Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:13 pm
Well, PL, I had some time, so I figured I'd go ahead and respond to this . . . just so that my position will be represented on the boards, and all 
.
Needless to say, in Premillennialism (Hereafter PreM), we expect the ending of the aion . . . the “age”, not the world. We do not even expect the end of Satan's reign (kosmos). That will come at the Great White Throne Judgment, which is not found in this passage.
Thirdly, do you recognize the eschatological tone in the disciples' questions? They, being first century Jews, were conditioned to think that the Messiah would usher in a literal Messianic Kingdom. They have already been told about His death, and they now ask about His return. If this basic assumption was wrong, why did Jesus not address it as He had done previously? (c.f. Matthew 22:29-30)
I won't quote the next section on earthquakes as the answers will be very similar to the above. Obviously, no covenant, false or not, made by man can prevent earthquakes, so that has no bearing here.
What I do want to do, at this point, is ask you what you think about Revelation 6? Has it already been fulfilled (I suspect you would say yes?). It is very interesting to note the deep correlation between these verses and the first four (and possibly five) seals of the tribulation. Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction. The second seal is war, as is the second prediction. The third seal is famine, as is the third prediction. The fourth seal is death, which is clearly implied in Matt. 24. We also have the fifth seal, which is martyrdom, which is the next prediction in Matthew. Thus, it would seem that Rev. 6 and Matt. 24 parallel, and even further, that this part of the Olivet Discourse clearly refers to the first half of the Tribulation. I believe you consider the Tribulation passed, so you may not have a problem with this. But, you can also recognize that this now depends on our understanding of the Revelation. If it is yet future, then so also must Matthew be.
An alternative understanding is that those who “fall away” are those Jews who will be deceived by the Antichrist. They will then begin to turn over believers to his rule for martyrdom as per the fifth seal in Rev. 6, with which we've already established a connection.
Now a straight reading simply says that the armies would come, so know the desolation would be near. After the destruction, the abomination would be set up in the holy place. Any tension can be easily resolved if we understand the Olivet Discourse to be typologically fulfilled in the first century, but awaiting future fulfillment during the tribulation. If we reject this view, we have a contradiction in Scripture that I don't think can be reconciled.
Next, with this coming, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see him.” Again, this is a clear reference to the visual return of Christ. The fact that you have to take this figuratively should tell you something about your position.
A third reason this cannot be taken figuratively is in the phrase “immediately after the tribulation.” The word “immediately” is used ten times in Matthew. In all ten cases, it refers to that which immediately followed an event (not surprising, as that is what the word means). Now, this coming FOLLOWS the tribulation. What is this tribulation? It is a reference to all the things Jesus has been discussing . . . the wars, famines, martyrdom, etc. And it follows it immediately. You, therefore, cannot take this coming as a reference to judgment on Israel, because, for you, the judgment reached its pinnacle at the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and yet, this coming happens AFTER that.
Now, the clear, plain meaning of this passage is that following this tribulation, the Son of Man will return, as the disciples had asked Him about. If you reject that, then what you have is a discourse that NEVER mentions His return, and thus, Jesus NEVER answers the disciples' question.
As for your equation of this fig tree parable with the fig tree of Matt. 21, I simply don't see a connection. Jesus already explained what that action meant in that same passage. Besides, that's a bad interpretation of that, anyway . . .
Secondly, I refer you to an article entitled, “'This Generation' in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective” by Neil D. Nelson in the September '96 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, p. 369-385. Nelson argues powerfully:
So, as they say . . . try again
God bless
edit: I forgot to deal with the typological fulfillment aspect other than in passing. I have no problem with much of this prophecy being partially fulfilled in type in the first century. If you look up the qualifications Moses laid out on a prophet, one of them was that his prophecies come true. That obviously could not be tested in the prophecy came in the distant future, so you would have near fulfillments that would guarantee the fulfillment at a later date. Some of these near fulfillments would be in the prophets lifetime (as in the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz), while other fulfillments would be within a few generations (as in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes). Both of these were types fulfillments that would have future, fuller fulfillments (Christ and the Antichrist, respectively). This is very often referred to as the law of double reference, where the first, nearer, reference establishes the credibility of the second. We can go into a discussion on that if you want, although, if it is an interpretive method you are going to take major issue with, we may want to start a new thread.
