Revelation and the Olivet Prophecy

[Sean 2]

Whether or not 'the apocalyptic language used in the NT such as this is almost used exclusively to describe 70 AD' is irrelevant. The fact is that it is used elsewhere of other nations. It is clear that Revelation 6 draws from many passages outside the Olivet prophecy, and that it contains imagery which is found nowhere in the Olivet prophecy, but which is found in the judgment prophesies pronounced against Gentile nations in the Old Testament.

What's your point that you are making about the imagery is used in reference to Gentile nations? As far as God is conerned, Israel is a Gentile nation. All who reject Christ are not circumcised in the way that is important, making them as if they were uncircumcised. Gal 3 & 4

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
Gal 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Gal 4:31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

The natural Jerusalem is like a Gentile, unclean. Paul said "We are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit" What does that make the Israel that is not of Israel? (Romans 9) It makes them a vessel of dishonor prepared for destruction.

So it's not suprise that one the new covenant replaced the old, that the old covenant people became as if they were Gentiles in God's eyes?

[Fortigurn]

Whether or not 'the apocalyptic language used in the NT such as this is almost used exclusively to describe 70 AD' is irrelevant. The fact is that it is used elsewhere of other nations. It is clear that Revelation 6 draws from many passages outside the Olivet prophecy, and that it contains imagery which is found nowhere in the Olivet prophecy, but which is found in the judgment prophesies pronounced against Gentile nations in the Old Testament.

What's your point that you are making about the imagery is used in reference to Gentile nations?

My point is that we can't assume the referent of this imagery in Revelation simply from the fact that it was used of a certain referent previously.

In other words, just because this imagery was used in places in the Old Testament to refer to Israel, does not mean we can assume that the same imagery is used in Revelation to refer to Israel. We cannot assume this, because this imagery is used in the Old Testament with more than one referent.

As far as God is conerned, Israel is a Gentile nation. All who reject Christ are not circumcised in the way that is important, making them as if they were uncircumcised. Gal 3 & 4

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
Gal 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Gal 4:31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
The natural Jerusalem is like a Gentile, unclean. Paul said "We are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit" What does that make the Israel that is not of Israel? (Romans 9) It makes them a vessel of dishonor prepared for destruction.

So it's not suprise that one the new covenant replaced the old, that the old covenant people became as if they were Gentiles in God's eyes?

This doesn't actually address what I wrote.

[Sean 2]

I'll repeat the issue in Revelation 11 here, in a separate post, because it absolutely must be dealt with:

Here is the big clincher, though by all means not the last of the evidence.

Luke 21:20-24
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Revelation 11:1,2,8
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months... And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

At this point, we are dealing with more than just a similarity of language between the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. We are dealing with identical themes, themes have we know have seen their historical fulfillment in 70 AD. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you to show that there will be two great tribulations, and two occurances where the holy city (clearly earthly Jerusalem) will be trampled on by Gentiles for 42 months.

Firstly, neither of these two passages speak of a 'great tribulation'. They do share a common theme - tribulation on God's people - but there is nothing to indicate that they speak of the same event (exegeting from the common theme and common symbolism commits the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

My focus is on:
Secondly, the contexts of these two passages are completely different. One is explicitly a warning of the destruction of Jerusalem to those who would experience the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the other contains no reference to Israel or Jerusalem, and was sent to Christians who would not experience the destruction of Jerusalem.

Hold that thought, now lets read on:

Rev. 1:1 - "...things which must shortly take place"
Rev. 2:16 - "Repent, or else I will come to you quickly"
Rev. 3:11 - "Behold, I come quickly!"
Rev. 22:6 - "...things which must shortly take place."
Rev. 22:7 - "Behold, I am coming quickly!"
Rev. 22:12 - "Behold, I am coming quickly."
Rev. 22:20 - "Surely I am coming quickly."

Note the significant fact that these phrases occur outisde the main body of the book, in which the actual historical events are deescribed. Nowhere do we find these events described with these words.

I love it, on the one hand, Revelation is written to the 7 Churches so it's claimed it can't be about the destruction of Jerusalem (Hint: Just like multiple times in the OT, it's a warning, a show of God's power, never to be forgotten like Pharoh)
...but...
At the same time all the references to soon, quickly, etc don't apply because they are not in the main body.

You can't have it both ways, using your own logic, the letter being written to 7 Churches but speaking about Jerusalem applies because it's outside the "body" of the letter (body being arbitrarily (sp) defined of course).

We have no Christian writings from the 1st to the 10th century which indicate a Praeterist understanding of the book (even though some events were considered to be references to 1st century events). In fact a systematic Praterism does not occur in Christian exposition of Revelation untli the early 17th century (Luis de Alcazar, 1554-1613). Why is this?

This being the case, it is speculative to suggest that the 1st century Christians would never have understood Revelation from a Historicist perspective. Certainly the 1st century Jewish writers (such as Josephus, Rabbi Joseph, and Rabbi Johanan Ben Zakkai), had no concept of the eschatological events of Daniel 2 and 7 occurring in the 1st century.

This is a non sequitur and proves nothing, you have no idea what they understood since they are all dead, most didn't have the luxury of writing skills, parchment, ect. There being no record is a pointless aregument.

[Sean 2]

This doesn't actually address what I wrote.

It doesn't? Paul equates "Israel" with one who does not recieve the promises made, making it something other than true Israel. Your arguement was based on the assumption that imagery translates into the NT, I've shown that Israel (the visible nation) changed identity from OT to NT by the inacting of a new covenant. So the imagery can apply, since it's no longer Israel.

[Fortigurn]

This doesn't actually address what I wrote.

It doesn't? Paul equates "Israel" with one who does not recieve the promises made, making it something other than true Israel. Your arguement was based on the assumption that imagery translates into the NT, I've shown that Israel (the visible nation) changed identity from OT to NT by the inacting of a new covenant. So the imagery can apply, since it's no longer Israel.

It appears that you are not at all reading what I wrote. I have not been arguing that this imagery applies to Israel in Revelation. Nor have I been arguing that it does not apply to the body of Christians.

I have been arguing that it is not applied to Israel in Revelation. I have been arguing that it is applied to the body of Christians.

[Fortigurn]

I love it, on the one hand, Revelation is written to the 7 Churches so it's claimed it can't be about the destruction of Jerusalem (Hint: Just like multiple times in the OT, it's a warning, a show of God's power, never to be forgotten like Pharoh)

...but...

At the same time all the references to soon, quickly, etc don't apply because they are not in the main body.

You can't have it both ways, using your own logic, the letter being written to 7 Churches but speaking about Jerusalem applies because it's outside the "body" of the letter (body being arbitrarily (sp) defined of course).

You're missing my argument. My point about the Revelation being written to the seven ecclesias is that this is a powerful case against it referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I have not said that 'all the references to soon, quickly, etc don't apply'.

This is a non sequitur and proves nothing, you have no idea what they understood since they are all dead, most didn't have the luxury of writing skills, parchment, ect. There being no record is a pointless aregument.

It is not a non sequitur, because we do in fact have Christian writings from the mid to late 1st century, as well as the early 2nd century.

The fact is that we have records of early Christian writings, within the 1st century, including expositions of prophecy.

None of them give the Praeterist view.