victorinus

[Biblewriter]

Hardly.
The ECF's universally taught that the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in Jerusalem's A.D. 70 destruction, while still holding to a future creedal consummation, separate and distinct from the Olivet. The Orthodox Church Hasn't deviated from that position for 1900 years.
That is Orthodox Preterism.

Placing the Olivet into our future is a relatively new Protestant novelty that arose less than 200 years ago.

Actually, this is exactly the opposite of the actual facts. The early ECFs were overwhelmingly futurists, not preterists.

The oldest surviving example of an ECF that spoke in any significant length concerning Bible prophecy is the last twelve chapters of the very famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is believed to have been written between 186 and 188 A.D.

In this document Irenaeus repeatedly stated that the "abomination of desolation," the key event of the Olivet discourse, would take place in the future. And as he is believed to have written about 116 to 118 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, he most certainly did not apply this scripture to that event.

You will find his comments about this in paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of chapter 25, and in paragraph 5 of chapter 30 of the fifth book of "Against Heresies," by Irenaeus.

Again, Hyppolytus, in his Commentary on Daniel, which is the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that has survived to the present day, and is believed to have been written between 202 and 211 A.D., wrote:


3. For just as he said concerning the city of Jerusalem, “When you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you know that her desolation draws near,”4 and what was spoken about her has come, in this way it is needful to also now expect the rest to follow.
4. He says, “For whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, let the reader understand, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, and he who is on the rooftop not descend to take anything from his house, and he who is in the field not return back to take his clothes. Woe to those who are pregnant and nursing in those days. For then there will be a great tribulation such which has not been from the beginning of the world nor shall ever be. And unless those days were shortened not any flesh would be saved.”17.5. And so in this he made it clear to us, so that we may never doubt anything.
6. And again he says, “Whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” and, “whenever you see a fig sprouting its leaves know that the harvest is near. In this way also whenever you see all thesethings happen, know that it is near the doors.”1 17.7. And so while the abomination has not yet appeared, but while only the fourth beast still reigns, how is the manifestation of the Lord able to be?

("Commentary on Daniel," by Hyppolytus, book 2, 17.4-17.7)

And Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, complained about how many of the early Christian writers had followed the (as he felt) erroneous ideas of Irenaeus, as of his predecessor Papias, whose works have not survived to the present day. (“The Church History,” by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39.)

In addition to the above mentioned Papias, Irenaus, and Hypplytus, ECFs known to have been futurists include the unknown author of the so-called “Epistle of Barnabas,” Justyn Martyr, Nepos, Lactantius, Apollinaris, and Victorinus.

But the extreme error of the claim that the early ECFs were Preterists can best be seen in a statement by Jerome, who wrote in the fifth century that, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

 

[victorinus]

In this document Irenaeus repeatedly stated that the "abomination of desolation," the key event of the Olivet discourse, would take place in the future. And as he is believed to have written about 116 to 118 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, he most certainly did not apply this scripture to that event.

it is in the holy place now

 

[parousia70]

Actually, this is exactly the opposite of the actual facts. The early ECFs were overwhelmingly futurists, not preterists.

Partial, orthodox preterism is a form of futurism.

The ECFs I regularly quote from were most certainly partial preterist, as were many of the early protestant reformers. What did these people have in common? They taught that most or all of the Olivet Discourse had its primary fulfillment in the first century. They maintain that the Great Tribulation/Great Distress event of Matthew 24/Luke 21 had its fulfillment in the first century. They taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel do not extend beyond the destruction of Jerusalem. They also tend to assign many other OT prophetic passages to AD 70 that you would assign to the final judgment. The Catholic Church rejected premillennialism, though that view had been embraced by some early fathers. Finally, the ECFs knew of no pre-trib rapture, and they didn't falsely proclaim that The Kingdom had been "postponed." That's a radical difference from the pre-trib dispensationalist view currently so popularly taught.

