Dear Friend,

It is good to hear from you!  I told you before that I dare not be brief with you because concepts get shot down too easily when just briefly stated. Therefore this email is very long.

However, I hope to prove that:
 

1. 1 - The Babylon of Revelation is first-century earthly Jerusalem.
2. 2 - Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD as a judgment and act of vengeance of God because of the persecution of the first-century Christians and the murder of the Son of God.
3. 3 - Babylonian prophecies of Jeremiah 50 & 51 are a type and shadow of the judgment that befell first-century Jerusalem and that this is the very reason John used the name "Babylon".
4. 4 - Jesus is not only King now but is ruling from David's throne now, all of which was prophesied in the OT.
5. 5 - Dispensationalism is a false doctrine and their teaching of a"church age" is false.
6. 6 - Preterism does not change the Word of God to say exactly the opposite of what it says, whereas, futurism does.
7. 7 - Your belief system of allowing God to alter His word is false.
8. 8 - God's statements of time must be taken seriously or He is a false prophet.
9. 9 - Eschatology governs one's world view and definitely affects the way the gospel is preached.

You wrote, "Are you saying that God specifically stated these things about Babylon so that he could reiterate it for the Jews?"

No. But the "concept of the Babylonian and Jewish similarities" comes from my study of "Babylon" in the first epistle of Peter and the book of Revelation.
 

(BABYLON IN 1 PETER)

1 Peter 5
13  "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."  I believe that Peter is referring to Jerusalem when he says "Babylon" and not to the literal city of Babylon for the following reasons:
 

1. 1 - In the days of the apostle Peter, according to Pliny and Josephus, the city of Babylon was a wilderness.
2. 2 - According to Josephus, all Jews had been expelled from the country of Babylonia in Peter's day.
3. 3 - Peter's residence can not be established in a literal Babylon, nor can it be established in Rome (which some commentaries say is the meaning of "Babylon" in this passage.) But in my studies of Peter's residence I can firmly establish him living in Jerusalem:3a - After the great persecution the church was scattered, but the apostles (i.e. Peter) stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).

• 3b - When Philip preached in Samaria, the apostles at Jerusalem sent Peter and John to them. Thus Peter must have been living there (Acts 8:14).
• 3c - When Herod Agrippa imprisoned Peter, he was in Jerusalem (Acts 12:1-4).
• 3d - Three years after his conversion, Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter and even abides with him there. Therefore, Peter must have lived there (Galatians 1:18).
• 3e - Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul again returns to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. Peter is there again and even named as a "pillar" in the church at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1, 9).
• 3f - Paul tells us that Peter was intimidated by "Jews from James (i.e. Jerusalem)". Surely this would be because Peter's residence was there and he had to live with these people (Galatians 2:11,12).
• 3g - In the scripture in question (1 Peter 5:13), who is Marcus? If it is a reference to John Mark then we presumably know that his original residence was in Jerusalem in the house of his mother. So if Marcus is John Mark, then the "church" would also be at Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).

I do know, however, that Peter did some evangelical travelling with his wife as is stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and therefore could have visited Babylon, although I don't know why.
Continuing . . .
 

1. 4 - Peter was the "apostle to the circumcision" (Galatians 2:7-9), and if there were no Jews in Babylon, why would he take up residence there?
2. 5 - The most prominent population of Jews in Peter's day was at Jerusalem, so this is the most logical place for the "apostle to the circumcision" to reside.
3. 6 - If 1 Peter 5:13 references John Mark, then his residence is also established at Jerusalem.

If I am correct, then this is significant because I believe I can prove to you that the references to "Babylon" in the book of Revelation are also to Jerusalem. I believe that Babylon is used symbolically to greatly enhance our understanding of the state of apostate Judaism.
 

