Bluefinger

Hi 1Peterlight, I've been thinking about this as well. I read somewhere that the word for 'comes' can also mean 'be revealed.' In this case, it's not talking about the Parousia, but rather an event or sequence of events that demonstrates God's judgment and power. Such was the case in the Old Testament when God visited the inhabitants of the Promised Land that He was driving out: "And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." (Leviticus 18:25 KJV) Did God literally come to them or was it in a sense that His just and true judgments were being revealed to both the godly and ungodly? With that in mind, I wanted you to read this and tell me what you think: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." (Luke 17:20-37 KJV) Here, Jesus uses the same kind of language he used in Matthew 24, calling His listeners to flee Judea and not return when they see the temple turned into a fortress for the wicked and murderers, as was fulfilled in the days of Flavius Josephus. What do you think? Could the language that Jesus used to describe the visitation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the entire Jewish nation in the first century be confused by us as the Parousia?

If that were the case, Daniel and I wouldn't disagree so much. I'm of the impression that we don't know who the writers of the OT wrote to, but that the original audience did. If we go back and review the history and consider the circumstances of the original audiences, we find that it isn't so hard to understand the audiences and or agenda of the original writings. We have dogmas that interfere with our ability to tap into this, making it hard for any of us to agree. A dogma such as the willingness to accuse a man of heresy if he thinks for one moment that a particular book in the Bible wasn't actually written in the time it says it was. Let's take the Apocryphal book of Susanna for example. It was evidently about the civil war going on between the Pharisees and Sadducees around 100 BCE in contest of the high priesthood. Yet, it claims to have occurred much earlier. One would also have to consider the possibility that Daniel was a collection of true stories dating back to the exile and a mixture of the author's agenda to endure persecution with dignity during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is nothing that says we can't think that way. But, boy, do some Christians have very little love for their brothers in letting them know how they feel about it. Consider what you have presented here and then consider what I have said about that which is natural comes first followed by that which is spiritual. Perhaps, but I don't feel logically compelled to believe that such applies for the seals and trumpets.

True. "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; (Romans 11:25, 26 ESV) God will lift their blindness. I do recommend that we stop forcing them to accept our Greek and Latin based theology. We didn't appreciate being told to get circumcised. It's only fair.

EXACTLY! It's explicit about the nation (government/priesthood). If we stop insisting they convert to Greek theology, it may happen sooner, IMO.

If that were the case, Daniel and I wouldn't disagree so much. I'm of the impression that we don't know who the writers of the OT wrote to, but that the original audience did. If we go back and review the history and consider the circumstances of the original audiences, we find that it isn't so hard to understand the audiences and or agenda of the original writings. We have dogmas that interfere with our ability to tap into this, making it hard for any of us to agree. A dogma such as the willingness to accuse a man of heresy if he thinks for one moment that a particular book in the Bible wasn't actually written in the time it says it was. Let's take the Apocryphal book of Susanna for example. It was evidently about the civil war going on between the Pharisees and Sadducees around 100 BCE in contest of the high priesthood. Yet, it claims to have occurred much earlier. One would also have to consider the possibility that Daniel was a collection of true stories dating back to the exile and a mixture of the author's agenda to endure persecution with dignity during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There is nothing that says we can't think that way. But, boy, do some Christians have very little love for their brothers in letting them know how they feel about it.

