this passage as the end of the world - but got really confused when it said "34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." But the world DIDN'T end then. So what does it all mean?

We need to put aside our preconceived ideas and systematically go through this apocalyptic symbolism and try and find what is being quoted from the Old Testament. Because I'm starting to side with Dr Bolt that if we look at the OT verses in context, this is all about God judging Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, and as the temple is destroyed they are to remember that Jesus is reigning from heaven! Indeed, it's because Jesus is reigning that such a thing could even happen!

Also please remember Jesus has just wept over Jerusalem, declared he IS the temple - and knows he is about to be brutally murdered as the ultimate sacrifice. This sometimes abstract thing we call "the gospel" is about to get very real indeed!

MATTHEW 24 “Immediately after the distress of those days“ ‘the sun will be darkened,and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky,and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’”

The stars falling? Surely that’s the end of the world - case closed! Except - this is exactly the language used to describe a kingdom being burned to the ground - not end of this whole universe stuff! Check it out. Remember Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon? It's not the end of the world - just the end of Babylon. God stirs up the Medes and Persians to strike down Babylon. But, typical of Hebrew hyperbolic symbolism - listen to this language!

Isaiah 13

:

"See, the day of the Lord is coming—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it.

The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

"

It's the Day of the Lord

against Babylon in particular

. But it's not the end of the world. Again, this judgement against Jerusalem is so severe it brings to mind

Isaiah 34

: which is a universal judgment against all God's enemies - Edom. More picture language.

Joel 2

describes a vast army of the Lord bringing justice - and uses similar language.

Before them the earth shakes,

the heavens tremble,

the sun and moon are darkened,

and the stars no longer shine.

Isaiah 34

"

All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree

."

So the stars falling and heavens rolled up are symbolic of cosmic judgement. But whose judgement? We learn in the NT that - and could easily be describing the Almighty Judging the Son! All the world's sin, poured out on his head. Horrible, but amazing for us!

Then what do we make of the next bit of Matt 24?

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

People are geographically challenged with the direction the Son of Man is travelling. He's not travelling TO the Earth here, but back TO the father!

Check

Daniel 7

.

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

People always think this is the Lord coming back to earth. What if this is the Lord Jesus, the Son of Man, going back into heaven and being welcomed by the Ancient of Days, God the Father, after dying for us all? Isn't that just the appropriate image for God the Son returning as the "Son of Man" who was killed and now lives? Then he IS given an eternal dominion - the church - and we are reigning in heaven with him now - even as our bodies remain here on earth.

Back to

Matthew 24

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

The word in the Greek is angelos, and can be translated as Angels, but can also mean

messengers.

What if we've been reading THIS bit wrong as well, and it's actually the apostles gathering in the elect with the message, the gospel? Jesus is a week away from dying. He is about to go through horrible things and the disciples scatter. There have already been false Messiahs on the scene. So immediately after the distress of 'those days' is not really clear in timing.

Check these uses of "angelos" which is not angels but messengers or even spies!

James 2:25

"In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the SPIES and sent them off in a different direction?" (NIV, ESV says "messengers".)

Luke 9:52

"And he sent MESSENGERS ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him."

It's the same word, angelos. It's about context.

Daniel 7

is about the Son of Man going back to the father and winning a kingdom.

Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world - it's the church instead which is not meant to be a political body.

Daniel 7

• gospel events of Jesus dying then going back to the Ancient of Days = end of Old Covenant, End of Temple, and messengers taking out the gospel. And if I haven't explained it well enough, here are my Reformed Sydney Anglican Ministers doing a better job.

I think you've been duped by preterist teaching. It's very clear that not everything Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse is already fulfilled. There was no end of any age in 70 AD for one thing. He was talking about the end of this temporal age (see Luke 20:34-36 for a description of the difference between this age and the age to come).

Also, the gathering of the elect has not yet occurred (Matthew 24:31 - compare to 1 Thess 4:14-17) and the day of judgment has not yet occurred (Matt 25:31-46). You, like other preterists, are not recognizing that Jesus talked both about a local event that would occur in Judea and a global event (His coming at the end of the age) that has not yet occurred.

 

[endofdayz]

The covenant Israel and Judah would make with God in Jeremiah 50 was going to occur after God said he would punish the Babylonian empire of the Chaldeans - not an event in our future. This was another post-exilic prophecy of a combined Israel and Judah returning to the promised land when Cyrus made his decree allowing all of them to return. We can't kidnap this prophecy out of its context and transport it into the future when it has already been fulfilled long ago in the post-exilic return. It's as if you don't even acknowledge that this post-exilic return period after the Babylonian captivity ever happened.

Again, you're making it up as you go.

This is about the time of the end. Israel is blinded in part for the sake of the Gentiles. There hasn't been a new perpetual covenant when Israel and Judah are united and their blindess raken away when they accept Jesus Christ.

You turn God into a liar with your posts. Sadly, this is what happens with Preterism. Let's look at Ezekiel 37 which is talking about the future.

First you said:

But according to the typical pattern for this rebellious nation, they once again broke their covenant and God was obliged to punish them for being the "betrayers and murderers" of their own Messiah.

How could Israel break a covenant that God said would be everlasting? You're turning God into a liar. Here's the verse:

Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

God said He would be IN THE MIDST OF THEM FOREVERMORE. But you're saying God is wrong to try to fit these scriptures into Preterism. This hasn't happened yet. It also says:

Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

When did this happen? Israel had one King from Saul to Rehoboam. They haven't had one King since then. This occurs in the end times not in any Preterist twisting of the scriptures.