(BABYLON IN REVELATION)
 

• Before looking at Revelation's references to "Babylon" I would like to preface this by reminding you of the explicit time statements in the book of Revelation that absolutely shut us up into a first-century time frame. It still shocks me how MOST Bible teachers completely ignore this!
• And the ones most likely to ignore it are the very ones who claim to take the Bible literally! The first three verses set the tone (Revelation 1:1-3), and five times in the last chapter (Revelation 22:6,7,10,12,20) we are reminded again of the timing of the events of the book. Terms like
• "at hand", "quickly", etc. are hard to argue into 2000 years. The whole book is sandwiched between these explicit time expressions. Could it be that God wanted to make absolutely certain of the timing of the events so that we wouldn't be confused? He starts with nearness and ends with
• nearness.
• Secondly, I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that John wrote Revelation before 70 AD and not in the traditional 96 AD time frame. The main reasons I believe this, (in no particular order):

1. 1 - The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here.
2. 2 - The second century Syrian version of the book has the title of "John the Evangelist in the Isle of Patmos, where he was thrown by Nero Caesar." Nero, of course, was dead by 68 AD.
3. 3 - Some versions have a few manuscripts that have the number of the beast as 616 instead of the Hebrew 666. (You can find this stated in almost any Study Bible). What is shocking is that using gematria Caesar Nero's name would add up to 616 in those versions, but in Hebrew, 666.

1. 4 - According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD.
2. 5 - The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!
3. 6 - There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.
4. 7 - The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. Roman emperors are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while . . . Galba, 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.
5. 8 - Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.
6. 9 - What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to "calculate" the number of the name of the beast if he was not to be born until 2000 years later? This would be completely ridiculous. This implies that the beast was living at the time of this writing, thus proving not necessarily the pre-70 AD writing, but definitely the "at hand" time statements of the book.
7. 10 - The 7th king of Revelation 17 is not yet here. If Nero is the 6th, then the book was written before Galba, i.e. before 70 AD.
8. 11 - In Revelation there seems to be only 7 churches in Asia. Historically, there seems to be many more than that after 70 AD as Christianity began to grow very rapidly.
9. 12 - The incredible parallels of Matthew 24 and Revelation, which Jesus said would happen in "this generation" and "when . . . Jerusalem (is) surrounded with armies". Most of that generation were dead in the time of 96 AD and Jerusalem was surrounded with armies in 70 AD.

Here are the main reasons that I believe the "Babylon" of Revelation to be referring to Jerusalem:

1. 1 - It is continually called the "great city" (Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:10,16,18,19) as is Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8)
2. 2 - It is described as receiving God's wrath (Revelation 14:8,19; 16:19) as is Jerusalem (Matthew 22:7; 23:37,38; Mark 12:9; Luke 13:34,35; 19:27,41-44; 20:16; 21:20; 23:28-31; Acts 6:14; 7:51,52; Galatians 4:21-31; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
3. 3 - It is said to be fornicating (Revelation 14:8; 17:2) as is Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). In the OT when Babylon was about to be used by God to judge Jerusalem, Jerusalem is said to be fornicating also.
4. 4 - It is said that outside the city blood flowed for 1600 furlongs (200 miles) (Revelation 14:20), this is the north-south length of the land of Judea. Also, Josphus speaks of rivers of blood where dead bodies were washing up because they were slaughtered by the Romans and remained unburied. He also relates of the blood flow actually putting out fires in houses.
5. 5 - Great hail weighing one talent is said to fall upon men there (Revelation 16:21). Josephus tells of the Roman catapults being used to cast whitewashed boulders over the walls of Jerusalem and they each weighed one talent.
6. 6 - It is described as the great whore (Revelation 17:2), which is fitting for apostate Jerusalem being estranged from God. Again, in the OT, when Babylon was to judge Jerusalem, the prophet Ezekiel and Jeremiah call Jerusalem a harlot.
7. 7 - It is described as being adorned in OT priestly apparel (Revelation 17:4, 5; 18:16) which is fitting for apostate Jerusalem having a form of godliness but being far from God. Even on the forehead is written "Mother of harlots . . ." just like "Holiness to the Lord" is written on the foreheads of the OT priesthood (Exodus 28:36-38).
8. 8 - It is clearly not literal Babylon, as it is called a "mystery" (Revelation 17:5).
9. 9 - It is being held responsible for the "blood of the saints" and the "blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6; 18:24) just as Jerusalem was (Matthew 23:29-39; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, see references in #2 above also).
10. 10 - It can be shown that the NT constantly contrasts two Jerusalems:
11. 10a - Heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:16; 12:22) VS Earthly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:21-31).
12. 10b - The city with foundations (Hebrews 11:10) VS the "no continuing" city (Hebrews 13:14)
13. 10c - The city whose builder is God (Hebrews 11:10) VS the city whose builder is man (Galatians 4:21-31)
14. 10d - The Jerusalem to come (Hebrews 13:14) VS the Jerusalem that "now is" (in Paul's day, Galatians 4:25)
15. 10e - The Jerusalem which is above (Galatians 4:26) VS the Jerusalem that is below (Galatians 4:21-31)
16. 10f - The Jerusalem that is free (Galatians 4:26) VS the Jerusalem that is in bondage (Galatians 4:25) I believe I can carry this contrast on into Revelation and establish the following additional ones:
17. 10g - The Holy City (Revelation 21:2; 22:19) VS the Wicked City (Revelation 17-18)
18. 10h - The Bride (Revelation 21:9; 22:17) VS the Harlot (Revelation 17:15,16)
19. 10i - New Jerusalem (Revelation 3:12; 21:2) VS Old Earthly Jerusalem
20. 11 - It is said to make war with the Lamb (Revelation 17:14) as is Jerusalem (see references in #2 above) and the first-century Jews (Almost every chapter in the book of Acts!). When the Saul of Tarsus persecuted the Christians, Jesus said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" (Acts 9:4). Jesus took it personal. Thus when Christians are persecuted, the Lamb is being attacked Himself.
21. 12 - The beast hates her, makes her desolate and naked, eats her flesh and burns her with fire (Revelation 17:16) which is exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem.
22. 13 - The saints abiding in Babylon were told to escape (Revelation 18:4) as were the saints abiding in Jerusalem at the time of the Roman siege (Luke 21:20-22).
23. 14 - It claims it is not a "widow" (Revelation 18:7), but if it is Jerusalem then it is fitting to be called a widow for she killed her own husband (Jesus).
24. 15 - In its judgement it experiences death, mourning, famine and being burned with fire (Revelation 18:8) which is very descriptive of what happens in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
25. 16 - Her judgment is an act of God's vengeance (Revelation 18:20) as is Jerusalem's (Luke 21:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 10:28-31).
26. 16a - As a note to #16 for you to consider: Did Jerusalem repent of the crimes of the murder of the Son of God and of the saints that He sent to them? No, instead we see the perfect fulfillment of what Jesus predicted in Matthew 23:34 in almost every chapter of the book of Acts.
27. 17 - Jerusalem is fittingly called "spiritually . . . Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8) and in the same passage called "the great city" (see #1 above). Sodom was destroyed for fornication, Babylon in Revelation is destroyed for fornication, Jerusalem was destroyed for spiritual fornication. Egypt was destroyed for holding Israel in bondage, Babylon is destroyed for persecuting the saints and holding them in bondage, Jerusalem was destroyed for persecuting the saints and holding them in spiritual bondage.
28. 18 - The "voice of the bridegroom" and of the "bride" was to be heard no more in her (Revelation 18:23) and these terms are associated with Jesus and the church (John 3:29). Since Jesus told His church to depart from Jerusalem, then the bride was removed and thus the voice of the bridegroom was also removed.

Thus based on the above reasons I conclude that the Babylon of Revelation is an apocalyptic description of Jerusalem and its destruction in 70 AD.
 

(2) JERUSALEM DESTROYED AS AN ACT OF GOD'S VENGEANCE
 

If this is not established in the references above, I will make it a little clearer. I believe that Jerusalem was to be destroyed for its persistent unfaithfulness, the unrepentant murder of the Son of God and the relentless persecution of the first century saints for the following
reasons:
 