I don't misunderstand the context of the Scripture. That is the one thing I keep going back to. My argument is that you are using an evolved theology based on Greek and Latin thinking. Matthew 24, though it was written in Greek, was written by an Israelite to other Israelites who had walked away from Judaism, their family, friends, and entire society to partake in Christ's kingdom. So, to be clear, your understanding of Matthew 24 isn't the earliest understanding. It is an evolution of 2,000 years of Greek and Latin theology. I've been trying to put the pieces back together of what happened in the Church just before Rome went to war with Judea. Scripture says very little. But, if our culture is left out of our interpretations and we get back to the original audiences, we can build a decent picture of what happened. I don't see you doing that. What I see instead is that you aren't even reconstructing the past to find out what happened. It doesn't seem to matter to you. You seem to be under the impression that Jesus spoke about the abomination of desolation to His first disciples so that Christians 2,000 years in the future would know about it. That seems far-fetched to me. Which is why I abandoned that interpretation and decided to go back and see where things got confusing. Likely, the historical event around that time will do most of the explaining. And that is my argument about the abomination of desolation. It was from Jewish Scripture about something that the Jews would understand better than anyone and that they could see. Now I will one more time attempt to prove that Jesus spoke about the Abomination of Desolation to His first disciples. In Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse is heavily latent with Jewish culture and history. In Luke 21, we see the same discussion, but worded differently. Let's take a look: "And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" And he said, "See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, "I am he!" and, "The time is at hand!" Do not go after them. And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once." Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives. "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:5-28 ESV) I've bolded some parts I wanted you to really look at. Matthew 24 doesn't say for them to look for the Abomination of Desolation. Why? Because the Jews understood what that meant. Matthew 24 also doesn't specify that the tribulation would be against 'this' people, the Jews. And when Jesus said that, if the tribulation had not been cut short that no flesh would have survived, He meant no flesh among the Jews. The elect He was talking about were His first disciples (see Ephesians 1:12, Romans 11:5, and John 17:6.) Your thinking isn't the original thinking so you are adding to what the Scripture says. Nothing against you. I'm just letting you know. And it doesn't sound far-fetched to you? It does to me. Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18 show what the Mark of the Beast is. I never treated mine like it was predefined, but you seem to think it fit to say it was. Let's play fair then. What I've been saying is that you are doing just that. I'm working my way through history to find the proper fulfillment in conjunction with the original audience's cultural understanding without adding my own culture's theology to it. I agree. The original audience were Israelites. They saw it and understood what it meant. We don't. That is my point. He does not. Otherwise, He would not have said 'immediately after the tribulation of those days..." And what does Luke 21 say instead? "For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." The tribulation occurred against the Jews. And Jerusalem is still trampled underfoot by the Gentiles. When the Fullness of Gentiles, as spoke of in Romans 11:25, occurs, then the tribulation against the Jews will end. Revelation 11 details that quite well.

I enjoy reading your posts. The simple answer to this question is that revelation is progressive in nature. Hi moss. Thanks for chiming in. Where do you get that belief from? I hate to sound like a fundy, but can you show me what made you come to that conclusion? "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness." (1 Thessalonians 5:4, 5 ESV) Surely futurists can't say that revelation is progressive in nature, because futurists claim that everything happens in a seven-year timespan. And why announce ahead of time what is to come and give signs of its coming if it is intended to only be understood progressively? I've been wondering about spiritual 'repeats,' simply because two ages are addressed in Revelation: The passing age (the Times of the Jews) and the age that was coming (the Times of the Gentiles.) I'm still convinced, though that, everything from chapter 12 until chapter 19 has to do with the Times of the Gentiles, while everything from chapters 4 to 11 have to do with the passing age.

