The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[CWH]

You said "the book of Daniel and the book in Revelation is not the same book."

I agree completely. I never said they were the same. The little book in Revelation 10 is not the book of Daniel. It is not relevant to the question at hand.

I was not talking about any book "in" Revelation. I was talking about the book "of" Revelation, which is mentioned in the final chapter:

Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book [Revelation]: for the time is at hand.

The text plainly states the reason that the book was sealed. Likewise, Daniel was told to seal up his book because the time of fulfillment was in the distant future. Therefore, we have perfect symmetry and a clear understanding:

• Dan was SEALED because the prophecy would NOT be fulfilled in a short time.
  
• Rev was NOT SEALED because the prophecy would be fulfilled in a short time.

Therefore, my argument stands.

I see both scrolls in Revelation and Daniel to be different and you have agreed with me, that's good. And they are talking of the same fulfillment but of different starting times. It's easy to understand using an analogy:

I see a man holding 2 different books. On his left hand he holds the book of Revelation which is open and he is reading pages of events that have started to happened that is "at hand". On his right hand is the closed book of Daniel which will be opened "at the end" meaning that once he has read to the end of the book of Revelation with all the events detailed in that book completed will he opened the book of Daniel on his right hand to read and find out the mystery. This mystery will be revealed and summarizes in clarity what both books of Daniel and Revelation are talking about. This is the mystery which they were talking about:

Revelation 10: But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished

Daniel 12: When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.'


May God Bless us with His Revelation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see both scrolls in Revelation and Daniel to be different and you have agreed with me, that's good. And they are talking of the same fulfillment but of different starting times. It's easy to understand using an analogy:

I see a man holding 2 different books. On his left hand he holds the book of Revelation which is open and he is reading pages of events that have started to happened that is "at hand". On his right hand is the closed book of Daniel which will be opened "at the end" meaning that once he has read to the end of the book of Revelation with all the events detailed in that book completed will he opened the book of Daniel on his right hand to read and find out the mystery. This mystery will be revealed and summarizes in clarity what both books of Daniel and Revelation are talking about. This is the mystery which they were talking about:

Revelation 10: But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished

Daniel 12: When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.'


May God Bless us with His Revelation.

OK - it sounds like you are taking the "historicist" interpretation of Revelation. You believe that the events did indeed "begin" to happen in the first century, and have been continuing since that time. Is this correct?

Meanwhile, Daniel remains a "sealed book" that won't make any sense till the end of time?

Is there anything in Revelation that suggests a 2000 year unfolding of events? When I read the book, it speaks of the events being completely in only 3.5 years. And this, of course, fits perfectly with the Preterist view.

[David M]

Hi David,

The answer is simple: Revelation was written around 64 AD, just before the Roman siege against the Great Harlot Jerusalem began in 66 AD. This is confirmed in the opening lines that you quoted. The prophecy was about "things which must shortly come to pass" because "the time is at hand." There we see a double confirmation of the time texts. The things must happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." These words would be false if the events have yet to happen after two thousand years. And they are confirmed again by Christ's statement that all things would be fulfilled in "this generation" meaning the first century generation. And they are confirmed again by nearly all the NT books which speak of the "day of the Lord" coming soon, because it was "at the door" and so on and so forth. The evidence is total and complete. It cannot be controverted.

So what about the current scholastic consensus on the late date of Revelation? Since when did you begin to care about scholastic consensus???? If you follow them, then you believe that Luke was written around 80 AD! Is that what you believe? If not, are you not picking and choosing the "scholastic consensus" only when it serves your purposes?

I offered both dates, the earlier one around AD68. You say AD64 but then as I said this is to close to the time all these events were to be completed by AD70. I do not think all "the servants" would have got the message and been able to understand it and act upon it. I am not picking and choosing. How can you be so adamant when I have seen more consensus for the later date. I do what you do and do some research when necessary to find out what others are thinking and then make up my mind. You have opted for AD64 but whatever the date, there is no point producing a prophecy that the intended persons to receive the prophecy would not have got in time.

