Any non pre-trib teachers?

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't for a single moment believe that Greek grammar has the same rules as English grammar! You think there is a universal grammatical blueprint somewhere?

Well rules fro translating from one to the other are different, but basic rules of grammar are universal.

I don't claim to be a Greek scholar, but you indicate little knowledge of the language.

True, I only took one year of Greek in Bible College, but I do know how to use all the grammar tools available.

We don't share that opinion. And you've provided no real evidence that it's true.

I did but you don't share that opinion.

The 2 or 3 questions asked the same things. They were the author's preferred way of representing the gist of what Jesus actually said. If I say, someone shouted "fire," they may have actually shouted "the barn's on fire," but it is still accurate to say that someone shouted "fire."

No! they asked three separate questions that were all different.

1. when will the temple be destroyed
2. What is the sign of the end of the age
3. what is the sign of your retrurn.

Jesus referred to 2 events--not just 1 event. He was speaking primarily of the fall of the temple. But he was asked how this relates to the coming Kingdom of God to Israel. They wanted to know when these things would take place. Jesus said eschatological truths were not something to be predicted, time wise--this is up to the Father to determine times and seasons. It is our job to deal with today.

But the time of the fall of the temple was critical to Jesus' disciples, and they were told to expect judgment upon Israel in their own time and generation. To know this they could escape judgment that was meant for unbelievers, but not for them. It did not mean they could escape persecution and other various tribulations. It just meant that they could escape this particular judgment. We see that same promise given to the church at Philadelphia in the book of Revelation.

Wrong again ! Jesus specifically spoke of three events.

1.Luke focused on the judgment of Israel and the destruction of the temple.
2. Matthew focuses on the commencing of teh end times, events in the end time and
3. His physical return.

We do know what signs the unbelievers in Israel were looking for. But they were not given what they wanted. They wanted signs just like many Futurist Christians today want. But they were told simply to live righteous lives, to repent from any sins, and they will be prepared for Christ's Kingdom regardless.

In Acts the apostles were told they are not to be concerned with times and seasons. I'll leave it at that.

No they just wanted to know if ISrael was to get the kingdom at that point! Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all wrote under the INspiration of the Holy Spirit about things to look for so we could know the times and seasons. How one responds to them is a different matter altogether. But I am a futurist Christian, teach on end times regularly in classes and home studies and while telling people about prophecies to look for, I also tell them to live lives worthy of their calling! Jesus never taught an either/or but a both /and understanding and living.

Ladd is a very distinguished NT theologian, and an expert in biblical eschatology, though he is now deceased. He is one of the foremost proponents of the Postrib, Premil position. Whether you agree with him or not, he was very fair in representing the various positions others held. I personally think it is non-controversial to recognize use of the prolepsis in the book of Revelation or in biblical prophecy, particularly in apocalyptic literature.

Well whether or not He is an expert on post trib, premil psoition, I leave that to you. And as I don't know how he represented a pre-trib position, and having taught it in bible College, bible Institutes and church studies, I think I could see if He did a fair job or not.

But I asked how did He know that a semi literate fisherman from galilee who didn't even have (if he was typical of his culture) a firm grasp of his own native language, found the ability to speak in all these subtleties of Greek. I don't see in Revelation any rhetorical questions asked.

Remember proplepsis is this:

pro·lep·sis
/prōˈlepsəs/

noun
RHETORIC

1. 1.
   the anticipation and answering of possible objections in rhetorical speech.
   
   
2. 2.
   the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so, as in he was a dead man when he entered.

One is a definite no.

2 Well teh whole book of revelation is proiphetic and being written before it happens.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well rules fro translating from one to the other are different, but basic rules of grammar are universal.
True, I only took one year of Greek in Bible College, but I do know how to use all the grammar tools available.

Thanks for your honesty. I only took a single class in Greek. When I need answers deeper than the references books, I go to my brother, who is much more studied in the biblical languages.

No! they asked three separate questions that were all different.