I disagree. The Israelites were blinded by God to accomplish these purposes. But we, who are in Christ, are not blinded. What we have is an eschatalogical arrogance. The "I'm right and you are lost" scenario. We have a problem with division because eschatology is a branch of theology, and theology is what separates believers, unfortunately. And that is what I meant by shamelessly wrong. I didn't mean it as an insult. I meant is as a criticism of a system that isn't even defined in Scripture. My question is this: "If futurism was so concrete of an interpretation, why was it not developed for the first fifteen centuries of Christian history?" Also, "Why was it not fully laid out in the first century by the apostles? Why would Jesus want us to be confused about the details of His return?" These are questions that led me away from futurism and to use the books themselves, rather than my speculations, to interpret eschatology. That is why I've been repeating over and over again that we must go back to the exegesis of the Gospel narratives. That is why we must go back not only to the language that the New Testament was written (Greek, as far as we can tell), but also to the culture in which it was written (Jewish culture.) I've been pointing out that your interpretation is not one based the original culture and that futurism does not communicate the the original audience. Therefore, futurism is an incorrect eschatology. I'm not going to ostrasize you for it though. The New Testament is explicit about the fact that Israel was blinded that God had predestined a remnant to follow Christ. Israel was blinded so that the remnant would be chased out so that they could bring the Covenant to the Gentiles. So, while they did choose not to accept what the Scriptures taught, it was also because they were blinded for the purpose of saving all nations and bringing them into the Abrahamic Covenant, as God promised. This is explicitly stated over and over again in the New Testament. If you wouldn't ostrasize me for not being a futurist and stop calling me a preterist (showing that you're not really listening), I wouldn't object so strongly. Revelation 13 says that anyone who takes the mark of the beast would be cast into the Lake of Fire, right? Jesus said that those that deny Him before men will be denied by Him in the Father's presence. So, yes, the Mark of the Beast is a rejection or substitution of Jesus. A microchip, as we have both established, cannot force us to deny Jesus. Therefore, taking the microchip implant is not taking the Mark of the Beast. This is another strong argument against most modern futurist interpretations. The original audience would have understood what John was talking about. To them it was given to understand the parables. Jesus did not hide these things from His disciples. Therefore, we MUST understand their history and culture in order to properly interpret eschatology. Futurism does not do that. I can handle it. I didn't come into this discussion looking to discredit other eschatologists, nor speculating. I took the criticism and focused on it. We simply had to discuss this because you could not be satisfied in just understanding my interpretation but came in insisting that I was wrong and you were right. Discussions shut down at that point. Shamelessly wrong. I have not felt love or genuine brotherhood from your responses, even from the get go. Had this been a debate, the gloves would come off. But I never intended it to be a debate. I disagree. Again, why would Jesus skip over the destruction of the Jewish Nation in the first century to talk about an eschatology far into the future? That goes back to what I've been saying: Our culture is ignorant of the culture of the original audience, as well as to the history. Something major happened in the first century. How do the apostles go from referencing their culture to having Greek and Latin Church fathers arguing about the transcendence of the soul and the eternal destination of the soul as being theological basic for Orthodoxy? Evidently, something really big errupted in the Jewish culture in the first century. It was the destruction of the Jewish Nation; something that Jesus or the apostles would have said a great deal about. I've said it once and several times, the Times of the Gentiles, as specified in Luke 21:20 and Romans 11:25-26, occurred at the end of the age. The Age of the Jewish Nation came to an end and the Age of the Gentiles began. Matthew 22:1-14 shows that, after Jerusalem's destruction, the disciples would invited all nations into the kingdom of God, bringing both good and bad people into the kingdom. By doing this, the nations were subjected to the authority and dominion of Christ. Only at the Fullness of the Gentiles does Christ return to reward the saints and destroy the beast. That does not mean that, at any time, He can't judge the nations. I get what you are saying. I just think that your theology isn't complete. If there are three sides to theology (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin), and you only concern yourself with the development of Greek and Latin, how can you properly understand what the prophecies meant? The earliest disciples, having no or little influence from Greek or Latin philosophy and culture, understood the prophecies just well. Our culture, therefore, is at a disadvantage. We certainly can't ostracize eschatologists when we ourselves are disadvantaged like that. The point that I've been making this entire time is that Jesus wasn't quoting Daniel to us. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew was directing it to the first century disciples that were being pressured by their Jewish friends and family to keep participating their generation's Jewish culture. It wasn't written to Greek, Latin, Germanic, Asia, Brazilian, or any other culture. It was written to the first disciples, whom were originally Jews. You're saying that futurism is accurate? Are you sure you don't want to correct that statement? As I've said, I still maintain, the book of Revelation was written to two different audiences: The remnant (144,000; the first disciples, Ephesians 1:12, John 17:6), and those that came to believe because of their word, the Gentile saints.