Have you read Redating the New Testament by John A. T. Robinson? He asserts that all the books of the NT were written pre-70 AD because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple. If they were written after that event, it would be like reading the September 12th, 2001 edition of the New York Times with no mention of the Twin Towers.

But why would the Book of the Revelation have to mention the destruction of the Temple when the book is dealing with events afterward? Your argument in this case does not hold up.

The integration of the book of Revelation with the Olivet Discourse is extremely tight. That's why it's called the "little apocalypse." The Great City, the Harlot, is identified as Jerusalem in Rev 11:8, where she also is called Sodom and Egypt. And the prophecy that Christ gave against Jerusalem immediately before the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled in the fall of the great harlot:

Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, >>>All these things shall come upon this generation<<<.

Now you have switched to something that Jesus was saying and is not related to the Olivet prophecy. No wonder you create a story that is difficult to accept. What Jesus is talking about in Matt 23 could well have taken place prior to AD70.

Revelation 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Everything is tightly integrated. I don't see how anyone could miss something so obvious. ].

It is obvious to you, but difficult for others to see what you are getting at. Quoting Rev 18:22 is to do with later-day Babylon is it not? I cannot see the point of you quoting this. For this reason, I dismiss your following arguments quoting Jeremiah because I do not make the same connection.

The underlined prophecy is very similar to other prophecies against apostate Jerusalem given by Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 7:30 For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. 31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. 32 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. 33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.

Jeremiah 16:9 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride.

Jeremiah 25:10 Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.

I could go on and on. It's all so obvious. The Futurist paradigm has nothing like this kind of support from Scripture.

You might have to go on some more because you are mixing up your time frames. Perhaps this your typology which I do not adhere to. I shall be interested to see what other supporting evidence on either side is presented by others on the forum.

All the best.

David

[Twospirits]

Hi David,

Originally Posted by RAM

The answer is simple: Revelation was written around 64 AD, just before the Roman siege against the Great Harlot Jerusalem began in 66 AD. This is confirmed in the opening lines that you quoted. The prophecy was about "things which must shortly come to pass" because "the time is at hand." There we see a double confirmation of the time texts. The things must happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." These words would be false if the events have yet to happen after two thousand years. And they are confirmed again by Christ's statement that all things would be fulfilled in "this generation" meaning the first century generation. And they are confirmed again by nearly all the NT books which speak of the "day of the Lord" coming soon, because it was "at the door" and so on and so forth. The evidence is total and complete. It cannot be controverted.

So what about the current scholastic consensus on the late date of Revelation? Since when did you begin to care about scholastic consensus???? If you follow them, then you believe that Luke was written around 80 AD! Is that what you believe? If not, are you not picking and choosing the "scholastic consensus" only when it serves your purposes?

David replied,

I offered both dates, the earlier one around AD68. You say AD64 but then as I said this is to close to the time all these events were to be completed by AD70. I do not think all "the servants" would have got the message and been able to understand it and act upon it. I am not picking and choosing. How can you be so adamant when I have seen more consensus for the later date. I do what you do and do some research when necessary to find out what others are thinking and then make up my mind. You have opted for AD64 but whatever the date, there is no point producing a prophecy that the intended persons to receive the prophecy would not have got in time.

Good point David, if the Revelation was written around 64 A.D. and was about Jerusalem and its temple as claimed, how could the book be distributed to the churches in Asia and as far as the environs of Israel to the parties who would be involved? John states in Rev. 1:9-10 that he was on the Isle of Patmos when he received the Revelation.

Tradition tells us he was banished there and was a prisoner of Rome, so how could his message get off the Island and reach the churches in Asia as far as the environs of Israel in time, that is by 66 A.D. before the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem?

From what we know the majority of scholars agree that in the summer of 66 Paul returned to Ephesus and left Timothy in charge (1 Tim. 1:3). In the summer of 67 he wrote Timothy from Macedonia. He went to Crete and left Titus there (Titus 1:5). He wrote Titus from Ephesus in the Autumn of A.D. 67, visited Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) and Troas (2 Tim. 4:13) and Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20), and spent some time at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Shortly after that Paul was imprisoned again and wrote his last epistle 2 Timothy in the fall or winter of A.D. 67. He was beheaded in Rome in May or June of A.D. 68.'

