Tribulation

[Kidan]

Quote[/b] ]. Yes, Saul did go to the witch to know what Samuel thought. But I wonder, is it trully through the powers of darkness that the dead are raised? GOd raised his Son, Jesus raised Lazarus and others, Saul brought that boy who had fallen out of the window back, the girl who was dead got up and lived when Jesus said to. If a spirit is raised up or communicated with, then is it through an evil catalyst?

There is a difference between the raising of hte dead and what John Edwards and Saul's witch did. They are communicating with the dead (something against OT law, and didn't Samuel end up cursing Saul over it?) Edwards and the witch are practicing a form of necromancy (magic involving the dead) which is a form of witchcraft and as such an evil work.

 

[Watcher]

We have no reason to look for a future fulfillment of the tribulation when it was already fulfilled in the years leading up to 70 AD in Jerusalem. For instance, note Daniel 9:24-27's 70 Weeks of years. Counting each week as 7 years (even dispensationalists=pre-trib agree on 70 weeks=490 yrs), we see that the 69 weeks/483 years Daniel mentions end at the time generally accepted as the start of Christ's ministry - 26 AD. Daniel indicates that one-half week (3.5 yrs) later, the destruction will be "decreed." Exactly following that time frame, near the end of His earthly ministry, our Lord decreed the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24 and its parallels in Mark and Luke). In 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem followed exactly a 3.5-yr tribulation under the Roman empire. You can also see this 3.5 year tribulation mentioned 4 times in Rev 12 and the surrounding text. To my knowledge, every conservative scholar connects the Olivet Discourse with a 70 AD fulfillment in some manner (specifically, the destruction of Jerusalem. Many scholars find it to have unfulfilled pieces, as well). This makes much sense of the time frame Jesus gives -- specifically, that "this generation" would see the tribulation He had decreed. Thus, we conclude that since the tribulation has already occurred, and the Rapture has not (which is simultaneous with the Final Resurrection and the Final Judgment), the rapture is neither pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, partial, etc. For an excellent discussion of the four main conservative views on Revelation, the millenium, etc., try the Counterpoints series -- Four Views on Revelation and Three Views on the Millenium. My view is the preterist (partial -- not hyper/heretical/heterodox) view, and is clearly established both by Scriptural warrant and obvious historical fulfillment (esp. cp. to Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius, historians of the time of Jerusalem's destruction).


The subsequent destruction of Jerusalem only 40 years later in 70 AD does fulfill Jesus’ predictions regarding the destruction of the temple found in Mt. 24. The portions of his prophecy which addressed the disciples question about the destruction of Jerusalem did, as Jesus promised them, come to pass within a generation (Mt. 24:34). Thus, as Jesus had predicted, the judgement against the hard hearted nation of Israel was about to befall the generation he spoke to (Mt. 23:35-36). It appears you have grouped the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming end of the age in the same breath thus claiming it came to pass in 70 AD. Please conclusively PROVE with scripture that Christ returned to the earth to establish His eternal kingdom in the AD 70 era.

Regarding the 3.5 year tribulation under the Roman empire.

It couldn't have been in the AD 70 era for Rome had been in control and occupied Jerusalem for decades. Even Titus came up to Jerusalem the first time in 67AD and was called to battle by his father and did NOT return until 70AD when he beseiged the city and then ransacked it, temple included. So He could NOT have fulfilled that particular prophecy. In fact ANY Gentile nation implicated in Israel's history had control of Jerusalem for much longer than that time frame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to arguments favoring various positions:

(from "seven reasons" on pre-trib; I'm dealing only with those not attacking post-trib, as they are irrelevant to my view)
1. The known day and the unknown day cannot be the same day.
-- Yet the preterist view does not require this, as the Rapture is at the (yet unknown) end of time.


What this is saying quite clearly is this. The rapture is the unknown day. The Great Tribulation, is known because it shall start with the abomination of desolation and end with the return of Christ. Please historically illustrate for me when the 70th week took place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
. If all unbelievers are destroyed, then who will populate the millennium?
-- Everyone. We are presently in the Millenium.


When did the Millennial Reign of Christ begin?
Believers who populate the millennium are those saved after the rapture and who survive the tribulation period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Revelation 3:10 clearly says, "I will keep you from the hour."
-- There are three problems with this argument:
a. It is not (with any certainty) addressed to the church universal. It is addressed plainly to a specific, historical church (Philadelphia, as I recall).
b. We still have no reason to directly connect the Rapture and the Tribulation, especially given that the Tribulation has already occurred
c. Following Christ's advice (Matt 24:16 and the Lukan parallel, as I recall), believers in Jerusalem actually fled to the mountains, side-stepping the worst of the Roman persecutions (so it has, in a sense, a possible fulfillment for God's elect in Jerusalem).


a.

Let’s show a little more for context…

3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
3:8 I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name.
3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
3:10 Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
3:11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.
3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.
3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

Please look at vs. 13 and explain to me with any certainty these scriptures are meant only for a specific church? Is God’s Word only for the edification of the church in Philadelphia? I think not. At the very least, I think we can all agree, there are layers of meaning in apocalyptic language. Additionally, vs. 10 is an obvious illustration of sparing the Church from wrath, i.e. "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thes. 5:9)

b. The Tribulation ends with Christ’s Second Coming, again please show me where scripture states this has taken place?

c. I have already agreed Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple thus the Christians recognized it and were able to flee the devestation.


Clues on the Tribulation in Mat. 24

Consider verse 15. It says the period of intense persecution of Jews will begin when "the abomination of desolation," spoken of by Daniel, is seen "standing in the holy place."
We have no historical record of such an event taking place in 70 A.D. Unlike the Greek tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the Temple's holy place in 168 B.C. by erecting within it an altar to Zeus, Titus took no such action in 70 A.D. before he destroyed the city and the Temple.

It also states in verse 21 that the Jewish persecution that will follow the desecration of the Temple will be the most intense in all of history, "since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall [be]."

These words were not fulfilled in 70 A.D. The persecution which the Jews experienced under Titus (roughly one million killed) was severe, but it pales in comparison to what the Jews suffered during the Nazi Holocaust (roughly 6 million killed) of World War II. Furthermore, the prophet Zechariah tells us that during the end times a total of two-thirds of the Jewish people will die during a period of unparalleled calamity (Zechariah 13:8-9). In other words, there is a period of Jewish persecution yet to occur that will even exceed the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.
Consider verse 21 again: "for then there will be a great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall." Did Jesus mean what He said or not? Surely this is not an example of hyperbole, of exaggeration to make a point. Everything in the passage fairly screams that we are to take Jesus' words literally.
The conclusion is inescapable. The tribulation experienced by the Jews in 70 A.D. was not the greatest "since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."

Look at verse 22. Jesus says that the period of "great tribulation" (verse 21) that He is talking about will be so severe that all life will cease unless the period is cut short.
You and I live in the only generation in history when these words could be literally fulfilled. There was no possibility in 70 A.D. that the siege of Jerusalem would lead to the extinction of all life. But that is a very real threat today due to the development and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Look at verse 29. It says the Lord will return "immediately after the tribulation of those days." How can we escape the impact of the word "immediately"? I don't think we can. It clearly ties the preceding events to the immediate time of Jesus' return.

Now look at verses 32-35, where Jesus says that all the things He has spoken of concerning the Tribulation will be fulfilled during the generation that sees the "fig tree" reblossom. Here is the key to the timing of the prophecy's fulfillment.
What is the "fig tree"? Think back for a moment to what had happened the day before. Jesus had put a curse on a barren fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19), causing it to wither. It was a prophetic sign that God would set the Jewish nation aside because of their spiritual barrenness — that is, their refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah. The fig tree is a symbol of the nation of Israel (Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 24:1-10; Joel 1:7; Luke 13:6-9).
Now, the next day, Jesus calls the fig tree to mind and says, "Watch it. When it reblossoms, all these things will happen."
The setting aside of Israel occurred in 70 A.D. The reblossoming took place in 1948 when the nation of Israel was re-established.

Matthew 24 is prophecy yet to be fulfilled. It is going to be fulfilled soon, for Israel has been regathered, the nation has been re-established, and the nations of the world are coming together against the Jewish state. The wrath of God is about to fall. We are on the threshold of the Great Tribulation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6. By Revelation 19, the wife is already ready.
-- This is why 70 AD, marking a total "divorce" of the nation of Israel, marks a completion (of sorts) in Christ's marriage to the True Israel of Romans 9 (i.e. the Church).


Doesn’t this vs. show the bride is ready in vs 19, BEFORE Christ descends to earth? The bride(Church) is in Heaven prior to the 2nd coming which will occur “immediately after the Great Tribulation of those days”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(longer argument):
"7. By Revelation 4, the crowns are already awarded.
"And round about the throne were four and twenty seats [thrones]: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads [victory] crowns of gold" (Revelation 4:4).

Who are the elders? Some may think that the elders are angels. But God doesn't award victory crowns to angels. These crowns are reserved for sinners who overcome by faith. You can say the elders are the church, or Israel, or a combination of both, or the New York Yankees, minus one player. I don't care. But definitely human.

Crowns come when Christ comes. (2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 22:12)

Therefore, Christ must have come prior to Revelation 4:4, but after Revelation 3 when the church is still on earth. Somewhere in between there."

-- This argument has a small amount of force to it, but it's so speculative that it can serve only as a secondary argument. It takes quite a logical leap to get crown=post-rapture, so this can only stand if supported by primary
arguments. I'm also not exactly sure how a dispensationalist (pre-tribbers affirm the eschatological/"end times" view of classical dispensationalism) can honestly call his/her reading a "plain, literal interpretation" when seven letters addressed specifically to seven historical churches are seen otherwise (i.e. as referring to stages of history).


Now let's look at Revelation 4:1-4.
1. After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.
2. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
4. And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

In verse one, John is representative of the church and this verse gives us a picture of the rapture using the "voice as it were of a trumpet" to tie in with 1 Thess. 4:16 and 1 Cor. 15:52. There are some other interesting points to discuss on these four verses. It is quite a coincidence that Jesus has just finished speaking to the church in chapters two and three and then starts chapter four by saying "Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter". First in question is what was being referred to as "hereafter", hereafter what? It does fit the theory very well that he is referring to the tribulation period about to come upon those left on the earth; which I believe 3:10 is indicating the same thing. Now let's look at something interesting in verse four: If you will notice that now John is in heaven and in the presence of the throne and also twenty-four elders; these elders are believed by some to represent the twelve patriarchs or tribes from the Old Testament and the twelve apostles from the New Testament. It is also believed that these elders represent the church, both old and new. The reality is, they are in white raiment and are wearing crowns of gold: according to many scriptures there is a specific day set aside for the rewarding of this crown, look at these scriptures; 1 Cor. 9:25, 2Tim. 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Pet. 5:4, Rev. 2:10 & 3:10. It is also important to note that there is no mention of this type of crown ( other than these same crowns in 4:10 ) throughout the rest of Revelation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Watcher -- my response to the website you've posted.


I think this site does in fact raise some questions concerning the Preterist view that you purposely blew off to coin a phrase. Now seeing there are apparently different ‘modes’ of preterism, please help me understand more clearly what exactly ‘orthodox preterism’ is?


