Knowing the time ....

[Covenanter]

I believe God understands time perfectly - he created time, as recorded in Genesis 1. When he created man, he made made subject to time -seasons, days & years. Everything about creation is dependent on the progression of time - life, growth & reproduction, speech, movement, music, digestion, etc, & ultimately death.  

When God reveals time-related events, that is for the attention of those to whom it is revealed. Noah was given 120 years to prepare the ark before the flood. He obeyed, & he preached righteousness. 

The children of Issachar understood their times, that it was time for David to be king:

All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king. (1 Chr. 12)

A thousand years later, many understood the time, recognised & welcomed the Son of David, but sadly, the rest of Israel were of one heart to reject him. Jesus also knew the time:

And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51)

When Jesus warned this generation repeatedly, he was  warning his hearers that they were accountable for rejecting their Messiah, & that all they trusted in would be destroyed. Mat. 23:33-36   Mat. 24:34.  Yet God graciously gave that generation 40 years to repent.

We must not trust that we have time - the emphasis is always on TODAY!. (Heb. 3:7-19) 

 

[Covenanter]

Jesus preached:

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What time was fulfilled? The time for Messiah to come to fulfill prophecy - the 69 weeks. 

What did Jesus mean by the kingdom of God is at hand ?  That he was about to present himself as the Davidic king? Not an earthly king of the nation: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king he did not stay around.  Clearly he was initially taking over from John & preaching repentance. And at hand implies imminence. Peter, speaking at Pentecost, declares Jesus' ascension to David's throne. That surely means that the kingdom that was at hand was being announced, within the 70 weeks.

Matthew 13 has a series of kingdom of heaven parables, & the kingdom is always the present Gospel age when citizens are being called by the Gospel into the kingdom. 

Our immediate concern is as sinners to enter the kingdom by repentance and faith, & to preach the risen King & Lord. A time is coming, at death & at Jesus' return when it will be too late.

Heb 9:27

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

     

[Covenanter]

Outline of Revelation

For this I am relying on KJV Scripture only, except the generally accepted understanding that AD 70 saw Jerusalem & the temple destroyed by Roman armies as prophesied by the Lord Jesus.

When was Revelation written?

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
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 is at hand.

The opening verses teach that the events will take place in the near future – shortly. Also those who read & keep what is written will be blessed. We should NOT think of the prophecy as referring to the distant future – even future to our own generation.

The prophecy includes a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (Rev. 11), so must be written before then.

What are the prophesied blessings?

4. John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Grace, peace, love, cleansing from sins – all the promises of full salvation through Jesus' blood. Further we have the status as kings and priests unto God and his Father which is the perfect fulfilment of the promise to Israel in Exodus 19. That promise was conditional on Israel's obedience, and is fulfilled in all believers through the obedience to death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Note that the souls of believers in glory have the same priest-king status:

20:4 I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
......
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

That priest-king status is our present privileged status as the people of God for both Jew & Gentile, by saving faith in Christ, continuing in glory into the new heaven & new earth.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Rev. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

We see the glorious purposes of God for his people, our present status with all God's promises in Christ, yet the warning that we are companions in tribulation.

1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ

We have John's glorious vision of Jesus, and his concern for the churches. His letters to the 7 churches are applicable to all of us as appropriate.

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 is at hand. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches

That gives an outline from the Apostolic situation and including our present situation to the eternal state – the glorious new heaven & new earth. There's a lot of spiritual warfare & tribulation before we are home in glory, and tremendous challenges in understanding this prophetic book.

 Covenanter - second post:

I have started this thread, not particularly to oppose Alan's thread, but to study Revelation to take encouragement for ourselves from this extraordinary book. If we only treat it as end times prophecy we may find we are missing instruction & encouragement. 

We should seek the promised blessings & take the warnings also. We are included in he that readeth. 

Pastor Scott Markle – post 9

To all the Brethren who may be interested,

Although I do not have the time this very morning (I am hoping to have the time later this afternoon), I do intend to make some comments concerning the reference above about the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelation 11.  Specifically, I intend to demonstrate that the record of Revelation 11 concerning Jerusalem was NOT that which occurred in 70 AD, when the Roman armies destroyed the city.