History records that it was in late A.D. 66 to spring of A.D. 67 that Rome began the war on the Jews in Palestine and Jerusalem, while Paul as noted, was imprisoned in Rome by the fall of 67 A.D. and would have known of this, as would others of the Lord's disciples when he wrote 2 Timothy. Yet we see no mention in the letter of 2 Timothy about this war nor a prophesied spiritual decay in the churches seen in Revelation. And it is in this letter that Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3:1 of 'things to come,' i.e. a prophecy. 'This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS perilous times SHALL COME.' (For men shall be—2 Tim. 3:2,3,4,5,6,7,13; for Paul was—2 Tim. 4:6,7)). Paul is speaking 'prophetically forward' TO THE TIME that this prophecy would come to fulfillment in a future time Paul calls 'the last days.'

Yet according to the preterist position the book of Revelation had already been written and the 'last days' being the OC age (according to preterists) would have meant that the final 42 months of the OC age had "already begun" at that time that Paul wrote! So we see the preterist position contradicting the writings of Paul in 2 Timothy. For if Revelation was written prior to 2 Timothy then Paul was not inspired and was wrong concerning the things he said would occur in a future time.

The meaning of the word prophecy. A prophecy is the message that has been communicated to a prophet which the prophet then communicates to others of things to come If it is already occurring or has occurred, then it is no longer 'a prophecy of things to come.' And Paul (2 Timothy) and John (Revelation) wrote about prophecy, 'things to come' in a future time.

So who is correct, the apostles Paul and John, or the preterists? You decide.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I offered both dates, the earlier one around AD68. You say AD64 but then as I said this is to close to the time all these events were to be completed by AD70. I do not think all "the servants" would have got the message and been able to understand it and act upon it. I am not picking and choosing. How can you be so adamant when I have seen more consensus for the later date. I do what you do and do some research when necessary to find out what others are thinking and then make up my mind. You have opted for AD64 but whatever the date, there is no point producing a prophecy that the intended persons to receive the prophecy would not have got in time.

Good morning David,

I'm not adamant about the 64 AD date. No one really knows, least of all me. The late date (95 AD) is based almost entirely on a single comment by Irenaeus who does not seem reliable to me (e.g. he thought Jesus lived past 50). And the late date makes no sense at all because the book is emphatic about the events happening "soon" because the "time is at hand." Those words would mean nothing if the book has yet to be fulfilled. And they are not in isolation - they cohere with dozens of similar statements throughout the NT, most notably Christ's statement that everything would be fulfilled in the first century generation. And again, it is confirmed by the historical fact of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. And it fits with the entire prophetic flow from the OT to the NT with John the Baptist proclaiming two things: 1) Jesus is Messiah, and 2) The Great Day of the Lord was coming down on the first century Jews. Jesus confirmed the judgment would come down on the Jews, and then gave the Olivet Discourse predicting the destruction of the Temple and the coming of the son of man as a joint event. Paul confirmed the judgment was coming upon the Jews. And so on. The Preterist picture shows the unity of the Big Picture of the whole Bible. The Futurist view is all speculation about stuff that hasn't happened yet, and given the 2000 year perfect record of perfect error for all such predictions, I can't imagine how anyone would think to follow in their footsteps.

But why would the Book of the Revelation have to mention the destruction of the Temple when the book is dealing with events afterward? Your argument in this case does not hold up.

Your point would stand if we had reason to begin with the presupposition that Revelation was future. But why would we begin with that presupposition? There is nothing in the book that suggests it concerns events in the distant future. On the contrary, it was written by a first century man and read by first century believers who were told that the events would happen "soon" because "the time is at hand."

Now you have switched to something that Jesus was saying and is not related to the Olivet prophecy. No wonder you create a story that is difficult to accept. What Jesus is talking about in Matt 23 could well have taken place prior to AD70.

