Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

That is true, but that doesn't prevent him from being a type of the last days Anti-Christ. Greece is part of anti-God man in Daniel 2. Types of the anti-christ are not limited by racial origin in scripture, just as types of the end of the world are diverse in ethnic origin (destruction of Pharoah (Egypt) Destruction of Nineveh (Assyria) destruction of Babylon, etc.

The time of the rise of the ten kingdoms was not merely yet future from John's day but precisely limited into a yet future final "hour" which included the Second Coming of Christ as it was Christ's return that will destroy these kingdoms. Just as in Daniel 2 where the coming of Christ strikes the image in the ten toes. Hence, this is futuristic even from our time.

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Notice the ten horns are "kings" individual monarchs who have not "kingdom" but will "receive" it "with the beast" in a period called "one hour." Hence, the "beast" is not a kingdom but is the coming future anti-christ who makes war with the "King of kings" as this is the title that describes what he accomplishes at the very end of this age in putting down the kings and kingdoms of this world at his second advent.

 

That is simply not true! Quote Luke 21 a little more fuller:

20 ¶ And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

The above has indeed been fulfilled, at least as a near prophetic prediction with the destruction of A.D. 70 however, the remaining part of the text demands this near fulfillment is not its final fulfillment as verse 24 picks up from that point in time and speaks of period of time that follows called "the times of the Gentiles" or the time of Gentile domination as the Jewish nation ceased to be a nation with verses 20-24a as they are "led away INTO ALL NATIONS." Hence, this is a clear contrast between Israel as an ethnic nation and "nations" or Gentiles. The Gentile dominion continues until the Second coming of Christ when he puts down ALL NATIONS and Kingdoms.


And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Notice, that these terrestrial and celestial signs occur AFTER A.D. 70 which signal that the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" at the end of this age as the very next verse places these things are signs of what is coming "ON THE EARTH" NOT ON JERUSALEM!!!! Not only so but these same signs signal the point in time when the Second Advent arrives "THEN shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud" - Note this is after AD 70 destruction - after the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled after the celestrial signs occur ON THE EARTH. This destroys Preterism completely! How? Because it places this coming of Christ in the clouds not only AFTER 70 A.D. but AFTER that designated period of time "the times of the gentiles" which end is signaled by the terrestrial and celestrial signs which immediately precede His coming in the clouds. Your theory would have Christ coming in judgement in A.D. 70 wheras Christ has the 70 A.D. judgement already past, the times of the Gentiles which follows the Jews being scattered into all nations due to the 70 A.D. and the celestrial and terrestrial sings which signals the Gentile domination ended ALL OF WHICH precede this coming of Christ.

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

"when these things begin to come to pass" is referring to those things that are signs which usher in the Second Advent or verses 25-26 or the terrestrial and celestrial extra ordinary events. So the order is:

1. Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
2. Scattering of Jews into all nations,
3. thus time of the Gentile dominion extending until
4. Terrestrial and celestrial signs signling the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled
5. The Second Advent of Christ.

This order repudiates the Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

 

The nail in the heart of Preterism are these scriptures:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

If you are a Preterist ask the following questions:

1. Were these Jews "led away captive into all nations" before or after the A.D. 70 destruction?

2. Is Jerusalem trodden down before or after the A.D. 70 destruction?

3. "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" is this explanatory of a pre-A.D. 70 or a Post-A.D.70 condition? - ANSWER: It explains how long this trodding down will continue AFTER A.D. 70

4. Does Jesus use the future tense "shall" to introduce verse 25 or a present past tense verb? Answer: future tense demanding the events of verse 25 are future from the "times of the Gentiles" and signal that time is fulfilled.

5. Note the word "then" in verse 27 as that correlating the terrestrial and celestrial signs as contemporary in time with the Second Advent? Answer: Yes

The Preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is completely repudiated by these texts.

 

Not at all. Looking at numbers 3 and 4, for starters, the times of the Gentiles is nothing more than the time that the Roman army possessing Jerusalem and trespassing into the Temple area.

The signs are the same type of signs that were mentioned many times in the OT.

All of this happened at the time of the Parousia.