1. when will the temple be destroyed
2. What is the sign of the end of the age
3. what is the sign of your retrurn.

I don't share that opinion. If you will compare all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse, you will find that Jesus' words are inexact, because each version is different. They therefore present the *gist* of these 3 questions, and not always the exact way Jesus heard them, word for word. However the Gospel authors presents them, they represent the same basic questions, no matter how the author recalled them. They all represent the exact same Discourse!

One version did not deal with the Fall of Jerusalem while the other dealt with the endtimes. All versions dealt with both the Fall of Jerusalem and the endtimes. That is unmistakable because all 3 versions begin with Jesus' pronouncement of the Fall of Jerusalem, or the Fall of the temple. It was a reference Jesus was making back to Dan 9, where the Fall of Jerusalem was predicted to take place after the death of Messiah. This would take place after approx. 70 Weeks of years following the decree of a ruler in approx. 457 BC.

I see no appreciable differences between all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. I know. I've placed every point side by side, and have recognized the same basic points being laid out by Jesus--only in different words used by different authors. Luke splits up the Discourse--an author's indulgence--to deal with separate aspects which were apparently applied on 2 separate occasions.

Wrong again ! Jesus specifically spoke of three events.

1.Luke focused on the judgment of Israel and the destruction of the temple.
2. Matthew focuses on the commencing of teh end times, events in the end time and
3. His physical return.

All versions present the same basic questions, comparing concern about the timing of the Fall of Jerusalem to their expectation of the coming of the Kingdom. In a nutshell, how can Jerusalem fall in that generation if the Messiah was present and had been proclaiming a soon appearance of the Kingdom?

No they just wanted to know if ISrael was to get the kingdom at that point! Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all wrote under the INspiration of the Holy Spirit about things to look for so we could know the times and seasons. How one responds to them is a different matter altogether. But I am a futurist Christian, teach on end times regularly in classes and home studies and while telling people about prophecies to look for, I also tell them to live lives worthy of their calling! Jesus never taught an either/or but a both /and understanding and living.

You don't need to keep advertising for yourself. I already respect the fact you teach these things in institutions of higher learning. That doesn't help your argument. Lots of brilliant teachers teach an eschatology that is faulty. It is not a matter of their learning, though that also is important. More, it is a matter of prayer, humility, and the willingness to be corrected on a regular basis.

I also am a Futurist--I just don't indulge in the typical Futurist sensationalism, in which Christ is proclaimed as possibly coming "at any minute!" And I don't interpret most prophecies as future, recognizing that many Bible prophecies were fulfilled in history. We have to calm down, and recognize that some prophecies were historically fulfilled, and have nothing to do with the Antichrist!

For example, the Olivet Discourse clearly focused on the Fall of Jerusalem in Jesus' generation. Though this is explicitly said, many Futurists refuse to accept this and just stubbornly cling to the notion they've had for years, that Jesus had to have been talking only about his Return.

The AoD "must" be talking, therefore, about the Antichrist! In reality, nothing in the Olivet Discourse mentions the Antichrist! Only 2 Church Fathers, that I know of, believed that Dan 9 and the AoD referred to the Antichrist. The vast number of them saw these things fulfilled, as Jesus said, in his own generation (70 AD).

Well whether or not He is an expert on post trib, premil psoition, I leave that to you. And as I don't know how he represented a pre-trib position, and having taught it in bible College, bible Institutes and church studies, I think I could see if He did a fair job or not.

George E. Ladd was very well known and respected, although he stood out from some of the other eschatology camps. He was not a Dispensationalist. And he was not an Amillennialist. I've gone down the same road, and find myself buffeted between the 2 groups.

But I asked how did He know that a semi literate fisherman from galilee who didn't even have (if he was typical of his culture) a firm grasp of his own native language, found the ability to speak in all these subtleties of Greek. I don't see in Revelation any rhetorical questions asked.