How can you say it is not related? It is in the immediate context of the Olivet Discourse, and it deals with the same theme. Christ said their house was left to them "desolate" using the same root word as in "abomination of desolation" in Matthew and Mark and in his prediction of the desolation of Jerusalem in Luke. And the prophecy of the Jews being found guilty of all the blood shed on the earth is fulfilled in Mystery Babylon. How can you say it is difficult to accept such an obvious set of mutually confirming connections?

It is obvious to you, but difficult for others to see what you are getting at. Quoting Rev 18:22 is to do with later-day Babylon is it not? I cannot see the point of you quoting this. For this reason, I dismiss your following arguments quoting Jeremiah because I do not make the same connection.

How can it be "difficult" to see what I'm getting at? It's fine if you have reasons to disagree, but I can't see how you could have any trouble understanding what I am getting at. Jerusalem was called a harlot in the OT (Isa 1:21). You know this. How can you be confused when I say that the Jews of the first century who murdered Christ were apostates and harlots to God?

There is nothing in Revelation that speaks of any "latter day" anything, let alone Babylon. It was written in the first century and identifies the great city as Jerusalem and "Sodom and Egypt" so it is no stretch to see that apostate Jerusalem would also be likened to Babylon. This is confirmed by the description of the harlot as being clothed in "fine linen, scarlet, and purple." That description is used in the Bible for one and only entity - the Levitical priesthood! Any knowledgeable reader of Revelation should instantly recognize the description of Mystery Babylon as identifying the ruling Levitical priesthood of Israel.

I think you dismissed the quotes from Jeremiah without understanding why I quoted them. I was showing that the prophecies against "Mystery Babylon" are the same as Jeremiah's prophecies against apostate Israel in the OT. This is more evidence that supports the idea that Mystery Babylon is symbolic language for apostate Israel.

You might have to go on some more because you are mixing up your time frames. Perhaps this your typology which I do not adhere to. I shall be interested to see what other supporting evidence on either side is presented by others on the forum.

It has nothing to do with "time frames." I quoted Jeremiah to show the kind of language used in prophecies against apostate Israel. The fact that the same language is used against Mystery Babylon supports the understanding that it is really speaking of apostate Israel. This identification is supported again by the fact that the only entity in the entire Bible described as wearing "fine linen, scarlet, and purple" is the Levitical priesthood. And it is confirmed again by the fact that Mystery Babylon fulfilled Christ's prophecy against Jerusalem (Matt 23:35 = Rev 18:22). I could go on, of course.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good point David, if the Revelation was written around 64 A.D. and was about Jerusalem and its temple as claimed, how could the book be distributed to the churches in Asia and as far as the environs of Israel to the parties who would be involved? John states in Rev. 1:9-10 that he was on the Isle of Patmos when he received the Revelation.

Tradition tells us he was banished there and was a prisoner of Rome, so how could his message get off the Island and reach the churches in Asia as far as the environs of Israel in time, that is by 66 A.D. before the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem?

It easily could have been distributed in that time frame. There is no evidence that he would have had trouble getting it off the island. And if there were some trouble, God could have overcome it.

But your comment brings up a very interesting irony. Suppose some futurist finally figures out what Revelation is really all about. What good would that do? With a 2000 year history of confused, contradictory, and false interpretations, the "true one" that is finally figured out won't be believed by hardly anyone but the person who discovered it and so would not serve as a "warning" at all. So what good is it? No one would get "warned" of anything because the "true interpretation" would be lost in an ocean of error. And given the speculative nature of futurist interpretations, how could anyone have any confidence that any one of them is correct?

From what we know the majority of scholars agree that in the summer of 66 Paul returned to Ephesus and left Timothy in charge (1 Tim. 1:3). In the summer of 67 he wrote Timothy from Macedonia. He went to Crete and left Titus there (Titus 1:5). He wrote Titus from Ephesus in the Autumn of A.D. 67, visited Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) and Troas (2 Tim. 4:13) and Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20), and spent some time at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Shortly after that Paul was imprisoned again and wrote his last epistle 2 Timothy in the fall or winter of A.D. 67. He was beheaded in Rome in May or June of A.D. 68.'