The reason that well-meaning christians have often given a false testimony that their generation was the terminal generation is because they misread the "time statements" of the NT as well as the "this generation" statement in the Olivet. Partial, Orthodox preterism alone properly handles these passages, with the result that we never falsely proclaim that the end is "at hand," "imminent," "soon," or "in our generation." For we know that those important time statements were literal and had their fulfillment in the 1st century. As a result, we never fall for endtimes hoaxes, false alarms, and short-term thinking and planning. Partial preterism is a balanced, victorious, long-range, atheist-defeating, kingdom-here-affirming view. Premil Dispensationalism, in contrast, is a short-term, boy-who-cried-wolf, hoax-driven way of life and faith. Modern dispensationalism has a tragic record of error over the past 200 years, giving atheists powerful reason to gloat and christians many reasons to lose faith. Premillennialist endtimes fever has produced the cults of Mormonism and JWs, among others.

As scripture says, "hope deferred makes the heart sick." How many 1970s endtimes converts have been crushed by the reality that the rapture didn't take place in the 1980s as the Bible had so assuredly foretold? I know many such people. Those rapture-minded folks didn't even think their own children were going to go to college, or have grandkids or anything. Many would not even vote, and why should they? Why then build a new family business? Or why plan for retirement? Those folks tended to check out -- instead of Christianizing our country. Even that John MacArthur fella, ever faithful to his dispensationalist predecessors, still preaches that "you don't polish brass on a sinking ship" (i.e., you don't seek to make your country or community or world better).

Partial, Orthodox preterism is the most early and established Christian position on eschatology. Too bad the pre-trib dispensationalists tried to break away from it starting in the 1820s. Breaking away from traditional forms of eschatology has really hurt the evangelicals.

Finally, Jesus himself calls AD 70 a "coming of the Lord" at Matthew 21:40-45. And also Jesus comes to the churches in Revelation chs 2-3. So, if your belief is that Jesus comes but once at the final judgment, it is off base. As St. Thomas Aquinas said:

St. Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274)
"The signs of which we read in the gospels, as Augustine says, writing to Hesychius about the end of the world, refer not only to Christ's coming to judgment, but also to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, and to the coming of Christ in ceaselessly visiting His Church. So that, perhaps, if we consider them carefully, we shall find that none of them refers to the coming advent" (Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Supplement Question 73, Article 1)

I think you should try to incorporate the wisdom of this statement into your own eschatology. The teaching is rock solid and ancient.

 

[Biblewriter]

Partial, orthodox preterism is a form of futurism.

The ECFs I regularly quote from were most certainly partial preterist, as were many of the early protestant reformers. What did these people have in common? They taught that most or all of the Olivet Discourse had its primary fulfillment in the first century. They maintain that the Great Tribulation/Great Distress event of Matthew 24/Luke 21 had its fulfillment in the first century. They taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel do not extend beyond the destruction of Jerusalem. They also tend to assign many other OT prophetic passages to AD 70 that you would assign to the final judgment. The Catholic Church rejected premillennialism, though that view had been embraced by some early fathers. Finally, the ECFs knew of no pre-trib rapture, and they didn't falsely proclaim that The Kingdom had been "postponed." That's a radical difference from the pre-trib dispensationalist view currently so popularly taught.

The reason that well-meaning christians have often given a false testimony that their generation was the terminal generation is because they misread the "time statements" of the NT as well as the "this generation" statement in the Olivet. Partial, Orthodox preterism alone properly handles these passages, with the result that we never falsely proclaim that the end is "at hand," "imminent," "soon," or "in our generation." For we know that those important time statements were literal and had their fulfillment in the 1st century. As a result, we never fall for endtimes hoaxes, false alarms, and short-term thinking and planning. Partial preterism is a balanced, victorious, long-range, atheist-defeating, kingdom-here-affirming view. Premil Dispensationalism, in contrast, is a short-term, boy-who-cried-wolf, hoax-driven way of life and faith. Modern dispensationalism has a tragic record of error over the past 200 years, giving atheists powerful reason to gloat and christians many reasons to lose faith. Premillennialist endtimes fever has produced the cults of Mormonism and JWs, among others.

