A study of the "Revelation" - date & significance, then & now

[Covenanter]

I have only time for quick posts this week, since we are having a huge conference at our church and college, then "College Day" tomorrow.

I will say this. My answer would be predicated on the fact that Revelation is in the genre of apocalyptic literature. I did mention this fact, but you did not interact with it. Your posts as far as I've seen do not even define apocalyptic.

I am seeking to understand Scripture in a straightforward way. I don't really understand your post.

I trust your college day & conference will be blessed. They are your priority.

 

[John of Japan]

John has visions of the glorified Christ, but the glorious coming of the Lord in judgment, before the final coming for resurrection & judgment, will be veiled by clouds.

Exo. 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. ​

This is not a valid point until you prove that the clouds connected with Christ's second coming are the same as the Shekinah. The Scripture in Rev. 1:7 is not "in clouds" or "veiled by clouds" as in the Shekinah, but meta with the genitive, meaning clearly "with," not "in" (which would be the preposition en). Abbot-Smith has "among, amid." So He will come accompanied by clouds.

You have Jesus hiding in a cloud. Jesus hides from no one.

As for John seeing a vision of Christ, the passage does not call it a vision, though the word for vision is used in Rev. 9. No, John was "in the spirit," walking spiritually, and actually saw the risen Christ. Any other interpretation is allegorical, reading the interpreter's prejudices into the text.

 

[John of Japan]

I am seeking to understand Scripture in a straightforward way. I don't really understand your post.

Please learn what apocalyptic literature is, then get back to me.

I trust your college day & conference will be blessed. They are your priority.

Thank you. I'm taking a break right now so I don't disturb the services with my bad cough.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe the partial preterist position is the only line that gets to grips with the text as specific prophecy. In my view PPism allows an Gospel age amil application/interpretation of Revelation as it makes the whole book relevant to the church throughout the Gospel age.

How does it do that? You haven't explained. If all the prophesies were fulfilled in AD 70, what does Revelation have to say to me?

However that interpretation however well stated, as by Martin, isn't really an interpretation of the text, but is a general application.

Why do you say that? How is what I wrote not an interpretation of the text?

We can, of course, apply it to ourselves in our own situation, as Christians have down the ages.

But if we adopt a Preterist approach, then we can't apply it to ourselves because it's all already happened.

But I haven't seen a valid futurist interpretation, as it removes the book from its immediate readers, & from the church, & thus removes the promised blessings - 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time isat hand.

Does that blessing apply only to those who read the book in the two or three years between its writing and AD 70? Is there really no blessing for anybody else all down the ages? The fact of the matter is, of course, that the time was at hand when the book was written, and it is at hand now. Satan is still persecuting the woman and her offspring, the beast from the sea is still making war with the saints and overcoming them, and the beast from the earth is still deceiving those who dwell on the earth, and more and more people in many countries (and increasingly in Britain) are finding that they can't buy and sell or earn their living unless they are prepared to receive the mark of the beast in one way or another.. So it will be until our Lord returns, visibly, in glory.

I'm afraid I see no merit in Preterism. Not to mention that it still seems to be refuted by Acts 1:11.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The issue is not what the Jews did in their misguided post AD 70 worship. The issue is God's perspective. The Bible is written from that perspective. Christ's warning on the end of the age, and all the other passages of the passing of that age had to do with God-appointed worship. Sure, there was continued Jewish religious activity. But it had no prophetical significance.

But this didn't happen in AD 70, it happened at the cross. Jewish sacrificial worship became obsolete at that point (cf. Hebrews 8:13) and had no prophetic significance.

Somebody did tell the Jews. Not the exact date, but the signs accompanying the event. It is all right there in Matthew 24. All of the other things you mentioned are beyond he scope of the prophecy. A careful reading of Matthew 24 constrains us to see all of this in a 1st century setting. For instance, just to mention one point, v. 21 speaks of not having to flee on the Sabbath. We know that Sabbath observance was bound up with he Law. But without the Temple - not the synagogue - there cannot be total Law observance. So observing the Sabbath likewise is no longer the issue - in God's eyes. He who observes the law is required to observe all of it, James 2:10, Gal. 5:3. "All of it" requires a Temple and Levitical priesthood.

Sabbath observance predates the law (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16:23ff). But Temple observance and Jewish ritual was finished long before AD 70. 'Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.' (Romans 10:4). 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law' (Galatians 3:13). The sacrificial law and the associated ritual were done away with in Christ. That is the whole point of the book of Hebrews.

 

[kyredneck]

You have Jesus hiding in a cloud. Jesus hides from no one.

Wow.

15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Lu 24

14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jn 20

4 But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jn 21

 

[HankD]

Please list 2 or 3 second coming OC prophesies so I can comment.

Here is one:
Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

When did the Mount of Olives split in such a manner?

HankD

 

[percho]

So please help clear up the confusion.

Where is the location of this temple?

1) In heaven ?

Why then mention "in His temple" in the same clause as "day and night"?

2) On earth?

If on earth , where?

Thanks
HankD

Is his temple his body? His bride, the New Jerusalem?

BTW I'm just asking for I haven't given it much thought and less prayerful thought.

 

[asterisktom]

But this didn't happen in AD 70, it happened at the cross. Jewish sacrificial worship became obsolete at that point (cf. Hebrews 8:13) and had no prophetic significance.
Sabbath observance predates the law (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16:23ff). But Temple observance and Jewish ritual was finished long before AD 70. 'Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.' (Romans 10:4). 'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law' (Galatians 3:13). The sacrificial law and the associated ritual were done away with in Christ. That is the whole point of the book of Hebrews.

