An Open and Shut Case, Revelation 22 & Daniel 12

[asterisktom]

The following post was first on the Jerusalem thread in the Political forum. Seeing that it went unanswered (and that the subject matter fits better here) I thought it best to repeat it in this forum. Lest somehow this is considered a "zombie" thread I am also adding to this. I really do want answers to this.

The "soon", "the time is at hand", and "shortly" references in Revelation are often dismissed by futurists as "soon in God's time", that is "a day is as a thousand years". But this is to miss the point both of the Peter verse and the soon passages in Revelation.

The point in Peter is that God is faithful in all His promises, whether is scheduled to happen the next day or in a thousand years. The point is not that God uses a special meaning for "soon".

But another interesting avenue to underscore that the events in Revelation truly were to happen soon after the book was written is to compare Daniel 12:9, 13 with Rev. 22:10.

Dan. 12:9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

v. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

Rev. 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

Do you see the contrast? In Daniel the time is far off. So the words are shut and sealed.

But in Revelation the time is short. So the words are not sealed up. They require immediate attention.

Now, according to the futurist interpretation, both Daniel and Revelation speak of the so-called future endtimes. How is this possible, seeing one is spoken of as "far off" and the other "near"?

Probably 19 out of 20 Bible students, faced with this puzzler - if they even understand why it is a great incongruity - will go first to their commentary or favorite author, rather than search the Word.

It is hard to go against tradition, the majority, and (in most of our experiences) the factory setting we were given when we first went to church, but it behooves us always to see if our beliefs square with Scripture. If, in the time of Christ on Earth, there were traditions that made "the Word of God of no effect" is it a stretch that the same canker would not be at work today?

 

[agedman]

How long was it from the first promise of the messiah until the Christ came?

How long from the time of Daniel being told to shut up and the Revelation?

You said it yourself by stating:

"The point in Peter is that God is faithful in all His promises, whether is scheduled to happen the next day or in a thousand years. The point is not that God uses a special meaning for "soon"."
​

Do you not hold that "soon" must be "soon?"
That God does in fact use "a special meaning for 'soon'?"

For that seems to more often be the reason for holding to prophecy having to be fulfilled in a certain time frame.

Is God not shown faithful concerning all His promises coming true exactly in the way stated, even to the inner unexpressed at the time, thoughts of Christ at the crucifixion?

How then is God not to be held to the same standard?

As you stated "soon" to humankind cannot mean the next day.

It may mean 6000 years latter.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight since I am not a Futurist, and they will doubtless answer for themselves. IMO, the prophecies of Revelation certainly had application for the first readers of the book, back in around 95 AD, and have it also for us today. However:

Dan. 12:9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

v. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

Rev. 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

I see no evidence that Daniel either 'stood in his allotted place' or 'rose to his inheritance' (NKJV) in AD 70. I expect him to do so 'at the end of the days' or at the last day when Christ returns.

 

[asterisktom]

I don't have a dog in this particular fight since I am not a Futurist, and they will doubtless answer for themselves. IMO, the prophecies of Revelation certainly had application for the first readers of the book, back in around 95 AD, and have it also for us today. However:
I see no evidence that Daniel either 'stood in his allotted place' or 'rose to his inheritance' (NKJV) in AD 70. I expect him to do so 'at the end of the days' or at the last day when Christ returns.

Perhaps your dog is in this after all, at least from what I read in your response. IMO when one speaks of "the last day when Christ returns" he is a futurist though perhaps not a dispensationalist.

For the record I do believe Daniel rose to his inheritance at the Parousia, AD70.

 

[asterisktom]

Perhaps your dog is in this after all, at least from what I read in your response. IMO when one speaks of "the last day when Christ returns" he is a futurist though perhaps not a dispensationalist.

For the record I do believe Daniel rose to his inheritance at the Parousia, AD70.

I appreciate the response.

 

[agedman]

Parousia, AD70.

So you are stating that Christ returned in full bodily form as the Scriptures describe in the last chapters of the Revelation with all the saints, in 70AD.

I honestly thought your view of the parousia was soundly refuted in another thread.

You do know that the whole preterist scheme was developed by a Jesuit priest (as a lie) to refute the reformers? That it has since conception been propagated and pushed by the RCC?

Discernment of Wisdom would surely express itself in rejection of such a lie.

 

[David Kent]

Thanks Bro Tom.