I never said that the thousand years had come. If you stop throwing me in with the preterists and read my full articles, you'd realize that. Again, my beliefs are that the seals and six trumpets were fulfilled in the first century. In between the sixth and seventh trumpet are the Times of the Gentiles, in which all peoples are gathered into God's kingdom, as shown in the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14; until The Lord comes to establish His kingdom on earth. You know, the Millennial reign. Before the Fullness of the Gentiles comes in, the seven plagues will destroy the beasts of Revelation 13. Afterward, the seventh trumpet will occur. Christ will return, as shown in chapter 19 and set up His government on earth. "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this." (Isaiah 9:6, 7 ESV) I do have proof. For one, history is on my side. I at least have something to interpret. You have speculation on your side, and wild imagination. Second, Daniel 9:24-27 is about the Jews and Jerusalem BEFORE the Jewish Nation was scattered by the Romans in 70 CE. There is no reason to believe that Daniel skipped the second destruction of the temple to mention a third. Even the second destruction would have been important enough to elaborate. Daniel 9:24-27 describes the 490 extra years that God gave the Jewish Nation to bring in everlasting righteousness. Verse 27 shows that only the Messiah that was cut off in verse 26 actually does this, leaving the Jerusalem to face the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68. Daniel 9 is not about the church or the antichrist. If you think it is, you are taking it out of its original context, robbing it from its original audience, and inserting your own eschatology into it when it was never intended to be there. Let's revisit that discussion from Luke's perspective because you are missing something. I will bold what you are missing. "Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:23, 24 ESV) The great tribulation was not for the Church. It was for the Jewish Nation. And there were to experience this tribulation until the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. In Romans 11:25-26, Paul says that the Jews would continue to stay blinded until the Fullness of the Gentiles comes in, which Christ has set His banner (the Church) among all peoples. So, the tribulation has not ended. But Christ is ruling and has been since He resurrected, as shown in Matthew 28:18. Your interpretation of Daniel 9:27-24 is skipping over the destruction of the Jewish Nation in 70 CE, assuming that the God didn't think it was important enough for Daniel to know. My better logic tells me different. And I disagree on your interpretation of Matthew 24's declaration that it would be the worst tribulation. If you want to keep it in context, keep it with the rest of the discussion, meaning Jerusalem's destruction, which caused them that were in Judea to flee to the country. As I said, I believe the Jewish Nation is still under tribulation, setting the scene for the prophecies in Zechariah 13-14. That was so helpful for the first century readers to understand? He meant that generation of Jews. "So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:24, 25 ESV) He's talking about the Jewish War. Agreed. Nope. You just fail to understand my interpretation. If you keep insisting on throwing me in with the preterist camp, you will keep insisting that my views line up with theirs. Daniel 9:27 shows Jesus confirming the Abrahamic Covenant with the Gentiles, putting an end to the high priesthood and destroying the second temple. I think there is only one kingdom of God. Christ rules from heaven while the saints gather the nations for the 'wedding feast' and then He comes and rules on earth. It does not mean that the kingdom of God is not established yet. I understand what you are saying. But one must also understand how the Jews back then viewed the kingdom of God. They had been told that they were Abraham's promised seed. The kingdom of God was the fulfillment and zenith of all of God's promises, among which were to make his seed as uncountable as the stars, to bless all the families of the earth through his seed, and to bless those who bless him while cursing those who curse him. The great New Testament mystery was that God was going to include the Gentiles in Abraham's promises, regardless of uncircumcision. This was the historical meaning of the kingdom of God. The Messiah was supposed to establish this kingdom and rule with righteousness, teaching peace. The Jews also believed that they would inherit this kingdom if they were righteous and would get to rule over their oppressors. That is why they had such a disdain for the Gentiles. They wanted to rule them. But we find that their oppressors ruled over them and were given the kingdom. Agreed.

When you start off your response by calling me 'shamelessly wrong,' it really discourages me from even looking at the rest of your post. Just saying.

I think he was put there during the reign of Nero. I think that he was the last of disciples to be killed. Peter and Paul were killed in Rome. I think that he also was chosen so that the disciples that had fled Judea before the war could get word on what to do while they were in the foreign lands. I believe it was in 66 CE. I think the disciples that fled Judea before the war had fled to those seven cities and brought the Gospel with them. I struggle with the possibility of them being both literal churches and representations of seven Church Ages.