.I agree, but I wonder how this helps your case? In fact, it actually runs counter to your thinking. According to Postmillennialism (hereafter PM) and Amillennialism (hereafter AM), the Second Advent will bring with it the establishment of the New Heaven and Earth. Thus, if your interpretation is right, we should be looking at the end of the kosmos, not the end of the aion. Secondly, to make the point stronger, kosmos, in the NT, has the idea of the world as dominated by Satan. Is it not true that PMs and AMs consider the Second Advent the time at which Satan's rule is destroyed?Puritan Land wrote:Matthew 24:3
.
.
The word for "world" (kosmos) does not appear here. Instead the word is Aion, which means "age".
Needless to say, in Premillennialism (Hereafter PreM), we expect the ending of the aion . . . the “age”, not the world. We do not even expect the end of Satan's reign (kosmos). That will come at the Great White Throne Judgment, which is not found in this passage.
Thirdly, do you recognize the eschatological tone in the disciples' questions? They, being first century Jews, were conditioned to think that the Messiah would usher in a literal Messianic Kingdom. They have already been told about His death, and they now ask about His return. If this basic assumption was wrong, why did Jesus not address it as He had done previously? (c.f. Matthew 22:29-30)
I don't see a reference by Josephus here to apparent Messiahs. I'm not really making a case against what you are saying here, because I don't have a problem with a typological fulfillment (more on that below). But I assume you are working from the word “imposters” and the fact that they apparently did “wonders and signs.” And yet, is that not more in line, from the Jewish perspective, of a false prophet more-so than a false Christ? The Jewish expectation of the Messiah was one (or more) who would lead them into battle with the Romans and establish a political kingdom. Is this recorded by Josephus?Puritan Land wrote: Sign #1 - FALSE CHRISTS AND PROPHETS DECEIVING MANY: (Matt. 24: 5, 11, 24).
.
.
.
Josephus writes that many false prophets and false Messiahs appeared during the government of Felix (A.D. 53-60), deluding many. Such figures played a leading role in the Jewish revolt in late A.D. 66 that led to the Jewish War.
First Century Fulfillment:
“Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude… These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God.” (Ant., XX, viii, 5-6)
I agree that the current trend in wars and earthquakes and all that isn't much of a sign. However, I also do not believe these verses that we are dealing with right now deal with the Church Age at all. They will not begin until AFTER the Rapture. It is of great interest that the Antichrist (in the PreM view) will establish a false covenant of peace with Israel for seven years. Thus, wars and rumors of wars would seem very problematic after all! As to the fulfillment you provided, again, I have no problem with the historical record. We will deal with the very important discussion of typological fulfillment later.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #2 - WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS (Matt. 24: 6-7).
.
.
.
Wars and Rumors of Wars would not have been perceived as an unusual sign during most periods of world history, but during the pax Romana war was extremely rare. E.g., Epictetus writes that "Caesar has obtained for us a profound peace. There are neither wars nor battles" (Discourses 3:13:9) Josephus and Tacitus both write of the unsettledness of the empire leading up to A.D. 70.
Again, I accept the famine claim as a myth as I do not believe any of these verses refer to the Church Age. But, again, under the PreM view, the false covenant of peace must be taken into account. The Antichrist is supposed to usher in a utopia, and Israel will believe it has found its savior. Such famines, then (which we will see are predicted elsewhere) will be disconcerting for the deceived Jew. As to your proposed fulfillment, I will again appeal to typology.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #3 - FAMINES (Matt. 24:7).
Josephus writes that during Claudius' reign (A.D. 41-54) there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign, the famine in Judea was so severe that the price of food became enormous and great numbers died. (Acts 11:28). He also describes starvation and cannibalism during the final fivemonth siege of Jerusalem.
I won't quote the next section on earthquakes as the answers will be very similar to the above. Obviously, no covenant, false or not, made by man can prevent earthquakes, so that has no bearing here.
What I do want to do, at this point, is ask you what you think about Revelation 6? Has it already been fulfilled (I suspect you would say yes?). It is very interesting to note the deep correlation between these verses and the first four (and possibly five) seals of the tribulation. Note that the first seal is the Antichrist, as is the first prediction. The second seal is war, as is the second prediction. The third seal is famine, as is the third prediction. The fourth seal is death, which is clearly implied in Matt. 24. We also have the fifth seal, which is martyrdom, which is the next prediction in Matthew. Thus, it would seem that Rev. 6 and Matt. 24 parallel, and even further, that this part of the Olivet Discourse clearly refers to the first half of the Tribulation. I believe you consider the Tribulation passed, so you may not have a problem with this. But, you can also recognize that this now depends on our understanding of the Revelation. If it is yet future, then so also must Matthew be.