Remember proplepsis is this:

pro·lep·sis
/prōˈlepsəs/

noun
RHETORIC

1. 1.
   the anticipation and answering of possible objections in rhetorical speech.
   
   
2. 2.
   the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so, as in he was a dead man when he entered.

One is a definite no.

2 Well teh whole book of revelation is proiphetic and being written before it happens.

I do find it interesting that Peter, a "fisherman," had this remarkable ability to convey advanced spiritual ideas accurately. But he was intelligent and chosen by God. And he spent 3.5 years with Jesus--the best teacher.

The apostles were chosen for this reason, so that they would not pass on Jesus' Gospel imperfectly. It was drilled into them precisely what Jesus said and meant, and they were intellectually gifted to be able to understand and communicate these things.

You don't have to be a theologian to do these things. However, once Jesus and the apostles were gone, theologians became very, very useful. And they are, I believe, called to do this. It's just that human pride often destroys their work, because once they fasten onto a particular view, they find it difficult to change it.

Being able to humble ourselves and change on occasion is a great plus. Whether you or me, it helps if all we care about is not ourselves and our reputation, but getting it right in God's eyes, so that others may properly understand and be helped.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't share that opinion. If you will compare all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse, you will find that Jesus' words are inexact, because each version is different. They therefore present the *gist* of these 3 questions, and not always the exact way Jesus heard them, word for word. However the Gospel authors presents them, they represent the same basic questions, no matter how the author recalled them. They all represent the exact same Discourse!

One version did not deal with the Fall of Jerusalem while the other dealt with the endtimes. All versions dealt with both the Fall of Jerusalem and the endtimes. That is unmistakable because all 3 versions begin with Jesus' pronouncement of the Fall of Jerusalem, or the Fall of the temple. It was a reference Jesus was making back to Dan 9, where the Fall of Jerusalem was predicted to take place after the death of Messiah. This would take place


I see no appreciable differences between all 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse. I know. I've placed every point side by side, and have recognized the same basic points being laid out by Jesus--only in different words used by different authors. Luke splits up the Discourse--an author's indulgence--to deal with separate aspects which were apparently applied on 2 separate occasions.

Well they asked three questions whether we are of the opinion or not.

! when will th etemple be uprooted or destroyed
2 what is the sign of your coming.
3. what is the sign of the end of the age commencing

they are all part of the Olivet discourse, but some have portions others don't! Wording is different but say the same thing when they are referring to the same event.

That is unmistakable because all 3 versions begin with Jesus' pronouncement of the Fall of Jerusalem, or the Fall of the temple

No Matthew speaks of the fall of the temple and Luke expands it. That is the 70 AD judgment Jesus pronounced in Matt. 12.

where the Fall of Jerusalem was predicted to take place after the death of Messiah. This would take place after approx. 70 Weeks of years following the decree of a ruler in approx. 457 BC

No it is not approx. 70 weeks. It is 490 years for the total prophecy. 483 have happend, 7 years are still waiting. If God meant approximately, He would have said approximately.

You don't need to keep advertising for yourself. I already respect the fact you teach these things in institutions of higher learning. That doesn't help your argument. Lots of brilliant teachers teach an eschatology that is faulty. It is not a matter of their learning, though that also is important. More, it is a matter of prayer, humility, and the willingness to be corrected on a regular basis.

so are you implying I do not pray, am not humble or am not willing to be corrected? If they need to be corrected on a regular basis, that means they are way off in their understanding. And that is a much bigger problem.

I also am a Futurist--I just don't indulge in the typical Futurist sensationalism, in which Christ is proclaimed as possibly coming "at any minute!" And I don't interpret most prophecies as future, recognizing that many Bible prophecies were fulfilled in history. We have to calm down, and recognize that some prophecies were historically fulfilled, and have nothing to do with the Antichrist!

I know of many prophecies already fulfilled. I also know many still remain unfulfilled. what I fight against is the allegorical fulfilments many propose. that allows people to spiritualize it in so many ways as this forum has shown.

