"He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and *sealed* until the time of the end.”
Daniel 12:9
Then he told me, "*Do not seal up* the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the *time is near*.”
Revelation 22:10
Thoughts?
We humans have a tendency to have a different perspective on what it means to be "near" than perhaps what the Bible means as near. John wrote the Book of Revelation around 90 A.D. and yet the angel told him in the verse you quoted that the "time is near". Here we are in 2021 and much of Revelation is still future. And yet the Bible tells us that a thousand years is as a day in the Lord's calendar. I suppose the take away is that we are all supposed to be ready at all times and be alert and serious about our lives and the future. Let us be like the wise virgins who kept oil for when the Master tarried and fainted not.
-Daniel
//Here we are in 2021 and much of Revelation is still future.//
Is it? Who told you this?
Also it is far from certain Rev. was written as late as 90 AD.
I forgot that you are preterist Todd. I don't wish to debate you on that. Let us just agree to disagree. I don't have animus toward people who have honest differing views about eschatology. I often see why people choose to believe those differing views. It will be interesting to see how things actually unfold. Be blessed and may the gospel of God go forth and bear fruit and bring glory to God.
-Daniel
Partial preterist! There is a big difference.
Just an aside I learned something interesting about John Darby, who essentially created the dispensationalist view in the mid 1850s (pretrib rapture, literal 7 year tribulation etc) which really wasn’t taught prior to this. He said he discovered a lost teaching of the apostles.
Anyways, his teaching spread because he was a Plymouth Brethren, who was really the only group actually doing Bible teaching in England at the time (certainly not the RCs or the Anglicans). So if people wanted Bible teaching they went to the Plymouth Brethren. Anyways, CI Scofield, an attorney became enamored by his teaching and created the Scofield study Bible with all its footnotes (necessary to explain the twistings of dispensationalism). That Bible became very popular in the US in the early 1900s (my grandmother had one).
Then Lewis Sperry Chafer fell under the teaching of Darby and he founded Dallas Theological Seminary which stressed dispensationalism. Almost all major radio pastors and evangelical authors today went to Dallas. Of course all they have taught is dispensationalism because that is all THEY were taught.
Hal Lindsey followed his schemes as does Hagee et al.
The question on the table is whether Darby’s dispensationalism is even correct given its complete absence in the Church prior to around 1830.
I think this is an an example of false teaching being propagated innocently down the years so much so that the great majority of evangelicals believe it, **because that is all they have ever been taught and have never even thought to consider the origins of the teaching and whether it can stand up to vigorous examination**.
This dispensation teaching is strange to me ----- That the kingdom foretold by the prophets is an earthly kingdom for the Jews. That Christ came 2000 years ago to offer this kingdom to the Jews and when the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah, the offer was withdrawn and postponed to a future dispensation. Thus Daniel’s 70th Week was accordingly postponed for an indefinite period of time. And to fill the huge gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th Weeks, a "Church Age” was conceived, promulgated, and accepted without question by Christians far and wide as absolute biblical truth.
But far from the "Church Age” being a "great parenthesis in God’s prophetic plan”, an "afterthought”, and the church being secondary in importance to ethnic Jews, Scripture declares that the Church was chosen in Christ BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, and God had PREDESTINED the Church to adoption as His sons through Christ Jesus in accordance with His pleasure and will (Eph. 1:4-5).
Christ and His Church are ONE, filled with the love and glory of God. And Christ is above all (except God the Father who is greater than all).
John 17:22-26 ”“
"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
Eph. 1:18-22 ”“
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet,and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH (2 Tim. 3:15).
Note:
All CAPS are just to emphasize my point. NOT to yell at anyone.
Blessings
"For when Daniel said, 'I shall make my covenant for one week,' he indicated seven years; and the one half of the week is for the preaching of the prophets, and for the other half of the week - that is to say, for three years and a half - Antichrist will reign upon the earth." -Hippolytus, 170-235 AD
"For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped -- that is, above every idol -- for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God." Irenaeus,130-202 AD, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 25
The topic has been discussed in various forms many times.
So I just want to make a few basic comments for now.
Todd has given a very good background how some teachings came into the church and the dangers if we don't test everything.
In church we want to be accepted and in Seminaries we want to pass exams with good marks, - seen it all.
We need to test our beliefs from Scripture (Sola Scriptura ) and not what some Church Fathers have written.
24"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity,to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
"Seventy" doesn't need to be interpreted. It always means 70 in the Bible.
"Tribulation" is mentioned about 45 times in the NT , but never as a 7-year period.
instead: "through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God". Simple !
We all need to be a bit careful and not concentrate too much on -isms. Otherwise we might not see the forest for the trees, that would be the real tragedy !
I might comment a bit later what I mean by that.
Is there scripture that can be cited to validate what Hippolytus said?
What does Hippolytus mean by "the preaching of the prophets"?
Did Irenaeus transport the 2 Thess. passage into Daniel's 70th week?