 

[JulieB67]

I'm afraid God Himself says otherwise in Ezekiel 36:8-12. This was a prophecy which would be fulfilled after the Babylonian exile. We know that the decree of Cyrus would out into his entire kingdom, inviting all Israelites who had been driven into exile to return to their own land (Ezra 1:2-3)

Ezekiel is future- the tribes are still scattered in the NT. Meaning they are still dispursed into foreign nations. That's what scattered abroad means.

Again it was only the House of Judah that remained after the Babylonian Captivity which was well over a hundred years after the Northern Kingdom went into their own captivity. The Northern tribes later scattered, they did not return.

It's as if you don't even acknowledge that this post-exilic return period after the Babylonian captivity ever happened.

I know very little returned and it was only of the House of Judah, Benjamin, some Levites and the priest helpers.

Ezra 1:5 "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem."

Ezra 2:1 "Now these are the children of the Province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;"

Only those that went out and into this specific captivity returned.

Ezra 2:64 "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,"

Do you realize that's it?? And do you realize what the numbers of the House of Israel would be at that time? At least 200 years later? Again, impossible for the entire House of Israel to have returned. Especially with a low number like that. And we know from the NT that not all of Judah and Benjamin returned either. By that time, God's prophecy was already in action that the seed would be as the sand of the sea. And they would be -all over the world.

God prophesied to the mountains of Israel in Ezekiel 36:8-12, saying, "But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the Lord."

I'm really suprised that you can't see this as future. Aren't some of you always harping on God's Judgement of 70AD? Ezekiel is the promise of the future and the House of Israel multiplying, not being destroyed.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No; just a few members of other tribes joined Judah when they returned to their land. The fulfillment of Ez. 37 is still future.

This is a common mistake made by many, as the posts following yours also show. God promised to multiply those from Israel and Judah who returned in the post-exilic return period. That meant He would take the representative few from all the tribes of Israel who returned to Jerusalem and increase their number exponentially, which He did. Ezekiel has all been fulfilled long ago. Nothing in Ezekiel is future to us. We can rejoice that God fulfilled all those promises, and in the time which He said He would fulfill them. If He had not, He would indeed be a liar.

A continued emphasis on the importance of the ethnic tribes of Israel today and in the future, is, quite frankly, a racist idea under the New Covenant. Once Christ dissolved Jew and Gentile into the "One New Man" which has neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, bond nor free having priority over the other, then the importance and distinction of ethnic Jewish tribes went out the window. That means any of the prophetic texts promising a land inheritance to the twelve tribes is a long-past fulfillment. They "broke the everlasting covenant" as Isaiah 24:5 said they had done, and finally received a just judgment passed upon them by being burned up, both root and branch, as Malachi 4 said would happen in the great and dreadful day of the Lord following John the Baptist's ministry. It was Christ's generation of fellow Jews that would "fill up the measure of the fathers" who had killed and persecuted the prophets. Because of that filled-up measure, God's wrath came on them to the uttermost in the AD 66-70 era.

But God always had a remnant of faithful ones among the Jewish nation. It was these "elect" ones taken out of ethnic Israel that Paul said were beloved for the fathers' sakes, (such as faithful Abraham). The others who were not children of faith among the Jewish nation, Paul called "enemies". Blindness in part indeed did happen to the Jews of the first century until the fullness of the Gentiles came in. But we cannot extrapolate from that a promise that God would after that "fullness" again renew the existence and a superiority of the twelve tribes of Israel under the New Covenant conditions. After all, it is the twelve APOSTLES of the Lamb that form the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem - not the twelve tribes.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Bible says Israel & Judah will be joined again. I believe Scripture over man's guesswork.

Which verse? See, the NT interprets the OT, not the other way around. The OT gives us background for understanding the NT, but the NT has the 'last say'.

The Jews in Judea were definitely descendants of Judah, Benjamin, & Levi when Jesus was there.

It's complex and I don't know that much about it - except that we're largely confused as to who exactly qualifies as Jewish genetically any more. But as Britannica says:-

The largest, most significant, and culturally most creative Jewish Diaspora in early Jewish history flourished in Alexandria, where in the 1st century BCE 40 percent of the population was Jewish. Around the 1st century CE an estimated 5,000,000 Jews lived outside Palestine, about four-fifths of them within the Roman Empire, but they looked to Palestine as the centre of their religious and cultural life. Diaspora Jews thus far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Thereafter, the chief centres of Judaism shifted from country to country (e.g., Babylonia, Persia, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the United States), and Jewish communities gradually adopted distinctive languages, rituals, and cultures, some submerging themselves in non-Jewish environments more completely than others. While some lived in peace, others became victims of violent anti-Semitism.

Jews hold widely divergent views about the role of Diaspora Jewry and the desirability and significance of maintaining a national identity. While the vast majority of Orthodox Jews support the Zionist movement (the return of Jews to Israel), some Orthodox Jews go so far as to oppose the modern nation of Israel as a godless and secular state, defying God’s will to send his messiah at the time he has preordained.
Diaspora | Definition, History, & Facts​

Those very same people survived the destruction of J & the temple, their dispersion in 135-136 AD, & umpteen persecutions & pogroms since then, culmination in the nazi holocaust, but still retained their national identity. This was only by God's power. The evidence is right before our eyes, so it's not smart to say today's Jews aren't Jews.

Nah. EVEN THE JEWS DON'T THINK THAT!