1. 1 - In the parable of the king and the marriage of His Son, the ones that rejected the invitation and spitefully treated the king's servants had their "city" burned (Matthew 22:7). This is, no doubt, in reference to Jerusalem.
2. 2 - Jesus specifically names Jerusalem as the one responsible for "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" and then pronounces judgement on them (Matthew 23:37,38).
3. 3 - In the parable of the vineyard, the lord of the vineyard personally destroys those that killed his son and his servants (Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). This is specifically Jerusalem because the chief priests, scribes and elders (Mark 11:27; Luke 20:19) "knew that He had spoken the parable against them." (Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19).
4. 4 - Jerusalem is again specifically named and pronounced doom over (Luke 13:34,35) because of the responsibility of shedding the blood of the righteous.
5. 5 - In the parable of the nobleman, the nobleman personally returned and at the point of His return he slew the ones that didn't want Him to reign over them (Luke 19:27). This strongly suggests the coming of the Lord in 70 AD with the reason of vengeance for the rejection of Christ.
6. 6 - Jesus very explicitly expresses His sorrow over the city because it's soon destruction by a siege (Luke 19:41-44). It is because they did not realize the things which made for its peace, an obvious reference to the rejection of the gospel.
7. 7 -  Jesus very explicitly describes the judgement of Jerusalem as "days of vengeance" (Luke 21:20-22). This, of course, happened in 70 AD.
8. 8 - Jesus exhorts a woman to cry not for Him but for herself and her children because of the coming judgement of Jerusalem (Luke 23:28-31). The reason is eluded to as being His crucifixion. What is further fascinating about this passage is that it parallels perfectly the passage in Revelation 6:16 where the "wrath of the Lamb" is falling.
9. 9 - The accusers of Stephen say that he was saying that "this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place", which is in keeping with the above reasons even though they were "false accusers" (Acts 6:14). "This place", of course, is a reference to Jerusalem.
10. 10 - Stephen blames Jerusalem for the persecution of all the prophets (Acts 7:51,52) just like Jesus did in Matthew 23.
11. 11 - In the allegory of Paul and the two Jerusalems, the natural one is said to be "cast out" for the reason of the persecution of the first-century saints (Galatians 4:21-31).
12. 12 - Paul tells us that wrath has come upon Jerusalem for the persecution of the saints in Judea (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
13. 13 - Almost every chapter of the book of Acts records JEWISH persecution of the first-century church.
14. 14 - Paul tells us that the ones that are persecuting the saints will be destroyed by the coming of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10). This has strong argumentative value in a first-century fulfillment of the coming of the Lord for this very purpose.
15. 15 - The writer of Hebrews describes the punishment in store for those that murdered the Son of God and describes it as vengeance (Hebrews 10:28-31). This, no doubt, can easily be ascribed to Jerusalem of 70 AD.
16. 16 - All the above reasons can also be said of the "Babylon" of Revelation which suffered for the persecution of the saints.

Although the above reasons are not exhaustive, they are some of my favorites. There are volumes more, but I believe those above to be sufficient enough to show that the Jews did NOT repent for the murder of the Messiah, nor the persecution of the first-century Christians and that for that very reason, the Divine Judgement fell on the city and the temple exactly as the Lord described and prophesied in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 17 and Luke 21. This would be very difficult to argue against, I believe. This shows that your theory of the actions of the people causing God to show more grace did not extend past 70 AD. Unless of course, you are going to completely ignore this historical event altogether and say it had NO significance and was not an act of God.

I believe that mercy was extended to them, for Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." I believe God answered this prayer with 40 years of probation (30 to 70 AD). The judgement was perhaps "delayed" as you say, but not to the degree of time
that would falsify all of the Lord's prophesies! "One generation" was it.
 

(3) BABYLON OF JEREMIAH 50-51 ARE TYPES OF THE JERUSALEM OF 70 AD
 

The scriptures of Jeremiah 50-51 are packed full of almost exact phrases that are used to describe the destruction of the Babylon of Revelation. I only pointed out a few of them in my previous email that I sent to you. I believe that I have shown you sufficient evidence that the Babylon of
Revelation is first-century Jerusalem. I believe that God had John use this highly significant and symbology to speak volumes to those who first read Revelation. These first-century Christians would have definitely understood the obvious types to Jeremiah 50-51 as well as others in
Ezekiel.

You asked, "Did the overthrow of the Jews need to happen just like what happened to the Babylonians?"

"Need to happen?", no. But the similarities are truly no accident.

You wrote, "Personally, I do not think God was constrained in any way . . ."

I agree. God was not constrained to fulfill the type. But when the inevitable was to happen, i.e., God's vengeance on the Jews, then it is indeed appropriate that John used the name "Babylon" to describe the coming judgement of Jerusalem in Revelation.