I agree that the futurist teaching is absolutely wrong.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

My understanding is that The things thou has seen are the opening vision, the things which are refer to the seven churches, and the things which all be hereafter, the account of the church from that time till Christ comes again and the judgement. Although some say that the things which shall be hereafter also applies to the 7 Churches, making it a dual prophecy. I would understand that.

 

[David Kent]

You do know that the whole preterist scheme was developed by a Jesuit priest (as a lie) to refute the reformers? That it has since conception been propagated and pushed by the RCC?

Discernment of Wisdom would surely express itself in rejection of such a lie.

If you had any discernment you would see that futurism came from the same source.

 

[agedman]

If you had any discernment you would see that futurism came from the same source.

Actually, David, futurism was held by the ECF. It did not come from the Jesuit priest who plotted to deceive, was supported in his efforts by the papists, and the deceit continues to this day propagated by those who lie for power, gain, and social standing.

 

[agedman]

Philip died in about 80 AD. Tomb of St. Philip the Apostle Discovered in Turkey

John died in about 98 AD. Tombs of the Apostles

The preterist "Parousia," happened in 70 AD and left Philip and John behind.

That makes wonderful sense.

 

[David Kent]

Actually, David, futurism was held by the ECF. It did not come from the Jesuit priest who plotted to deceive, was supported in his efforts by the papists, and the deceit continues to this day propagated by those who lie for power, gain, and social standing.

No they didn't hold to anything like futurism. The things were future to them like the fall of the Roman Empire and the Emperor, which they said were the let and hindrance of " Thess 2, after which they said Rome would split into 10 kingdoms, then the Antichrist would come, All of which had happened.

It was future to them but history to us, but you cannot get away from the fact that it was taught by the Jesuits from the 16th century to counter the reformation (and pre-reformation) teaching that the pope is antichrist, This remained a Catholic teaching till it was taught by Edward Irving in 1825. Irving held annual prophetic conferences at Albury in London where these ideas were adopted. One of those attending was Lady Powerscourt, who then ran similar prophetic conferences in Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those attending were Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby which is how the teaching became a Plymouth Brethren doctrine. This is strange that Calisists like Darby and Irving should adopt a Jesuit teaching. This was because he came across a book by a Jesuit, Lacunza, The coming of the Christ in Power and Majesty, Irving translated this book from Spanish, and was taken buy it, presumably because it was written under a false name, Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, also to confuse protestants, it was put on their banned list of books. A great deception/

Dispensational Futurism was taught mainly by the Plymouth Brethren in England until it went to America, at the turn of the 20th century, Then it came back to England and caught on here, I believe, but I have not heard it preached by any church since I left the Brethren, but some of our members who were ex Brethren believed it. An one preach that came to our church a few years ago preached it, And I have a friend who was a pentecostal who believes it , but he was saved in the Brethren. What other churches in our town believe, I don't know, as we are the only church that is not in Churches Together. I don't know of one church that has Pretribulation Rapture in their statement of faith. The first time I came across that was when we went to Luxembourg, and that was an American Church, SB I believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

Philip died in about 80 AD. Tomb of St. Philip the Apostle Discovered in Turkey

John died in about 98 AD. Tombs of the Apostles

The preterist "Parousia," happened in 70 AD and left Philip and John behind.

That makes wonderful sense.

John was still waiting for the second coming when he wrote his epistles, so the Apostle jesus loved got left behind?

 

[John of Japan]

You know what's funny, folks? The allegorical interpreter goes through all of the book of Revelation interpreting "spiritually," and then all of a sudden he comes to what he thinks is a "time statement," and he says, "Oh goody, let's interpret this literally and confound the rotten literalist." After that one verse he goes right back to ignoring the literal meaning.

Meanwhile, we premillennialists interpret the whole book of Revelation as what it is, an apocalyptic document with literal meaning stated through apocalyptic rhetoric, and we also come to the time statements. What do we do then? We interpret them with the grammatical-historical method, and then listen to the preterist scream, "No fair! You mustn't depend on the original languages."

PS For the record, the time statements in Rev. don't bother me at all.

 

[John of Japan]

If you had any discernment you would see that futurism came from the same source.

Why is your first post on this thread a personal insult?

 

[John of Japan]

How long was it from the first promise of the messiah until the Christ came?

How long from the time of Daniel being told to shut up and the Revelation?

You said it yourself by stating:

"The point in Peter is that God is faithful in all His promises, whether is scheduled to happen the next day or in a thousand years. The point is not that God uses a special meaning for "soon"."
​

Do you not hold that "soon" must be "soon?"
That God does in fact use "a special meaning for 'soon'?"