History records that it was in late A.D. 66 to spring of A.D. 67 that Rome began the war on the Jews in Palestine and Jerusalem, while Paul as noted, was imprisoned in Rome by the fall of 67 A.D. and would have known of this, as would others of the Lord's disciples when he wrote 2 Timothy. Yet we see no mention in the letter of 2 Timothy about this war nor a prophesied spiritual decay in the churches seen in Revelation. And it is in this letter that Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 3:1 of 'things to come,' i.e. a prophecy. 'This know also, that IN THE LAST DAYS perilous times SHALL COME.' (For men shall be—2 Tim. 3:2,3,4,5,6,7,13; for Paul was—2 Tim. 4:6,7)). Paul is speaking 'prophetically forward' TO THE TIME that this prophecy would come to fulfillment in a future time Paul calls 'the last days.'

Yet according to the preterist position the book of Revelation had already been written and the 'last days' being the OC age (according to preterists) would have meant that the final 42 months of the OC age had "already begun" at that time that Paul wrote! So we see the preterist position contradicting the writings of Paul in 2 Timothy. For if Revelation was written prior to 2 Timothy then Paul was not inspired and was wrong concerning the things he said would occur in a future time.

The meaning of the word prophecy. A prophecy is the message that has been communicated to a prophet which the prophet then communicates to others of things to come If it is already occurring or has occurred, then it is no longer 'a prophecy of things to come.' And Paul (2 Timothy) and John (Revelation) wrote about prophecy, 'things to come' in a future time.

So who is correct, the apostles Paul and John, or the preterists? You decide.

God bless---Twospirits

Ha! I love your last line.

I see your appeal to Paul, and raise it with an appeal to Peter who almost certainly read the book of Revelation. Or if not, then he received a very similar revelation that used exactly the same words (letter for letter) found nowhere else in Scripture. I gave the evidence for this in the thread Did the Apostle Peter read the Book of Revelation? where I list many close parallels which just happen to be centered on the idea of the "tribulation" predicted to happen to the first century believers in the Olivet Discourse.

Your interpretation of "perilous times shall come" is tailored to fit your Futurist paradigm. The times were already "perilous" at the time Paul wrote. There is no reason to think that Paul was talking about the distant future. On the contrary, he was explaining that they could know the end was upon them BECAUSE they knew that perilous times would come in the end time. We see exactly the same thing in John's letter:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

You will never be able to make your case by nit-picking over tenses when the text plainly states that the "last hour" had already arrived at the time that John wrote his letter, especially since the Bible plainly states that the last days had already arrived:

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Likewise, Hebrews explains that Christ was crucified in the "end of the age" -

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the age hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And Paul concurs that the end of the age happened in the first century:

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

We could go on and on with this theme. The entire NT declares that the end times happened in the first century. That's why Revelation said the events would happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." If we reject this unified testimony of the entire New Testament, what's left?

Great chatting,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

It easily could have been distributed in that time frame. There is no evidence that he would have had trouble getting it off the island. And if there were some trouble, God could have overcome it.

History confirms the Island was used as a Roman penal colony for those banished there. Roman laws for their soldiers obeying orders were very strict, some punishable by death. So it is extremely doubtful John could have bribed the Roman guards to get the writings off the Island. Besides what could he bribe them with, the dirty shirt off his back?

You say God could have overcome the troubles, but I thought you didn't believe in the God of the Bible or miracles? So that leaves that idea out.

But your comment brings up a very interesting irony. Suppose some futurist finally figures out what Revelation is really all about. What good would that do? With a 2000 year history of confused, contradictory, and false interpretations, the "true one" that is finally figured out won't be believed by hardly anyone but the person who discovered it and so would not serve as a "warning" at all. So what good is it? No one would get "warned" of anything because the "true interpretation" would be lost in an ocean of error. And given the speculative nature of futurist interpretations, how could anyone have any confidence that any one of them is correct?

God did say they would fool the very elect IF that were possible, so apparently the elect won't be fooled and they would know. The elect would believe and not receive the wrath of God.