In closing let's realize what is important here. Is one's interpretation of Revelation essential to Salvation? Not at all.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Holy freakin' crap! You did your research!

I have a question: is the Temple of Jerusalem rebuilt? If not, I believe it shall be.
If Nero was the Antichrist, if the Roman Empire did indeed perform all that God prophesied to John what would happen, then what is now? What are we living in?
I read in 2 Timothy 2 that we are not living the resurrection yet, because that thought had and still does pervade my mind. I find limited reassurance in it, but it is enough for me now.
If we have another Tribulation, a greater and far worse one than that the Christians of the Roman Empire went through, then does it matter? It happens.
I will not write an entire page as that dude did, but I will say this to cover what I believe: when the end comes it comes, no matter how it comes, as a thief in the night, or with a full trumpet flare. Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, does it really matter? We humans, Christians and non-Christians alike, make too big a deal out of the smallest things. See, the seventh candle is now lit! Or see, the seventh head (which some deem to be Nazism) is being rebuilt! Revelation speaks true!
If someone else pointed this stuff out, whoops. I'm pointing it now for myself.
Now I do believe, since I speculated this myself, that helicopters bear a lot of resemblance to these locusts.
1. The braided hair swings around. Some helicopters are equipped with seven rotors, for seven braids of hair, and what do rotors do? They go around in circles.
2. Helicopters have this distinctive sound about them. A humming, throbbing sound. What do plagues of locusts sound like? Uh, never heard one, but from all the flicks and accounts I've heard, that's how it sounds. LIke a bunch of bees. Or something.
3. Helicopters' cockpits slope downwards. Revelation Something says that these locusts have the faces or heads of horses. Hrmmmmmm....
4. Breastplates of iron. Undersides of helicopters are plated with a metal. I think stronger than iron.
5. Stingers like scorpions. Never been shot, but different accounts and Forrest Gump say bullets sting. Combat choppers have mounted cannons which fire, gasp of gasps, bullets!
I don't think the Romans had choppers during their reign...I strongly believe that we have not yet entered the true Tribulation.
That's my conclusion.

 

[TheFe]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Dec. 31 2002,1:08)]

Many thanks for the interaction. I am well-pleased to discuss such subject with you!

(Previous) We have no reason to look for a future fulfillment of the tribulation when it was already fulfilled in the years leading up to 70 AD in Jerusalem. For instance, note Daniel 9:24-27's 70 Weeks of years. Counting each week as 7 years (even dispensationalists=pre-trib agree on 70 weeks=490 yrs), we see that the 69 weeks/483 years Daniel mentions end at the time generally accepted as the start of Christ's ministry - 26 AD. Daniel indicates that one-half week (3.5 yrs) later, the destruction will be "decreed." Exactly following that time frame, near the end of His earthly ministry, our Lord decreed the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24 and its parallels in Mark and Luke). In 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem followed exactly a 3.5-yr tribulation under the Roman empire. You can also see this 3.5 year tribulation mentioned 4 times in Rev 12 and the surrounding text. To my knowledge, every conservative scholar connects the Olivet Discourse with a 70 AD fulfillment in some manner (specifically, the destruction of Jerusalem. Many scholars find it to have unfulfilled pieces, as well). This makes much sense of the time frame Jesus gives -- specifically, that "this generation" would see the tribulation He had decreed. Thus, we conclude that since the tribulation has already occurred, and the Rapture has not (which is simultaneous with the Final Resurrection and the Final Judgment), the rapture is neither pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, partial, etc. For an excellent discussion of the four main conservative views on Revelation, the millenium, etc., try the Counterpoints series -- Four Views on Revelation and Three Views on the Millenium. My view is the preterist (partial -- not hyper/heretical/heterodox) view, and is clearly established both by Scriptural warrant and obvious historical fulfillment (esp. cp. to Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius, historians of the time of Jerusalem's destruction).

(Watcher) The subsequent destruction of Jerusalem only 40 years later in 70 AD does fulfill Jesus’ predictions regarding the destruction of the temple found in Mt. 24. The portions of his prophecy which addressed the disciples question about the destruction of Jerusalem did, as Jesus promised them, come to pass within a generation (Mt. 24:34). Thus, as Jesus had predicted, the judgement against the hard hearted nation of Israel was about to befall the generation he spoke to (Mt. 23:35-36). It appears you have grouped the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming end of the age in the same breath thus claiming it came to pass in 70 AD. Please conclusively PROVE with scripture that Christ returned to the earth to establish His eternal kingdom in the AD 70 era.

(Me) On a discussion board such as this, I lack the space and time to present all the evidence and argumentation for my position. However, I will offer one "silver bullet."

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Note: _this_ generation.



(Watcher) Regarding the 3.5 year tribulation under the Roman empire.

It couldn't have been in the AD 70 era for Rome had been in control and occupied Jerusalem for decades. Even Titus came up to Jerusalem the first time in 67AD and was called to battle by his father and did NOT return until 70AD when he beseiged the city and then ransacked it, temple included. So He could NOT have fulfilled that particular prophecy. In fact ANY Gentile nation implicated in Israel's history had control of Jerusalem for much longer than that time frame.

(Me) I'm not sure what your argument is here. Please identify (1) my proposition that you're denying and (2) what evidence defeats my proposition. I think it is this:
1. You deny that Rome could have fulfilled the Matt 24 prophecys of the Tribulation
2. (a) Rome had controlled Jerusalem for years;
(b) There was a 3.5 year period before the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem

Yet I don't see how either of those points is relevant to my position or argument. I imagine that I have misinterpreted your argument. Will you cogently re-explain it, such that I can better understand?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Previous) In response to arguments favoring various positions:

(from "seven reasons" on pre-trib; I'm dealing only with those not attacking post-trib, as they are irrelevant to my view)
1. The known day and the unknown day cannot be the same day.
-- Yet the preterist view does not require this, as the Rapture is at the (yet unknown) end of time.

(Watcher) What this is saying quite clearly is this. The rapture is the unknown day. The Great Tribulation, is known because it shall start with the abomination of desolation and end with the return of Christ. Please historically illustrate for me when the 70th week took place.

(Me) There is a break in the 70th week (as the Daniel passages specifically indicates). The first half ends with Christ's decree of judgment on Israel. The second half ends with the Roman destruction. I don't see why I need to argue this any more than I already have because I'm responding to an argument _against_ my position. The argument charged that I claim to know the unknowable day. Consider every dispensational movie or story you've ever seen or read: after the Rapture, do you think the Christians didn't know? After the Tribulation, do you think that people didn't know? Of course they did -- this is because the "unknown" day was talking about the circumstances _before_ that day. _After_ that time, it should no longer be expected that no one would know! Thus, if a time has already come to pass, and there was a stipulation against it being foreknown, people can now know it, as they have no _fore_knowledge of it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
(Me) . If all unbelievers are destroyed, then who will populate the millennium?
-- Everyone. We are presently in the Millenium.

(Watcher) When did the Millennial Reign of Christ begin?
Believers who populate the millennium are those saved after the rapture and who survive the tribulation period.

(Me) The Millenial Reign began in the first century. Your statement assumes that the rapture precedes the millenium -- but why should we think that?


(Previous) 5. Revelation 3:10 clearly says, "I will keep you from the hour."
-- There are three problems with this argument:
a. It is not (with any certainty) addressed to the church universal. It is addressed plainly to a specific, historical church (Philadelphia, as I recall).
b. We still have no reason to directly connect the Rapture and the Tribulation, especially given that the Tribulation has already occurred
c. Following Christ's advice (Matt 24:16 and the Lukan parallel, as I recall), believers in Jerusalem actually fled to the mountains, side-stepping the worst of the Roman persecutions (so it has, in a sense, a possible fulfillment for God's elect in Jerusalem).

(Watcher) a.

Let’s show a little more for context…

3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
3:8 I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name.
3:9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
3:10 Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
3:11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.
3:12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.
3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

Please look at vs. 13 and explain to me with any certainty these scriptures are meant only for a specific church? Is God’s Word only for the edification of the church in Philadelphia? I think not. At the very least, I think we can all agree, there are layers of meaning in apocalyptic language. Additionally, vs. 10 is an obvious illustration of sparing the Church from wrath, i.e. "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thes. 5:9)

(Me) Verse 13 is a repetition of the ending of _each_ of the letters in Revelation. Three of these endings (2:7, 11, 17) include a conditional promise after the statement. The remaining four do not. Thus, we consider that each letter is profitable to us, though the letters still maintain their specific message. For Paul commonly ended his letters with specific instructions to people at different churches. We read these and profit from them even though the instructions themselves are not to us. In the same way, it need not be the case that the entire letter be directed at us for it to profit us. More importantly, however, the letter to Philadelphia has no conditional promise after its conclusion. Therefore, we see that, following the paradigm laid out in the earlier letters, what precedes the "He who has an ear" is profitable for many but intended for few, while that _after_ "He who has an ear" (in this case, nothing) is directed at all.

Your interpretation of the implications of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 ignores the preceding discussion. Paul certainly uses eschatological talk, but note his context. In verse 8, he points out that we are in the light, so we should be ready to _defend ourselves_. In defending ourselves, we use the gifts God has given us, as (on to vs. 9 -) God has destined us for salvation rather than wrath. God, then, has given us the tools to defend ourselves, Paul says -- not, as you say, will rapture us from the Tribulation.


(Watcher) b. The Tribulation ends with Christ’s Second Coming, again please show me where scripture states this has taken place?

(Me) It doesn't. You're dealing with Full Preterists -- not partial (i.e. orthodox) preterists.



(Watcher) Clues on the Tribulation in Mat. 24

Consider verse 15. It says the period of intense persecution of Jews will begin when "the abomination of desolation," spoken of by Daniel, is seen "standing in the holy place."
We have no historical record of such an event taking place in 70 A.D. Unlike the Greek tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the Temple's holy place in 168 B.C. by erecting within it an altar to Zeus, Titus took no such action in 70 A.D. before he destroyed the city and the Temple.

(Me) A number of Bible commentators throughout the centuries respond:

St. Athanasius (296-372)
"And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:23]; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly."(Defence of His Flight [11])



Augustine (379)
"Luke to show that the abomination spoken of by Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand (xxi. 20). For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown." (vol. 6, p. 170)


Albert Barnes (1832)
"This is a Hebrew expression, meaning an abominable or hateful destroyer. The Gentiles were all held in abomination by the Jews. Ac. x. 28. The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Lu, xxi. 20. The Roman army is further called the abomination on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honours" (p. 254)



John Albert Bengel (1742)
"The abomination of desolation - The abomination of profanation was followed by the abomination of desolation. Such is the name given to the Roman army, gathered from all nations; whose military standards the Jews held in abomination as idols, since the Romans attributed divinity to them." (Bengel, p. 270).



G.C. Berkower
"What is noteworthy is that Christ does not speak about this horror as about an event in some ancient past. There is a particularly prominent actuality about what He says. A very relevant admonition is evident: 'when you see the desolating sacrilege set up... ' (Mark 13:14). Christ is not referring back to the tribulations of Israel during the time of Antioch Epiphanes, but to day and tomorrow. When the desolating sacrilege comes, Christ proclaims, 'then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.' Daniel's words are assumed into a relevant proclamation dealing with a grave crisis affecting Judaea and putting its inhabitants to flight. There is widespread uncertainty as to the precise meaning of this 'desolating sacrilege,' but this much is clear: it constitutes an admonition reinterpreting Daniel's vision. What Daniel says is applied to the imminent destruction of the temple in Jerusalem." (The Return of Christ, pp. 275-276).