According to the theory of shelilat ha-galut (“denial of the exile”), espoused by many Israelis, Jewish life and culture are doomed in the Diaspora because of assimilation and acculturation, and only those Jews who migrate to Israel have hope for continued existence as Jews. It should be noted that neither this position nor any other favourable to Israel holds that Israel is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy regarding the coming of the messianic era.​

Diaspora | Definition, History, & Facts​

This Christian Zionism you appear to be favouring is a very American phenomenon. It's so strong that the ABC (Aussie) "Four Corners" did a special on it a decade ago, and how there are 4 times as many American Christian Zionists who - for various eschatological reasons - want to support Israel over other nations in the region. It's warping American political policy in the Middle East - favouring Israel when they deal out 'retribution' that kills 10 times as many Palestinians as those rare Palestinian terrorists that attacked them. Every time you watch something flare up in between the two sides, keep a count. You watch how thoroughly the Israelis pound Gaza into the dirt, missile apartment blocks inhabited by civilians, kindergartens, etc. Israel are running the world's largest concentration camps - Gaza and the West Bank - and the world just watches them gradually break Palestine up into smaller and smaller pockets until there's nothing left. And American Christians just watch on smiling, giving them the thumbs up! I believe this is American Christianity's greatest blind spot - a terrible prejudice. The great irony is that we (the west) have been criticised for not accepting enough Jewish refugees as they fled Auschwitz. Some argue we could have taken specific military actions to bomb the camps and slow down the slaughter that way! (I didn't know this until I read the wiki.) International response to the Holocaust - Wikipedia
However, from some perspectives today's Gaza and West Bank are slow motion concentration camps. They're slowly committing cultural genocide against a whole people group. The conditions are appalling, with unreliable power, bombed water and sewerage infrastructure after a 'flare up', their lands being broken into tiny pockets, travel taking a few hours to travel a few kilometres because of all the protracted checkpoints, etc. No wonder some Palestinians become radicalised! And what do Christian Zionists do? Turn a blind eye. I mean, Israel have to prosper and win this thing - otherwise how are they going to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build the temple so the Anti-Christ can do the AOD thing and then Jesus can return, right? They turn a blind eye so their end-times-tables can unfold as they claim they have been planned. It makes me sad.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Jesus said EVERY EYE will see His return, even those who who pierced Him. Since those who pierced Him are long-dead, they'll see Him from hades.

That's still adding to scripture what isn't there.
Paul said 1 Corinthians 4:6"I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
But on the other hand, if you don't go beyond what is written, you can't fix your doctrine.
1 John 4:6 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think you've been duped by preterist teaching. It's very clear that not everything Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse is already fulfilled. There was no end of any age in 70 AD for one thing. He was talking about the end of this temporal age (see Luke 20:34-36 for a description of the difference between this age and the age to come).

Also, the gathering of the elect has not yet occurred (Matthew 24:31 - compare to 1 Thess 4:14-17) and the day of judgment has not yet occurred (Matt 25:31-46). You, like other preterists, are not recognizing that Jesus talked both about a local event that would occur in Judea and a global event (His coming at the end of the age) that has not yet occurred.

Sorry - my writing was unclear.

I personally think the "Son of man on the clouds" is NOT Judgement Day - but of course the second half of Matthew 24 talks about THAT DAY which of course IS Judgement Day. The Sydney Anglican position reads the Clouds and Stars stuff as Jesus triumph over death and going to reign beside his father. It's like Jesus is saying when you see the temple destroyed, remember he is reigning. But then he DOES go on to discuss THAT DAY which in stark contrast to AD70 is UNPREDICTABLE, UNIVERSAL, and INESCAPABLE.

This is what futurists seem to forget - there's a contrast in Matt 24.

Something occurs that generation. It is predictable, local, and escapable. Run to the hills! Flee Judea!
It all happens that generation.

But then THAT DAY is utterly unpredictable, universal, and inescapable. It's Judgement Day - and in case we had any doubt about our ability to predict it, Jesus tells 4 parables about doing the right thing as we wait because we just will not know. Then sheep and goats.

I respect your posts and attention to detail.
I'll hand you over to my mate Tom. Please watch a few things in this talk - the way every detail about the "Son on the clouds" stuff is handled in the Old Testament and how it can be read in other ways - and how pastoral and applicable this message is in this light. I've keyframed it to the readings.

Note: the next sermon covers THAT DAY which I think we can both agree really IS the gospel hope of the Lord's return. We only appear to disagree on the Clouds & Stars - which is why I'm handing you over to Tom. He's excellent - a clear speaker and compassionate Christian. The talk has a few graphics that add to it as well. I know you probably sigh when someone asks you to watch a Youtube - but this is worth it as it neatly sums up the Sydney Anglican approach to this passage. You'll know it off by heart then.

 

[robycop3]

That's still adding to scripture what isn't there.
Paul said 1 Corinthians 4:6"I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
But on the other hand, if you don't go beyond what is written, you can't fix your doctrine.
1 John 4:6 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Rev. 1: 7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

 

[robycop3]

Which verse? See, the NT interprets the OT, not the other way around. The OT gives us background for understanding the NT, but the NT has the 'last say'.