 

That is absurd! Jesus does not say "time" but "times" and the times of the Gentiles dominance over the Jews and Jerusalem did not cease in A.D. 70 but continued until 1948. Note the contrast between Jews and Gentiles. The Jews went into servititude under whom? Answer: the Gentiles and the Gentile dominion did not cease in A.D. 70 but had its beginning in A.D. 70 with regard to the trodden down of Jersusalem and subjugation of Jews to Gentile dominion. Your interpretation is complete nonsense both contextually and historically as you must ignore the natural reading of the text and force your view on it. The trodding down of Jerusalem occurred in A.D. 70 but it REMAINS in that condition under Gentile dominance until 1948.

Only by a complete and wholly perverted interpretation of this text that ignores all chronological and tense factors.

These signs in the Old Testament are predictive of the end of the world event - taking near events at hand as teaching lessons for end time events.

Take note these signs are not said to come upon Israel or Jerusalem but upon the "earth" and it is upon men in general.

 

Good! As that is flawed system of interpretation!

The question is do the words "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" describe A.D. 70 or the period following that explain the length of time the jews remain under Gentile dominance after A.D.70.

Note the word "then" in verse 27 which pinpoints the precise timing of those things in verse 26 and his coming in verse 27. Those things in verse 26 follow an extended period of time characterized by Gentile dominion over Jerusalem and Israel which BEGAN in A.D. 70 and has extended to 1948 which is the first time in history since A.D. 70 Israel returned from its unversal scattering and reclaimed Jerusalem. Verse 27 refers to the generation that actually sees those celestrial and terrestrial signs that usher in the Second Coming.

Notice the terrestrial signs are not Jewish or Gentile but universal in scope as they don't come upon Jerusalem but "on the earth."

 

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Look at this text carefully! It is not about wrath upon Jerusalem or the Jews but "upon the earth" and "distress of NATIONS". It does not say "jews hearts" but "men's hearts failing them for fear" and it does not say things coming upon Jerusalem and Israel but "coming ON THE EARTH." Your view must be FORCED upon a text it does not fit. In context this is the retribution of God upon NATIONS (Gentiles) that terminates their dominion and persecution of Israel.

 

Straining at a gnat. "Time, times, and half a time" refer to 42 months. What is the problem? You are reading your futurist assumptions into the text. Nowhere is a long period of centuries implied.

Once again. You are reading into the text more than is there. And you are not seeing all that is in the text. There are three things that happen here:

"And they shall [1] fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be [2]led away captive into all nations: and [3]Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

If you read Josephus (and I hope you have) you would have no problem seeing all three of these points fulfilled. Don't get hung up on that phrase "all nations". It is not a global captivity, but the Jews were paraded through cities throughout the οἰκουμένη (Oikoumene - the Roman Empire):Caesarea, Antioch, Cyrene, Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome. Almost all were either killed or reduced to slavery.

The treading down is of the city of Jerusalem, not of the Jewish people. And that ended when the city was demolished and the Roman legions left.

Blustering aside, biblical context and early history both combine to prove my point.

Oh please. You are going overboard.

BTW, by saying all of that you are saying that several commentators over the centuries also "wholly perverted" the text. My view is not peculiar to my preterism.

There are serious flaws in your scenario. Here are just two that come to mind:

1. It totally ignores the dozens of time-limiting passages in Scripture that show that all these things would happen in the 1st century generation of Christ's audience.

2. It assumes that there can even be a temple in the future that matters one whit in the eyes of God. For something to be abominated in the eyes of God - and that is exactly what we are talking about - it has to first be valid and valuable. But we know from Scripture that Christ deprecated the last valid Temple on Earth. His sacrifice put an end to all that.

Humans can do things, commit sins that are abominations. That is because we were created in the image of God. When Christians, especially commit gross sins they may be called abominations, because we are the temple of God.

But no stone temple can ever again be abominated. The last one that was was in AD 70.

I don't doubt that some group might actually build a temple. But it will have zero relevance to Biblical theology.

 

There is no content substance in this post that calls for a response. It is just empty assertions while you ignore the clear contextual factors. Again, take note of the universal factors in verses 25-26 which destroys your limited Jersualem A.D. 70 view.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

This is not about Jews and Jerusalem but about what is coming "UPON THE EARTH....on the earth" and "NATIONS.

This is not about Jews but "men's hearts failing them."

This is a UNIVERSAL event that all mankind sees not merely a restricted geographical event in Jerusalem or Palestine.

You are forced to ignore the particulars of the context and read into the text your theory based upon outside texts which again are forced upon those texts.

 

"Look at the text carefully". I did . Did you? BTW, I did not say that only Jews' hearts would fail them.