I'll explain that in full later in this post. I want to get to your next question first, if that's okay. I draw from the scheme produced in the Gospel narratives, particularly Matthew. The Gospel according to Matthew seemed focused on two issues: Proving that Jesus was the Messiah via fulfillment of prophecy and warning the disciples to not be misled into participating in the very Judaism that rejected Him and received a murderer (Barrabas) in His place. Central to the scheme are the parables. Take these parable for example: ""What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, "Son, go and work in the vineyard today." And he answered, "I will not," but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, "I go, sir," but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. "Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, "They will respect my son." But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance." And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes"? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet." (Matthew 21:28-46 ESV) From these two parables, we can understand that the kingdom of God isn't what theologians have been telling us lately. In these parables, a belief central to early Judaism is prevalent. The kingdom of God was the fulfillment of Abrahamic promises. The Jews thought they were entitled to those promises. A quick recap: God promised Abraham that he would make his seed a great and countless nation. God also promised that He would bless all families of the earth through Abraham. He also promised to bless those that blessed Abraham and curse those who cursed him. Matthew 22:1-14's parable of the wedding feast shows that many of that generation of Jews that believed that they were God's chosen people because of their descendance from Abraham and their circumcision would be called but few of them were chosen for that kingdom. That was the great mystery that Paul spoke so often about. The Gentiles, whom knew nothing about God nor His commands, would get to be included in the Abrahamic Covenant, which was fulfilled in Christ. Now that I've covered that, I want to go over the two parables I quoted. In the first, Jesus told that generation of Jewish leaders (and those that followed them) that sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of God before they would. This was fulfilled in the elect, the small remnant of Jews that God predestined to always believe in Jesus (John 7:6.) In the second parable, Jesus said that the Jewish Nation would be stripped of their inheritance of the kingdom of God (including Jerusalem) and that it would be given over to those producing fruit. Those, in this case, are not individuals, but rather nations. Jesus said in Matthew 5:13, ""You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." Basically, Jesus was saying that, so long as His disciples were in a land, that land would be blessed. Once they leave that land, it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it would be for that town (Matthew 11:20-24.). Around 66 CE, the disciples had a mass exodus from Judea, as Jesus called for in Matthew 24:15-22. The earth, or Judea in this case, lost its saltiness. Like when Sodom was destroyed only after Lot fled, so was Jerusalem destroyed only after the disciples fled. (Luke 17:28-30) But the kingdom of God would be given over to those nations that produced fruit. As I stated in an earlier post, I'm of the opinion that John addressed the seven churches because they were the crowd that fled Judea. They were the remnant. They were the 144,000 sealed of the 12 tribes of Israel. Their purpose was to bring the Gospel to the Gentile nations, which bore great fruit, as shown in chapter 7 by the great and countless multitude from every nation, language, tribe, and people. The Romans would soon march in, per Matthew 22:10, and destroy the Jewish Nation and burn their city. The kingdom of God would then be given over to the Gentiles, as Paul defended in Romans 11. That would start the Times of the Gentiles, in which the Gentiles enjoyed the Abrahamic promises while the Jewish Nation suffered the curses of the Law (Deut. 28:15-68 ) that Jesus originally took on Himself (Galatians 3:13.) That would bring me to the Two Witnesses. I noticed that you responded on this subject later in the post, so I will delay my response on it a little longer. I have two things to say for that: 1) Revelation 13 didn't mention four beasts. Daniel 7 did. 2) Revelation 13, and pretty much the rest of the book, discusses what happens during the Times of the Gentiles. It builds up to how the two witnesses end up on the streets of Jerusalem at the end of the Times of the Gentiles. If you recall Romans 11:25-26, the fullness of the Gentiles would come when Israel's blindness is healed. So that likely points to Jerusalem being the last nation to receive Jesus. Between the time that Jerusalem is destroyed and she receives her king, the beast makes war against the saints and misleads many into worshiping the beast's image. To understand this, I think we need to look back at how ancient cultures viewed their kings. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar sets up an image of himself to be worshipped. This was synonomous with allegiance to the king. Wherever his image was, so was the proclomation of his dominion. The statue of the king was an older version of a country's flag. When Jesus came, he took the throne (Matt. 28:18) with all power and authority in heaven and on earth. He then sent out His disciples to make disciples of all nations. Wherever the Church was set up, so was the image of Jesus; His kingdom's flag. What happened throughout time is that the Chuch became Romanized and began to show itself as the dominion of a man other than Jesus. Some would call this antichrist, others would call him the false prophet. Jesus gave His peace to His disciples, yet they died brutal deaths. He gave His peace to the elect, yet they were pursued by the Jews and hunted down by the Romans. His peace does not require peace on earth. For even Jesus said that He did not come to bring the peace that the Jews anticipated, but rather a sword against them. We get much of the information of the two witnesses from Zechariah 4. Zechariah was shown a vision of two olive trees with branches extended out and pouring oil into a seven-headed candlestick. In Revelation 11, we are shown two olive trees and two candlesticks. In Zechariah 4, the two olive branches that pour oil into the temple were the two anointed ones: Joshua the High Priest and Zerubbabel the governor. These were commissioned to build the second temple. In Revelation 11:1-2, the temple is measured because it is soon to be destroyed. That would point to the mission of these two witnesses to build the temple of God, which Paul shows in Ephesians 2 is the Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. So, one olive tree was a family of priests and the other was a family of kings. Back then, and many Jews may attest to this, moshiac (messiah) referred to either a priest or a king. As seen after the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and up until Antigonus, the office of high priest and king were combined; as is the case for Jesus. "and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:6 ESV) "and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:10 ESV) "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6 ESV) The book of Revelation shows who the Two Witnesses are. They are the saints. They are priests and kings unto our God. The scope of their Witness is two-fold because they minister as priests and kings. Not because there are only two of them. The two candlesticks are likely two churches, since Revelation 1 already decoded that a candlestick was a church. We recall that Smyrna and Philadelphia were recognized for their faithfulness while the others were rebuked. I don't think you understand my view at all. Are you sure you aren't just throwing me into a category you are used to? I wasn't