The rapture is any moment and we should always live ready to stand before the Lord, (though I believe and this is just opinion that the rapture will happen on a feast of trumpets when the temple is newly reconstructed) Saying most prophecies as not future says little for so many prophecies are written. And it would be beneficial if you pointed out which prophecies do not concern the antichrist!

For example, the Olivet Discourse clearly focused on the Fall of Jerusalem in Jesus' generation. Though this is explicitly said, many Futurists refuse to accept this and just stubbornly cling to the notion they've had for years, that Jesus had to have been talking only about his Return.

Well I don't know how many are your many! For I see most pre -trib dispensationalists accept that most of teh Olivet discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem is about teh 70 Ad destruction.

The AoD "must" be talking, therefore, about the Antichrist! In reality, nothing in the Olivet Discourse mentions the Antichrist! Only 2 Church Fathers, that I know of, believed that Dan 9 and the AoD referred to the Antichrist. The vast number of them saw these things fulfilled, as Jesus said, in his own generation (70 AD).

Well I have the 30 volume writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and very few of them believed that teh Abomination of desolation was historical. For nothing during the siege of Jerusalem can remotely qualify as the AoD. Ergo it is future. This passage is confirmed by Paul in Thess. and John in Revelation and John wrote after teh fall of Jerusalem.

George E. Ladd was very well known and respected, although he stood out from some of the other eschatology camps. He was not a Dispensationalist. And he was not an Amillennialist. I've gone down the same road, and find myself buffeted between the 2 groups.

As I said I will take your word for how well respected. In the circlesyou fellowship in He probably was! but in my circles, most do not know of Him. and I would have to see his writings to determine f he was fair to the pre trib position.

I do find it interesting that Peter, a "fisherman," had this remarkable ability to convey advanced spiritual ideas accurately. But he was intelligent and chosen by God. And he spent 3.5 years with Jesus--the best teacher.

That comes from knowing god not studying grammar! Even a babe can convey "advanced spiritual ideas" if they know God.

The apostles were chosen for this reason, so that they would not pass on Jesus' Gospel imperfectly. It was drilled into them precisely what Jesus said and meant, and they were intellectually gifted to be able to understand and communicate these things.

No it was not an intellectual gift, but a moving of the spirit to stir their minds.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 Corinthians 1:26-28
King James Version

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

God chooses the foolish, to intentionally confound the wise!

When the apostles were filled with the Spirit, they didn't go to college or university toi learn grammar and memorization or anything like that. The spent their lives preaching, teaching, and running for their lives!

You don't have to be a theologian to do these things. However, once Jesus and the apostles were gone, theologians became very, very useful. And they are, I believe, called to do this. It's just that human pride often destroys their work, because once they fasten onto a particular view, they find it difficult to change it.

theologians are only useful when they stay faithful to Scripture.

Being able to humble ourselves and change on occasion is a great plus. Whether you or me, it helps if all we care about is not ourselves and our reputation, but getting it right in God's eyes, so that others may properly understand and be helped.

Well I guess according to you I am on solid ground. for over the course of my 46 years of walking with the Lord, I have changed positions many times as the Word showed a stronger argument than I held prior! I am always willing to change a position when someone presents a better biblical argument than what I hold!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well they asked three questions whether we are of the opinion or not.

! when will th etemple be uprooted or destroyed
2 what is the sign of your coming.
3. what is the sign of the end of the age commencing

they are all part of the Olivet discourse, but some have portions others don't! Wording is different but say the same thing when they are referring to the same event.

Yes, like I said, I've compared all 3 versions--they are more alike than many seem to realize. Those who try to separate them confuse them.

Quite simply: Jesus said *when* the Fall of the temple would happen. It would be in *his generation.*

As to when the Kingdom would come, or when he would return, they were told they aren't to focus on future prophecies, except to know they are coming.

The sign of the Coming is Jesus' own appearance from heaven. People here on earth who claim to be an eschatological establishment of God's Kingdom *now* are false prophets, which Jesus also predicted.