As scripture says, "hope deferred makes the heart sick." How many 1970s endtimes converts have been crushed by the reality that the rapture didn't take place in the 1980s as the Bible had so assuredly foretold? I know many such people. Those rapture-minded folks didn't even think their own children were going to go to college, or have grandkids or anything. Many would not even vote, and why should they? Why then build a new family business? Or why plan for retirement? Those folks tended to check out -- instead of Christianizing our country. Even that John MacArthur fella, ever faithful to his dispensationalist predecessors, still preaches that "you don't polish brass on a sinking ship" (i.e., you don't seek to make your country or community or world better).

Partial, Orthodox preterism is the most early and established Christian position on eschatology. Too bad the pre-trib dispensationalists tried to break away from it starting in the 1820s. Breaking away from traditional forms of eschatology has really hurt the evangelicals.

Finally, Jesus himself calls AD 70 a "coming of the Lord" at Matthew 21:40-45. And also Jesus comes to the churches in Revelation chs 2-3. So, if your belief is that Jesus comes but once at the final judgment, it is off base. As St. Thomas Aquinas said:

St. Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274)
"The signs of which we read in the gospels, as Augustine says, writing to Hesychius about the end of the world, refer not only to Christ's coming to judgment, but also to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, and to the coming of Christ in ceaselessly visiting His Church. So that, perhaps, if we consider them carefully, we shall find that none of them refers to the coming advent" (Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Supplement Question 73, Article 1)

I think you should try to incorporate the wisdom of this statement into your own eschatology. The teaching is rock solid and ancient.

Thank you for adding your new qualifying words "The ECFs I regularly quote from." I do not know which ones you regularly quote from, but they were most certainly not the earliest ones. I already cited the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length and quoted the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that have survived to the present day. And the writers of both of these were very definitely not partial preterists. Instead, they very plainly insisted that Matthew 24 spoke of the future. And I also quoted Eusebius complaining about how "many" of the early writers followed these writers

But you are unquestionably wrong in insisting that

Partial, Orthodox preterism is the most early and established Christian position on eschatology. Too bad the pre-trib dispensationalists tried to break away from it starting in the 1820s. Breaking away from traditional forms of eschatology has really hurt the evangelicals.

You may have found one or two partial preterists among the older writers, they were most absolutely in the minority. And the observation of Jerome that I quoted is absolutely deadly to your claim. Jerome was correct in calling what he said "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church" because he was dismissing all of the few preterists you "regularly quote from" as not even so much as real "commentators of the Christian church."

And futurism of the type you call dispensational did not originate in the 1820s. It was taught in both early and late antiquity, in early and late medieval times, in the time of the enlightenment, and in the time of the industrial evolution.

 

[victorinus]

Jesus said He was coming quickly and He's not here yet.

He was talking about the first coming

 

[Luke17:37]

He was talking about the first coming

No, Jesus' first coming was long gone when Jesus gave the Apostle John the visions and had him write the book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos. There is absolutely no basis for your theory of multiple writers or for John the Baptist writing any part of the book.

 

[victorinus]

No, Jesus' first coming was long gone when Jesus gave the Apostle John the visions and had him write the book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos. There is absolutely no basis for your theory of multiple writers or for John the Baptist writing any part of the book.