Jeremiah 3:18“In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.
Jeremiah 50:4“In those days and in that time,” says the Lord, “The children of Israel shall come, They and the children of Judah together; With continual weeping they shall come, And seek the Lord their God.
Ezekiel 37:19say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.” ’

It's complex and I don't know that much about it - except that we're largely confused as to who exactly qualifies as Jewish genetically any more. But as Britannica says:-

The largest, most significant, and culturally most creative Jewish Diaspora in early Jewish history flourished in Alexandria, where in the 1st century BCE 40 percent of the population was Jewish. Around the 1st century CE an estimated 5,000,000 Jews lived outside Palestine, about four-fifths of them within the Roman Empire, but they looked to Palestine as the centre of their religious and cultural life. Diaspora Jews thus far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine even before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Thereafter, the chief centres of Judaism shifted from country to country (e.g., Babylonia, Persia, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the United States), and Jewish communities gradually adopted distinctive languages, rituals, and cultures, some submerging themselves in non-Jewish environments more completely than others. While some lived in peace, others became victims of violent anti-Semitism.

Jews hold widely divergent views about the role of Diaspora Jewry and the desirability and significance of maintaining a national identity. While the vast majority of Orthodox Jews support the Zionist movement (the return of Jews to Israel), some Orthodox Jews go so far as to oppose the modern nation of Israel as a godless and secular state, defying God’s will to send his messiah at the time he has preordained.
Diaspora | Definition, History, & Facts​

Most importantly, GOD knows who's who! And, given the history of those who call themselves Jews today, there's no doubt that, intermarried or not, those people are still Jews.​

Nah. EVEN THE JEWS DON'T THINK THAT!

According to the theory of shelilat ha-galut (“denial of the exile”), espoused by many Israelis, Jewish life and culture are doomed in the Diaspora because of assimilation and acculturation, and only those Jews who migrate to Israel have hope for continued existence as Jews. It should be noted that neither this position nor any other favourable to Israel holds that Israel is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy regarding the coming of the messianic era.
Diaspora | Definition, History, & Facts​

Yes, they DO. You should talk to a few of them.​

This Christian Zionism you appear to be favouring is a very American phenomenon. It's so strong that the ABC (Aussie) "Four Corners" did a special on it a decade ago, and how there are 4 times as many American Christian Zionists who - for various eschatological reasons - want to support Israel over other nations in the region. It's warping American political policy in the Middle East - favouring Israel when they deal out 'retribution' that kills 10 times as many Palestinians as those rare Palestinian terrorists that attacked them. Every time you watch something flare up in between the two sides, keep a count. You watch how thoroughly the Israelis pound Gaza into the dirt, missile apartment blocks inhabited by civilians, kindergartens, etc. Israel are running the world's largest concentration camps - Gaza and the West Bank - and the world just watches them gradually break Palestine up into smaller and smaller pockets until there's nothing left. And American Christians just watch on smiling, giving them the thumbs up! I believe this is American Christianity's greatest blind spot - a terrible prejudice. The great irony is that we (the west) have been criticised for not accepting enough Jewish refugees as they fled Auschwitz. Some argue we could have taken specific military actions to bomb the camps and slow down the slaughter that way! (I didn't know this until I read the wiki.) International response to the Holocaust - Wikipedia
However, from some perspectives today's Gaza and West Bank are slow motion concentration camps. They're slowly committing cultural genocide against a whole people group. The conditions are appalling, with unreliable power, bombed water and sewerage infrastructure after a 'flare up', their lands being broken into tiny pockets, travel taking a few hours to travel a few kilometres because of all the protracted checkpoints, etc. No wonder some Palestinians become radicalised! And what do Christian Zionists do? Turn a blind eye. I mean, Israel have to prosper and win this thing - otherwise how are they going to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build the temple so the Anti-Christ can do the AOD thing and then Jesus can return, right? They turn a blind eye so their end-times-tables can unfold as they claim they have been planned. It makes me sad.

You must remember who the Palestinians are-the PHILISTINES! "Palestine" is the Latin name for Philistia. When Hadrian booted the Jews outta their land, he gave much of it to the Philistines, who hadn't rebelled against Rome. So, the Jews are seeking to regain ALL their former land from their ancient enemies, justifying it by God's promise of what land He'd given them.

 

[eclipsenow]

Jeremiah 3:18“In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.
Jeremiah 50:4“In those days and in that time,” says the Lord, “The children of Israel shall come, They and the children of Judah together; With continual weeping they shall come, And seek the Lord their God.

You're proving my point for me! They went home centuries before the Lord was born. It was fulfilled, but the gospel ends up fulfilling it in a new covenant which creates God's people.
His book is intended as a message to the Jews in exile in Babylon, explaining the disaster of exile as God's response to Israel's pagan worship:[3] the people, says Jeremiah, are like an unfaithful wife and rebellious children, their infidelity and rebelliousness made judgment inevitable, although restoration and a new covenant are foreshadowed.[4]
Book of Jeremiah - Wikipedia

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Sorry - my writing was unclear.

I personally think the "Son of man on the clouds" is NOT Judgement Day - but of course the second half of Matthew 24 talks about THAT DAY which of course IS Judgement Day.

I don't buy this at all. Jesus only talked about one coming of the Son of man. The same coming of the Son of man He referenced in Matthew 24:27 and Matthew 24:30 is the same one He referenced in the rest of the Olivet Discourse.

The Sydney Anglican position reads the Clouds and Stars stuff as Jesus triumph over death and going to reign beside his father.

Why do you need to go by what "The Sydney Anglican" says? You can think for yourself. Are you being like a Berean or just assuming everything they say is correct? You are talking about what happened at His ascension. He was not talking about His ascension in Matthew 24:30. He was talking about His return when the elect will be gathered to Him "in the air", as Paul wrote about (1 Thess 4:14-17).