It is you that are forcing a global context on this passage.I saw the word "ge" - "land" and "οἰκουμένη" - the Roman Empire.


25“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth [ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς - on the land] distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world [οἰκουμένη - the Roman Empire]. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

Notice the two different words underlined. The first is land, mainly but not exclusively referring to the land of Israel. Rather it is a contrast to those other places "sun, moon, and stars". But many other times when ge is used it refers to the land of Israel. (This is something all too often overlooked among futurists.)

In verse 26 the word translated "world" is actually only the Roman Empire (οἰκουμένη), the known world at the time. The people fainting for fear were not just the Jews. It was throughout the Empire. This is exactly what happened. AD 69 was the year of the Four Emperors in Rome. There were rebellions in Hispania, Thrace, Britain, Dacia, and other places. And, of course,in Judea.

 

Biblicist wrote:
"There is no content substance in this post that calls for a response."

I am under no illusion that you will take seriously anything that I write. Like J of J you seem pretty much welded into your position. I am writing all of what I write because I know there are others who read and can be true Bereans, considering what I have taken the time to present.

 

Never said you did. However, this comment is just sidestepping your problem. It is the Jews who were attacked in AD. 69-70 not "nations" not "men" in general but this event is universal. Your response is simply nonsense and avoiding the evidence placed before you.

Again, you are just further perverting the text and digger your hole deeper. "earth" is placed in the company of "sun and moon and stars" and "nations" which hardly supports your few square miles of dirt in Palestine. Again, you are obvously forcing the text into your mold when it does not fit.

Again more perversion of the text. "earth" is not placed in contrast to"sun and moon and stars" as you force upon it. He is talking about the locations where "signs" will be observed. These terms characterize the universal nature of the signs seen by all mankind.

Says who? You? The context does not support that as it is the "nations" who are in distress "on the earth" and your restriction of "earth" to "land" meaning Palestine makes absolute nonsense which anyone can see. Your just digging your hole deeper. The bottom line you have to change every single word that naturally taken would demand universality rather than a few square miles of dirt. To claim all the nations of the known world were in "distress" over this battle is historically silly without a shred of evidence. The nature of this "distress" is that men's hearts were failing them (heartattacks) and thus your logic would have us to gullibly believe all the nations within the Roman Empire were having heart attacks over this battle WHICH NONE COULD KNOW ABOUT IN THE OUTER REACHES OF THIS EMPIRE AS THEY HAD NO TV, NO INTERNET AND IN NO WAY COULD IT HAVE THEM IN HEART ATTACK MODE. Your intepretation is simply outrageously false.

Now, you are limiting it to Jew scattered in the dispersion but that is not what the text describes. It says "men" not "Jews" or the Jewish dispersion reacting to this. It says "nations" not Jews.

The only possible way to embrace your view is simply to shelve your mind and become totally gullible and then defend it by explaining away the natural meaning of the words and the natural flow of the text.

 

there is nothing to take seriously as it is just an obvious abuse of scripture. When the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense and the plain sense does not support your interpretation as you have to explain away the plain sense.

 

You are clearly not reading what I have written and are instead responding to what you think I believe. You wasted all those allcaps. I never said that the battle in Jerusalem is what caused all the heart attacks. They were various things throughout the Empire. The violent turmoil in Rome causing bloody upheavals of short-lived leaders, before that violent insurrections in Britain (from Boudica). Even after her death there was still such turmoil that Nero was only barely persuaded not to give up Britannia entirely. Like I said, there were other conflagrations in many places in the Empire.

BTW,once again, this interpretation is one given by several commentators throughout the centuries. It is not just a preterist interpretation.

Once again. you are arguing against something I am not saying. I am not limiting it to the Jews.

You read too quickly - misunderstanding/ not caring what I wrote, pound the allcaps, throw in some insults. Is this all you have?

This is not how grown men should discuss, least of all someone who calls himself Biblicist.

 

This is David L. Cooper's supposed nugget, the Golden Rule of Interpretation. It harkens back all the way, I think,to the 1960's. I prefer the hermeneutical comment of Joel Miller:

“A better hermeneutic than ‘The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation’ is ‘Scripture Interprets Scripture Better than do Newspapers.’”

B, you are so enmeshed in your Darbyan framework that it will be very hard for you to understand other eschatologies or theologies. I hope I am wrong about this.

 

Sorry, but I am not a Pre-tribber.

 

My apologies then. But your methodology is quite similar.