saying that at all. And I think I've provided enough Scripture to support my view. What we have here are two different bases to which we build our ground work on. Your view puts everything in the future without anything in Scripture telling you to do so. Futurism ignores the last two thousand years. It's that simple. And nothing in Scripture justifies that move. It is a commonly accepted flawed eschatology. It wasn't what the NT writers intended, but that is what has become of it. And there is my view: That Revelation starts with addressing the original audience and builds up with prophecies that happen throughout history until the literal return of Christ. I don't speculate. I follow already established guidelines of thought, as was originally portrayed in the parables. What do you say of the parables? What is the kingdom of God that Jesus said would be taken from the Jews? What city was destroyed in Matthew 22:10? I never hear a futurist bring these things up because all they are focused on is seven speculative years in the future. Every politician is a candidate for the antichrist. Microchips are somehow supposed stop us from worshiping Jesus. And the speculation goes on and on. Anyone that disagrees is scolded as a preterist or ganged up on for looking outside the box. I'm not buying it. Futurism is not sufficient for the questions that the Gospel narratives bring up. Did you not already read my previous posts to firestormx? I went into detail and explained my line of reasoning. Just as I figured. You asked me when I thought the nations were judged. I asked you when Jesus received power and authority. In Matthew 28:18, after He was resurrected, Jesus told the disciples that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him. If Jesus received all authority in heaven and on earth, which is shown in Revelation 5 where the Lamb takes the sealed scroll from God, and Matthew 21:42-45 shows that Jesus would judge the Jewish Nation by taking the kingdom of God from them and giving it to nations producing fruit, then it can be deduced that Christ judged the nations in 70 CE. The reason why we disagree here is because many have not sourced their theology. What are your influences? Are they Greek based spirituality or Latin based legalism? Are they heavily influenced by modern theologians or based on ancient Syriac theology? Don't dismiss the importance of this because your culture becomes the lens through which you see the Gospel. And that is our source of friction. The New Testament may have been written in Greek, but the information came from Israelites who had no participation in Greek culture. That gives us a problem when we interpret the Gospel. Greek theologians tend to view the OT as types that were fulfilled in the NT. The Jews believed it was all one steady line of history through which God developed, defined, and fulfilled His Covenant with Abraham through his seed. The Gospel of the New Testament was that all nations, circumcised and uncircumcised, were called to be Abraham's seed of Promise through Jesus, the mediator of the Covenant. Futurism says nothing about this. Because futurism is a modern invention that pays very little mind to the past. It treats the past as if everything isn't as important as those last seven years. I disagree. And I ask you to not jump to conclusions and skip reading my response. I asked earlier what the kingdom of God was; that which was taken from the first century Jews. I believe that, in the Gospel according to Matthew, the kingdom of heaven mentioned in Matthew 25:1 is the same as the kingdom of God mentioned in Matthew 21:42-45. This kingdom was what the Jews waited for. It was the fulfillment of the Abrahamic prophecies. And the Messiah was to bring these to fruition. Futurists would have you believe that Jesus didn't intend to bring those promises about until some distant seven year period. (Their interpretation of Daniel 9's seventy weeks are very wrong, BTW.) But Matthew 21:42-45 show that Jesus was going to take the kingdom of God away from the Jews and give it to the Gentiles. That means that the nations were judged. Those that produced fruit of righteousness and charity were given the kingdom of God while those who produced murder, envy and strife (the Jewish Nation) were cast out. That was the purpose of the parable of the talents. The Jewish Nation had very little and did not produce anything with what they had. Therefore, the kingdom of God was taken from them and given to those nations that produced great revenue (righteous deeds) for the kingdom. Futurism leaves all of these parables alone, unless it is to overspirituatize them and take them out of their original context. And so when I ask a futurist what the kingdom of God is, likely he won't say that it is something that has been here for a while. And thus, they ignore Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says blatantly that He is the king and that His disciples would expand His dominion. Revelation 1 shows John in exile and exiles that fled Judea living in seven cities in Asia-Minor. A persecution broke out against the Church and they brought the Gospel everywhere they went. And thus, when the Gentiles received the Word and produced deeds of righteousness, the kingdom of God had expanded and taken over the Gentiles. As I said earlier, in Middle Eastern culture, when a king set up his statue in the places he conquered, that meant that he had dominion over those areas. Greek theologians miss that fact because it is not an aspect of philosophy that they are privvy to. I want to ask you to put futurism on trial. Ask the hard questions. Do serious exegesis. Don't stretch or speculate. Let it says what it says. Let's take Daniel 9:24-27 for example. Verse 24 says that it was directed to Daniel's people (the Jews) and their city (Jerusalem.) On who's authority do they get to say that the prince of the people to come is anyone other than the anointed one mentioned in verse 26? They say that the prophecy was meant about the Church. But it wasn't. And it wasn't meant for the far distant future, otherwise it would have mentioned Jerusalem's destruction to happen twice, not once. Therefore, they are wrong in assuming that the abomination that makes desolate and brings destruction of the temple is the antichrist. They are shamelessly wrong. Anyone that does a proper exegesis on the chapter can see that the seventy weeks were regarding a period of grace in which to fulfill everything mentioned in verse 24 before the destruction of the Jewish Nation. Earlier in the chapter, Daniel recognized that the Jews had not yet repented, even though the 70 years were coming to a close. Daniel knew that the curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 was much worse than 70 years. Fast forward to the generation that saw Jerusalem's destruction. They rejected their Messiah, as shown in verse 26. Jesus' troops were sent to destroy the city, as defended by Matthew 22:10. Verse 27 shows that the Messiah would confirm the Abrahamic Covenant with the Gentiles (the many). It would be put to an abrupt end when Jesus was crucified and it would be picked back up when the Jewish revolt happened. The Gentiles received the kingdom of God, as shown in Matthew 21:43 after the Jewish nation was destroyed. That is the proper interpretation of the prophecy. Otherwise, Daniel wasn't shown an event in Covenantal History that would have been very important to know. And that should be enough justification to raise an eye-brow at the claims that futurists make. I think that, if you do put futurism on trial, you will see that there are too many holes in that theory. The author John meant something when he said, "For the end is near." And he did not mean the end of all humanity, as futurists may suggest. He meant the end of the Jewish Nation and the old order of things. Christ was doing something new. He was fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant by blessing all families of the earth; the remnant of Israel and the Gentiles.