I would just like to point out that this entire argument is based on the very shaky theological (not historical) notion that apostasy is impossible for the believer. You must believe that apostasy refers to those who “came close” to the truth, but then rejected it. Now, I understand and accept that a persons' theological biases and convictions will color the way they read a text, but I also want to point it out so that those who do not hold the same convictions will see that your “fulfillment” is not required by the text.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #5 - PERSECUTION (Matt. 24:9-10)
Jesus predicts the coming persecution and martyrdom of the church, and Israel's impending judgment, adding: "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:32-36). The NT reports the intense persecution of Christians by the Jews in Acts 8:1 and 1 Thess. 2:14-16. Again, we need to remember that Jesus is taking to His Apostles. It is they who would experience these things.
.
.
.
Sign #6 - APOSTASY (Matt. 24:10-13)
Hebrews reflects Jews apostatizing and returning to Judaism (Heb. 2:1-3, Heb. 3:6, 14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb.10:26-27). Gal. 5:4; 1 John 2:18-20, and 1 John 4:3, but especially 1 John 2:24, all of which report apostasy during the time of the apostles. Also 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1-2 and 2 Peter 2:20-21.
.
.
An alternative understanding is that those who “fall away” are those Jews who will be deceived by the Antichrist. They will then begin to turn over believers to his rule for martyrdom as per the fifth seal in Rev. 6, with which we've already established a connection.
I'm OK with much of this, but notice the phrase “then shall the end come.” You are going to have to equate “the end” with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. But that's not at all what Jesus is talking about. Remember, the disciples had just asked what the sign of “the end of the age” would be. Now, I know you aren't a dispensationalist, so you can't possibly think this refers to “the end of the Jewish age” . . .Puritan Land wrote:Sign #7 - GOSPEL PREACHED IN ALL THE WORLD (Matt. 24:14):
The term "World" almost always used in a limited sense (See Luke 2:1). In both these cases, the term is used only to refer to the Roman Empire.
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
Here is going to be our strongest disagreement so far. First off, you cannot equivocally state that the abomination of desolation IS the Roman army based on these passages. Notice a few things. Matthew says that it shall stand “in the holy place.” Luke says Jerusalem (not “the holy place”) would be surrounded by armies. Secondly, Luke does NOT mention “the Abomination of Desolation.” He simply says that when the armies come, Jerusalem's desolation is near. Next, this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the wording of Daniel 9. There, the destruction of the city is explicitly mentioned by the “people of the prince who is to come.” (see below) This would be what Luke was referring to, NOT the abomination itself. Secondly, the abomination is tied to the breaking of the covenant, and it relates to sacrifices (and thus the temple). No such parallel is found here. The irony is that you understand the covenant to be made by Christ in the upper room. Was that covenant broken? Further, such a rendering is impossible, as Christ is not the prince of the people who are to come—the ones that destroyed the city. Now, no covenant was made with Israel in the first century, and, as such, the abomination of desolation (as referred to by Daniel) cannot be the reference in Luke. However, we can read Luke straightforward and it says what it says . . . when the armies surround Jerusalem, its desolation is near.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #8 — THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
Matthew 24:15-22
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”
Compare 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."
The Abomination of Desolation was the armed invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.
Now a straight reading simply says that the armies would come, so know the desolation would be near. After the destruction, the abomination would be set up in the holy place. Any tension can be easily resolved if we understand the Olivet Discourse to be typologically fulfilled in the first century, but awaiting future fulfillment during the tribulation. If we reject this view, we have a contradiction in Scripture that I don't think can be reconciled.
I'm OK with the apocalyptic language in the first part. However, your treatment of the coming of the Son of Man as apocalyptic is comical at best and a massive twisting of Scripture at worst. This is as clear a reference as you can get to the Second Advent. Again, go back to the context of the passage. In Matt. 23:39, Jesus said they would not see Him again until His return, a statement that is, again, clearly referring to the Second Advent. The disciples, hearing this and the decree of the destruction of the temple, ask of the sign of His coming. Here He is telling them.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #9 — SIGNS IN THE HEAVENS
Matthew 24:29
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken".
We now get into some apocalyptic language and need to refer to the Old Testament. The darkening of heavenly bodies has always represented the fall of a kingdom. Consider Isaiah's prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon in Isaiah Chapter 13.
.
.
.