I'll get to the rest later, a bit busy now.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

History confirms the Island was used as a Roman penal colony for those banished there. Roman laws for their soldiers obeying orders were very strict, some punishable by death. So it is extremely doubtful John could have bribed the Roman guards to get the writings off the Island. Besides what could he bribe them with, the dirty shirt off his back?

Maybe one of the soldiers was a secret Christian. It would have been simple for him to smuggle it out.

You say God could have overcome the troubles, but I thought you didn't believe in the God of the Bible or miracles? So that leaves that idea out.

It doesn't matter what I believe. I was making the argument for you, so I was justified in using your presupposition of God.

God did say they would fool the very elect IF that were possible, so apparently the elect won't be fooled and they would know. The elect would believe and not receive the wrath of God.

From my point of view, the elect weren't fooled. They understood perfectly what was coming down in 70 AD.

If your theories about eschatology are true, I must conclude that the elect includes maybe two people ... you and your wife.

I'll get to the rest later, a bit busy now.

God bless---Twospirits

Sounds good. I need to close the forum for half an hour anyway to apply a patch to my latest upgrade.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

I see your appeal to Paul, and raise it with an appeal to Peter who almost certainly read the book of Revelation. Or if not, then he received a very similar revelation that used exactly the same words (letter for letter) found nowhere else in Scripture.

But that's just pure speculation, and desperation I might add. Just because a few words here or there are given elsewhere in scripture is no reason to invent a doctrine as you seem to be doing, this is not evidence by any means.

Your interpretation of "perilous times shall come" is tailored to fit your Futurist paradigm. The times were already "perilous" at the time Paul wrote. There is no reason to think that Paul was talking about the distant future. On the contrary, he was explaining that they could know the end was upon them BECAUSE they knew that perilous times would come in the end time.

Richard, read my post carefully. According to your view the prophecy (the Discourse, Daniel, Revelation, and NT prophetic scriptures) had already begun Nov 66 A.D. with the Jewish rebellion, nearly a year to the time Paul (with Paul and other disciples knowing the war had started) wrote 2 Timothy in late fall or winter of 67 A.D., So Paul being inspired and knowing the present circumstances of his time would never have phrased it that way 'in the last days perilous times shall come.' For according to your view they 'were in the last days' for nearly a year at that time. He would have certainly warned them and used the present tense and said 'in these last days perilous time HAVE come.'

But no, it is given in the future tense (2 Tim. 3:1-2), '--in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,---He gives a whole list of sinful things that would occur in time and says in verse13, 'But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.' He finishes by saying they would get even worse then this in time, 'they shall wax worse and worse.' Are you expecting me and others to believe that what Paul describes here in 2 Tim. 3:1-13 all occurred in that short span of time? Sorry, speaking for myself I can't buy that.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

You will never be able to make your case by nit-picking over tenses when the text plainly states that the "last hour" had already arrived at the time that John wrote his letter, especially since the Bible plainly states that the last days had already arrived:

John is speaking of 'professed Christians' in the church 'they went out from us' (1 John 2:19), those that denied the Father AND Jesus Christ (v.22), they are liars and antichrists. This is why John could say 'it is the last hour,' a warning to the saints to beware of being deceived by these antichrists, but in no way implies Christ was coming!

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Likewise, Hebrews explains that Christ was crucified in the "end of the age" -

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the age hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And Paul concurs that the end of the age happened in the first century:
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

From the biblical evidence, I do not think that the Bible, or Jesus, defined his use of 'Age' as the 'age of' this covenant or that covenant as FP suggests. But twice, (1 Cor 2:6, 2:8) Paul associated 'aionos' (age) with 'rulers'-- 'rulers of this age', who, he said in verse 6 are 'coming to nothing'. And Paul's eschatology sees destruction of 'all dominion, authority and power' of these rulers (1 Cor 15:24) at the 'end.'

In Dan 2:45, It tells us that all the materials of the statue were '...broken to pieces at the same time...' what broke it to pieces was the Kingdom of God (2:44). The 'at the same time' is important because it shows no replacement nor a great passing of time, but a sudden overthrow and 'end' of 'all earthly dominion' in the same period as is seen in 1Cor. 15:24; Rev. 11:15,18; Rev. 19:20-21. And this is in agreement with the coming of Christ in 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 2 Thess. 2:1,8.