Now, I have been moved to engage in this matter (at least somewhat) by a private message request from Brother Alan concerning his Revelation 19-22 study-thread.  Yesterday I read through the entirety of that thread, and this morning I read the newest postings therein.  With that in mind, I then entered this new thread and have been moved to engage with it at least (at this point) concerning the Revelation 11 reference.

(Side note:  I am also considering starting a new thread entitled -- "There IS a coming millennium."  However, I must pray over this consideration, whether this is the Lord's direction, and not just my own purpose, and whether I will have the appropriate amount of time to invest therein.)

For the Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord,
Abiding in Christ, and Christ in us,
Pastor Scott Markle

 

Pastor Scott Markle – post 14

  Quote - Ian

The prophecy includes a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (Rev. 11), so must be written before then.

In the opening post, Brother "Covenanter" made the above quote.  By the context of his entire posting and by the context of his belief system, I understand that he was intending to communicate that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Roman armies is presented and prophesied within Revelation 11.  I am presenting this posting in order to express my contention against that particular assertion.

Certainly, I would agree that our Lord's declaration in Luke 19:42-44 is a prophetic utterance concerning the destruction of Jerusalem which was historically fulfilled in 70 AD. Therein our Lord proclaimed, "Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!  But now they are hid from thine eyes.  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

In this declaration, our Lord Jesus Christ revealed at least three truths concerning this destruction of Jerusalem, as follows:

1.  That the enemies of the Israelites would besiege the city of Jerusalem, casting "a trench" around it and surrounding it "on every side."
2.  That the enemies of the Israelites would tear down the city of Jerusalem, laying it "even to the ground," along with its Israelite inhabitants.
3.  That the enemies of the Israelites, in tearing down the city of Jerusalem, would not leave in it even "one stone upon another."

Again, I would certainly acknowledge and agree that this prophetic utterance concerning the destruction of Jerusalem was indeed fulfilled in 70 AD by the armies of Rome.

On the other hand, the assertion has been made that within Revelation 11 is another prophetic utterance concerning this particular destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  With this assertion I must strongly disagree.  Revelation 11:1 begins the chapter with a reference to the temple in Jerusalem.  Verse 2 indicates that "the court which is without the temple" shall be "given unto the Gentiles."  Furthermore, this verse indicates that the Gentiles shall tread under their feet "the holy city," Jerusalem, for 42 months (that is -- 3.5 years).  However, this reference cannot mean that the Gentiles utterly destroy the city of Jerusalem so that they do not leaven even "one stone upon another," since the Lord's two witnesses (about which verses 3-12 speak) preach in the city for 1260 days (that is also -- 3.5 years), and then are killed in the city so that their dead bodies lie "in the street of the great city, . . . where also our Lord was crucified" (certainly, Jerusalem) for 3.5 days. (See verse 7-8)  Yet from verses 11-12 we learn that these two witnesses will be resurrected from the dead after the 3.5 days, and shall be called up to heaven so that they "ascend up to heaven in a cloud."  

Then Revelation 11:13 states, "And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven."  Actually, this is only verse Revelation 11 that speaks concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.  Now, from this verse we are brought to understand that the city of Jerusalem had to be standing in order for a tenth of it to fall in destruction.  Such would indicate that treading under foot by the Gentiles in verse 2 was not a reference to destruction, such that they did not leave even "one stone upon another."  If not two stones were standing upon another, then it would not be possible for a tenth of the city to fall.

Yet Revelation 11:13 does indeed prophecy concerning a destructive event that will occur upon the city of Jerusalem.  Yea, it also reveals at least four truths concerning this destructive event upon Jerusalem, as follows:

1.  This destructive event will occur in the same hour that the Lord's two witnesses ascend alive into heaven.
2.  This destructive event will occur through the force of an earthquake, not through the force of human armies.
3.  This destructive event will cause only one tenth of the city to fall, not the entire city such that not two stones are left upon another.
4.  This destructive event will leave alive a remnant of the inhabitants of the city (probably Israelites), who will be moved to fear and to give "glory to the God of heaven."

To me it would appear fairly reasonable to conclude that since the two prophetic utterances concerning the destruction of Jerusalem are not at all parallel in their information (save that they will occur to the same city), then they must not be referring to the same destructive event.