-who referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God?
-who bore witness?
-who prepared the way?
-who could write that Jesus will come quickly?
-and you consider that no basis?
-give me a break

 

[victorinus]

so let's get back to victorinus
-his commentary has the churches that paul wrote to but not the churches that john wrote to
-this alone would not be noteworthy if eusebius had not had a similar problem
-eusebius names most of the churches but does not connect them to the apocalypse
-eusebius names many martyrs but does not name antipas
-eusebius spends a lot of time talking about the apocalypse
-so what are they looking at?
-the first apocalypse written by john the baptist talking about what will soon be coming

 

[parousia70]

Thank you for adding your new qualifying words "The ECFs I regularly quote from." I do not know which ones you regularly quote from, but they were most certainly not the earliest ones. I already cited the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length and quoted the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that have survived to the present day. And the writers of both of these were very definitely not partial preterists. Instead, they very plainly insisted that Matthew 24 spoke of the future. And I also quoted Eusebius complaining about how "many" of the early writers followed these writers

The ECFs were not inspired, and unfortunately we are hard pressed to see them agree on much of anything. We can't find agreement from the ECFs on the nature of Christ, on the ministries and fate of the early apostles, on the canon of scripture, on the Trinity, on the Millennium, on much of anything. It took the councils and creeds of the 300s-400s to begin to establish unity in what we now think of as "essentials of doctrine." All those things were discussed for three centuries, but the broad diversity of opinion on those topics among beloved ECFs is dizzying.

In contrast, Preterists hold that the "ECFs" of the years AD 30-70 were authoritative, consistent, and inspired of the Holy Spirit in their doctrine and scriptures. While preterists love the later ECFs as much as futurists do--and find much support for strong partial preterism among the ECFs as well--we still recognize that they were not inspired nor reliable from any consensus standpoint.

I'll even circle this back to the thread topic, Victorinus, with the closing words from his commentary on the Apocalypse where he establishes this very fact:

By the gates may not be closed is plainly shown the doctrine of the Apostles will not be overcome by any storms of criticism, and even if the waves of the nations and the insane superstition of the heretics rage against the true faith; their overcome foam will be dissolved, because Christ is a rock, by Whom and through Whom the Church was founded, Who will not be overcome by any waves of insane men. Therefore, they are not to be listened to who affirm the kingdom of the thousand years is to be earthly, which they believe with the heretic Cerinthus.

If you want the truth, you must trust the ECFs of AD 30-70 that wrote the New Testament letters.

It was taught in both early and late antiquity, in early and late medieval times, in the time of the enlightenment, and in the time of the industrial evolution.

Amill and Premill grew up side by side from the earliest times. Justin claimed that many good and faithful Christian brothers did not agree with his fanciful views on the millennium. Unlike many posters here in CF Eschatology, He did not denounce them as heretics.

The beliefs and predictions of the early premillennialists failed to transpire as they claimed (just like Hal Lindsey, Van Impe, LaHaye), thus thrusting themselves into total disrepute. Their failed speculations about the end were finally denounced as heresy by 400AD.

The ECFs uniformly interpreted Matthew 24 as fulfilled up to the point where they believed the Great Tribulation was past! That early tradition fully contradicts your view, and yet you don't submit to the ECFs on their understanding. So, you are entirely selective in your use of the ECFs, picking and choosing only those traditions that conform to YOUR tradition.

Furthermore, the Reformers' commentaries of Matthew 24 interpret the chapter as mostly *OR COMPLETELY* fulfilled! Again, you refuse to submit to their tradition. Even the JFB commentary prefers this understanding. Yet you refuse to submit to this well-established tradition.

And so I resubmit that the historical interpretation of Matthew 24 has been uniformly PRETERISTIC in its bias, but that you reject this overwhelming testimony because it does not satisfy your personal tradition and bias.

Enjoy the volumes of preterist statements and beliefs in Church History!