You wrote, ". . . I do not believe that this point is really proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Babylonians are some form of antitype. While I grant you that there may be many similarities, I guess I miss the point."

I hope I have proven the point. Besides, Babylon would be the "type" and the destruction of Jerusalem would be the "antitype". You have it reversed. Tell me, why would God use the name "Babylon" and call it a "mystery"? Why would John write that Jerusalem was called "Sodom and
Egypt"? Why didn't he just say the word "Jerusalem"? Isn't it obvious? He was purposefully encoding Jerusalem, both to hide its identity and vividly reveal it. The Christians of John's day would have no problem understanding this. And if we would dare to read Revelation through their
eyes, we would have no problem in understanding that either.
 
 

(4) JESUS IS KING NOW AND ON DAVID'S THRONE NOW
 

You wrote, "Secondly, I am not sure why the fact that one is a 'futurist' prohibits the belief that Jesus is currently the King of all creation."

First of all, I said nothing about Jesus being or not being "King of all creation". Being King of all creation has nothing to do with it. Jesus did not come to the earth to become the King of all creation. Nor was it prophesied in the OT that one of David's descendents would be King of
creation. But it was prophesied that one of David's descendents would be king . . . king over what? Creation? No. King over the Kingdom of God of course.

The reason that a futurist has a problem here is:

1. 1 - If the Kingdom of God is yet to come, then how can Jesus be king of it now?
2. 2 - If Jesus is king now, then what is He king over if not the Kingdom of God?
3. 3 - If Jesus is king now and it is the Kingdom of God that He is king over, then the inevitable conclusion is that the Kingdom of God is a present reality not a coming one.
4. 4 - If the Kingdom of God is a present reality then it is clearly not a physical kingdom but an invisible spiritual kingdom. Which is what the NT teaches us anyway!

So how can a futurist say both that 1) Jesus is king now and 2) the kingdom of God is coming? These two statements rule out the very statement of them, they both cannot be true. If Jesus is king, He is king over the Kingdom of God. If the Kingdom of God is coming then Jesus is not king over it yet. The original dispensationalists say that Jesus really isn't king now.

But here are the problems with saying that:
 

1. 1 - Jesus is clearly seated on a throne now. This throne is the highest position of authority in the universe. Therefore if Jesus is not king now, what is the throne that He is currently seated on? To what kingdom does it belong?
2. 2 - If the throne He is seated on does not belong to the Kingdom of God, then to what does it belong?
3. 3 - If the throne He is seated on does belong to the Kingdom of God, then the Kingdom of God is a present reality and Jesus is king of it now . . . therefore Jesus is king now.
4. 4 - If the throne He is seated on does not belong to the Kingdom of God, and He is not king now (which is what the original dispensationalists say), then there is no definition of this present age and the throne Jesus is seated on.
5. 5 - What throne in OT prophecy is to be occupied by the Messiah except the throne of David?
6. 6 - If the throne Jesus is seated on is the throne of David then this throne belongs to the Kingdom of God and therefore Jesus is king now and the Kingdom of God is a present reality.
7. 7 - If the throne Jesus is seated on is not the throne of David, then there is no definition of the throne He is seated on.

These are the dilemmas of a futurist dispensational eschatology.

Your example of the "child king" does not apply, for Jesus is not a child. Using your example, is there now a present council ruling in Jesus' stead until He reaches a "certain age" and becomes king? Isn't Jesus seated on a throne right now? If He is, what throne is it? And to what kingdom does it belong? These are the real questions.

Dispensationalism teaches that Jesus came and "offered" the Jews the Kingdom of God and they, as a whole, rejected His kingship and the kingdom. This action of the Jews caused God to "postpone" the Kingdom of God to our future.

Actually, the problem with this thinking is that Jesus did indeed offer the Jews a kingdom, but they had a problem with the TYPE of kingdom He was offering. An earthly kingdom is the very thing they wanted. Once they tried to make Him king! (John 6:15). If His true goal was to set up an
earthly kingdom, then He should have rejoiced at their understanding His goal, and allowed them to make Him king, or at least acknowledged their "faith", or corrected their timing. He did none of the above. He ran.