Revelation 4: 1-4
1 After this I looked, and behold, ...
2 At once I was in the Spirit, and ...
3 And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper ....
4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads.
Cut this short to focus on verse 4.
The church and Israel incorporated from erernity passed.
Todd said Darby invented the 7 year tribulation period and pre tribulation rapture. I posted those quotes by Hippolytus and Irenaeus to show that some in the early church WAY before Darby did believe in a 7 year tribulation period; it is not a new teaching.
As for the pre tribulation rapture, some church fathers did believe it.
"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overcome the world because of our sins." Ephraim the Syrian 306-373 AD
"Go therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord his mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the Great Tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it." The Shepherd of Hermas (written as early as 144 AD)
I've been very vocal on this forum in the past about not putting the church father's writings on the same level as scripture. I disagree strongly with some of them on some issues. My purpose in quoting them is not an argument from an authoritative source but rather a historical source.
Of course I love everyone on this forum in Christ, but the people that have a dismissive, scoffing attitude about Jesus' soon return gives me a definite check in my spirit. I'll leave you all with the words of Paul in his first epistle to the Thessalonians: "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief."
Edit: I assume Hippolytus meant by "the preaching of the prophets" the two witnesses.
All I know is that Darby invented the dispensationalism scheme as it is known today, with its charts and indoctrinations in seminaries etc.
This is common knowledge.
People like to be titillated and dispensationalism is very titillating.
Every day there is a new news item that is forced into the scheme.
But we know for sure Darby did not invent the 7 year tribulation period or the rapture out of whole cloth.
I don't think Darby made those charts to titillate anyone. From what I see of his life he genuinely loved the Lord and longed for His return, as we all should. Was he right on every single point of his eschatology? Probably not, and I have never met anyone who gets absolutely EVERYTHING right. (I'd say he was fairly close to the mark, though.)
It's easy to argue away the clear meaning of scriptures. Try to talk to a Jew about the Messianic prophecies. If you mention Isaiah 53 to them they'll just say it means Israel as a nation, not Jesus Christ. You can't convince them if they refuse to see it.
Francisco Ribera seems to have invented the whole idea and his main concern was not Biblical Truth !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ribera
We can see from my previous posts that neither Francisco Ribera nor John Nelson Darby invented the 7 year tribulation period nor the pre tribulation rapture. These views were held by some in the early church.
I'm about half way through "The Scarlet Woman" by Keith Malcomson and I recommend everyone on here read it. It shows beyond the shadow of a doubt the woman in Revelation 17 can't be anything other than the Roman Catholic Church.
I know that Matthew Henry and other commentators of his era believed the pope/papacy was the "man of sin”/Antichrist. Much of it does seem to fit.
Whether Henry or any other believed that the pope/papacy was the "man of sin"/Antichrist matters not.
The RCC didn't get off the ground til circa 4th century. The book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ, along with all New Testament books were written pre-70ad.
The writers of the New Testament had their contemporaries in mind as they addressed those in the 1st century.
Only when the Scriptures are read through the futurist lens of eschatology, do we get errors such as dispensationalism and the RCC in prophecy.
Since some are promoting books, I'd promote one as well. The book by Jay E. Adams, "The Time is at Hand", written in 1966. And it's just 172 pages or so. I highly recommend this book.
Hi Savannah. I'd read any books recommended to me with an open mind.
I agree, John did have his contemporaries in mind when he, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote Revelation. That's why in verse 9 he said "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." Rome historically is known as "the city on seven hills". In verse 18 he says "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." No other city in the world could have fit that description in the first century.
There is much, much more evidence, so I would highly recommend getting the book.
Revelation 11:8
Their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.
Revelation 16:19
And the great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath.
Revelation 17:18
"And The Woman which you saw is that Great City, which has rule over the Kings of The Earth.”
Jeremiah 22:8,9
"And many nations will pass by this city; and they will say to one another, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this great city?’ "Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the covenant of the LORD their God and bowed down to other gods and served them.’”
________________________
In Revelation John uses Babylon as a metaphor of Jerusalem. Before I can demonstrate this, I must rehearse two important interpretive keys to the Book of Revelation:
(1) Revelation is dealing with events "which must soon take place” (Rev 1:1; 1:3; 22:6, 10). It is not prophesying events thousands of years distant from John’s original audience.
(2) John is reflecting on Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and has his stated theme the judgment of Israel in AD 70. Note that the only two verses in the Bible that merge Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10 are Matt 24:30 and Rev 1:7. In Matt 24:30 Jesus is clearly dealing with the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:2, 16) in the first century (Matt 24:34). John’s theme in Rev 1:7 states that Jesus is coming in a cloud-judgment against those who crucified him (in the NT the Jews are blamed for Christ’s crucifixion (Matt 26:59, 66; 27:1; Mark 14:64; Luke 23:22”“23; 24:20; Acts 2:22”“23, 36; 3:13”“15a; 4:10; 5:28, 30; 7:52; 10:39; 13:27”“29; 1 Thess 2:14”“15). As a consequence, all the tribes of "the Land” (the Greek ge is usually translated "earth,” but can and should be translated "Land,” i.e., the Promised Land). (Read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Ken Gentry, defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing).