Christian History and its Preterist Presuppositions
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html

 

[victorinus]

-why john the baptist?
-he bore witness to the Lamb of God
-who else said Lamb of God?
-most chapters in revelation do not mention Jesus
-the time was near
-to prepare the way
-Jesus was added later by another john
-along with the churches and other stuff
-so there were at least two versions of the apocalypse
-copies of the first one were referred to as ancient by eusebius
-victorinus did his commentary on the first version

 

[Biblewriter]

Preterists hold that the "ECFs" of the years AD 30-70 were authoritative, consistent, and inspired of the Holy Spirit in their doctrine and scriptures. While preterists love the later ECFs as much as futurists do--and find much support for strong partial preterism among the ECFs as well--we still recognize that they were not inspired nor reliable from any consensus standpoint...

If you want the truth, you must trust the ECFs of AD 30-70 that wrote the New Testament letters...

The ECFs uniformly interpreted Matthew 24 as fulfilled up to the point where they believed the Great Tribulation was past! That early tradition fully contradicts your view, and yet you don't submit to the ECFs on their understanding. So, you are entirely selective in your use of the ECFs, picking and choosing only those traditions that conform to YOUR tradition.

Here you reveal the basic and central error of your entire position. For not a single non-inspired person that wrote before AD 70 could even possibly have contended that the events of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in AD 70.

And the hard fact, whether you accept it or not, is that the actual events of AD 70 are so far removed from the actual details of the wording of Matthew 24 that no person who was actually familiar with those events would have thought that they fulfilled that prophecy. That is why there was essentially no ECF that contended that this prophecy was fulfilled at that time before the general population became ignorant of the actual details of the events that took place.

I'll even circle this back to the thread topic, Victorinus, with the closing words from his commentary on the Apocalypse where he establishes this very fact:

By the gates may not be closed is plainly shown the doctrine of the Apostles will not be overcome by any storms of criticism, and even if the waves of the nations and the insane superstition of the heretics rage against the true faith; their overcome foam will be dissolved, because Christ is a rock, by Whom and through Whom the Church was founded, Who will not be overcome by any waves of insane men. Therefore, they are not to be listened to who affirm the kingdom of the thousand years is to be earthly, which they believe with the heretic Cerinthus.

Here, your error is understandable, for that is what is actually found in the "version" of the commentary of Victorinus that is found in the standard edition of the ECFs. But that is not actually what Victorinus said. The "version" of the Commentary On The Apocalpse included in this series is actually a revision written by Jerome.

This is plainly stated in a letter which Jerome wrote to Anatolius, which is the prologue to his edition of Victorinus' commentary:


Jerome said:

“Those crossing over the perilous seas find different dangers. If a storm of winds has become violent, it is a terror; if the moderate air has calmed the back of the elements, lying calm, they fear traps. Thus is seen in this book which you have sent to me, which is seen to contain the explanation of the Apocalypse by Victorinus. Also, it is dangerous, and opens to the barkings of detractors, to judge the short works of eminent men. For even earlier Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, and Nepos, the bishop of parts of Egypt, perceived of the kingdom of the thousand years just as Victorinus. And because you are in your letters entreating me, I do not want to delay, but nor do I want to scorn praying. I immediately unwound the books of the greats, and what I found in their commentaries about the kingdom of the thousand years, I added to the little work of Victorinus, erasing from there those things which he perceived according to the letter.

“From the beginning of the book to the sign of the cross, we have corrected things which are the corruptions of inexperience of scribes. Know that from there to the end of the book is added. Now it is yours to judge, and to confirm what pleases. If our life will be made longer and the Lord will give health, for you, our most capable genius will sweat over this book, dearest Anatolius.”

Source:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/v/victorinus-of-petau.html

Find also at:

http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/patristic-stuff/victorinus-in-apocalypsin/

The beliefs and predictions of the early premillennialists failed to transpire as they claimed (just like Hal Lindsey, Van Impe, LaHaye), thus thrusting themselves into total disrepute. Their failed speculations about the end were finally denounced as heresy by 400AD.

Yes, this is about the time when the “church” had given up even the truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone.

 

[victorinus]

The "version" of the Commentary On The Apocalpse included in this series is actually a revision written by Jerome.

can you explain why the churches are not mentioned?