This mindset of first-century Judaism is what caused them to reject Jesus and murder Him! Are we agreeing with them? Are we agreeing with them that God fully intended to set up a physical kingdom when Jesus came? Scofield and all other dispensationalists do! They tell us that Jesus offered the Jews exactly what they wanted and instead of accepting it they rejected Him and His kingdom. Thus, God had to supposedly postpone this physical kingdom to the future.

But I believe that the kingdom of God is therefore spiritual. Why? Because:
 

1. 1 - Paul tells us that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). So how could it ever be physical?
2. 2 - Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born of the Spirit to even be able to see the kingdom of God (John 3:1-21). So how could it ever be physical?
3. 3 - Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees that when the kingdom of God comes, it will come without observation (Luke 17:20). Why? Because it is invisible.
4. 4 - Paul tells the Colossians that they were already in the kingdom of God (Colossians 1:13). Yet there was no physical kingdom set up in their day. How were the Colossians already in the kingdom? Because the kingdom is spiritual, and one enters it by believing on Jesus.
5. 5 - Jesus tells us that the kingdom of God is within us (Luke 17:21). How could a physical kingdom dwell in us?

But what do the dispensational futurists tell us? The exact opposite:
 

1. 1 - Flesh and blood will eventually, one day, inherit the earthly kingdom of God because we will be in our physical resurrection bodies and Jesus will come and set up the kingdom of God on the physical earth and sit on a physical throne in a geographical Jerusalem.
2. 2 - Sinners and saved alike will all see the kingdom of God for 1000 years on earth during the "millennial reign". For we are taught that those that survive the 7-year tribulation will go on and live into the millennial kingdom right along side of the "glorified physical bodied" saints that came with Jesus back to earth at His "Second Coming". (Even though it is really the third coming. The secret so-called "Rapture" is the second.)
3. 3 - When the kingdom of God comes at the Second Advent of Christ, it will come with great glory and world cataclysmic announcement and everybody on earth will see it come. Some even tell us that this was not possible until this generation because of satellite TV!
4. 4 - That we are not in the kingdom of God now, for it is coming to the earth when Jesus returns in our future. So we are going to be in the kingdom.
5. 5 - That the kingdom of God is an earthly place and will last for 1000 years. It's a physical place, therefore, how could it be within you?

You said, "He has been King of all creation and has been exalted, and raised to the high priest order of Melchizedek since his glorious ascension. He is now our high priest."

Amen on Melchizedek. Also, I know that Jesus is "king of all creation" but you won't find that phrase in the Bible. He didn't come to be king of creation, He came to save us and become king of the kingdom of God.

The solution is simple:

Jesus is king now. He is king now over the only kingdom promised to Him . . . the kingdom of God. He rules from the only throne promised Him . . . the throne of David.

Here is a summary of what I believe in this regard: God was king over Israel (i.e. "the kingdom of God"), but they rejected His kingship (1 Samuel 8:7) and God gave them a king in His anger (Hosea 13:11). From that point on, God sought to regain the throne of His kingdom, thus the
promise to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Jesus is the only one that could really fulfill this promise, and there is no way He could've fulfilled it without resurrection. When Jesus came to the earth the first time He came to redeem mankind and to take the kingdom of God back. He literally came to be king (Luke 1:31-33) and to fulfill the promise made to David. But as Peter teaches us, Jesus had to die and be raised from the dead in order to take the seat on David's throne (Acts 2:30-31). Then Jesus, having received all power and authority (Matthew 28:18) (as opposed to a
"child king" idea) and being exalted to the heavens (Ephesians 1:19-23), used this power to completely take the kingdom of God out of the hands of the unbelieving Jews and fully give it to His Israel, His true people . . . the church (Daniel 7:13, 14, 18, 22, 26, 27; Matthew 21:43; 1
Corinthians 15:22-26; Hebrews 12:28). Actually take time to read these scriptures . . . they are very enlightening.

Therefore, the throne of David is decidedly not an earthly position as futurists teach.