I believe Paul was on the same wavelength with Jesus, that the Age they meant is the 'age' associated with 'rule' or 'kingdoms,' rather than 'covenants.' The 'rulers of this age' could hardly be narrowed down to just the Jewish and Roman authorities, but all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth, the extent the Kingdom of God is to take over (Dan. 2:35). The 'end' of these rulers and these kingdoms of the world scripture speaks of indicate the 'end of the age.' The 'end' of the Roman Empire or system (and other earthly dominion/systems) is something that did not happen in 70AD 'at the same time' of the fall of the Jewish system.

For the Kingdom of God to reach its final form as the only Kingdom, the numerous kingdoms and their rulers need to be done away with (1 Cor 15:24). The first temporal one (the gospel age we live in now) with many rulers and kingdoms ie. earthly dominion, and the second the everlasting one with one kingdom and one ruler, God, in the New heaven new earth.

The body of Christ is 'One Body,' One Building of Christ (Eph. 2:20-22). The passage expresses that clearly. 'they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.' This is the 'age' the bible and Jesus speaks of in Mt 13:39,40,49; 24:3, 28:20. It is when 'that' end of the age comes, that all rule, authority and dominion ends. Not the Mosaic sacrificial system that ended in 70 A.D.

We could go on and on with this theme. The entire NT declares that the end times happened in the first century. That's why Revelation said the events would happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." If we reject this unified testimony of the entire New Testament, what's left?

We've discussed this before, here http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1733 but for the sake of the readers here's a comment on it.

In Rev. 1:1 we read, 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ--.'It is His Revelation given to Him by the Father. He has all authority to do as he pleases with it. Here it is to 'show unto his servants things which must in speed (en tachei) come to pass.' Christ sent and signified it 'by sending his angel unto his servant John.' In Rev. 1:11 Christ authorizes and commands John 'What thou seest write in a 'book' and send it unto the churches--.' This is seen in verse 4 where John sends his greetings to the churches with the benediction given in verse 3.

'Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the 'words' of this prophecy,--.' This benediction John used came from the angel telling John in Rev. 22:10 'And he saith unto me, seal not the 'words' of the prophecy of this 'book': for the time (kairos; to mean appointed time) is at hand.' John understanding what the angel meant used the angel's very words in his benediction to the churches in Rev. 1:3. That the appointed time was at hand as he understood Christ and the angel to reveal, to show, these 'words' of the prophetic 'book' to the churches. The very title of the book 'Revelation' is to mean 'to reveal.'

The 'context' of verse 1 speaks about the 'suddenness or speed' (en tachei) in which the fulfillment of the prophecy would come in its time. My argument is that verse 3 is not a 'time reference passage.' John was commanded by Christ in 1:11 to write in a book and send it to the churches Jesus indicated, this is confirmed by the angel in Rev. 22:10 to not seal the 'words,' the writings of the prophecy given John 'for the appointed time (Kairos) was at hand.' The angel reminds and commands John of what Jesus commanded John to do, that is send these writings to the churches. Thus John says in verse 3 writes Happy is he that reads the words of this prophecy and keep to heart the things written therein 'for the (appointed) time is at hand.' This is the 'context' of verse 3. Then John gives his greetings to the churches in verse 4.

God bless---Twospirits

[TheForgiven]

Hey guys...just had a new thought.

Playing Futurist here, I'm going to make a suggestion as Futurist's are permitted to make. And so, here it goes.

Mitt Romney will win this next election and become the next President of the United States. He's a Mormon who will supply financial aid to aid in the rebuilding of the temple. He will establish 7 years of promised peace to Israel, and send the US into all of Arabia and wipe them out. The US will gather its allies, and starting from the Euphrates River, an onslaught of the attacks against Arabia, and all Arabs, will suddenly come upon Israel. But first, Mitt Romney will declare himself to be the Messiah. How will he pay for it? He'll cut Federal jobs, pensions, and benefits in order to push his true agenda; destroy Israel.

Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ.



Joe