 

[Biblewriter]

can you explain why the churches are not mentioned?

Many things are left out of this actually rather short commentary. So I do not see any particular significance in the omission of any particular detail. For one thing, he may have skipped over this part because he was only interested in the future, and he assumed this part was about what was, at his time, the past.

I am sure that you know that the only ancient comments we have about the authorship of this book are either that it was a fraud produced by a heretic, or that it was written by the Apostle John

 

[victorinus]

Many things are left out of this actually rather short commentary. So I do not see any particular significance in the omission of any particular detail.

okay
-so why does eusebius have the same problem?
-nowhere does he associate the churches with the apocalypse

 

[Biblewriter]

okay
-so why does eusebius have the same problem?
-nowhere does he associate the churches with the apocalypse

Again, Eusebius did not even so much as write a commentary on the Apocalypse. I cannot help but think you are reading more into omissions than van be legitimately drawn from them.

But I have no desire to debate this with you. I simply state my opinion.

 

[victorinus]

Again, Eusebius did not even so much as write a commentary on the Apocalypse. I cannot help but think you are reading more into omissions than van be legitimately drawn from them.

But I have no desire to debate this with you. I simply state my opinion.

thank you for your opinion but your reasons would have more value
-this in not important, I agree, it is an academic exercise and that is why I am here

 

[parousia70]

And the hard fact, whether you accept it or not, is that the actual events of AD 70 are so far removed from the actual details of the wording of Matthew 24 that no person who was actually familiar with those events would have thought that they fulfilled that prophecy.

Rather, the opposite is true, whether you accept it or not.

Those familiar with all previous "Day of the Lord" events in scripture (as Jesus and His apostles surely were) understood quite well that AD70 was a day of the Lord event, and was, unquestionably, the one that Jesus and the apostles spoke of as "soon coming, at hand, about to take place, before that generation had passed".

In all previous Day of the Lord events that were fulfilled as the Judgement of God upon Nations, using human armies as His agents, the language used is the same; Sun Darkening, Stars falling, earth splitting, mountains melting, universe collapsing, God riding a cloud, wielding His sword, etc etc....

It is only from the later generations, removed from the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, that we find the false, over literalization of such language that was used time and again by the Prophets of God in metaphoric ways to describe the fall of a nation.

 

[Biblewriter]

It is only from the later generations, removed from the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, that we find the false, over literalization of such language that was used time and again by the Prophets of God in metaphoric ways to describe the fall of a nation.

Here is the central error of your position. "The false, over literizalation of such language." The actual facts are that a literal acceptance of Matthew 24, , as opposed to a symbolic interpretation of that passage, is indeed very different from the actual events that took place, as recorded in the secular histories.

 

[parousia70]

Here is the central error of your position. "The false, over literizalation of such language." The actual facts are that a literal acceptance of Matthew 24, , as opposed to a symbolic interpretation of that passage, is indeed very different from the actual events that took place, as recorded in the secular histories.

Which illustrates the central error of your position, as you have no scriptural instruction to point to that teaches you to apply a polar opposite interpretation to the language used in Matt 24 from the interpretation you apply to the same language found in the OT regarding all of the previous "Day of the Lord" events that transpired in OT times.

If you apply a symbolic interpretation of Sun Darkening, Moon turning to blood, Heavens receding, stars falling, mountains melting, God riding a Cloud, wielding His sword, seen by every eye, etc..to the Past fulfilled OT "Day of the Lord" events, you need to show where the Bible teaches you literalize that language when you find it in the NT.