John Broadus (1884)
"It is evident that our Lord interprets the prediction in Daniel as referring to the Messiah, and to that destruction of the city and temple which he is now foretelling; and his interpretation is authoritative for us." (ibid., vol. 1, p.486)

"We cannot say that v. 15-22 does not at all refer to the times just preceding our Lord's final coming; but no such reference shows itself." (idib. p. 488)



F.F. Bruce (1884)
"When the temple area was taken by the Romans, and the sanctuary itself was still burning, the soldiers brought their legionary standards into the sacred precincts, set them up opposite the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them there, acclaiming Titus as imperator (victorious commander) as they did so. The Roman custom of offering sacrifice to their standards had already been commented on by a Jewish writer as a symptom of their pagan arrogance, but the offering if such sacrifice in the temple court was the supreme insult to the God of Israel. This action, following as it did the cessation of the daily sacrifice three weeks earlier, must have sensed to many Jews, as it evidently did to Josephus, a new and final fulfillment of Daniel's vision of a time when the continual burnt offering would be taken away and the abomination of desolation set up" (Bruce, p. 224)



B.H. Carroll (1947)
"...This same Pilate, at that time Roman Procurator, sent from Caesarea, the seaport of that country on the Mediterranean Sea, a legion of Roman soldiers and had them secretly introduced into the city and sheltered in the tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, and these soldiers brought with them their ensigns. The Roman sign was a straight staff, capped with a metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar. Caesar claimed to be divine. Caesar exacted divine worship, and every evening when those standards were placed, the Roman legion got down and worshipped the image of Caesar thereof, and every morning at the roll call a part of the parade was for the whole legion to prostrate themselves before that graven image and worship it. The Jews were so horrified when they saw that image and the consequent worship, they went to Pilate, who was at that time living in Caesarea, and prostrated themselves before him and said, 'Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple.' While that was an abomination, Jerusalem was not encompassed with armies. 'When ye shall see the abomination which makes desolation spoken of by Daniel, the prophet, set up where it ought not to be, and see Jerusalem compassed with armies,' that is the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem. The greatest desolation ever wrought in the world on a people, was made under that standard and by the Roman power. Therefore, it was the abomination that maketh desolate." (An Introduction of the English Bible, p. 263-264)



Chrysostom (379)
"For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

"Or because he who had desolated the city and the temple, placed his statue within the temple." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers)

For He brought in also a prophecy, to confirm their desolation, saying, "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand."(12) He referred them to Daniel. And by" abomination" He meaneth the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calleth it, "of desolation." Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, "When ye see the abomination of desolation." (Of Matthew 24:1,2)

"And see how He relates the war, by the things that seem to be small setting forth how intolerable it was to be. For, "Then,"saith He, "let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains." Then, When? When these things should be, "when the abomination of desolation should stand in the holy place." Whence He seems to me to be speaking of the armies." (Homily 76, Number 1)



Adam Clarke (1837)
"Verse 15. The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel— This abomination of desolation, St. Luke, (Luke 21:20, 21,) refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem; this, our Lord says, is what was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in the ninth and eleventh chapters of his prophecy; and so let every one who reads these prophecies understand them; and in reference to this very event they are understood by the rabbins. The Roman army is called an abomination, for its ensigns and images, which were so to the Jews. Josephus says, (War, b. vi. chap. 6,) the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over against the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there. The Roman army is therefore fitly called the abomination, and the abomination which maketh desolate, as it was to desolate and lay waste Jerusalem; and this army besieging Jerusalem is called by St. Mark, Mark 13:14, standing where it ought not, that is, as in the text here, the holy place; as not only the city, but a considerable compass of ground about it, was deemed holy, and consequently no profane persons should stand on it." (Adam Clarke's Commentary On Matthew 24)



Clement of Alexandria (Second Century)
"For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction... These two thousand three hundred days make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 334)



E.B. Elliott (1851)
"...the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place at Jerusalem (a prophecy which doubtless had reference to the time of the consummated iniquity of the Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, and of the Roman besieging army with its idolatrous stands gathering into the sacred precincts of the Jewish city..." (vol. 4, p. 617)



Eusebius Pamphilius (325)
"But the number of calamities which every where fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." (Book III, Ch. 5)



Geneva Bible Notes (1599)
Matthew 24:15 {4} When ye therefore shall see the {f} abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
(f) The abomination of desolation, that is to say, the one who all men detest and cannot abide, because of the foul and shameful filthiness of it: and he speaks of the idols that were set up in the temple, or as others think, he meant the marring of the doctrine in the Church.


John Gill (1809)
"Ver. 15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, &c.] From signs, Christ proceeds to the immediate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem; which was, "the abomination of desolation", or the desolating abomination; or that abominable thing, which threatened and brought desolation upon the city, temple, and nation: by which is meant, not any statue placed in the temple by the Romans, or their order; not the golden eagle which Herod set upon the temple gate, for that was before Christ said these words; nor the image of Tiberius Caesar, which Pilate is said to bring into the temple; for this, if true, must be about this time; whereas Christ cannot be thought to refer to anything so near at hand; much less the statue of Adrian, set in the most holy place, which was an hundred and thirty years and upwards, after the destruction of the city and temple; nor the statue of Titus, who destroyed both, which does not appear: ever to be set up, or attempted; nor of Caligula, which, though ordered, was prevented being placed there: but the Roman army is designed; see #Lu 21:20 which was the ~mfm ~ycwqf @nk, "the wing", or "army of abominations making desolate", #Da 9:27. Armies are called wings, #Isa 8:8 and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination; not only because they consisted of Heathen men, and uncircumcised persons, but chiefly because of the images of their gods, which were upon their ensigns: for images and idols were always an abomination to them; so the "filthiness" which Hezekiah ordered to be carried out of the holy place, #2Ch 29:5 is by the Targum called, aqwxyr, "an abomination"; and this, by the Jewish writers {w}, is said to be an idol, which Ahaz had placed upon the altar; and such was the abomination of desolation, which Antiochus caused to be set upon the altar:

``Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;'' (1 Maccabees 1:54)

And so the Talmudic writers, by the abomination that makes desolate, in #Da 12:11 9:27 to which Christ here refers, understand an image, which they say {x} one Apostomus, a Grecian general, who burnt their law, set up in the temple. Now our Lord observes, that when they should see the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, with their ensigns flying, and these abominations on them, they might conclude its desolation was near at hand; and he does not so much mean his apostles, who would be most of them dead, or in other countries, when this would come to pass; but any of his disciples and followers, or any persons whatever, by whom should be seen this desolating abomination,

spoken of by Daniel the prophet: not in #Da 11:31 which is spoken of the abomination in the times of Antiochus; but either in #Da 12:11 or rather in #Da 9:27 since this desolating abomination is that, which should follow the cutting off of the Messiah, and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice. It is to be observed, that Daniel is here called a prophet, contrary to what the Jewish writers say {y}, who deny him to be one; though one of {z} no inconsiderable note among them affirms, that he attained to the end, yyawbnh lwbgh, "of the prophetic border", or the ultimate degree of prophecy: when therefore this that Daniel, under a spirit of prophecy, spoke of should be seen,

standing in the holy place; near the walls, and round about the holy city Jerusalem, so called from the sanctuary and worship of God in it; and which, in process of time, stood in the midst of it, and in the holy temple, and destroyed both; then

whoso readeth, let him understand: that is, whoever then reads the prophecy of Daniel; will easily understand the meaning of it, and will see and know for certain, that now it is accomplished; and will consider how to escape the desolating judgment, unless he is given up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart; which was the case of the greater part of the nation.

{w} R. David Kimchi, & R. Sol. ben Melech, in 2 Chron. xxix. 5.
{x} T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 28. 2. & Gloss. in ib.
{y} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. & Megilla, fol. 3. 1. & Tzeror Ham, mor, fol. 46. 4. Zohar in Num. fol. 61. 1.
{z} Jacchiades in Dan. i. 17. (in loc.)



Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
"That the abomination of desolation here alluded to was intended to point to the Roman ensigns, as the symbols of an idolatrous and so unclean Pagan power, may be gathered by comparing what Luke says in the corresponding verse (xxi 20); and the commentators are agreed on it." (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 p. 192)



B.W. Johnson (1891)
When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation. This is the sign when Christians should flee from Jerusalem. See #Da 9:27 11:31 12:11. Luke says, "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies" (#Lu 21:20). This was, therefore, Christ's explanation of the abomination of desolation. The Roman army, heathen, with heathen images and standards, ready to sacrifice to idols on the temple altar, working the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple, is what is meant. In the holy place. Mark says, "Where it ought not" [Mr 13:14]; around "the holy city" [Mt 4:5]." (People's New Testament Notes, in loc.)



Lardner (1764)
"By the abomination of desolation, or the abomination that maketh desolate, therefore is intended the Roman armies, with their ensigns. As the Roman ensigns, especially the eagle, which was carried at the head of every legion, were objects of worship; they are, according to usual title of Scripture, called an abomination."

"By standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, needs not to be understood as the temple only, but Jerusalem also, and, any part of the land of Israel." (A Large collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies.. vol. 1, p. 49)



Thomas Newton (1753)
'When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand,). Then let them which be in Judea, flee into the mountains,' - - ver. 15 and 16. Whatever difficulty there is in these words, it may be cleared up by the parallel place in St. Luke, 'And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains,'-xxi - 20, 2 1. So that,'the abomination of desolation' is the Roman army, and 'the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place' is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem. This, saith our Saviour, is 'the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' in the ninth and eleventh chapters ; and so let every one who readeth those prophecies, understand them. The Roman army is called 'the abomination,' for its ensigns and images, which were so to the Jews. As Chrysostom a affirms; "every idol, and every image of a man, was called an abomination' among the Jews." For this reason, as Josephus informs us, the principal Jews earnestly entreated Vitellius, governor of Syria, when he was conducting his army through Judea against Aretas, king of the Arabians, to lead it another way; and be greatly obliged them by complying with their request. We farther learn from Josephus, that after the city was taken, the Romans " brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over against the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there." The Roman army is therefore fitly called 'the abomination' and 'the abomination of desolation,' as it was to desolate and lay waste Jerusalem : and this army's besieging Jerusalem is called ' standing where it ought not,' as it is in St. Mark, xiii. 14; or 'standing in the holy place,' as it is in St. Matthew; the city, and such a compass of ground about it, being accounted holy. When therefore the Roman army shall advance to besiege Jerusalem, then let them who are in Judea consult their own safety, and flee into the mountains. His counsel was wisely remembered, and put in practice, by the Christians afterwards. Josephus informs us, that when Cestius Gallus came with his army against Jerusalem, " many fled from the city, as if it would be taken presently :" and after his retreat, "many of the noble Jews departed out of the city, as out of a sinking ship :" and a few years afterwards, when Vespasian was drawing, his forces towards Jerusalem, a great multitude fled from Jericho aij thn opeinhn -- into the mountainous country, for their security. It is probable that there were some Christians among these, but we learn more certainly from ecclesiastical historians, that at this is juncture all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem, and removed to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan: so that they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country, and we do not read any where that so much as one of them perished in the destruction of Jerusalem. Of such signal service was this caution of our Saviour to the believers. (The Prophecy of Matthew 24, Dissertation XIX)