Now, allow me to present a point of basic logic.  As I have indicated above, I do acknowledge that our Lord's prophetic utterance of Luke 19:42-44 was fulfilled with the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the armies of Rome.  Yet if that city should ever be built again after that event, then it would be possible for that city to be destroyed yet again in another destructive event.  As such, unless there is some prophetic utterance of God's Holy Word which indicates that the city of Jerusalem would never be built again, basic logic would allow that not every prophetic utterance in the New Testament concerning the destruction of Jerusalem must automatically be applied to the event of 70 AD.

(A final note:  If indeed the prophetic utterance of Revelation 11 is not referring to the destruction of 70 AD, wherein the entire city and the entire temple were destroyed, but to some destructive event upon the city after the city has experienced a rebuild, then we must also conclude that there will be a rebuilding of the temple within the city as per Revelation 11:1.)

 

For the Excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord,
Abiding in Christ, and Christ in us,
Pastor Scott Markle

For some reason known only to the system, 3 separate posts have been merged.

 

I've closed & reloaded the forum in the hope that consecutive posts will not be merged.

My reply to Bro Scott was:

Thanks Scott, for that carefully studied counter to my understanding of Revelation. Obviously I must reconsider what I believe & teach with that in view.

The big problem with the concept of a "tribulation temple" & all that goes with it is that it removes the practical application of Revelation away from the church to a time when the church is absent. 

I won't comment further, as I haven't got there yet. Rev. 4 next .... 

[Invicta]

For some reason known only to the system, 3 separate posts have been merged.

If you start a post and don't post it and then come back and make another entry, it will merge your posts when you submit reply

[Invicta]

Ian

I cannot agree with you on the early date of the Apocalypse.  You have previously said that the late date relies on an obscure remark by Eusebius, if I remember correctly.  The following is an extract from E B Elliott.