For that seems to more often be the reason for holding to prophecy having to be fulfilled in a certain time frame.

Is God not shown faithful concerning all His promises coming true exactly in the way stated, even to the inner unexpressed at the time, thoughts of Christ at the crucifixion?

How then is God not to be held to the same standard?

As you stated "soon" to humankind cannot mean the next day.

It may mean 6000 years latter.

Interestingly enough, the word "soon" does not appear in the book of Rev. in the KJV with the meaning of a time statement about future events, as asterisktom thinks. It occurs only twice, in "as soon as," meaning "when."

 

[David Kent]

Why is your first post on this thread a personal insult?

WRONG. That was my second post, and I was just replying truthfully in the same manner to the post I was answering.

 

[David Kent]

You know what's funny, folks? The allegorical interpreter goes through all of the book of Revelation interpreting "spiritually," and then all of a sudden he comes to what he thinks is a "time statement," and he says, "Oh goody, let's interpret this literally and confound the rotten literalist." After that one verse he goes right back to ignoring the literal meaning.

Meanwhile, we premillennialists interpret the whole book of Revelation as what it is, an apocalyptic document with literal meaning stated through apocalyptic rhetoric, and we also come to the time statements. What do we do then? We interpret them with the grammatical-historical method, and then listen to the preterist scream, "No fair! You mustn't depend on the original languages."

PS For the record, the time statements in Rev. don't bother me at all.

Don't be ridiculous.

No one I have seen takes an allegorical stance. There may be some but I have not noticed. Symbolic is not allegorical. It takes symbols given throughout scripture a number of which are interpreted in the scripture concerned and apply them to the same symbols in other parts of scripture. No guesswork, just study.

Allegorical is another thing altogether, Same as spiritual. That is it has no prphetical meaning, just applies to spiritual truths.

If you take the reading of revelation literally, then you are ignoring what is said in the opening verse, that it was Signified, that means it is told by signs or figures, to use another word used in scripture, or symbols as we say today. All mean the same and are consistent with scripture. Remember that Jesus' parables were spoken in figure.

 

[David Kent]

Daniel 12:13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

If Daniel stood in his place at the end of days then how are we still here today? The saints will be raised on the LAST DAY. That is the day I am waiting for and will meet Daniel then.

 

[Rebel1]

No they didn't hold to anything like futurism. The things were future to them like the fall of the Roman Empire and the Emperor, which they said were the let and hindrance of " Thess 2, after which they said Rome would split into 10 kingdoms, then the Antichrist would come, All of which had happened.

It was future to them but history to us, but you cannot get away from the fact that it was taught by the Jesuits from the 16th century to counter the reformation (and pre-reformation) teaching that the pope is antichrist, This remained a Catholic teaching till it was taught by Edward Irving in 1825. Irving held annual prophetic conferences at Albury in London where these ideas were adopted. One of those attending was Lady Powerscourt, who then ran similar prophetic conferences in Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those attending were Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby which is how the teaching became a Plymouth Brethren doctrine. This is strange that Calisists like Darby and Irving should adopt a Jesuit teaching. This was because he came across a book by a Jesuit, Lacunza, The coming of the Christ in Power and Majesty, Irving translated this book from Spanish, and was taken buy it, presumably because it was written under a false name, Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, also to confuse protestants, it was put on their banned list of books. A great deception/

Dispensational Futurism was taught mainly by the Plymouth Brethren in England until it went to America, at the turn of the 20th century, Then it came back to England and caught on here, I believe, but I have not heard it preached by any church since I left the Brethren, but some of our members who were ex Brethren believed it. An one preach that came to our church a few years ago preached it, And I have a friend who was a pentecostal who believes it , but he was saved in the Brethren. What other churches in our town believe, I don't know, as we are the only church that is not in Churches Together. I don't know of one church that has Pretribulation Rapture in their statement of faith. The first time I came across that was when we went to Luxembourg, and that was an American Church, SB I believe.

I don't have a firm view of eschatology. But I have trouble with futurism and preterism as both were invented by Jesuits, as I have previously pointed out. So, I agree with your post, as I think it is historically accurate.

 

[David Kent]

I don't have a firm view of eschatology. But I have trouble with futurism and preterism as both were invented by Jesuits, as I have previously pointed out. So, I agree with your post, as I think it is historically accurate.

Thanks