Dr. Stafford North (1998)
"Here is the real sign: "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (v.15). This reference is to a passage in Daniel 9:27 where Daniel had spoken of a period of time called "the seventy weeks" which is a figurative way of expressing a time of approximately 490 years." (Armageddon Again? A Reply to Hal Lindsey, Oklahoma City, OK: Author, 1991, p. 7-10)


Ernest Renan (1897)
"The Romans planted their standards in the place where the sanctuary had stood, and, as was their custom, offered them worship" (Antichrist, p. 260)


Rev. J.C. Robertson (1904)
{The abomination of desolation} (to bdelugma tês eremôseôs). An allusion to Da 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. Antiochus Epiphanes erected an altar to Zeus on the altar of Jehovah (1Macc. 1:54,59; 6:7; 2Macc. 6:1-5). The desolation in the mind of Jesus is apparently the Roman army (Lu 21:20) in the temple, an application of the words of Daniel to this dread event. The verb bdelussomai is to feel nausea because of stench, to abhor, to detest. Idolatry was a stench to God (Lu 16:15; Re 17:4). Josephus tells us that the Romans burned the temple and offered sacrifices to their ensigns placed by the eastern gate when they proclaimed Titus as Emperor.
{Let him that readeth understand} (ho anaginoskôn noeitô). This parenthesis occurs also in Mr 13:14. It is not to be supposed that Jesus used these words. They were inserted by Mark as he wrote his book and he was followed by Matthew. (Robertson.)


Theodore Robinson (1928)
"... the Apalling Horror spoken of by the prophet Daniel shall stand erect in the holy place, apparently a reference to the presence of the Roman armies round Jerusalem, and so rightly interpreted by Luke." (Robinson, p. 198)



Cecil Sanders (1990)
"When reporting on the Olivet prophecy, Luke did let us know who the abomination of desolation was. He said, 'And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh' (Lk. 21:20). By reading the surrounding verses one cannot deny that this is a parallel account to Matthew's Olivet Discourse found in chapter 24. Parallel accounts cannot have a different meaning. By combining Luke's statement with secular history it is clear that Titus and his Roman army were the abomination of desolation. It was fulfilled in A.D.70 when the Romans desecrated and destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 are parallel accounts speaking of the same event." (The Future: An Amillennial Perspective, p. 68.)



Philip Schaff (1877)
"Titus (according to Josephus) intended at first to save that magnificent work of architecture, as a trophy of victory, and perhaps from some superstitious fear; and when the flames threatened to reach the Holy of Holies he forced his way through flame and smoke, over the dead and dying, to arrest the fire. But the destruction was determined by a higher decree. His own soldiers, roused to madness by the stubborn resistance, and greedy of the golden treasures, could not be restrained from the work of destruction. At first the halls around the temple were set on fire.."

The Romans planted their eagles on the shapeless ruins, over against the eastern gate, offered their sacrifices to them, and proclaimed Titus Imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy concerning the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.(Daniel, 9:27; Matt. 24:15; comp. Luke 21:20)" (p. 397-398)



Smith's Bible Dictionary
"Abomination of Desolation, mentioned by our Saviour, (#Mt 24:15,) as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, with reference to (#Da 9:27; 11:31; 12:11.) The prophecy referred ultimately to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and consequently the abomination must describe some occurrence connected with that event ..... Most people refer it to the standards or banners of the Roman army." (Under Abomination of Desolation)



C.H. Spurgeon (1888)
"This portion of our Saviour's words appears to relate solely to the destruction of Jerusalem. As soon as Christ's disciples saw "the abomination of desolation," that is, the Roman ensigns, with their idolatries, "stand in the holy place," they knew that the time for their escape had arrived; and they did flee to the mountains." (Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom. . p. 215.


Marvin Vincent (1996)
Abomination of desolation. The cognate verb means to feel a nausea or loathing for food: hence used of disgust generally. In a moral sense it denotes an object of moral or religious repugnance. See 2 Chronicles 15:8; Jeremiah 13:27; Ezekiel 11:21; Daniel 9:27; 11:31. It is used as equivalent to idol in 1 Kings 11:17; Deuteronomy 7:26; 2 Kings 23:13. It denotes anything in which estrangement from God manifests itself; as the eating of unclean beasts, Leviticus 11:11; Deuteronomy 14:3; and, generally, all forms of heathenism. This moral sense must be emphasized in the New Testament used of the word. Compare Luke 16:15; Revelation 17:4, 5; 21:27. It does not denote mere physical or aesthethic disgust. The reference here is probably to the occupation of the temple precincts by the idolatrous Romans under Titus, with their standards and ensigns. Josephus says that, after the burning of the temple the Romans brought their ensigns and set them over against the eastern gate, and there they offered sacrifices to them, and declared Titus, with acclamations, to be emperor. 22. Should be shortened. Rev., had been shortened. A very picturesque word. The verb is, literally, to dock, to cut off, leaving a stump, as a limb. Wyc., abridged. As a fact, various causes did combine to shorten the siege. Herod Agrippa was stopped in his work of strengthening the walls by orders from the emperor; the Jews, absorbed in their party strifes, had totally neglected preparations to stand a siege; the magazines of corn and provisions were burnt before the arrival of Titus. Titus arrived suddenly, and the Jews voluntarily abandoned parts of the fortification. Titus himself confessed that God was against the Jews, since otherwise neither his armies nor his engines would have availed against their defences. " WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (pp. 154-155)




John Wesley (1754)
"When ye shall see the abomination of desolation - Daniel's term is, 'The abomination that maketh desolate' (xi. 31); that is, the standards of the desolating legions, on which they bear the abominable images of their idols. Standing in the holy place - Not only the temple, and the mountain on which it stood, but the whole city of Jerusalem, and several furlongs of land round about it, were accounted holy; particularly the mountain on which our Lord now sat, and on which the Romans afterward planted their ensigns." (in loc)



William Whiston (Translator of Josephus - 1737)
"There may another very important, and very providential, reason be here assigned for this strange and foolish retreat of Cestius; which, if Josephus had been now a Christian, he might probably have taken notice of also; and that is, the affording the Jewish Christians in the city an opportunity of calling to mind the prediction and caution given them by Christ about thirty-three years and a half before, that "when they should see the abomination of desolation" [the idolatrous Roman armies, with the images of their idols in their ensigns, ready to lay Jerusalem desolate] "stand where it ought not;" or, "in the holy place;" or, "when they should see Jerusalem any one instance of a more unpolitic, but more providential, compassed with armies;" they should then "flee to the mound conduct than this retreat of Cestius visible during this whole rains." By complying with which those Jewish Christians fled I siege of Jerusalem; which yet was providentially such a "great to the mountains of Perea, and escaped this destruction. See tribulation, as had not been from the beginning of the world to that time; no, Lit. Accompl. of Proph. p. 69, 70. Nor was there, perhaps, nor ever should be."--Ibid. p. 70, 71." (Wars, II, XIX, 6,7)

"Havercamp says here :- "This is a remarkable place; and Tertullian truly says that the entire religion of the Roman camp almost consisted in worshipping the ensigns, in swearing by the ensigns, and in preferring the ensigns before all the [other] gods." (Wars of the Jews, VI,VI,1)


(Watcher) It also states in verse 21 that the Jewish persecution that will follow the desecration of the Temple will be the most intense in all of history, "since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall [be]."

These words were not fulfilled in 70 A.D. The persecution which the Jews experienced under Titus (roughly one million killed) was severe, but it pales in comparison to what the Jews suffered during the Nazi Holocaust (roughly 6 million killed) of World War II.

(Me) It was worse in at least one key sense: This was the absolute proof and ending of God's divorce of the nation of Israel. Josephus also records this destruction with very similar language to John (I don't have the book to cite from right now

).


(Watcher) Furthermore, the prophet Zechariah tells us that during the end times a total of two-thirds of the Jewish people will die during a period of unparalleled calamity (Zechariah 13:8-9). In other words, there is a period of Jewish persecution yet to occur that will even exceed the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.

(Me) I can't see how it wasn't fulfilled. Matthew Henry's Commentary makes a good argument:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Comment....Zec13_8


(Watcher) Look at verse 29. It says the Lord will return "immediately after the tribulation of those days." How can we escape the impact of the word "immediately"? I don't think we can. It clearly ties the preceding events to the immediate time of Jesus' return.

(Me) In the OT, "coming on the clouds" is associated with judgment -- thus, this is Christ's judgment of Israel.



(Watcher) Now look at verses 32-35, where Jesus says that all the things He has spoken of concerning the Tribulation will be fulfilled during the generation that sees the "fig tree" reblossom. Here is the key to the timing of the prophecy's fulfillment.
What is the "fig tree"? Think back for a moment to what had happened the day before. Jesus had put a curse on a barren fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19), causing it to wither. It was a prophetic sign that God would set the Jewish nation aside because of their spiritual barrenness — that is, their refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah. The fig tree is a symbol of the nation of Israel (Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 24:1-10; Joel 1:7; Luke 13:6-9).
Now, the next day, Jesus calls the fig tree to mind and says, "Watch it. When it reblossoms, all these things will happen."
The setting aside of Israel occurred in 70 A.D. The reblossoming took place in 1948 when the nation of Israel was re-established.

(Me) I hold that this occurred in 70 AD, when God completed His divorce of Israel. If these things were supposed to happen in a generation after 1948, they should have happened in the 80s. Yet they clearly have not.


(Previous) 6. By Revelation 19, the wife is already ready.
-- This is why 70 AD, marking a total "divorce" of the nation of Israel, marks a completion (of sorts) in Christ's marriage to the True Israel of Romans 9 (i.e. the Church).

(Watcher) Doesn’t this vs. show the bride is ready in vs 19, BEFORE Christ descends to earth? The bride(Church) is in Heaven prior to the 2nd coming which will occur “immediately after the Great Tribulation of those days”.

(Me) Then all ready brides are already living with their bridegrooms?


(Previous) (longer argument):
"7. By Revelation 4, the crowns are already awarded.
"And round about the throne were four and twenty seats [thrones]: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads [victory] crowns of gold" (Revelation 4:4).

Who are the elders? Some may think that the elders are angels. But God doesn't award victory crowns to angels. These crowns are reserved for sinners who overcome by faith. You can say the elders are the church, or Israel, or a combination of both, or the New York Yankees, minus one player. I don't care. But definitely human.

Crowns come when Christ comes. (2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 22:12)

Therefore, Christ must have come prior to Revelation 4:4, but after Revelation 3 when the church is still on earth. Somewhere in between there."

-- This argument has a small amount of force to it, but it's so speculative that it can serve only as a secondary argument. It takes quite a logical leap to get crown=post-rapture, so this can only stand if supported by primary arguments. I'm also not exactly sure how a dispensationalist (pre-tribbers affirm the eschatological/"end times" view of classical dispensationalism) can honestly call his/her reading a "plain, literal interpretation" when seven letters addressed specifically to seven historical churches are seen otherwise (i.e. as referring to stages of history).