This is what futurists seem to forget - there's a contrast in Matt 24.

You know I'm not a futurist (nor a preterist), right? I believe He talked both about what happened locally in 70 AD and also about what will happen globally at His return in the future. But, I don't divide it up the way you do. You make it as if He talked about two different comings of the Son of man, but I don't buy that.

Something occurs that generation. It is predictable, local, and escapable. Run to the hills! Flee Judea!
It all happens that generation.

Yes, those things happened that He warned them to flee from (the Roman armies), but He was not talking about "this generation" as a period of time but rather as a type of people (wicked and adulterous). Look up the different meanings of the Greek "genea". Also, the gathering of the elect did not happen before 70 AD, so you should interpret Matthew 24:34 accordingly.

But then THAT DAY is utterly unpredictable, universal, and inescapable. It's Judgement Day - and in case we had any doubt about our ability to predict it, Jesus tells 4 parables about doing the right thing as we wait because we just will not know. Then sheep and goats.

Will the gathering of the elect not happen on judgment day which is the day Jesus returns? Paul said it will (1 Thess 4:14-17).

I respect your posts and attention to detail.

Thanks. I respect yours for the most part as well. But, I think your view has been partially affected by false preterist teaching.

I'll hand you over to my mate Tom. Please watch a few things in this talk - the way every detail about the "Son on the clouds" stuff is handled in the Old Testament and how it can be read in other ways - and how pastoral and applicable this message is in this light. I've keyframed it to the readings.

No, thanks. I'm talking to you, not your mate Tom. Please don't be offended by this. This is what I say to anyone who tries to get me to watch a video or look at some other website. No, thanks.

Note: the next sermon covers THAT DAY which I think we can both agree really IS the gospel hope of the Lord's return. We only appear to disagree on the Clouds & Stars - which is why I'm handing you over to Tom. He's excellent - a clear speaker and compassionate Christian. The talk has a few graphics that add to it as well. I know you probably sigh when someone asks you to watch a Youtube - but this is worth it as it neatly sums up the Sydney Anglican approach to this passage. You'll know it off by heart then.

Sigh.

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't buy this at all. Jesus only talked about one coming of the Son of man. The same coming of the Son of man He referenced in Matthew 24:27 and Matthew 24:30 is the same one He referenced in the rest of the Olivet Discourse.

Why do you need to go by what "The Sydney Anglican" says? You can think for yourself. Are you being like a Berean or just assuming everything they say is correct? You are talking about what happened at His ascension. He was not talking about His ascension in Matthew 24:30. He was talking about His return when the elect will be gathered to Him "in the air", as Paul wrote about (1 Thess 4:14-17).

You know I'm not a futurist (nor a preterist), right? I believe He talked both about what happened locally in 70 AD and also about what will happen globally at His return in the future. But, I don't divide it up the way you do. You make it as if He talked about two different comings of the Son of man, but I don't buy that.

Yes, those things happened that He warned them to flee from (the Roman armies), but He was not talking about "this generation" as a period of time but rather as a type of people (wicked and adulterous). Look up the different meanings of the Greek "genea". Also, the gathering of the elect did not happen before 70 AD, so you should interpret Matthew 24:34 accordingly.

Will the gathering of the elect not happen on judgment day which is the day Jesus returns? Paul said it will (1 Thess 4:14-17).

Thanks. I respect yours for the most part as well. But, I think your view has been partially affected by false preterist teaching.

No, thanks. I'm talking to you, not your mate Tom. Please don't be offended by this. This is what I say to anyone who tries to get me to watch a video or look at some other website. No, thanks.

Sigh.

The first thing to note is that Matt 24 does not say they will be gathered to Jesus in the air as in that other verse.

The problem you have if you believe the first half talks about the temple, what do you do about the word ‘immediately’? Make it a fudge word? 26 to 28 is still talking about the consequences of the Roman war on Jerusalem, and then it says:

“Immediately after the distress of those days”.
But you want to insert 2000 years? I don’t buy that.
Also, 32 is the fig tree leading up to “when you see all the things” which shows how Rome’s attack will be predictable. Then 34: “This generation”.

Roman attack AD70
Immediately
This generation. I do not buy your reading of generation as a ‘type of people’ as it just is not what the text means in context. I could almost wish it did! But that’s not how the theologians I know say it reads. People have been using that excuse for a long time and it does not pass muster.
I don’t know how you get around that.

36 “But about THAT DAY” changes the subject. There’s ‘these things’ that are local predictable and avoidable, then THAT DAY which is the opposite.

Lastly, I understand you not wanting to watch some random youtube - as there's a lot of crazy out there. But this is a good summary sermon of an entire conservative theological stance. This is not random futurist position number 666 - but a Partial Preterist view in many circles. I thought you might make an exception. If I was saying "Putin is the Antichrist! Everyone GET READY! Bla blah watch this video..." I would totally agree. OK - but I respect your choice. I just thought you might make an exception this once. While we have one main difference in this passage, I think we have a lot in common.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The first thing to note is that Matt 24 does not say they will be gathered to Jesus in the air as in that other verse.

No, but, of course, that does not mean they can't be speaking of the same event. Not all passages that speak about His second coming have all the same details, of course. Both passages speak of His coming and the elect being gathered.

The problem you have if you believe the first half talks about the temple, what do you do about the word ‘immediately’? Make it a fudge word? 26 to 28 is still talking about the consequences of the Roman war on Jerusalem, and then it says:

“Immediately after the distress of those days”.
But you want to insert 2000 years? I don’t buy that.
Also, 32 is the fig tree leading up to “when you see all the things” which shows how Rome’s attack will be predictable. Then 34: “This generation”.