Matthew 24:30
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
More apocalyptic language. This is not about Christ's Second Coming, but His “coming on the clouds, an Old Testament symbol of judgement. Ex. In Isaiah's prophecy against Egypt, “the Lord rides on a swift cloud”. (Isaiah 19:1) Yet Egypt was destroyed by Sargon, the king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1-6), not by a literal appearance of the Lord.
Next, with this coming, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see him.” Again, this is a clear reference to the visual return of Christ. The fact that you have to take this figuratively should tell you something about your position.
A third reason this cannot be taken figuratively is in the phrase “immediately after the tribulation.” The word “immediately” is used ten times in Matthew. In all ten cases, it refers to that which immediately followed an event (not surprising, as that is what the word means). Now, this coming FOLLOWS the tribulation. What is this tribulation? It is a reference to all the things Jesus has been discussing . . . the wars, famines, martyrdom, etc. And it follows it immediately. You, therefore, cannot take this coming as a reference to judgment on Israel, because, for you, the judgment reached its pinnacle at the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and yet, this coming happens AFTER that.
Now, the clear, plain meaning of this passage is that following this tribulation, the Son of Man will return, as the disciples had asked Him about. If you reject that, then what you have is a discourse that NEVER mentions His return, and thus, Jesus NEVER answers the disciples' question.
Again, this is absurd. Your fulfillment doesn't even mention the elect. You mention the church at Jerusalem running, and various Jews being sent throughout the empire. That is exactly the opposite of “gathered together.” Puritan . . . this passage teaches that “the elect” will be brought to one place, not spread throughout the land! Further, they will be brought together “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” In other words, from all over the world, these people will be drawn together. This has not happened. It will not happen until the Second Coming.Puritan Land wrote:Sign #10 — THE GATHERING OF THE ELECT.
Matthew 24:31
"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
Obeying Jesus' warning in Luke 21:20-24, The Jewish Christians fled to Mt. Pella in Decapolis.
.
.
.
This passage has absolutely no bearing on a “rebirth” of Israel. That happened during our age, and this entire discourse concerns only the Tribulation. The meaning of the parable is simple: just as the fig tree bears its fruit in season, the things discussed will happen in their season. Thus, when we see the “figs” (the signs discussed), we know it is the “season” (the Second Coming). Notice that this fits into the context of the disciples' question.Puritan Land wrote:THE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE.
Matthew 24:32-33
"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."
The Parable of the Fig Tree (Matthew 21:18-21).
Notice that it does not mention a “rebirth” of Israel. The “fig tree” was the Israel of the First Century, which was cursed so that “no fruit (would) grow on you ever again”.
More Apocalyptic Language
Fig Tree = THIS mountain = Jerusalem
Sea = Abyss = abode of demons (The “beast” rises out of the “sea” in Rev. 13.
As for your equation of this fig tree parable with the fig tree of Matt. 21, I simply don't see a connection. Jesus already explained what that action meant in that same passage. Besides, that's a bad interpretation of that, anyway . . .
Sorry, I disagree PL. First, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the word can mean more than just “generation.” You rejected the argument by calling my sources “dispensational.” I have provided some six or so different lexicons that argue against your position. Besides, your argument about ethnos is incorrect, anyway. Jesus could NOT have used that word if He wanted to convey “race.” The reason is that ethnos never refers to the Jews (that I'm aware of). It always refers to Gentile nations. Thus, it is a theological stance on your part, no more and no less, to argue that this HAS to be a reference to the people living in those days.Puritan Land wrote:Matthew 24:34
"Verily I say unto you, This generation (genea) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
genea 1074: (42 occurrences.)
41 generation, 1 age (NKJV)
A common argument used by dispensationalists is that the word “generation” can also mean “race”, but this just doesn't hold water. The greek is "a genea", which means "this generation". The word appears 42 times in the Bible, and 41 of those times it is translated "generation", once it is translated "age". It never means race. If Jesus had meant race, He would have said "ethnos", not "genea". Besides, it is translated "generation" in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and in all reputable translations of the Bible. There is no getting around what Jesus said here. All of the events that He was speaking of were to happen within the Apostle's generation. This is the ONLY legitimate meaning.
Secondly, I refer you to an article entitled, “'This Generation' in Matthew 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective” by Neil D. Nelson in the September '96 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, p. 369-385. Nelson argues powerfully:
- A study of the use of he genea haute (11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) and genea with other descriptive adjectives (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) used in the same sense reveals that the kind of people referred to are characterized as those who reject Jesus and his messengers and the salvific message they preach, who remain unbelieving and unrepentant, who actively oppose Jesus and his messengers through testing and persecution, and who will face eschatological judgment. The pejorative adjectives given to “this generation” (evil, adulterous, faithless, perverse; cf. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) throughout the gospels are qualities that distinguish those who are subjects of the kingdom from those who are not.