You referenced the parable in Luke 19 pointing out that its teaching was that Jesus was an intermediate ruler not yet having a kingdom (if I understood you). If I cannot be found guilty of reading too much into the parable, then I believe the main points of the parable are:
 

1. 1 - It was told to prove that the kingdom of God was not immediately appearing. There was a delay. The Christians, though members of the kingdom, did not receive it as a gift from the Messiah until 70 AD when He returned.
2. 2 - Jesus went away to "receive for himself a kingdom". So during this interim of time, He was in the process of receiving. He was gathering to Himself a people that wanted Him to be their king.
3. 3 - Those whom He was to rule over rejected His leadership. That would be the first-century Jews who wanted a physical kingdom and Israelite supremacy over the earth, instead of the spiritual kingdom that Jesus was setting up.
4. 4 - He had fully received His kingdom when he returned. He took the kingdom away from the unbelievers and gave it to the believers.
5. 5 - The very servants that He gave the money to when He left were the very ones He called back to reward. (i.e. they were alive when He left, and alive when He returned). This would be suggestive of one generation.
6. 6 - The servants of Jesus did not begin ruling until after His return. I believe this is because the kingdom was not given to them until 70 AD (Daniel 7:18, 22, 27).
7. 7 - Those enemies of Jesus who rejected His rulership were slain in 70 AD. The very ones who rejected Him were the very ones who were punished. What purpose would it serve to punish some present or future generation not responsible for this rejection?

You wrote, "You don't have to be ruling to be the ruler."

Is that really what you believe? That Jesus is Ruler now, but He is no yet ruling? Then who is ruling now? Satan? The church? Or are we without His rulership now? I don't believe the parable is teaching this. He was king when He was seated on David's throne at His ascension. That is the
point of the beginning of His forever reign. You have fully portrayed the very paradox that I was talking about. You see, you want to say that Jesus is King, but you have to say that He is
NOT ruling now. That is the dichotomy of being a dispensational futurist and believing that the kingdom of God is a physical kingdom and is yet to come. It is indeed sad to be king for 2000 years now and have no power to rule!

At his ascension Jesus said, "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth . . ." (Matthew 28:18); Paul tells us that Jesus is seated at God's right hand now and that "all things (have been put) under His feet" (Ephesians 1:19-23).

Therefore my conclusion is that Jesus is indeed king now, that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and is the church, and that Jesus is seated on the throne of David now. A futurist cannot say this.
 
 

(5) DISPENSATIONALISM IS A FALSE DOCTRINE, "CHURCH AGE" IS FALSEHOOD
 

You wrote, "I also believe that our concepts of dispensationalism are different."

My definition of dispensationalism comes from the men who popularized the idea themselves; Darby, Scofield, Brooke and the Plymouth Brethren. My biggest problem with their ideas is the inserted time period called the "dispensation of grace" or the "church age" gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy and their postponement of the kingdom of God.

You wrote, "I believe that God treats all men the same regardless of what period of history they were born."

I agree. And this is basically what dispensationalism says also. All men must be justified by faith. Hebrews 11 proves that faith is the only way to justification with God. But dispensationalism adds quite a bit more than just that statement.

You wrote, ". . . I don't believe that you can push all 'futurist' into a dispensational box."

Me neither, and I do not.  Amillennialists are futurists but are partial preterists, but they are adamantly not dispensationalists. Postmillennialists are futurists and are even more preteristic, but they are adamantly not dispensationalists either.

• Scofield says that dispensationalism is ". . . that system of doctrine which divides the history of God's dealings with the world into periods of time, called 'dispensations'."

In fact, one passage that completely destroys the statement that "this gospel era was not in view of the prophets at all" is in Acts 26. Here Paul summarizes what he has taught and says that He has taught "none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come"
(Acts 26:22, 23). This is a testimony of the content of all his epistles. And Paul also summarized all that "the prophets and Moses did say". This would be a testimony of the content of all the OT). He said that the prophets and Moses spoke:
 

1. 1 - That Christ should suffer.
2. 2 - That Christ should be the first raised from the dead.
3. 3 - That Christ should show light to the people of Israel.
4. 4 - That Christ should show light to the Gentiles.