No Matthew speaks of the fall of the temple and Luke expands it. That is the 70 AD judgment Jesus pronounced in Matt. 12.

That's what I said.

No it is not approx. 70 weeks. It is 490 years for the total prophecy. 483 have happend, 7 years are still waiting. If God meant approximately, He would have said approximately.

That is one view I no longer subscribe to. It never made sense to say 490 years would take place when what is actually meant is 483 + 2021 years! No, the prophecy was intended to show what would happen to the temple that was going to be rebuilt not long after Daniel's time. Herod added onto that temple, and it would be destroyed by the AoD.

so are you implying I do not pray, am not humble or am not willing to be corrected? If they need to be corrected on a regular basis, that means they are way off in their understanding. And that is a much bigger problem.

No, we should all agree that it's our task to choose God over our own personal interests every time. We need to always remind ourselves of that. Obviously, some people are able to receive correction from the Lord whereas others refuse it.

I know of many prophecies already fulfilled. I also know many still remain unfulfilled. what I fight against is the allegorical fulfilments many propose. that allows people to spiritualize it in so many ways as this forum has shown.

Yes, allegorizing prophecy can be a dangerous practice.

The rapture is any moment and we should always live ready to stand before the Lord, (though I believe and this is just opinion that the rapture will happen on a feast of trumpets when the temple is newly reconstructed) Saying most prophecies as not future says little for so many prophecies are written. And it would be beneficial if you pointed out which prophecies do not concern the antichrist!

The prophecies meant to be applied to the AoD and the prophecies meant to be applied to Antiochus 4 did not concern the Antichrist.

Well I don't know how many are your many! For I see most pre -trib dispensationalists accept that most of teh Olivet discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem is about teh 70 Ad destruction.

Yes, but they don't connect the AoD to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, based on the events following the 70th Week of Daniel in Dan 9.26-27.

Well I have the 30 volume writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and very few of them believed that teh Abomination of desolation was historical. For nothing during the siege of Jerusalem can remotely qualify as the AoD. Ergo it is future. This passage is confirmed by Paul in Thess. and John in Revelation and John wrote after teh fall of Jerusalem.

Just having a 30 volume set of writings does not mean you've read the entire set and know and understand everything in it! And it doesn't sound like you even *know* what the Church Fathers believe the AoD to be!

You're wrong. Most of the Church Fathers believed that it was fulfilled in the time immediately following the death of Christ. It was a judgment upon the Jews that began essentially in the time around 70 AD.

If you claim otherwise, you're going to have to name names. I can think of only a few names, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who held to an endtime fulfillment of Dan 9.27. Some have said that Origen and Cyrus of Jerusalem did, as well.

But most of the Church Fathers believed the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled in the time around 30-70 AD. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome were, it is said, of the belief that the AoD was fulfilled in or around 70 AD. I've studied this out, and have notes somewhere. I'd have to look them up. If you're genuinely interested, I'll look them up for you?

Well I guess according to you I am on solid ground. for over the course of my 46 years of walking with the Lord, I have changed positions many times as the Word showed a stronger argument than I held prior! I am always willing to change a position when someone presents a better biblical argument than what I hold!

We're brothers on that point, for sure! Thanks.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here are 2 of the Early Church Fathers...
From: The Abomination of Desolation and Early Church Fathers
St. Athanasius (296-372) "And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:23]; and shortly after He says, "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 Judea 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" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly." (Defense of His Flight [11])

Chrysostom (379)
"Or because he who had desolated the city and the temple, placed his statue within the temple." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers) For He brought in also a prophecy, to confirm their desolation, saying, "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand."(12) He referred them to Daniel. And by "abomination" He meaneth the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calleth it, "of desolation." Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, "When ye see the abomination of desolation." (Of Matthew 24:1,2)

 

[Randy Kluth]

Tertullian (c. 160-225) An Answer to the Jews: Chap. XIII.--Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of Daniel’s prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of announcement... Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer “unction” there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, “Unction shall be exterminated”), it follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the “horn” from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the “leader” who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed “from Bethlehem,” seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem... A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognize that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that “the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader,” —undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed “from Bethlehem,” and from the tribe of “Judah.” Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI (c. A.D. 190)
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Origen, De Principiis, Book IV: Chap. 1, Sec. 5 (c. A.D. 225)
The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A brother provided the following Church Fathers to show a couple who held to a Futurist view of the AoD. Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, so it isn't surprising that they both held to similar views...