.
.
.
He genea haute in Matthew describes unbelieving, rejecting humanity, unresponsive to God and oblivious to the possibility of facing judgment. “This generation” that opposed the coming of the kingdom in Jesus' ministry stands in solidarity with those who reject and oppose God and his kingdom to the very end. Leon Morris says, “Right up to the time when all these things happen there will be people of the same stamp as those who rejected Jesus while he lived on earth.” While Jesus was addressing contemporaries in Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41-42; 16:4; 17:17, in Matt. 23:36 his reference to he genea haute expands beyond his own contemporaries to include persecutors and murderers of the righteous from Abel to Zechariah to heralds of the gospel in the indefinite future (23:32-35). The context of the Olivet discourse indicates that the group described as he genea haute sees all the events (24:34) of 24:4-31. Therefore these are persecutors of Christ's disciples until the parousia. (p.375, 383)
It's one thing to take the coming of the Son of Man as apocalyptic in what can be argued an apocalyptic context (as weak as that is), but it is quite another to argue that it also is apocalyptic here! Now, the reference is most definitely to judgment. That is what the Second Coming is all about. But for you to state that this does not refer to the Advent at all is simply ludicrous. I would strongly argue against this passage having any reference to the Rapture, as it is sadly often used to support. But, again, you are rejecting the plain reading of the text. All of the signs of the parousis are in this passage, so the burden is on you to show that this is not the reference. Secondly, your suggested fulfillment is seriously lacking. Jesus says this judgment will be like the judgment in the days of Noah. It was unexpected, and when it came, all were taken away. In the Flood account, those who were “left” were not killed. They were saved. Those who were “taken away” were taken away in judgment. The parallel has to be carried over. Two will be working together. One will be taken away in judgment. The other will be left (saved). The context is clear and this lines up with the rest of biblical interpretation (continue on through the judgment of the Sheep and the Goats).Puritan Land wrote:Matthew 24:35-42
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”
.
.
.
When Titus and the Roman Army invaded Jerusalem in 70 AD, some of the citizens were taken (captive) and some were left (killed).
So, it's pretty apparent that the preterist view if FAR from the “only” (correct) interpretation. It has been shown to be severely lacking. Only by rejecting the plain meaning of the texts and mixing the meanings of various words and phrases can your position be sustained. Further, you will be forced to totally ignore Matthew 25, which lends further credibility to the PreM position.Puritan Land wrote:CONCLUSION
David Chilton, in his book “The Great Tribulation”, gives us an excellent summary of the Olivet Discourse. “The only possible interpretation of Jesus' words which He Himself allows, therefore, is that He was speaking of the destruction of the Temple which then stood in Jerusalem, the very buildings which the disciples beheld at that moment in history. The Temple of which Jesus spoke was destroyed in the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman armies in A.D. 70. This is the only possible interpretation of Jesus' prophecy in this chapter. The Great Tribulation ended with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Even in the (unlikely) event that another temple should be built sometime in the future, Jesus' words in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 have nothing to say about it. He was talking solely about the Temple of that generation. There is no Scriptural basis for asserting that any other temple is meant. Jesus confirmed His disciples' fears: Jerusalem's beautiful Temple would be destroyed within that generation; her house would be left desolate." (See Matthew 23:37-38). Contrary to the popular “paperback fiction” novels of our day, the Great Tribulation is history.
So, as they say . . . try again
God bless
edit: I forgot to deal with the typological fulfillment aspect other than in passing. I have no problem with much of this prophecy being partially fulfilled in type in the first century. If you look up the qualifications Moses laid out on a prophet, one of them was that his prophecies come true. That obviously could not be tested in the prophecy came in the distant future, so you would have near fulfillments that would guarantee the fulfillment at a later date. Some of these near fulfillments would be in the prophets lifetime (as in the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz), while other fulfillments would be within a few generations (as in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes). Both of these were types fulfillments that would have future, fuller fulfillments (Christ and the Antichrist, respectively). This is very often referred to as the law of double reference, where the first, nearer, reference establishes the credibility of the second. We can go into a discussion on that if you want, although, if it is an interpretive method you are going to take major issue with, we may want to start a new thread.