Hello Bluefinger, I have been poking my head in periodically into this discussion, though I believe you bring up good points. A few things before we get started that I would appreciate you adressing. 1) *Edit* cleared up in post above. If this is so, I would be curious as to your thoughts about the Jews as a nation, since they did not turn to Messiah in 70 AD as prophesied in Zechariah 12:10. Hi Jacob. Thanks for the response! For your question, I would point to Revelation 11:7-14, just shy of the seventh trumpets. As I said in earlier posts, the seals and trumpets regard the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. After the sixth trumpet, the sequence is interrupted to disuss the Times of the Gentiles briefly (Rev. 10:11.) Revelation 11:1-2 start with John's time; with the temple being measured and the outercourt being given over to the Gentiles to trample underfoot. Then the two witnesses, whom I believe to be the saints among the Gentiles living out the Abrahamic Covenant where those who bless them are blessed and those who curse them are cursed (vs. 5.) During this time, the Gentile nations live out the promises of God until the fulnness of Gentiles comes, (Romans 11:25-26) which is covered in vs. 7. Then vs. 8 shows them in Jerusalem until they are resurrected (Romans 11:13-15.) When those the Jews left see it, they will glorify the Lord (Matthew 23:39.) It will be then that Christ will return and deliver them as foretold in Zecahariah 14.) I hope that was a satisfactory response. I will give you my answer, but I want to know what you think of Matthew 28:18. When did Christ receive power, authority, and dominion over heaven and earth? It was in response ti firestormx's comment that Greek grammar would use the word earth to mean the entire earth unless it was used before a name, such as land of Judea; as established in verse 21. He was making the argument that when the first trumpet and fifth trumpet mentioned the earth, they were not talking about Judea but were about the entire earth. Although, the first trumpet brings hail on the entire globe according to firestormx's argument yet only a third of its trees are destroyed. I still have strong enough reason to believe that the trumpets, up to just after the sixth, were fulfilled inthe war on Judea from 66 CE to 70 CE.