Ireneaus Against Heresies Book 4 XXV 2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (Mat_24:15, Mat_24:21)
3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: “And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.” (

Ireneaus Against Heresies Book V III But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them.” (1Th_5:3)

Hippolytus - Appendix - Part 1 XXXVI As these things, therefore, of which we have spoken before are in the future, beloved, when the one week is divided into parts, and the abomination of desolation has arisen then, and the forerunners of the Lord have finished their proper course, and the whole world, in fine, comes to the consummation, what remains but the manifestation65 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from heaven, for whom we have hoped; who shall bring forth fire and all just judgment against those who have refused to believe in Him? For the Lord says, “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be; for wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” (Mat_24:27, Mat_24:28)

Hippolytus - Fragments - Part 1.3 22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,83 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such.

Hippolytus - Fragments - Part 1.4 Dan_12:11. “The abomination of desolation shall be given (set up).” Daniel speaks, therefore, of two abominations: the one of destruction, which Antiochus set up in its appointed time, and which bears a relation to that of desolation, and the other universal, when Antichrist shall come. For, as Daniel says, he too shall be set up for the destruction of many.98

 

[Timtofly]

Here are 2 of the Early Church Fathers...
From: The Abomination of Desolation and Early Church Fathers
St. Athanasius (296-372) "And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:23]; and shortly after He says, "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 Judea 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" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly." (Defense of His Flight [11])

Chrysostom (379)
"Or because he who had desolated the city and the temple, placed his statue within the temple." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers) For He brought in also a prophecy, to confirm their desolation, saying, "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, let him that readeth understand."(12) He referred them to Daniel. And by "abomination" He meaneth the statue of him who then took the city, which he who desolated the city and the temple placed within the temple, wherefore Christ calleth it, "of desolation." Moreover, in order that they might learn that these things will be while some of them are alive, therefore He said, "When ye see the abomination of desolation." (Of Matthew 24:1,2)

Neither of these refer to 70AD. The statue was placed in 167 BC.

Only Pilate was said to place ensigns in Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

Tertullian (c. 160-225) An Answer to the Jews: Chap. XIII.--Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of Daniel’s prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of announcement... Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer “unction” there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, “Unction shall be exterminated”), it follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the “horn” from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the “leader” who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed “from Bethlehem,” seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem... A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognize that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that “the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader,” —undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed “from Bethlehem,” and from the tribe of “Judah.” Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets... Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ’s account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times.

This is about the first coming and yes Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and Israel ceased being a national people, but dispersed. This does not claim 70AD was the Second Coming. It only points out that Israel rejected Christ and until 1948 was still considered exterminated. Tertullian would have considered Israel exterminated forever. No one seems to be arguing that point. The 70th week is not at all explained here.

 

[Timtofly]

Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, Book 1, Chap. XXI (c. A.D. 190)
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father.
In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

One example and he mixed up Vespasian for Titus. 120 years later, and Clement of Alexander claimed no future Second Coming? Is Clement considered a preterist?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Neither of these refer to 70AD. The statue was placed in 167 BC.

Only Pilate was said to place ensigns in Jerusalem.

The purpose of my quotes was to show that the *majority* of the Church Fathers did not interpret the AoD to be Antichrist. Instead they saw Daniel's 70th Week as leading to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD *and thereabouts.* This was an historically fulfilled prophecy for them, and that was the purpose I stated for quoting them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

One example and he mixed up Vespasian for Titus. 120 years later, and Clement of Alexander claimed no future Second Coming? Is Clement considered a preterist?