Roman attack AD70
Immediately
This generation. I do not buy your reading of generation as a ‘type of people’ as it just is not what the text means in context. I could almost wish it did! But that’s not how the theologians I know say it reads. People have been using that excuse for a long time and it does not pass muster.
I don’t know how you get around that.

I've explained my view I don't know how many times, so if you still don't know then...I don't know what to tell you. I'm not trying to get around anything. That's an insulting way of putting it. Should I say that you're trying to get around His description of the gathering of the elect at His coming?

As for Him talking about what would happen immediately after the tribulation of those days, I don't believe He was referring back to what He was talking about in Matthew 24:15-22. I believe He was speaking of a different kind of tribulation in Matthew 24:29 that involved deception by way of false Christs and such that would occur AFTER 70 AD but before His second coming. I believe the false Christs appearing and deception being at such a level that it could even deceive the elect is referring to Satan's little season that occurs before His second coming.

So, I believe you're not recognizing that He spoke of two different tribulations. One relating to physical tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem and that occurred around 70 AD, but also a time of spiritual tribulation that would occur before His second coming at the end of the age.

Clearly, He referenced His coming in Matthew 24:27 and Matthew 24:30. Was He asked about two future comings of the Son of man or one? What is the basis for thinking that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27,30 is some other coming of the Son of man than the one referenced in Matthew 24:37-39 and several times after that?

36 “But about THAT DAY” changes the subject. There’s ‘these things’ that are local predictable and avoidable, then THAT DAY which is the opposite.

You're acting like He just suddenly completely changed the subject in Matthew 24:36. I don't think that's reasonable. He had just previously talked about His coming at the end of the age and the elect being gathered at that time and about heaven and earth passing away. How could "that day" not be about that? I believe it makes a lot more sense to see Him as saying that no one knows the day or hour of His coming when the elect will be gathered to Him and when heaven and earth pass away, which is what He had just been talking about.

Lastly, I understand you not wanting to watch some random youtube - as there's a lot of crazy out there. But this is a good summary sermon of an entire conservative theological stance. This is not random futurist position number 666 - but a Partial Preterist view in many circles. I thought you might make an exception. If I was saying "Putin is the Antichrist! Everyone GET READY! Bla blah watch this video..." I would totally agree. OK - but I respect your choice. I just thought you might make an exception this once.

Nah, I'm going to remain consistent with my policy of ignoring videos that people try to get me to watch on here. Thanks, anyway.

While we have one main difference in this passage, I think we have a lot in common.

We do. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not thinking you're being a heretic or something just because we disagree on part of the Olivet Discourse. At least we agree that Jesus spoke both about a local event that would happen in and around Jerusalem AND a global event that would happen at His return in the future. I can be satisfied knowing that even while we disagree on part of it.

 

[eclipsenow]

No, but, of course, that does not mean they can't be speaking of the same event. Not all passages that speak about His second coming have all the same details, of course. Both passages speak of His coming and the elect being gathered.

Agreed.

As for Him talking about what would happen immediately after the tribulation of those days, I don't believe He was referring back to what He was talking about in Matthew 24:15-22. I believe He was speaking of a different kind of tribulation in Matthew 24:29 that involved deception by way of false Christs and such that would occur AFTER 70 AD but before His second coming. I believe the false Christs appearing and deception being at such a level that it could even deceive the elect is referring to Satan's little season that occurs before His second coming.

I don't think we can get away from it. The disciples asked about the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. That's two subjects that you agreed at the end of your last post the passage has to cover. "At least we agree that Jesus spoke both about a local event that would happen in and around Jerusalem AND a global event that would happen at His return in the future. I can be satisfied knowing that even while we disagree on part of it."

We just disagree where the change happens. I also don't believe there is a 'little season' - although many big theologians I respect do. It's just I respect others more in that their opinion seems to make sense of the suddenness of Jesus return. EG: instead of "Oh no, look how many antichrists are at large on the world's stage" I see "Peace, peace" around Jesus return. Weddings and marriage and parties and planning for the future.

So, I believe you're not recognizing that He spoke of two different tribulations. One relating to physical tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem and that occurred around 70 AD, but also a time of spiritual tribulation that would occur before His second coming at the end of the age.

Absolutely correct - I don't. He's still addressing the sheer awfulness of what's coming to what HAD been God's people, the Jews. It's a big event. I don't see why he has to jump forward to strange details about a future impossibly far off in the future with a 'little season' of Satan, etc. I thought the whole last days were characterised by people that were lovers of self, etc.

Clearly, He referenced His coming in Matthew 24:27 and Matthew 24:30. Was He asked about two future comings of the Son of man or one?

The end of the temple and the end of the age.

The end of the temple is local, predictable, avoidable. The fig tree is a metaphor for the fact that Jesus is the Son of Man who is about to go before the Ancient of Days - he is the Resurrection and the life - standing right before them! It's Christological as much as it is eschatological. He's saying "Dudes - I'm the fig tree! You should recognise the times because I'M standing here! I'm the real temple - and that's why this building you're marvelling at is going to be destroyed!" (I imagine him using a facepalm emoji if texting this to the disciples today.) Indeed, remember the fig tree for below!

What is the basis for thinking that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27,30 is some other coming of the Son of man than the one referenced in Matthew 24:37-39 and several times after that?