(Watcher) Now let's look at Revelation 4:1-4.
1. After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.
2. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
4. And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

In verse one, John is representative of the church and this verse gives us a picture of the rapture using the "voice as it were of a trumpet" to tie in with 1 Thess. 4:16 and 1 Cor. 15:52. There are some other interesting points to discuss on these four verses. It is quite a coincidence that Jesus has just finished speaking to the church in chapters two and three and then starts chapter four by saying "Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter". First in question is what was being referred to as "hereafter", hereafter what? It does fit the theory very well that he is referring to the tribulation period about to come upon those left on the earth; which I believe 3:10 is indicating the same thing. Now let's look at something interesting in verse four: If you will notice that now John is in heaven and in the presence of the throne and also twenty-four elders; these elders are believed by some to represent the twelve patriarchs or tribes from the Old Testament and the twelve apostles from the New Testament. It is also believed that these elders represent the church, both old and new. The reality is, they are in white raiment and are wearing crowns of gold: according to many scriptures there is a specific day set aside for the rewarding of this crown, look at these scriptures; 1 Cor. 9:25, 2Tim. 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Pet. 5:4, Rev. 2:10 & 3:10. It is also important to note that there is no mention of this type of crown ( other than these same crowns in 4:10 ) throughout the rest of Revelation.

(Me) Your argument is all based on the assumption that John is representative of the Church. Yet why should we think as much? You've offered no argument.


(Watcher) I think this site does in fact raise some questions concerning the Preterist view that you purposely blew off to coin a phrase. Now seeing there are apparently different ‘modes’ of preterism, please help me understand more clearly what exactly ‘orthodox preterism’ is?

(Me) There are full preterists and partial preterists. Full preterists hold that all eschatological events have been fulfilled, while partial preterists hold that only most eschatological prophecies have been fulfilled. For instance, partial preterists do not believe that the Resurrection or Final Judgment have occurred yet.


(Watcher) In closing let's realize what is important here. Is one's interpretation of Revelation essential to Salvation? Not at all.

(Me) No. Yet this kind of question includes a tacit presupposition that things "essential to Salvation" are all we need to discuss and discern. Effectively, then, you argue that those "secondary" issues are not as important _because you don't earn your salvation through them_. Granted, you probably don't mean to say this. But that is what comes through -- that we only need to care about things "essential to salvation" because those are the only things upon which our salvation depends. And yet _all_ Scripture is profitable and should be taught, read, and studied (1 Tim 3:16). Blessed is he who reads John's Apocalypse, after all (Rev 1:3).

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) On a discussion board such as this, I lack the space and time to present all the evidence and argumentation for my position.  However, I will offer one "silver bullet."

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Note:  _this_ generation.

This is not a silver bullet at all. You cannot merge 24:4-34 with 35-51, asserting that Jesus was giving the precise day he would return (i.e. this generation will not pass). He was speaking of different events.

Please feel free to email your evidence to me at beenreborn@msn.com but I assure you, this board welcomes any lengthy post and I do hope you provide the proof/evidence that supports your argument. Again, please conclusively PROVE with scripture that Christ returned to the earth to establish His eternal kingdom in the 70 AD era.

Quote[/b] ]
In 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem followed exactly a 3.5-yr tribulation under the Roman Empire.

My point is Rome had occupied Jerusalem for decades yet you claim it followed a 3.5-year tribulation under the Roman Empire. I assume you are referring to Revelation 11:2 as proof of the Roman 3.5 year tribulation/occupation? This verse most assuredly is referring to a time that is not 70 AD. Maybe I just misunderstood the point of your statement.

So now that I think I understand what you are saying, tell me when the 7-year peace treaty was declared and broken. Please tell me when the one who opposeth and exalteth himself (abomination of desolation) above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God took place. Again, conclusively prove to me Christ returned and established his millennial reign. Please validate your position.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) There is a break in the 70th week (as the Daniel passages specifically indicates).  The first half ends with Christ's decree of judgment on Israel.  The second half ends with the Roman destruction.  I don't see why I need to argue this any more than I already have because I'm responding to an argument _against_ my position.  The argument charged that I claim to know the unknowable day.  Consider every dispensational movie or story you've ever seen or read:  after the Rapture, do you think the Christians didn't know?  After the Tribulation, do you think that people didn't know?  Of course they did -- this is because the "unknown" day was talking about the circumstances _before_ that day.  _After_ that time, it should no longer be expected that no one would know!  Thus, if a time has already come to pass, and there was a stipulation against it being foreknown, people can now know it, as they have no _fore_knowledge of it.

I disagree with you. I challenge you that the 69 weeks carry us only to the appearance of Christ. Daniel states 2 events in particular will happen before the 70th week begins.

First, let's examine verse 25. The beginning of the whole period of the Seventy Weeks is definitely fixed at "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. The end of the seven weeks and threescore and two weeks (69 weeks) will be marked by the appearance of Messiah as the "Prince" of Israel.

25     Know therefore and understand,
       That from the going forth of the command
       To restore and build Jerusalem
       Until Messiah the Prince,
       There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
       The street shall be built again, and the wall,
       Even in troublesome times.

At a later time, "after the threescore and two weeks" which follows the first seven weeks (that is, after 69 weeks), Messiah the Prince will be "cut off," and Jerusalem will again be destroyed by the people of another "prince" who is yet to come.

26     And after the sixty-two weeks
       Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
       And the people of the prince who is to come
       Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
       The end of it shall be with a flood,
       And till the end of the war desolations are
       determined.

After these two important events, we come to the last, or Seventieth Week, the beginning of which will be marked by the establishment of a firm covenant or treaty between the Coming Prince and the Jewish nation for a period of "one week".

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

In the "midst" of the Seventieth Week, evidently breaking his treaty, the coming prince will suddenly cause the Jewish sacrifice to cease and precipitate upon this people a time of wrath and desolation lasting to the "full end" of the Week

With the full completion of the whole period of the Seventy Weeks, there will be ushered in a time of great and unparalleled blessings for the nation of Israel see again verse 24.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) The Millennial Reign began in the first century.  Your statement assumes that the rapture precedes the millennium -- but why should we think that?

If the Millennial Reign (1000 yrs) began in 70AD, where is the Great White Throne Judgement that should have happened after the end of the 1000 years? (see Rev. 20)

Additionally, how do you explain Revelation 7?

A Multitude from the Great Tribulation

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
12 saying:

       "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom,
       Thanksgiving and honor and power and might,
       Be to our God forever and ever.
       Amen."

13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?"
14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know."
So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.
16 They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat;
17 for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

Please, do not tell me you think this deals with the so-called 'Great Tribulation' you claimed happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD. That claim does not hold water in light of this chapter. How can you claim the Jews that were killed at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD are the ones mentioned above? You can't. I am not disputing Jerusalem underwent a tribulation period rather I am pointing out this is not the 'Great Tribulation' that Jesus said would come at in the end of the age.

If Christ's 2nd coming happened in 70 AD and the Millennial Kingdom began at this time, where does I Thess. 4 fit in?

The Comfort of Christ's Coming
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Is Christ coming a 3rd time? I don't understand your position on this nor do I see where scripture supports it. Please help me understand your view clearly.

The angels have told us for what to be watching, they said, “This same Jesus who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.” Christ comes for all; gloriously, visibly, immutably! If this is the case and scripture says it is, where was this 2nd coming historically documented? Why isn't the church fully aware of it? Why must it only be discerned through one's own interpretation of scripture (an early form of Sola Scriptura nonetheless). Don't you think the early church would have proclaimed this?

Please show evidence this happened. I'm sorry, but I refuse to take your word for it as well as your interpretation. You and I are fallible. Unless The Word states it happened, neither you nor any man shall ever convince me otherwise, period.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) Verse 13 is a repetition of the ending of _each_ of the letters in Revelation.  Three of these endings (2:7, 11, 17) include a conditional promise after the statement.  The remaining four do not.  Thus, we consider that each letter is profitable to us, though the letters still maintain their specific message.  For Paul commonly ended his letters with specific instructions to people at different churches.  We read these and profit from them even though the instructions themselves are not to us.  In the same way, it need not be the case that the entire letter be directed at us for it to profit us.  More importantly, however, the letter to Philadelphia has no conditional promise after its conclusion.  Therefore, we see that, following the paradigm laid out in the earlier letters, what precedes the "He who has an ear" is profitable for many but intended for few, while that _after_ "He who has an ear" (in this case, nothing) is directed at all.

Your interpretation of the implications of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 ignores the preceding discussion.  Paul certainly uses eschatological talk, but note his context.  In verse 8, he points out that we are in the light, so we should be ready to _defend ourselves_.  In defending ourselves, we use the gifts God has given us, as (on to vs. 9 -) God has destined us for salvation rather than wrath.  God, then, has given us the tools to defend ourselves, Paul says -- not, as you say, will rapture us from the Tribulation.

I completely disagree that God's Word in some instances contains only exclusive instructions for others. I could site verse after verse where Paul gave instruction to the churches he planted yet God obviously intended they be instructions for all Christians and Churches to come.

Until you can prove to me the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 and Revelation 7 infact did occur in 70 AD I refuse to entertain your interpretation of scripture; rather I will stick with what I know to be truth through study and revelation given by The Lord until my error is so pointed out which you have been unsuccessful in doing. My interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 does not ignore the preceding chapter which deals exclusively with Christ’s Second Coming. I think the hardest thing for me to understand is you honestly believe the Tribulation has occurred, the Millennial Kingdom came and went or is still here even though it is 1933 years later (take your pick), yet the Rapture, Bema, and Great White Throne Judgement are yet to come. This makes absolutely no sense and the scriptures you have offered as proof do not convince me at all. I would undoubtedly need to interpret them using your 'orthodox preterist' view, which I do not believe is correct nor scripturally supported. I approach this all with an open mind yet I fail to see where you have convinced me in the validity of your arguments. I must say, I am even more adamant in my opinion that you are putting a spin on actual truth. Forgive me if this comes across as a little harsh but you seem so ready to judge other interpretations as false yet you do not see the holes that exist in your own. To conclude this I will just say debates on pre, mid, and post tribulation are rarely fruitful and in this case, it also holds true. This debate could go on endlessly and again is not essential to one's Salvation. There are many Christians in each of those camps and I will not emphatically state beyond any reasonable doubt that they are wrong even though I strongly support pre-tribulation. I will never say my interpretations on anything are absolute because I am but a man. Scripture should interpret scripture and at the same time, we receive guidance and revelation from the Holy Spirit. How many times have you read the same verse yet God imparts a new nugget of wisdom and understanding? Too many times to count are all I can say.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) A number of Bible commentators throughout the centuries respond:

Regardless of all the commentaries, if 70 AD was indeed the Tribulation, when did the Millennial Reign begin? Please prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) I can't see how it wasn't fulfilled.  Matthew Henry's Commentary makes a good argument:

It's an irrefutable fact that by the end of 1945 the Germans did kill two-thirds of the Jewish population or roughly 6 million Jews. However, this is not the same prophecy that Zech. 12 - 14 speaks of nor is the destruction and death during 70 AD.