I'm well aware that some of the interpretations by these Church Fathers were a bit convoluted. I never said they were perfect. I was just saying that they generally saw Daniel's 70th Week as leading to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I know that because they seemed to describe that event as a Jewish punishment for rejecting Christ. The view that the Antichrist is the AoD is far removed from this sense.

Preterism has nothing to do with it. Preterism didn't exist until much later in history. Historically fulfilled prophecies *everyone agrees with!* It's just a matter of deciding which prophecies are already fulfilled and which are not. Preterism tends to take *all of prophecy* applying to the last days and interpret it to be fulfilled in the early generations of the Church. Viewing the AoD in the Olivet Discourse and in Dan 9.27 is just viewing this prophecy as *historically fulfilled,* and not with the same systematic theology as Preterists' have.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is about the first coming and yes Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and Israel ceased being a national people, but dispersed. This does not claim 70AD was the Second Coming. It only points out that Israel rejected Christ and until 1948 was still considered exterminated. Tertullian would have considered Israel exterminated forever. No one seems to be arguing that point. The 70th week is not at all explained here.

Nobody is arguing that 70 AD was the 2nd Coming except Preterists. I am *not* a Preterist! Preterists identify the AoD as the Fall of Jerusalem just as the Church Fathers viewed the AoD as the Fall of Jerusalem, but this does not make the Church Fathers "Preterists!" Jesus certainly came against the Jews in judgment in 70 AD, but his eschatological judgment did *not* take place at that time! This was just an historical judgment aimed at Jerusalem and Israel at that time, and one that still continues to some degree. Nobody but Preterists are claiming that this was the fulfillment of the 2nd Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

The purpose of my quotes was to show that the *majority* of the Church Fathers did not interpret the AoD to be Antichrist. Instead they saw Daniel's 70th Week as leading to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD *and thereabouts.* This was an historically fulfilled prophecy for them, and that was the purpose I stated for quoting them.

Except these quotes do not show fulfillment of the 70th week at all. Nor is this week fulfilled by 70AD according to these quotes.

The first quote says the church up to his time were still living a life of being prepared. Athanasius was defending his own actions. That of moving on when persecutions took hold in one city, and fleeing to the next city.

Chrysostom could have been talking about Antiochus Epiphanies in 167BC for all we know. That is what Jesus was referring to in the Gospels. That definitely did not happen in 70AD, and Chrysostom did not say it did. Chrysostom had the same view as we have today. It is still future. Chrysostom did not clear up the events any more than we can today. We may have more information than he did in 379AD.

So No, these two quotes do not say 70AD fulfilled the 70th week of Daniel. Neither even mention 70AD, just like we should not claim today 70AD fulfilled the 70th week. I doubt you can even conclude it was even a silent understood fact, that no one had to mention. 1948 is constantly brought up in conversation on the topic. 70AD would have been part of the topic for them as much as 1948 is part of the topic for us. Especially if it would prove their point they were trying to make.

 

[Timtofly]

Nobody is arguing that 70 AD was the 2nd Coming except Preterists. I am *not* a Preterist! Preterists identify the AoD as the Fall of Jerusalem just as the Church Fathers viewed the AoD as the Fall of Jerusalem, but this does not make the Church Fathers "Preterists!" Jesus certainly came against the Jews in judgment in 70 AD, but his eschatological judgment did *not* take place at that time! This was just an historical judgment aimed at Jerusalem and Israel at that time, and one that still continues to some degree. Nobody but Preterists are claiming that this was the fulfillment of the 2nd Coming.

The problem is, no one can confirm a Covenant until the 70th week is front and center. And it was not front and center in 70AD. It can only be when the Messiah is physically present, and the whole world knows and understands.

This is after the fullness of the Gentiles. While the Gospel has gone around the map several times, the time of the Gentiles has not stopped. Only the Second Coming can bring an end to this fullness of the Gentiles.