The language is more fitting for the judgement of God's enemies and overthrow of the nations - and in all the weeping over Jerusalem and overturning of the tables, Jesus has basically pronounced judgement on Jerusalem itself. As I have shown above:

MATTHEW 24: “Immediately after the distress of those days“ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’”

= This sounds like the end of the world. But in the Old Testament this is the image used to describe a kingdom being burned to the ground.

Isaiah 13: "See, the day of the Lord is coming—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.”

= Isaiah writes a prophecy against Babylon where God brings Medes and Persians to strike down Babylon. But, typical of Hebrew hyperbolic symbolism - listen to this language!

Isaiah 34: “All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shrivelled figs from the fig tree.”

= is a more universal judgment against all God's enemies - the picture of Edom. It has more graphic and physical battle language mixed in with the stars falling. And there's that fig tree again!

Joel 2: “Before them the earth shakes, the heavens tremble, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine.” = describes a vast army of the Lord bringing justice - and uses similar language. Not the end of the world, but the end of an empire, a nation.

You're acting like He just suddenly completely changed the subject in Matthew 24:36.

It is a very difficult passage, I agree - but as we have agreed - there are the two subjects in it. What if your presuppositions about the stars and the clouds are wrong? I get it. I used to read the stars and clouds the way you do. But "this generation" always bothered me. The fig tree always bothered me. It's meant to be recognisable - but then THAT DAY is a sudden and unpredictable catastrophe for the unsaved and totally unpredictable even for God's people - which is the point of the following 4 parables.

He had just previously talked about His coming at the end of the age and the elect being gathered at that time and about heaven and earth passing away.

SHAKEN - not passing away! Check the language again please, then go and check the 3 OT verses above. Check commentaries, etc. Then get back to me on this. Understanding what Jesus was ACTUALLY quoting is important to overturn our own strong presuppositions on this passage.

How could "that day" not be about that?

Because - as I have said many times - the Son of Man passage is in the context of all the predictable, local, escapable, fig tree 'this generation' language - and THAT DAY is unpredictable, universal, and inescapable. That's why it's a totally different subject.

The one thing that troubled me for a while was:

"27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

But as Tom points out, that's just a quick glimpse forward to THAT DAY to contrast the 'secret returns' of the false messiah's out in the desert. So the passage is tricky, because it does cover the temple and THAT DAY - but can jump back and forth and we've got to pay attention to the literary references to make sense of it all.

(OK, even though it's nearly 10am Saturday morning here I'm going to have a nap. Insomnia + sleep apnoea have left me lifeless. I'm getting one of those CPAP sleeping machines soon, so hopefully that will help! We are very earthy creatures, and this apnoea thing is literally messing with my nephesh.)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We just disagree where the change happens. I also don't believe there is a 'little season' - although many big theologians I respect do. It's just I respect others more in that their opinion seems to make sense of the suddenness of Jesus return. EG: instead of "Oh no, look how many antichrists are at large on the world's stage" I see "Peace, peace" around Jesus return. Weddings and marriage and parties and planning for the future.

I don't understand your comment I bolded. I have never seen an Amil claim that there isn't a "little season".

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The little season after he is loosed is obviously described in Revelation 20:7-9. You don't think that Revelation 20:7-9 occurs just before the future second coming of Christ?

Absolutely correct - I don't. He's still addressing the sheer awfulness of what's coming to what HAD been God's people, the Jews. It's a big event. I don't see why he has to jump forward to strange details about a future impossibly far off in the future with a 'little season' of Satan, etc. I thought the whole last days were characterised by people that were lovers of self, etc.

How does Matthew 24:23-26 apply to what happened in 70 AD?

It is a very difficult passage, I agree - but as we have agreed - there are the two subjects in it. What if your presuppositions about the stars and the clouds are wrong? I get it. I used to read the stars and clouds the way you do.

I didn't even say anything about the stars and clouds. I get that figurative language is used in verses 29-30, but verse 31 talks about the gathering of the elect occurring at that point. To me, that is clearly a reference to the gathering of believers to Christ when He comes that Paul also wrote about.

But "this generation" always bothered me. The fig tree always bothered me. It's meant to be recognisable - but then THAT DAY is a sudden and unpredictable catastrophe for the unsaved and totally unpredictable even for God's people - which is the point of the following 4 parables.

Knowing when an event is near is not the same as knowing the day or hour it will happen.

SHAKEN - not passing away! Check the language again please, then go and check the 3 OT verses above. Check commentaries, etc. Then get back to me on this. Understanding what Jesus was ACTUALLY quoting is important to overturn our own strong presuppositions on this passage.

Nah. I equate what He said with what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3. He talked about His coming and heaven and earth passing away when it happens and Peter wrote about the same thing. To me, it lines up perfectly.

Because - as I have said many times - the Son of Man passage is in the context of all the predictable, local, escapable, fig tree 'this generation' language - and THAT DAY is unpredictable, universal, and inescapable. That's why it's a totally different subject.

So, you believe He talked about two comings of the Son of man even though He was only asked about His one coming. I just can't buy that.

The one thing that troubled me for a while was:

"27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

But as Tom points out, that's just a quick glimpse forward to THAT DAY to contrast the 'secret returns' of the false messiah's out in the desert. So the passage is tricky, because it does cover the temple and THAT DAY - but can jump back and forth and we've got to pay attention to the literary references to make sense of it all.

So, every verse except that one up to verse 35 is about the destruction of the temple? I can't buy that. Seems awfully convenient to come to that conclusion.