This is my second preliminary point of inquiry ; and one on which also, I believe, the historical evidence will be found not only ready at hand, but conclusive. For the testimony of Ireneus,—Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John,—is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable.Speaking of the name and number of the. Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse:" for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago ; but almost in our age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian"^ 
The attempts that have been made to get rid of this testimony, and force another meaning on Irenseus' words, by those whose apocalyptic theories made them wish to do so, seem to me to have utterly failed.^ It is as clear a testimony on the point it relates to, as there can be found to any other fact in any other historian.
Nor is it unsupported by other testimony.—First, Tertullian seems in no dubious manner to indicate this view of the Apocalyptic date. For in his Apology, after specifying Nero's as the first imperial persecution, and this one by the sword, (wherein, as he elsewhere says,'^ Paul and Peter suffered, no mention being made of Jolin,) he proceeds to notice Domitian's as the next persecution, and this as one in which Christians suffered by banishment, the well-known punishment inflicted on St. John, It is evident that Eusebius thus understands Tertulian ; I mean as alluding to St. John's banishment as the act of Domitian.* —Next Clement of Alexandria indirectly, but I think  clearly, confirms the statement. In relating the well-known story of St. John and the robber, he speaks of it as acted out by the apostle on his return from exile in Patmos, ''after the death of the tyrant;"^ and represents him as at that time an infirm old man.^ Now " the tyrant" whose death is referred to, must necessarily be either Nero or Domitian ; as these were, up to the end of the first century, the only imperial persecutors of the Christian body. And Nero it can scarcely be : since, at the time of Nero's persecution, St. John was by no means an infirm old man; being probably not much above, if indeed so much as, sixty years of age.^ Thus it must rather have been the tyrant Domitian} So, in fact, Eusebius expressly explains Clement to mean.^ Nor is there any thing whatsoever inconsistent with this view of the chronology of the story, so as some have supposed, in Chrysostom's second-hand version of it ; but the contrary.^—Thirdly, Victorinus, Bishop of Pettaw, and martyr in Diocletian's persecution, in a Commentary on the Apocalypse written towards the close of the third century, says twice over expressly, and in a part that bears no mark of interpolation, that the Apocalypse was seen by the Apostle John in the isle of Patnios, when banished thither by the Roman Emperor Domitian.^—To the same effect, fourthly, is the very important testimony of Eusebius. For, though doubting about the author of the Apocalyptic book, (and in these doubts we see exemplified the free exercise of his independent judgment,) yet, on the date of St.John's banishment to Patmos, he distinctly intimates more than once his agreement with the tradition of the ancients, that referred it to Domitian's persecution : and indeed implies, as is perfectly evident, that he knew of no other tradition whatsoever as to the time of St. John's banishment to Patmos.
The same is the recorded judgment oi Jerome, the same of Augustine's friend, Orosius; ^ the same of Sulpitias Severus}—Once more, we find an unhesitating statement of similar purport in Primasius; an eminent Augustinian commentator on the Apocalypse, of the sixth century. In his Preface to this Commentary, he speaks of the Apocalyptic visions having been seen by St. John when banished and condemned to the mines in Patmos by the Emperor Domitian.^—Other ancient testimonies of less importance might yet be added.^ Such is the later and subsidiary Patristic testimony still extant, to the fact of St. John having seen the Apocalyptic visions in Patmos under the reign of Domitian:—a chain of testimony not to be viewed (so as Tilloch would quite unwarrantably represent it) ^ as but the repetition of that of Irenaius, whom indeed for the most part these writers do not even refer to ^ but as their own deliberate independent judgment, formed on all the evidence which then existed. As to any contrary early tradition respecting the date, if such there was, (as Sir I. Newton and Tilloch, still without any warrant of historic record, have assumed,^) it can scarcely have been unknown to them. And their total silence respecting it is only explicable on one of two suppositions ;—viz. either that it did not exist ; or that they deemed it undeserving of credit, and not even worth the notice. 
Nor can this be wondered at : seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century : a writer commendable indeed, as Dupin says,^ " for zeal, learning, and piety, but credulous, indiscriminating, inaccurate; " and whose chief work, "On Heresies," is decried by Mosheim as " full of blots and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author: "^ who moreover, in his statement in that work on this very point,—supposing it correctly given, and not an error of transcription in our copies, —so exemplifies this ignorance, as quite to justify the silent neglect of it by those writers of our catena, viz. Jerome, Orosius, Sulpitius, and P7'imasius, who wrote after him. For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius: ^—a time when, as Michaelis justly observes,^ it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever ; and when moreover the probability is that of the seven Apocalyptic churches scarce one was as yet in existence,^ and the Apostle John moreover in no way associated with the district.^ But indeed one is almost forced to suspect some strange error in the transcriber. For Epiphanius elsewhere implies John's age to have been ninety at the time of his return from Patmos.''' And can we suppose that he really thought John to have been ninety years old before A.D. 54, which was the latest year of the life of Claudius, or near seventy when called by Christ to be his disciple?^—Besides which strange theory we are reminded by Newton and Tilloch of yet another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century,'- is thus worded ; " The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist inthe island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero!' But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear ? ^—Or again, of what that of the commentator Arethas, promulgated still two or three centuries later,^ to the effect that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem ;^ An opinion contradicted indeed elsewhere in the body of his work by himself? ^—Alike the one and the other slept unnoticed for centuries. And, if waked up by critics of a more modern age, it has only been (as Michaelis, we have seen, confesses)
from the supposed necessity of such dates, in order to any possible explanation of the Apocalyptic prophecies.^ It does not need that I discuss at all prominently certain points of indirect and subsidiary historical evidence, in favour of an early date, which these writers have also called in to their aid. A sufficient notice of them will be found below : and it will appear that they all, like the direct testimony just discussed, prove weak and worthless on examination.*

[Covenanter]

This is my second preliminary point of inquiry ; and one on which also, I believe, the historical evidence will be found not only ready at hand, but conclusive. For the testimony of Ireneus,—Polycarp's disciple, let it be again remembered, who was himself the disciple of the apostle John,—is as express to the point in question as it is unexceptionable.Speaking of the name and number of the. Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse:" for it [the Apocalypse evidently] was seen no very long time ago ; but almost in our age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian"^ 

The Irenaeus quote is known only in Latin translation from the Greek around 300 AD. The relevant line could equally well read: 

"Speaking of the name and number of the. Beast in the Apocalypse, he says, that had this been a matter then to be made known, it would have been disclosed by him who saw the Apocalypse:" for HE  [the Apostle evidently] was seen no very long time ago ; but almost in our age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian"

I am familiar with the argument, & will deal with more fully when I reply to Br. Scott.

And I DID post each time, & the system merged each time.

 

 

[Invicta]

And I DID post each time, & the system merged each time.

 I have had that happen several times.

[Genevanpreacher]

Me too.