In Revelation 17:3”“6 John views a horrifying sight. Seated upon the dreadful beast is the sinful Harlot:
"He carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered greatly.”
Since she sits on the seven-headed beast, some believe she represents the city of Rome.
This is because she is resting on Rome’s seven hills and is called "Babylon,” which often applies to Rome in antiquity. But since the beast itself represents Rome, it seems redundant to have the woman representing the same. Also, the name "Babylon” does not historically belong either to Rome or Jerusalem, and thus cannot prove that the city is Rome. I am convinced beyond any doubt that this harlot is first-century Jerusalem. The evidence for so identifying Jerusalem is based on the following considerations.
First, Revelation 14:8 calls Babylon "the great city.” But in the first mention of "the great city” in Revelation 11:8, this indisputably refers to Jerusalem, "where also our Lord was crucified” (Lk 9:31; 13:33”“34; 18:31; 24:18”“20). Her greatness especially highlights her covenantal status in the Old Testament (Jer 22:8; Lam 1:1).
But even pagan writers speak highly of Jerusalem as a significant contemporary city. Tacitus calls it "a famous city.” Pliny the Elder comments that it is "by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient.” Appian, a Roman lawyer and writer (ca. AD 160) called it "the great city Jerusalem” (Tacitus, Histories 5:2; Fragments of the Histories 1; Pliny, Natural History 5:14:70; Appian, The Syrian Wars 50). The Sibylline Oracles, Josephus, and the Talmud concur in calling Jerusalem "a great city” (Sibylline Oracles 5:150”“154, 408”“413; Josephus, J.W. 7:1:1; 7:8:7. For Talmudic references, see: Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 82). Thus, the first interpretive clue to Babylon’s identity points to Jerusalem.
Second, the harlot is filled with the blood of the saints (Rev 16:6; 17:6; 18:21, 24). Of course, with the outbreak of Nero’s persecution, which commences just prior to John’s writing Revelation, Rome is stained with the saints’ blood. But Rome has only recently entered the persecuting ranks of God’s enemies.
Throughout Acts Jerusalem is appears as the persecutor and Rome as the protector of Christianity (Acts 4:3; 5:18”“33; 6:12; 7:54”“60; 8:1ff; 9:1”“4, 13, 23; 11:19; 12:1”“3; 13:45”“50; 14:2”“5, 19; 16:23; 17:5”“13; 18:12; 20:3, 19; 21:11, 27; 22:30; 23:12, 20, 27, 30; 24:5”“9; 25:2”“15; 25:24; 26:21. See also: 2 Co 11:24; 2Th 2:14”“15; Heb 10:32”“34).
Interestingly, in the Olivet Discourse context Jesus reproaches Jerusalem: "Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. . . . Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Mt 23:34”“35, 37).
Before his stoning Stephen rebukes Jerusalem: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who showed before of the coming of the Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Ac 7:51”“52).
Paul warns of Jewish persecution: "For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost” (1Th 2:14”“16).
Third, the harlot’s dress reflects the Jewish priestly colors of scarlet, purple, and gold (Rev 17:4”“5 with Ex 25:2, 4; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16; 28:1”“2, 5”“12, 15, 17”“23, 33). In fact, she even has a blasphemous tiara on her forehead, which reads: "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth” (Rev 17:5). This negatively portrays the holy tiara that the Jewish high priest wore, which declares "Holy to the Lord” (Ex 28:36”“38). Still further, the harlot has a gold cup in her hand, reflecting the high priest on the Day of Atonement, according to the Jewish Talmud.
Fourth, Rome cannot commit adultery against God, for she had never been God’s wife. But Jerusalem was God’s wife (Isa 1:21; 57:8; Jer 2:2, 20; 3:1”“20; 4:30; 11:15; 13:27; Eze 16; Hos 2:5; 3:3; 4:15), and Scripture often charges her with committing adultery against him (Isa 1:21; 57:8; Jer 2:2, 20; 3:1”“20; 4:30; 11:15; 13:27; Eze 16; Hos 2:5; 3:3; 4:15). The harlot imagery better suits an adulterous wife, such as Jerusalem.
The evidence proves that the harlot is Jerusalem. John’s Revelation contrasts the Jerusalem below with the Jerusalem above, as in Hebrews 12:22 and Galatians 4:25”“26. The Jerusalem below has forsaken her husband in denying the Messiah.
I believe it to be supremely clear that John is dealing with Jerusalem under the image of Babylon. She is the new enemy of God, even being called "a synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9) and "Egypt” (Rev 11:8). This is much like Isaiah calling Israel Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa 1:10) and Ezekiel calling her the sister of Sodom (Eze 16:49). - K. Gentry
This discussion is locked.