You have quite clearly established 70 AD was Jesus's 2nd coming as well as judgement upon Israel. In addition, let me restate your interpretation of Zech 12 - 14 as a prophecy that was fullfilled during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The reality is, Zechariah speaks of "all the peoples" (12:2), "all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it (Jerusalem)" (12:3), and "I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle" (14:2). "This does not sound like the Romans in 70 AD. Further, Zechariah goes on to say, "In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (12:8) and "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle" (14:3). This also does not fit with what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Finally, it says that the Lord will rescue Israel, in that day (14:3), whereas, in 70 AD, the Lord judged Israel as Luke 21:20-24 notes. How can you say that Zechariah speaks of 70 AD when the Lord is rescuing His people in that passage. Zechariah 12 does not prophecy Israel's judgment but Israel's redemption! Zechariah 12—14 clearly speaks of a time when Israel is rescued by the Lord from an attack by "all the nations of the earth," not just the Romans.
In this context, Israel must refer to Israel. Since that is true, the event of Zechariah 12—14 has not yet happened in history. This means it's is a future event

Please give a textual interpretation of Zech. 12 - 14 to support your argument.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) In the OT, "coming on the clouds" is associated with judgment -- thus, this is Christ's judgment of Israel.

Let's look at Matt. 24 again.

The Coming of the Son of Man

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It says immediately after the Tribulation in those days in vs. 29. If the destruction of Jerusalem was the Great Tribulation thus God's judgement on Israel, why in vs. 30 speak of it as it is coming "immediately after"? This doesn't make sense. Also why state in vs 31 that he will gather his elect from the four winds ( a reference to the 144,000 ).

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) I hold that this occurred in 70 AD, when God completed His divorce of Israel.  If these things were supposed to happen in a generation after 1948, they should have happened in the 80s.  Yet they clearly have not.

Israel didn't regain control of Jerusalem until 1967. Yet I do not want to imply anything here. We can get into a more in depth study of Matthew 24 and look at the true meaning of 'generation'. In many instances, generation throughout the Bible referred to decendants, or even a race of people. We'll save this discussion for another time.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) Then all ready brides are already living with their bridegrooms?

We should pay attention to the wedding stories and examples in the Old Testament because they are parallels and similitudes and prophesies of the end time.
Revelation 19 illustrates the Marriage supper or Wedding feast.

9 Then he said to me, "Write: "Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb! And he said to me, These are the true sayings of God.

The slaughter at the Marriage supper takes place in Rev.19:17,18

Another verse that supports the bridegroom coming for his bride like a thief in the night is Rev. 16:15. Here's a parallel Jewish wedding custom for clarity.

At the end of the period of separation the groom would come to take his bride to live with him. The taking of the bride usually took place at night. The groom, best man and other male escorts would leave the groom's father's house and conduct a torch light procession to the home of the bride. Although the bride was expecting her groom to come for her, she did not know the exact time of his coming. As a result the groom's arrival would be preceded by a shout. This shout would forewarn the bride to be prepared for the coming of the groom.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) Your argument is all based on the assumption that John is representative of the Church.  Yet why should we think as much?  You've offered no argument.

Great sidestep on the crown argument. Anyway, my point still stands.

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) There are full preterists and partial preterists.  Full preterists hold that all eschatological events have been fulfilled, while partial preterists hold that only most eschatological prophecies have been fulfilled.  For instance, partial preterists do not believe that the Resurrection or Final Judgment have occurred yet.

Chronologically speaking, I don't see how you can say the Tribulation and 2nd coming of Christ have happened yet the Resurrection and Great White Throne Judgement have not. .

Quote[/b] ]
(Me) No.  Yet this kind of question includes a tacit presupposition that things "essential to Salvation" are all we need to discuss and discern.  Effectively, then, you argue that those "secondary" issues are not as important _because you don't earn your salvation through them_.  Granted, you probably don't mean to say this.  But that is what comes through -- that we only need to care about things "essential to salvation" because those are the only things upon which our salvation depends.  And yet _all_ Scripture is profitable and should be taught, read, and studied (1 Tim 3:16).  Blessed is he who reads John's Apocalypse, after all (Rev 1:3).

Your presumption is completely wrong. To insinuate Salvation has anything to do by our merit or knowledge is outrageous. Must everyone be a schooled theologian to inherit the kingdom of God?

I Cor. 8:1-3

1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

It's just like God to give us Salvation, not by any merit of our own but by grace through faith in Jesus. Don't be so quick to judge others in their interpretations of the Word and don't be so sure you have all the answers. I know we'll both be in Heaven with the Lord and He'll look at us and tell us who was wrong in their assumptions. I feel I've presented compelling evidence as do you. I doubt either of us will sway one another's opinion. I do, as I said, come with an open mind and look forward to seeing conclusive evidence that supports your orthodox preterist view.

 

[Watcher]

Hi Ultima, to answer your question, I believe the temple will be rebuilt as well. I also agree with your conclusion that we have not entered the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matt. 24 and Rev 7.

 

[MaxX]

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Yes Maxx, we do have a lot to talk about. This is a pretty big page. Have fun reading it all! Bwahahaha

 

[Ultima Avatar]

1. I believe I cited this elsewhere. II Timothy 2: 16-18 cleary states that we have not entered the resurrection. Our bodies have not been transfigured, and this life we lead now is not the ephemeral eternity we desire to enter. (NJKV version following
16: But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17: And their message will spread like canncer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18: who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
I used to be like those two. In fact I firmly believed it, asking and debating with teachers and my parents and friends that we were in the resurrection, and that we had sinned in Heaven, after all, it was possible pre-Beginning. However, I have this thing where I read a couple chapters or verses out of a random book. So I was flipping through my Bible and God ordained (or luck made it so) that I landed in II Timothy 2. Reading through it, I saw those fateful verses which denounced my reasoning.
Someone commented about God speaking to individuals in a specific time of coming things in that specific time. I too disagree with Watcher that it is not necesarily to specific individuals, all the time. I do believe that there are several points where God is speaking directly to someone, like telling Joshua (for those knowledgeable in the Book of Judges) to lead his men around Jericho in order to bring it, an impregnable fortress, toppling down. I don't think that, my name being Joshua, he was speaking to me to hijack a plane, fly to where JEricho was (is?) and walk around it with some Levites, the Ark, goat horn trumpets, and an army behind me and yell loudly to bring it down. No. I think he was speaking specifically to that Joshua.
However, at times, like say what Jesus said are the two most important laws: love your neighbor as yourself and love the Lord your God with everything ya got; I don't think he was speaking specifically to that smarmy lawyer. I think that was directed to him, his apostles, the crowd, and anyone who would read the documenting going on at the time. It's weird. Like you're speaking to a friend: "Jenny's stupid!" and you say it just loudly enough so that Jenny hears you, or in a way that Jenny will hear about it, say you're friend's a blabbermouth and friends with Jenny. Kinda like that. That's how I see Jesus and God speaking orders that are for us all.
Now what about my locusts comment I have a ways up this page? Any ideas about that? Do you literal-ites (no bashing meant) think that there are actually going to be apocalyptic locusts, or do you try and look deeper into it, as the Bible requires at times, and see that it might be the best thing John could come up with to describe locusts?
Because, if you took it literally, then you know that John was just dipped in a boiling tub of oil. ANd he survived, and was tossed on an island. Now, literally, you might describe his vision as the aftereffects of all that anguish. He didn't really see the Apocalypse unfolding before him. God didn't really speak to him to write those letters. That Revelation of Jesus Christ is bull.
However, I don't look at Revelation literally all the time. I look at it figuratively (and literally at certain spots).
Jesus even said that when his apostles were all confused about some things he spoke of that he spoke this certain way, in parables and stories, to convey his message, because they were in no way ready to handle the Truth, in all its mightiness.
Even in words, he masked his power. Really awesome now that I think about it.

 

[Watcher]

My point is, even withinin exclusive instructions or illustrations, God speaks to everyone. Whether that is through the lessons of the given story, parable, etc, or directives given to His elect such as Moses or Joshua....God's Word, is His love letter written to His children, you and me. Every word can be digested, and applied to our lives. Every last word of it!

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Ah! Clarity revealed to my ignorant mind. Thank you Watcher. I misunderstood.

 

[Watcher]

I didn't word it as well as I should have in the original post. Many apologies.

 

[Watcher]

BTW, Happy Bday Ultima!

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Thankya. Were you the one who sent me that letter? Or was it someone else?

 

[Watcher]

Nope! Wasn't me.

 

[TheFe]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Jan. 02 2003,9:31)]

(Watcher) This is not a silver bullet at all. You cannot merge 24:4-34 with 35-51, asserting that Jesus was giving the precise day he would return (i.e. this generation will not pass). He was speaking of different events.

Please feel free to email your evidence to me at beenreborn@msn.com but I assure you, this board welcomes any lengthy post and I do hope you provide the proof/evidence that supports your argument. Again, please conclusively PROVE with scripture that Christ returned to the earth to establish His eternal kingdom in the 70 AD era.

(Me) I'm sorry, I misread your above post. To say that Christ's Second Coming occurred in 70 AD is to affirm full preterism. I say that the millenial kingdom is now, and that His Coming is at the end of that kingdom -- at the end of time. Many of your arguments below attack this faulty view of my position, and it is my fault that you hold that view!

My position requires that the Great Tribulation, which is described in Matt. 24 up to verse 35, has already occurred. I don't think that those things after it have occurred. Thus, by Christ's words ("this generation"), I hold that the Tribulation of which He spoke occurred within that generation -- in the late 60s AD.



(Watcher) My point is Rome had occupied Jerusalem for decades yet you claim it followed a 3.5-year tribulation under the Roman Empire. I assume you are referring to Revelation 11:2 as proof of the Roman 3.5 year tribulation/occupation? This verse most assuredly is referring to a time that is not 70 AD. Maybe I just misunderstood the point of your statement.

(Me) I'm talking about the four instances of 3.5 years (=1260 days=42 months) around that part of Revelation, yes. On the basis of Christ's Olivet Discourse, the time texts at the beginning of Revelation, etc., I hold the 70 AD PP (partial preterist) view of the Tribulation.


(Watcher) So now that I think I understand what you are saying, tell me when the 7-year peace treaty was declared and broken. Please tell me when the one who opposeth and exalteth himself (abomination of desolation) above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God took place. Again, conclusively prove to me Christ returned and established his millennial reign. Please validate your position.

(Me) If Revelation does indeed describe the events leading up to 70 AD, then a 1st century fulfillment of the millenial reign is obvious, for it flows through in perfect chronological order. After the millenial reign, we'll have the Judgment and the New Heavens and Earth. My conclusion, then, hinges upon my previous arguments regarding the Tribulation and Revelation.



(Watcher) I disagree with you. I challenge you that the 69 weeks carry us only to the appearance of Christ. Daniel states 2 events in particular will happen before the 70th week begins. (the remainder was cut for the purposes of space)

(Me) Through discussion with a friend, I've recently changed my view on Daniel 9. I can't see any reason to cut the 70th week in half. Therefore, I interpret the week to have begun with Christ's ministry, the half-way point to have been His death (i.e. the city/sanctuary were cut off, and sacrifices stopped), and the end of that week to have been 3.5 yrs later. However, I don't see how that's very important.