This should be one reason to conclude the 70th week deals with the Messiah being physically on the earth to clear up any speculation concerning the Messiah's own prophecy concerning 70AD. Yes it did fulfill one prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But 70AD did not bring the end of the Gentiles, the end of the Gospel, the Second Coming of the Messiah, nor the end of Daniel's 70th week.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem is, no one can confirm a Covenant until the 70th week is front and center. And it was not front and center in 70AD. It can only be when the Messiah is physically present, and the whole world knows and understands.

The problem, Tim, is that the position I hold is a *major position* in history, and you don't seem to be able to appreciate what the argument is? According to my position, the "Covenant" was the covenant that Christ made with Israel to complete the promise of Salvation. He did that on the cross. So yes, it did happen "front and center" in 70 AD.

This is after the fullness of the Gentiles. While the Gospel has gone around the map several times, the time of the Gentiles has not stopped. Only the Second Coming can bring an end to this fullness of the Gentiles.

The "Covenant" in Dan 9 has nothing to do with the end of the times of the Gentiles. The 70 Weeks had to do with the fate of rebuilt Jerusalem. The prophecy indicated that after 70 Weeks the temple would be destroyed again, in the time immediately following the cutting off of Messiah. We have 2 different ways of reading it, and thus 2 different positions on it.

This should be one reason to conclude the 70th week deals with the Messiah being physically on the earth to clear up any speculation concerning the Messiah's own prophecy concerning 70AD. Yes it did fulfill one prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But 70AD did not bring the end of the Gentiles, the end of the Gospel, the Second Coming of the Messiah, nor the end of Daniel's 70th week.

I'm not saying, nor does my position require, that the 70 AD judgment against Jerusalem would bring an end to the times of the Gentiles. As I read it, 70 AD was just the *beginning* of the great tribulation of the Jewish People. Luke called it a "Jewish Punishment." It would last from 70 AD until the end of the age, when Christ returns.

If you are going to argue 2 opposing positions, you need to understand both of them, and not just 1 of them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Except these quotes do not show fulfillment of the 70th week at all. Nor is this week fulfilled by 70AD according to these quotes.

The first quote says the church up to his time were still living a life of being prepared. Athanasius was defending his own actions. That of moving on when persecutions took hold in one city, and fleeing to the next city.

Chrysostom could have been talking about Antiochus Epiphanies in 167BC for all we know. That is what Jesus was referring to in the Gospels. That definitely did not happen in 70AD, and Chrysostom did not say it did. Chrysostom had the same view as we have today. It is still future. Chrysostom did not clear up the events any more than we can today. We may have more information than he did in 379AD.

So No, these two quotes do not say 70AD fulfilled the 70th week of Daniel. Neither even mention 70AD, just like we should not claim today 70AD fulfilled the 70th week. I doubt you can even conclude it was even a silent understood fact, that no one had to mention. 1948 is constantly brought up in conversation on the topic. 70AD would have been part of the topic for them as much as 1948 is part of the topic for us. Especially if it would prove their point they were trying to make.

I don't think you understand the quotes. If you wish to challenge what they said or meant, bring up your issues in the posts that includes the quotes. Otherwise, we're engaging in meaningless talk.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, like I said, I've compared all 3 versions--they are more alike than many seem to realize. Those who try to separate them confuse them.

Quite simply: Jesus said *when* the Fall of the temple would happen. It would be in *his generation.*

As to when the Kingdom would come, or when he would return, they were told they aren't to focus on future prophecies, except to know they are coming.

The sign of the Coming is Jesus' own appearance from heaven. People here on earth who claim to be an eschatological establishment of God's Kingdom *now* are false prophets, which Jesus also predicted.

Well smart folk don't try to separate them, but combine them to get the entire Olivet Discourse, which revolves around teh destruction of the Temple in 70 AD,

the general signs of these days
Teh beginning of sorrows,
the rapture,
The sign of His coming.
The end of th eWorld!