(OK, even though it's nearly 10am Saturday morning here I'm going to have a nap. Insomnia + sleep apnoea have left me lifeless. I'm getting one of those CPAP sleeping machines soon, so hopefully that will help! We are very earthy creatures, and this apnoea thing is literally messing with my nephesh.)

We need to just agree to disagree at this point. Like I said before, I can be satisfied that we agree on a lot of it, so I can be fine with us not agreeing on all of it.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Rev. 1: 7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

When would that be? And what would Jesus have to say to get you to believe He was coming soon? If you don't believe what He said in the following, then who are you going to believe?
Revelation 1:
1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

Revelation 2:
24But I say to the rest of you in Thyatira,.....25Nevertheless, hold fast to what you have until I come.

Revelation 3:
10Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11I am coming soon. Hold fast to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

Revelation 22:
7“Behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of prophecy in this book.”
10Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of prophecy in this book, because the time is near. 11Let the unrighteous continue to be unrighteous, and the vile continue to be vile; let the righteous continue to practice righteousness, and the holy continue to be holy.”
12“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done.
20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

 

[eclipsenow]

How does Matthew 24:23-26 apply to what happened in 70 AD?

But I thought it was kind of obvious how this section fitted?

“If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.​

This is apocalyptic language around the horror of the siege of Jerusalem, and how there will be heaps of false messiahs out in the desert trying to lead Israel into rebellion against Rome. Indeed, they cause the horrors of the coming war. They got so annoying to rule that Rome crushed them. Instead of being seduced by these smaller rulers, Jesus is saying here that when he returns it is going to be BIG - like the lightning from East to west. Then he goes on to explain what they are to think about as the temple falls - that he is reigning from heaven.

Except you can't see that because you refuse to address the OT verses Sydney Anglicans point out. That's a little convenient for you - isn't it? Just avoid discussing or researching those OT verses entirely? Just in case it actually shows Jesus quoting verses about national conquest, not the end of the world?

Knowing when an event is near is not the same as knowing the day or hour it will happen.

You're sounding like an Amil futurist to me. Amil, but with futurist bits - like there ARE things we can know about just before the Return - indicating it's on the way. Hm, not sure about that at all. I'd like to see more open, less poetic discussion of it in the New Testament. There are some big names in your camp - people I respect like DA Carson. But I'm just not there. From what I see, the NT seems to indicate it will be a peaceful time, and an utter surprise when He returns.

THAT DAY will come in a time of PEACE and SAFETY

Indeed, rather than a time of great tribulation what do we learn about THAT DAY?

Matthew 24: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.... For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen

1 Thess 5:3 | "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly

What can we conclude about when the Lord will return? 4 things:-

• No one knows
• partying = while there might be some places experiencing 'wars and rumours of wars', many people will be rich and partying
• marrying = planning for the future!
• a time of peace and safety

So peace and safety are one reason I don't think there's a little season. The other? It's to do with the style of literature. As my good friend writes:-
_________________________________________________________

John writes that “many antichrists have come”, reminding us that there has been great opposition to Christ ever since he was born (remember how Herod killed all the babies in Bethlehem trying to get to Jesus?). Throughout the whole Bible, we find characters who are ‘anti’ God’s plans—wicked men, foreign kings, false prophets and ‘the beast’ who features in Revelation 13. Even in Deuteronomy, there are warnings about the rise of prophets who lie and preach rebellion against the true God.
But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?

Probably not. There are passages in the Bible which talk about a particular being who is Christ’s foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.

The worst thing about antichrists is that they have come from within the church! The apostle John wrote that they “went out from us, but they did not really belong to us”. This is what antichrists do. They get among believers and try to deceive them, persuading them to believe lies and getting people to follow them and their deceptions rather than Jesus and his truth. They teach that Christ did not come in the flesh (1 Jn 4:1-3); they say it doesn’t matter whether you sin or not (1 Jn 1:5-10); and they neglect their Christian brothers and sisters (1 Jn 4:19-21).

According to God’s word, the antichrist might have sat next to you in the church pew. This isn’t a scene from a horror movie; quite the opposite-it is an everyday event. In this final age before Jesus returns, plenty of opponents of Jesus will arise. And they may even be in church, trying to deceive us and lead us into error. But Christians can be confident and at peace, because there will be a day when all ‘antichristness’ will be done away with.

It’s a bit of a waste of time trying to work out whether the antichrist is Boris Yeltsin, the Dalai Lama, Bill Gates or the Pope. It’s just as likely to be your granny or your next door neighbour, if they are promoting lies about our Lord.

Just make sure it isn’t you …

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life. (1 John 2:24-25)
The devil you know

 

[JulieB67]

I also don't believe there is a 'little season' -

I'm really curious about this. How do you interpret these verses?

"Revelation 20:3 "And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

Revelation 20:7 "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison.

Revelation 20:8 "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea

Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

 

[robycop3]

You're proving my point for me! They went home centuries before the Lord was born. It was fulfilled, but the gospel ends up fulfilling it in a new covenant which creates God's people.
His book is intended as a message to the Jews in exile in Babylon, explaining the disaster of exile as God's response to Israel's pagan worship:[3] the people, says Jeremiah, are like an unfaithful wife and rebellious children, their infidelity and rebelliousness made judgment inevitable, although restoration and a new covenant are foreshadowed.[4]
Book of Jeremiah - Wikipedia

No, just a few members of the 10 tribes returned with the Jews, or lived with them. All, or almost all of them, will be joined with the Jews when God's time comes.