On the timing of the 70 weeks, Kenneth Gentry comments:

Quote[/b] ]Undoubtedly, one of the initial problems confronting the interpreter interested in the chronology of the passage is the determination of the “command” spoken of in Daniel 9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem. . . .” At first appearance it would seem to be Cyrus’ decree in 538 B.C., which is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and in Ezra 1:1-4; 5:13, 17, 6:3. Certainly Cyrus did give a command that the city be rebuilt (cf. Isa. 44:28), although the bulk of the references to his decree in the historical books have to do with the rebuilding of the Temple. Daniel, however, specifically speaks of the command to “restore and build Jerusalem,” which is an important qualification, as Hengstenberg has so capably shown.[20] Though half-hearted efforts were made to rebuild Jerusalem after Cyrus’ decree, for a long time Jerusalem was little more than a sparsely populated, unwalled village.

Yet Daniel speaks of the command to “restore” (shub, “return”) Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25). This requires that it be returned to its original integrity and grandeur, as per Jeremiah’s prophecy: “I will cause the captives of Judah and the captives of Israel to return, and will rebuild those places as at the first” (Jer. 33:7). This must involve the restoration of the city, complete with its streets and protective wall: “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times” (Dan. 9:25[21]). It was not until the middle of the fifth century B.C. that this was undertaken seriously. Hengstenberg points to the decree of Artaxerxes I in Nehemiah 2:1 (cf. v. 18[22]) as the beginning point (although his vigorously argued date of 455 B.C. for the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is not widely held today).[23] Payne and Boutflower point to the spiritually charged endeavor under Ezra in Ezra 7:11-26 as the starting point.[24] This date would be 458 B.C. Julius Africanus, Vitringa, Ideler, and most dispensationalists compute the years by Jewish 360-day years.[25] Woodrow, following Anstey, disputes the Ptolemic chronology in favor of a more biblically-based chronology of ancient times.[26] In addition, it could be that the “command” is a secret divine command that gives the providential impulse to the pagan kings to allow the rebuilding and/or to the Jews actually to engage the effort with diligence.[27] In this event, it would not be exactly datable except in retrospect, after the prophecy had run its course in the coming of the Messiah. Adopting any of these scenarios, we discover a possible reason why the Messiah was so expected in the first century[28] -- and He did appear then.

It is abundantly clear in the references to Jerusalem decades after Cyrus’ decree that little was done towards rebuilding Jerusalem. Nehemiah speaks of Jerusalem’s walls as fallen down (Neh. 1:3; 2:3-5, 17; 7:4). Zechariah speaks of Jerusalem as destroyed in his day (Zech. 14:11). He even speaks of its soon-coming rebuilding (Zech. 1:16).[29] The enemies of the Jews warn Artaxerxes that the Jews will become a problem if they rebuild the city (Ezra 4:12-23). This explains why Ezra can speak of Jerusalem’s utter affliction “even to this day” (Ezra 9:7-9, 15).

The process of diligent rebuilding, which climaxed in a restored Jerusalem, seems to have begun either: (1) in seed in the spiritual revival under Ezra (Ezra 7); or (2) in actuality under the administration of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1, 17-18; 6:15-16; 12:43).[30] There were several political commands preparing for the restoration of Jerusalem and one divine command: “So the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14).

The first period of seven weeks must indicate something, for it is set off from the two other periods. Were it not significant, Daniel could have spoken of the sixty-nine weeks, rather than the “seven weeks and sixty-two weeks” (Dan. 9:25). This seven weeks (or forty-nine years) apparently witnesses the successful conclusion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.[31] The city was rebuilt during this era, despite the opposition in “troublesome times” (cp. Neh. 4:18), which God ordained for them in this prophecy (Dan. 9:25).

The second period of sixty-two weeks, extends from the conclusion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the introduction of the Messiah to Israel at His baptism at the beginning of His public ministry (Dan. 9:25), sometime around A.D. 26-30. This interpretation is quite widely agreed upon by conservative scholars, being virtually “universal among Christian exegetes”[32] excluding dispensationalists. The third period of one week is the subject of intense controversy between dispensationalism and other conservative scholarship.

(Me) The Millennial Reign began in the first century. Your statement assumes that the rapture precedes the millennium -- but why should we think that?

(Watcher) If the Millennial Reign (1000 yrs) began in 70AD, where is the Great White Throne Judgement that should have happened after the end of the 1000 years? (see Rev. 20)

(Me) At the end of time. The number 1000 is most always used to denote an extremely long period in Jewish literature, and need not be a literal millenium. I consider us to still be in the Millenium.



(Watcher) Additionally, how do you explain Revelation 7?

Please, do not tell me you think this deals with the so-called 'Great Tribulation' you claimed happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD. That claim does not hold water in light of this chapter. How can you claim the Jews that were killed at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD are the ones mentioned above? You can't. I am not disputing Jerusalem underwent a tribulation period rather I am pointing out this is not the 'Great Tribulation' that Jesus said would come at in the end of the age.

(Me) I see that chapter as referring to Heaven.



(Watcher) If Christ's 2nd coming happened in 70 AD and the Millennial Kingdom began at this time, where does I Thess. 4 fit in?

(Me) The end of time.


(Watcher) The angels have told us for what to be watching, they said, “This same Jesus who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.” Christ comes for all; gloriously, visibly, immutably! If this is the case and scripture says it is, where was this 2nd coming historically documented? Why isn't the church fully aware of it? Why must it only be discerned through one's own interpretation of scripture (an early form of Sola Scriptura nonetheless). Don't you think the early church would have proclaimed this?

(Me) These are exactly the argument I make against full preterists. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused.



(Watcher) Please show evidence this happened. I'm sorry, but I refuse to take your word for it as well as your interpretation. You and I are fallible. Unless The Word states it happened, neither you nor any man shall ever convince me otherwise, period.

(Me) Matthew 24:34; Revelation 1:1, 3 are my starting verses. "This generation," "near," "at hand."


(Previous) Verse 13 is a repetition of the ending of _each_ of the letters in Revelation. Three of these endings (2:7, 11, 17) include a conditional promise after the statement. The remaining four do not. Thus, we consider that each letter is profitable to us, though the letters still maintain their specific message. For Paul commonly ended his letters with specific instructions to people at different churches. We read these and profit from them even though the instructions themselves are not to us. In the same way, it need not be the case that the entire letter be directed at us for it to profit us. More importantly, however, the letter to Philadelphia has no conditional promise after its conclusion. Therefore, we see that, following the paradigm laid out in the earlier letters, what precedes the "He who has an ear" is profitable for many but intended for few, while that _after_ "He who has an ear" (in this case, nothing) is directed at all.

Your interpretation of the implications of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 ignores the preceding discussion. Paul certainly uses eschatological talk, but note his context. In verse 8, he points out that we are in the light, so we should be ready to _defend ourselves_. In defending ourselves, we use the gifts God has given us, as (on to vs. 9 -) God has destined us for salvation rather than wrath. God, then, has given us the tools to defend ourselves, Paul says -- not, as you say, will rapture us from the Tribulation.

(Watcher) I completely disagree that God's Word in some instances contains only exclusive instructions for others. I could site verse after verse where Paul gave instruction to the churches he planted yet God obviously intended they be instructions for all Christians and Churches to come.

(Me) Note the end of most of all of Paul's epistles. There are specific instructions -- for instance, tell a certain person "Hello" for him, or get a cloak for somebody. We today are obviously not supposed to tell that person "Hello" or get a cloak. We do benefit from reading those statements. However, Paul also often uses universal commands to end his letters. Above, I argued that the letters to the churches, since they are addressed to specific churches, should be considered as such. Thus, when we see that the letters themselves specifically indicate a shift to a universal referent ("he who has an ear..."), we change our interpretation from a specific to a general referent. Otherwise, what is the use of that dividing line ("he who has an ear...")?


(Watcher) Until you can prove to me the Great Tribulation spoken of in Matthew 24 and Revelation 7 infact did occur in 70 AD I refuse to entertain your interpretation of scripture; rather I will stick with what I know to be truth through study and revelation given by The Lord until my error is so pointed out which you have been unsuccessful in doing. My interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 does not ignore the preceding chapter which deals exclusively with Christ’s Second Coming.

(Me) You haven't deal with my argument. Please don't just make this assertion and expect it to be accepted when I've argued, at length, that the context causes your interrpetation problems.



(Watcher) I think the hardest thing for me to understand is you honestly believe the Tribulation has occurred, the Millennial Kingdom came and went or is still here even though it is 1933 years later (take your pick), yet the Rapture, Bema, and Great White Throne Judgement are yet to come. This makes absolutely no sense and the scriptures you have offered as proof do not convince me at all.

(Me) I do not consider the Final Resurrection or Final Judgment to have yet occurred. This confusion resulted from my own error in misinterpreting something you had said earlier.


(Watcher) I would undoubtedly need to interpret them using your 'orthodox preterist' view, which I do not believe is correct nor scripturally supported. I approach this all with an open mind yet I fail to see where you have convinced me in the validity of your arguments. I must say, I am even more adamant in my opinion that you are putting a spin on actual truth. Forgive me if this comes across as a little harsh but you seem so ready to judge other interpretations as false yet you do not see the holes that exist in your own. To conclude this I will just say debates on pre, mid, and post tribulation are rarely fruitful and in this case, it also holds true. This debate could go on endlessly and again is not essential to one's Salvation. There are many Christians in each of those camps and I will not emphatically state beyond any reasonable doubt that they are wrong even though I strongly support pre-tribulation. I will never say my interpretations on anything are absolute because I am but a man. Scripture should interpret scripture and at the same time, we receive guidance and revelation from the Holy Spirit. How many times have you read the same verse yet God imparts a new nugget of wisdom and understanding? Too many times to count are all I can say.

(Me) At this time, I'm mostly dealing with a number of objections you've raised against my position, as well as dealing with every positive argument offered in favor of a pre-tribulation Rapture. I offered some positive arguments for a partial preterist interpretation of eschatology earlier, and they've gone unanswered.


(Previous) A number of Bible commentators throughout the centuries respond:

(Watcher) Regardless of all the commentaries, if 70 AD was indeed the Tribulation, when did the Millennial Reign begin? Please prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

(Me) As Revelation seems to indicate, the Millenial Reign would following the preceding events in that book. Thus, if I'm right that the preceding events had indeed occurred, I would be right to conclude that the Millenial Reign began in 70 AD. The point of contention, then, is whether or not the preceding events in Revelation occurred in the years leading up to 70 AD. I've presented a number of arguments, especially focusing on Matthew 24:34; Revelation 1:1, 3. I can't see how you've argued that Matt 24:34 doesn't force us to accept the 70 AD interpretation of the preceding Tribulation, or how Rev 1:1, 3 doesn't make us accept that John was trying to get across events that were, indeed, going to occur soon after the writing of his Apocalypse.



(Previous) I can't see how it wasn't fulfilled. Matthew Henry's Commentary makes a good argument:

(Watcher) It's an irrefutable fact that by the end of 1945 the Germans did kill two-thirds of the Jewish population or roughly 6 million Jews. However, this is not the same prophecy that Zech. 12 - 14 speaks of nor is the destruction and death during 70 AD.