It is not a matter of scripture. I haven't even went into that. All I have been focused on is the greek grammer of the scripture. The greek langauge all on it's own, makes your belief impossiple. The greek is a very specific langauge. There is no chance it means Jerusalem or Israel. It means the whole earth. You need to do a study on the language used in revelation in comparision to the rest of the new testament. There is no doubt at all in the langauge used. This is about your lack of understanding of greek grammer. That's not me knocking on you, but stating a fact, that's easily correctable. The langauge used by the wriiter leaves no question it's the whole earth. I really don't know what else to say. There is no reason to go in doctrinal reasons when this by itself shows it to be false. As for the Luke verse. It's about context. The context of the surronding verses is used to apply the proper meaning. In the trumpets, there is no referance inderct or direct to Israel or Jerusalem, which means the meaning has to be earth, not land of Israel or land of Jerusalem. Look at all uses of the words in the new testament, not just one verse. Then you'll see what I mean. Look at it in context of the surrounding verses and the language used. God bless Firestormx Fair enough. By logic, I'm forced to believe that the seals and trumpets are regarding the Jewish Nation and Jerusalem. I feel it hard to properly communicate why I feel that way. All of the New Testament writings regard the time of Jesus and the time of the Apostles. Then, two thousand years of no prophetic word or fulfillment. No talk about the deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul. No mention of the war in Judea and Jerusalem. No mention of Nero's reign of terror. Because the preconception is that John wrote Revelation in 95 CE, we are forced to rely on hearsay about what really happened. This gap creates, IMO, the biggest problem to interpretation. It creates major holes that we have to fill with eschatological doctrines that far post-date the writing itseld. Why did it take 1600 years to come up with futurism's seven year great tribulation, or 1800 years to develop the secret rapture doctrine? These have holes the size of Jupiter, but doctinr forces us to fill them with things that must be stretched to do so. As I said, I'm not a preterist. I just believe that almost have the book has to do with John's time in 66 CE. The rest discusses the Times of the Gentiles, which I believe is still not fulfilled. And no, I don't study Greek grammar, and I get your argument. I just can't force myself to accept it because, after doing thorough studies into preterism and futurism, I can't accept those previously accepted models any longer. The leave too mich up to speculation, which is why many eschatologists can't see my argument. They are locked into either preterism or futurism with a closed fist, simething that not even the earliest of Church fathers were bold enough to do. On top of that, it makes me sick to see Christians come up with an anti-Christ candidate list after every major election. The mark of the beast is evidently something related to denying Jesus but yet many say its receiving a tracking implant microchip that has no effect on the conscience. Poor eschatology is what often results from a closed-hand eschatological doctrine. So, despite the fact that my Greek grammar doesn't work out, I am forced by logic to still believe that John was hiding the specifics in code. So I totally understan what you mean about context and all. I just can't bring myself back to believing what modern eschatologists are claiming about futurism. It leaves to many questions: Why write to the seven churches? Who were they? Were they personally aquatinted with John? Why write to them if the prophecies were intended solely for Chrisians in the next two thousand years? If the end was near when John wrote Revelation 1:3, why hasn't it come? Or is the end really the end of something else? Just a few. God bless you too.

Its really unfortunate that you want to end the discussion. K was really putting my theory to the test and you were the only one really testing it. And I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was stating that my theory shouldn't be just dismissed. So my use of Luke 21:23 didn't apply? Would it help if I used more examples? I was hoping you would address Luke 21:23.