Apocalypticism

The word apocalypse basically means revelation. The revelation, the apocalypse, contained within the Christian scriptures reveals to us tha the end of the present age will be accompanied by disorder, chaos, colliding, kingdoms, anti-semitism persecution and overwhelming societal calamities. In the prophetic scriptures the events surrounding the end of the age are brought into the present. We can read them and know of the future now. The apocalyptic genre arose in ancient Israel but was also continued in the New Testament. Most every book in the New Testament canon contains some important aspect of or reference to apocalypticism. John the Baptist's message contained strong apocalyptic references ("Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?") and Jesus' eschatological outlook was certainly apocalyptic. Many say the church shouldn't get too carried away in all that apocalyptic stuff and not be so doom and gloom oriented. So if as they maintain, the apocalyptic view is the wrong one then how should the end of the age be presented? If a apocalyptic view is not presented in scripture then what view of the end of the age is presented? Jesus said at the end of the age a time of great and final tribulation is coming that will surpass all the other times of trouble that has ever been. I assume He meant it. Foresight and anticipation, coming from what has been revealed, seems a prudent and wise thing to me. If we're labelled divisive, negative and judgment oriented for agreeing with the scriptural apocalyptic revelation then what view should we be presenting? Are we really being negative or just having the spiritual whits to agree with the revelation given? There is a prophetic pop culture that has risen and I'm not speaking of that. While putting aside all the comic book fluff coming from the prophecy industry I just think agreeing with with what has been revealed may be a sober and wise thing to do at this time.

Meanwhile, we serve an unchanging and all powerful Savior who rules over a unshakeable kingdom Who even now opens the door fof salvation to all who will come.

But what makes you think that the "end of the age" was not referring to the end of the Jewish age, namely when the temple and its system was destroyed in 70 AD? Jesus and the apostles all used words like "soon" and "quickly" in the apocalyptic passages. How do we get that it refers to something that was 1000s of years in the future to them?

unfortunately TMK you are fighting an uphill battle. Reason and proper interpretation have been thrown out the window in this debate to support an ever changing system.

The good news however is that this topic is not an essential to our faith.

I'm working and busy now and don't have time for a adequate reply. One thought though is if Christ returns to the nation and even the city from whence He left what might that do in relation to the "end of the Jewish age?"

Question: But what makes you think that the "end of the age" was not referring to the end of the Jewish age, namely when the temple and its system was destroyed in 70 AD? Jesus and the apostles all used words like "soon" and "quickly" in the apocalyptic passages. How do we get that it refers to something that was 1000s of years in the future to them?

Answer: One of the main reasons is because the "end of the age” was always associated by early Christianity and the early church with the resurrection of the dead and in particular the resurrection of the righteous dead (Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 26:19 (compare with I Cor 15:54) Dan 12:2, Dan 12:13. The day of the bodily resurrection of the righteous was known in Christ's day as "the last day” (John 6;39-40, 44, John 6:54, John 11;24). Christ's second coming will be at the last day of this present age and it has always been believed by the church that Christ's second coming is when the dead would be resurrected. So to say the end of the age occurred in 70 A.D is to say that the resurrection of the dead is already past. The lack of logic in that seems self apparent.

I don't find where Jesus and All the apostles used the words "soon” and "quickly” to describe apocalyptic events. Paul said, "The Lord will execute His word thoroughly and quickly upon the earth' (Romans 9:28 ”“ NASB). Paul also said, The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20 - NASB) but Paul was not in the midst of a apocalyptic passage when he wrote this. "Soon” or "quickly” is not used in the Olivet Discourse but the emphasis there is on "Be not deceived” and "When you see.” Having said all that, I believe the early church felt very strongly that the second coming of Christ was imminent and especially when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies intent on the city's destruction (Luke 21:20). It must have looked like the very real set of events and did indeed serve as a strong type for the final eschatological desolations of Jerusalem prophesied to occur at the end of the age. AS far as I can see it, what everyone missed was how long the length of time would be between the first and second coming. That long length of time, almost two millennium, was unforeseen and unanticipated. That didn't mean types of the final fulfillment cold not occur before the time. This would be in keeping with the many times dual near/far fulfillment of biblical prophecy. And now, once again, we see a Jewish presence in the land again and Jerusalem surrounded by armies inent on its desolation. And Christ hasn't returned and the dead haven't been raised. In Revelation, Christ speaks of coming like a thief (Rev 16:15) and of coming quickly (Rev 22;7, 12, 20) but this vision describes the time and events just preceding His return so naturally the word "quickly” might be used in regards to His soon coming. Meanwhile, the Olivet Discourse ends in the second coming of the Son of Man whose coming is synonymous with the resurrection of the dead. To deny these events as future is to deny their scriptural context as occuring in very close proximity of time to the resurrection. Since Christ hasn't returned and the dead haven't been raised it seems the only logical answer is that these vents are still yet future. If all these apocalyptic events occurred in 70 AD then what should the message be regarding events at the end of this age before Christ returns? If the church presently has the wrong apocalyptic message then what should the message be?

Preterism's Achilles' Heel: http://the.mysteryofisrael.org/articles/preterisms-achilles-heel/

Daniel was told,

"But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." (Daniel 12:13)

If Daniel was raised at the "end of the Jewish age" in 70 AD then where is he? Is there any record in history of the prophet Daniel being physically resurrected?

If this "end of the age" is to occur at the second coming of Christ, which hhas long been the accepted dcctrine of the Christian church, then it shows that the coming of the Son of Man in Matt 24:30-31 could not have been referring to Jesus coming again spiritually in judgment in 70 AD. Jesus never spoke of one age ending in 70 AD and another age beginning and lasting until His second coming. The physical coming again of the Son of Man has always been associated in scripture with the physical resurrection of the righteous. The coming again of Christ the Son of Man and the physical resurrection are simultaneous events. It's a self apparent point Daniel wasn't raised spiritually in 70 AD and he certainly wasn't raised physically.

Combined with the scriptural revelation of the timing of the resurrection, one single verse alone, Daniel 12:13, shows the view that all occurred in 70 AD is a moot point and incorrect.