You have quite clearly established 70 AD was Jesus's 2nd coming as well as judgement upon Israel. In addition, let me restate your interpretation of Zech 12 - 14 as a prophecy that was fullfilled during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The reality is, Zechariah speaks of "all the peoples" (12:2), "all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it (Jerusalem)" (12:3), and "I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle" (14:2). "This does not sound like the Romans in 70 AD. Further, Zechariah goes on to say, "In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (12:8) and "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle" (14:3). This also does not fit with what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Finally, it says that the Lord will rescue Israel, in that day (14:3), whereas, in 70 AD, the Lord judged Israel as Luke 21:20-24 notes. How can you say that Zechariah speaks of 70 AD when the Lord is rescuing His people in that passage. Zechariah 12 does not prophecy Israel's judgment but Israel's redemption! Zechariah 12—14 clearly speaks of a time when Israel is rescued by the Lord from an attack by "all the nations of the earth," not just the Romans.
In this context, Israel must refer to Israel. Since that is true, the event of Zechariah 12—14 has not yet happened in history. This means it's is a future event

Please give a textual interpretation of Zech. 12 - 14 to support your argument.

(Me) I just did (Matthew Henry's Commentary -- the most popular commentary among evangelical Christians), and you didn't respond to it.



(Previous) In the OT, "coming on the clouds" is associated with judgment -- thus, this is Christ's judgment of Israel.

(Watcher) Let's look at Matt. 24 again.

The Coming of the Son of Man

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It says immediately after the Tribulation in those days in vs. 29. If the destruction of Jerusalem was the Great Tribulation thus God's judgement on Israel, why in vs. 30 speak of it as it is coming "immediately after"? This doesn't make sense. Also why state in vs 31 that he will gather his elect from the four winds ( a reference to the 144,000 ).

(Me) In other words, His judgment on Israel (its destruction) occurs immediately after/at the end of this tribulation. Thus, there is the tribulation, and then Christ judges Israel. The facts are that before 70 AD, there were 3.5 years of Roman tribulation, and then there was a "judgment" of sorts of Israel. The source of an attack on my argument from this vantage point, then, is unclear.

I also don't understand why I should have to answer why Jesus mentions something in His discourse on eschatology (like gathering His elect). He did it for reasons I don't know, but I must accept what He did say and interpret as best I can.


(Previous) I hold that this occurred in 70 AD, when God completed His divorce of Israel. If these things were supposed to happen in a generation after 1948, they should have happened in the 80s. Yet they clearly have not.

(Watcher) Israel didn't regain control of Jerusalem until 1967. Yet I do not want to imply anything here. We can get into a more in depth study of Matthew 24 and look at the true meaning of 'generation'. In many instances, generation throughout the Bible referred to decendants, or even a race of people. We'll save this discussion for another time.

(Me) Can you name a scholar that holds that position today (not 20 years ago)? To my understanding, dispensational scholars have stopped using this argument (because it does violence to the Greek) and turn to interpreting "this generation" to mean "that generation," which is lexically allowable but still untenable.


(Previous) Then all ready brides are already living with their bridegrooms?

(Watcher) We should pay attention to the wedding stories and examples in the Old Testament because they are parallels and similitudes and prophesies of the end time.
Revelation 19 illustrates the Marriage supper or Wedding feast.

9 Then he said to me, "Write: "Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb! And he said to me, These are the true sayings of God.

The slaughter at the Marriage supper takes place in Rev.19:17,18

Another verse that supports the bridegroom coming for his bride like a thief in the night is Rev. 16:15. Here's a parallel Jewish wedding custom for clarity.

At the end of the period of separation the groom would come to take his bride to live with him. The taking of the bride usually took place at night. The groom, best man and other male escorts would leave the groom's father's house and conduct a torch light procession to the home of the bride. Although the bride was expecting her groom to come for her, she did not know the exact time of his coming. As a result the groom's arrival would be preceded by a shout. This shout would forewarn the bride to be prepared for the coming of the groom.

(Me) But you said that, since the Bride was ready, the Bride had to already be in Heaven, right? Or am I misinterpreting your argument? If so, I can't see how any of this shows that the Bride should be living with the Bridegroom, then the Groom comes to get the Bride to come live with Him. It should show the opposite -- the Bride is ready for the Groom's coming to marry her (as in the completion of the divorce in 70 AD). I


(Previous) Your argument is all based on the assumption that John is representative of the Church. Yet why should we think as much? You've offered no argument.

(Watcher) Great sidestep on the crown argument. Anyway, my point still stands.

(Me) I was responding to this argument:

"Now let's look at Revelation 4:1-4... In verse one, John is representative of the church..."

The entire argument you gave last time was based on this one assumption. Yet where is your argument for that assumption??


(Previous) There are full preterists and partial preterists. Full preterists hold that all eschatological events have been fulfilled, while partial preterists hold that only most eschatological prophecies have been fulfilled. For instance, partial preterists do not believe that the Resurrection or Final Judgment have occurred yet.

(Watcher) Chronologically speaking, I don't see how you can say the Tribulation and 2nd coming of Christ have happened yet the Resurrection and Great White Throne Judgement have not.

(Me) I don't say the 2nd coming has.



(Previous) No. Yet this kind of question includes a tacit presupposition that things "essential to Salvation" are all we need to discuss and discern. Effectively, then, you argue that those "secondary" issues are not as important _because you don't earn your salvation through them_. Granted, you probably don't mean to say this. But that is what comes through -- that we only need to care about things "essential to salvation" because those are the only things upon which our salvation depends. And yet _all_ Scripture is profitable and should be taught, read, and studied (1 Tim 3:16). Blessed is he who reads John's Apocalypse, after all (Rev 1:3).

(Watcher) Your presumption is completely wrong. To insinuate Salvation has anything to do by our merit or knowledge is outrageous. Must everyone be a schooled theologian to inherit the kingdom of God?

(Me) No, but how does that interact with my argument? I've reduced the argument you made to this absurdity, and now you're arguing against the absurdity, then basically repeating the statement I originally reduced to absurdity. You say, "Must everyone be a schooled theologian to inherit the kingdom of God?" I say, "Of course not. But why should we think that doctrine isn't worth discussing unless it's related to inheriting the kingdom of God? The only possible reason would be that that doctrine is worth discussing because it's how we 'earn' salvation. Yet this is a faulty methodology." I also presented both an immediately relevant example (Rev 1:3, which says that those reading and discerning the prophecies are blessed) and a generic example (2 Tim).

Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

Interpreted by Sir Robert Anderson

From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the King (according to Daniel 9:24-25) will be:

7 + 62 "weeks" = 69 groups of seven years

7 x 69 = 483 years

Anderson sees a prophetic year as 360 days (based on Revelation 11:2, 13:5 and 11:3, 12:6 which indicates that 42 months [3.5] years equals 1,260 days)

483 x 360 = 173,880 days

Artaxerxes started his reign in 465 B.C. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given on the first day of Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. In our calendar system (the Julian) that date is March 14, 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1).

Jesus started His ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (see Luke 3:1).

Tiberius started his reign in 14 A.D., so Jesus' ministry started in 29 A.D. Anderson believes that Jesus celebrated four Passovers during His ministry: one each in 29, 30, 31 and His final Passover in 32. The date of ancient Passovers can be calculated by lunar charts, so it is possible to calculate the exact day of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem as April 6, 32 A.D.

From 445 B.C. to 32 A.D. is 476 Julian years

(not 477, because there is no year 0).

476 x 365 = 173,740 days

Adjustment: from March 14 to April 6, add 24 days

Adjustment: for leap years in the period, add 116 days

The total number of days from March 14, 445 B.C.

to April 6, 32 A.D.: 173,880 days

Number of days prophesied in Daniel 9:25: 173,880 days

Jesus said to the Jews of this day: If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! (Luke 19:42). David said of this day in Psalm 118:24: This is the day which the Lord has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

And

Quote[/b] ]The events of the seventieth week. The prince who is to come is not specifically revealed to us here (though he matches with the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24-27), but his people are: they are the people who put Jesus to death in a human legal sense, the Romans. Therefore, the prince who is to come will in some way be an heir to the Romans, even as the final world government is an heir to the Roman Empire. He (the prince who is to come) confirms a covenant with [the] many (Israel) for the final seven year period; but he breaks the treaty in the middle of the seven years. The book of Revelation sees this seven year period, with both its halves, as yet future (Revelation 12:6, 13-14; 13:5-9, 14-15). It had not yet happened in 90 AD. Because all the things that God promised would happen in the seventy weeks (verse 24) have not yet happened, we know that the seventy weeks have not yet been completed. Yet, apparently, there is a "pause" in the seventy weeks, between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth week - since the Jewish rejection of Jesus, and now ready to begin again when the Antichrist shall confirm a covenant with the Jews.

With this covenant, Israel probably embraces the Antichrist as a political messiah, if not the literal Messiah. This was predicted by Jesus in John 5:43: I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. It is as if God has appointed 490 years of special focus on Israel in His redemptive plan; the years were "paused" by Israel's rejection of Jesus. Now, there is no special focus on Israel in God's redemptive plan (this is the time of the church), but there will be when the church is taken away (at the rapture) and God returns His special focus on Israel again for the last seven years of man's rule on this earth. "The 70th week will begin when the Jewish people are restored in unbelief to their land and city; and among them will be found a faithful remnant, owning their sin, and seeking Jehovah's face." (Ironside in 1911). These "gaps" or "pauses" in prophecy may seem strange to us, but they are somewhat typical (Isaiah 9:6; Luke 1:31-33).

He will bring an end to sacrifice, and establish an abomination (idol) which will bring desolation; Jesus (Matthew 24:15) and Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) thought this event (the abomination of desolation) essential in understanding prophecy. This is when the Antichrist "turns" on the Jews half way through the last seven-year period, described well in Revelation 12:6, 13-17. However, God has a consummation, which will make all His enemies desolate. No doubt about it: God wins.

This pretty much put it in perspective to me. Now just like the thoughts here, this is someones interpertation. I don't know how accurate/inaccurate it is, as I am no expert, but atleast it gave me some understanding.

Cory

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Will falter in any discussion of dates.....
Ugh. That's some tough stuff.

 

[Watcher]

Let's start over and take this one argument at a time.

Quote[/b] ]I say that the millenial kingdom is now, and that His Coming is at the end of that kingdom -- at the end of time.

How in the world are we under the 'Millenial Reign of CHRIST' yet he hasn't returned. Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this sounds? Can you not see your error? Please, I beg you. Provide me with one verse that supports this claim. Please tell me why Christ is not present during His own Millenial Reign. After you have conclusively answered this, we can move on to the next. I hope you agree it is best that we move one point at a time as to stay focused. I look forward to this discussion on the 'Millenial Reign of Christ' that allegedly began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Hey, I don't believe he's present now, but you know, he might be one of those guys who hides out until the time to show himself. But no, I definitely don't agree with that.
If anything, Christ is hated even more than before. Sin is encouraged by the greatest country in the world, which is a pathetic excuse if you ask me, a country supposedly founded on God.
No. God has not returned. It will come soon.