First of all, I am speaking of the end of the age. That was not at the cross. I think you agree with me that there was an overlap between the time of the cross until the destruction of the Temple. Jewish worship did not go overnight from righteous and legitimate to blasphemous. God allowed a certain period for the message of the new age to be proclaimed and accepted.

The Hebrews passage you quote points to this truth.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13

Note the phrases: "...is becoming obsolete..." and " ... is ready to to vanish away."

A good cross-reference here is 2 Cor. 3:11, where Paul refers to the old age as the "ministry of death":

"For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious."

Paul himself - to say nothing of countless other sincere followers - observed some ceremonies according to the Law in this 40 year interim period. It had not yet come to the point of Isaiah 66:3:

"“He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol."

Yes, the beginning of the end was at the cross. But it took time for the Message to radiate outward throughout the Diaspora.

 

[asterisktom]

Here is one:
Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

When did the Mount of Olives split in such a manner?

HankD

When did the mountains melt like wax (Psalm 97:5; Micah 1:3)? There are other passages that could be cited that have similar phrases. For that matter if we want Zech. 14:1 to be literal do we also treat the Angel of Revelation 10:1 the same way, the one with 0ne pillar-leg on the sea, the other on the land?

No, these are all metaphorical. It is apocalyptical language.

 

[asterisktom]

You do know that view would be regarded by the Historical Church as being Major Heresy. correct?

Not really concerned about that. The historical church has had a spotty record for some things: Veneration of idols, celibacy of the priesthood - not to mention the whole blasphemous idea of human priesthood - , primacy of the Pope, etc. The Bible is my guide for orthodoxy and practice.

 

[asterisktom]

I will say that, unlike most of the preterists on the BB, you've been a gentleman in our discussions, as much as we disagree.

Thank you for this, John. It is an appreciated reminder for me to always extend the same courtesy I would want from others.

 

[HankD]

No, these are all metaphorical. It is apocalyptical language.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Was Jesus born of a virgin in the strict literal sense of the word?
How do you know one way or the other?

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Was Jesus born of a virgin in the strict literal sense of the word?
How do you know one way or the other?

HankD

The Lord always fulfilled His prophcies in a literal physical fashion, as you showed here!
Mary was not a "spiritual Virgin"

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really concerned about that. The historical church has had a spotty record for some things: Veneration of idols, celibacy of the priesthood - not to mention the whole blasphemous idea of human priesthood - , primacy of the Pope, etc. The Bible is my guide for orthodoxy and practice.

The historical Church would be the real Christians throughout history, and all would see full pretierism as heresy!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Wow.

15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Lu 24

14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jn 20

4 But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jn 21

On each occasion, Jesus revealed Himself very shortly.
When did He reveal Himself to the people in AD 70?

 

[Yeshua1]

On each occasion, Jesus revealed Himself very shortly.
When did He reveal Himself to the people in AD 70?

Jesus will resurrect all of His own at the Second Coming, so when did that event happen?

 

[John of Japan]

Not really concerned about that. The historical church has had a spotty record for some things: Veneration of idols, celibacy of the priesthood - not to mention the whole blasphemous idea of human priesthood - , primacy of the Pope, etc. The Bible is my guide for orthodoxy and practice.

Those things were all way later in history. Church historians put the beginning of the Catholic religion with Gregory the Great in the 6th century. There were no preterists in the early church, not until Jesuit Luis de Alcasar in the counter reformation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those things were alll way later in history. Church historians put the beginning of the Catholic religion with Gregory the Great in the 6th century. There were no preterists in the early church, not until Jesuit Luis de Alcasar in the counter reformation.

Full pretierism has never been accepted by the Christian church, as it has been held as heresy, as it denies the Second Coming as still future!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First of all, I am speaking of the end of the age. That was not at the cross.

I understand this, but find it so bizarre that I hardly know how to address it. Matthew 28:20. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." So which is it? Is Jesus with us always, or was He only with Christians until AD 70?

I think you agree with me that there was an overlap between the time of the cross until the destruction of the Temple. Jewish worship did not go overnight from righteous and legitimate to blasphemous. God allowed a certain period for the message of the new age to be proclaimed and accepted.

The Hebrews passage you quote points to this truth.

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13

Note the phrases: "...is becoming obsolete..." and " ... is ready to to vanish away."

A good cross-reference here is 2 Cor. 3:11, where Paul refers to the old age as the "ministry of death":

"For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious."

Paul himself - to say nothing of countless other sincere followers - observed some ceremonies according to the Law in this 40 year interim period. It had not yet come to the point of Isaiah 66:3:

"“He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol."

Yes, the beginning of the end was at the cross. But it took time for the Message to radiate outward throughout the Diaspora.

The OC became obsolete at the cross. 'Now where there is remission of these [sins], there is no longer an offering for sin' (Hebrews 10:18). Paul was not asked, and did not agree, to make any sort of sacrifice (Acts 21:23-24).

But this is, to a degree, beside the point. The point is that with the death and resurrection of Christ, the door of salvation opened to the Gentiles (eg. John 12:32). The old Jewish religion was left behind long before AD 70 (Acts 13:46-47). To place the destruction of Jerusalem as the pivotal event of history is nonsense. Temple worship became old and obsolete, and disappeared. But by that time it would already have been an irrelevance to the thousands of Christians living miles away from Jerusalem who were largely Gentile (entirely so in the case of places like Philippi). I have asked this before and received no answer: why would the Christians in Corinth, Thessalonica and Philippi have been 'eagerly awaiting' the destruction of Jerusalem, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews? How did it benefit them? How did their lives change? In what sense did they start living in the 'new heavens and the new earth where righteousness dwells'? Did they see Jesus? And if not, why not in the light of Revelation 1:7? In what possible sense are we living in the new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells today?