The best way to understand apocalyptic writing is to study the many comings of God during the Old Testament times and see how that language is used in past situations. Once we see the way the prophets spoke of God's comings down during the Old Testament times, we are better equipped to think about how God comes all throughout history and even at the end of time. Study the following comings of God in history and think about the way in which the prophets use familiar doom language in each case:


God Comes in a Cloud Against Ancient Egypt - 700s BC
Behold, Yahweh rides on a swift cloud, and comes to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. I will stir up the Egyptians against the Egyptians (Isaiah 19:1-2)


God Comes to End Saul's Kingdom - 1000 BC
Then the earth shook and quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling and were shaken, because He was angry. Smoke went up out of His nostrils, fire from His mouth devoured; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. And He rode on a cherub and flew; And He appeared on the wings of the wind. And He made darkness canopies around Him, a mass of waters, thick clouds of the sky. From the brightness before Him coals of fire were kindled. The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice. And He sent out arrows, and scattered them, Lightning, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils. (2 Sam 22:8-16)


God Comes to Judge Nineveh - 600s BC
The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies...In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry; He dries up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither; The blossoms of Lebanon wither. Mountains quake because of Him and the hills dissolve; Indeed the earth is upheaved by His presence, the world and all the inhabitants in it. (Nahum 1:2-5)


God Comes to Judge Egypt in the Time of Nebuchadnezzar - 600s BC
The day is near, even the day of the LORD is near; It will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. A sword will come upon Egypt, and anguish will be in Ethiopia; When the slain fall in Egypt...And they will know that I am the LORD, when I set a fire in Egypt...I will also make the hordes of Egypt cease by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of the nations, will be brought in to destroy the land; and they will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain. (Ezekiel 30:3-4,8, 10-11)


God Comes to Judge Israel at the Time of the Exile - 500s BC
As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I be king over you: and I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries in which you are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face...Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...Thus says Yahweh: Behold, I am against you, and will draw forth my sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Seeing then that I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north: and all flesh shall know that I, Yahweh, have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath (Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)


God Comes To Judge Ancient Babylon Using the Medes - 500s BC
Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty! Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt, and they will be dismayed. Pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame. See, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation, and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity...Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger. Like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them, all will turn to their own people, and all will flee to their own lands. Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished. See, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold. Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them. (Isaiah 13:6-11, 13,15-19)


God Comes During the Maccabean Period
For I have bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece, and will make you as the sword of a mighty man. Yahweh shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go with whirlwinds of the south. Yahweh of Hosts will defend them; and they shall devour, and shall tread down the sling-stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, like the corners of the altar. Yahweh their God will save them in that day (Zechariah 9:13-16)


God Comes to Judge Jerusalem at AD 70
I saw, and behold a white cloud; and upon the cloud one sitting like to the Son of man, having on his head a crown of gold, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the temple crying with a loud voice to him that sat upon the cloud: Thrust in thy sickle, and reap, because the hour is come to reap: for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire; and he cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp sickle, saying: Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vineyard of the earth; because the grapes thereof are ripe. And the angel thrust in his sharp sickle into the earth, and gathered the vineyard of the earth, and cast it into the great press of the wrath of God: And the press was trodden without the city (Revelation 14:14-20)

As we see from this brief survey of the cloud comings of God in history, they all follow a similar pattern, nature, and experience: trumpets, clouds, darkening of the constellations, shaking of earth's foundations, great tribulation and distress, God's coming down with his armies. The apocalyptic language is graphic, filled with doom, and repeated at each of God's comings.

While all those comings took place in a timeframe near and at hand to those people, as prophesied, the final judgment of God in history--perhaps many thousands of years into the future--will have a similar pattern, though the specific details are unknown to men. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught:
The signs of which we read in the gospels, as Augustine says, writing to Hesychius about the end of the world, refer not only to Christ's coming to judgment, but also to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, and to the coming of Christ in ceaselessly visiting His Church. So that, perhaps, if we consider them carefully, we shall find that none of them refers to the coming advent, as he remarks: because these signs that are mentioned in the gospels, such as wars, fears, and so forth, have been from the beginning of the human race (Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica, Supplement Question 73, Article 1)

 

[victorinus]

I have also questioned purgatory but found that was different