This is devastating to a dispensational futurist eschatology, because they teach that this current "church age" was not viewed by the OT prophets. Prime example is Daniel's 70 weeks. It is said that Daniel did not see the gap of time between the 69th and 70th week of His prophecy
because God was hiding it from him to reveal it to Paul later. But as we can see above from Paul's own mouth, he claims that the OT prophets (and even Moses!) did see this time.

Peter, also tells us that the salvation being experienced by the church was the very "salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come" unto us. And that they "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory
that should follow". And also that the OT prophets even understood that it was "not unto themselves, but unto us" that they ministered these things (1 Peter 1:9-12).

Therefore, Peter agrees with Paul and proves again that the prophets INDEED DID SEE this so-called "mysterious unseen church age" AND the "dispensation of grace". The above 2 passages reveal that this church age was not a mystery at all, but rather was understood, prophesied and
revealed to the OT prophets and even unto Moses. These two passages alone (though there are hundreds more!) completely destroy any dispensational foundation of the mysterious church age and the intervening gap of "church-age" time between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. And with that
there leaves no future 7-year tribulation to be had. Daniel's 70th week is history and it followed perfectly the 69th one, for the OT prophets saw these things and spoke of them.
 
 

(6) PRETERISM DOES NOT MAKE THE WORD OF GOD SAY THE OPPOSITE
 

You wrote, "Since Preterists take literally everything that Futurists take figuratively (and vice versa), how can we determine which paradigm to take?"

The word "preterist" means simply "past" in fulfillment. In this definition we are all preterists in certain things. Even a futurist is a preterist on some things. For example, no Christian futurist is looking for the first coming of the Messiah. He understands that when he reads a
prophecy in the OT about the first coming of the Messiah that this has already been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore with respect to that prophecy, he is a preterist. It's just some of us are more preterist than others.

But I became what I would call a full preterist not because I knew what it was called, but just from wanting to know the truth and studying the scriptures on my own. When I became one, I did not know what it was called. A full preterist just believes that not only is the first coming of Jesus history, but also the second one.

But understand, I am not on a campaign for preterism. Nor do I exalt it as the answer to all your eschatological questions. The crux of the matter is simply which one has more support in scripture? If neither, then reject them both.

The issue, of course, hovers around the time statements.

I do not believe we can say that the time in scripture is symbolic simply because I can't find an example anywhere in the OT prophecies that this is the case.

I believe that we CAN say that the language used to describe judgements are extremely symbolic because I can find many examples in the OT prophecies where this is the case. I can show you many where the language cannot be taken literally.

So you say that "preterists take literally everything that futurists take figuratively . . . how can we determine which paradigm to take?" Letting scripture interpret scripture, the choice seems obvious. I must take the time statements literal because that is the pattern laid out for me in
the OT prophecies. In fact, that is the main reason I am a preterist. After studying this, I didn't see that I had a choice in the matter. Time is literal, judgements CAN be symbolic. But I cannot find it the other way around. Therefore, the paradigm of the preterist makes more sense.

With this "paradigm", as you call it, I try to see how the first-centuryChristians would read Revelation after they would only have OT prophecies as their examples also. Now it makes sense! When they read the first 3 verses of Revelation, they would not have thought 2000 years away.

Furthermore, you indicated that what the preterist takes literal, the futurist takes figuratively, however, I would like to point out that a futurist doesn't really take the time figuratively. In fact, what he does is makes the scripture say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says! He takes
"at hand" and makes it say "not at hand". He takes, "quickly" and makes it mean "not quickly". He takes "this generation" and makes it mean "that generation". How can we do this? To take figuratively does not mean "make it say the opposite".

Because I believe I am forced to take the time literal, and I see many examples of judgements in the OT having much symbology to them, and because I see Jesus and the apostles using the exact same phrases, then, yes, I "spiritualize" scriptures. But this is an attempt to make sense of the symbol, NOT MAKE IT SAY SOMETHING TOTALLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SAYS!

It seems that you take the book of Revelation and say that the events were at hand when they were written, but Israel repented(?), and God "morally" postponed the events to our future. Yet you have not one spec of evidence this is the case for the prophecies of Revelation. But if one
takes the time statements seriously, then perhaps one should look for the fulfillment of the events mentioned therein in the literal near future of when the book was written, because clearly the first readers would have done that!

It is hard to really suppose that God would bring an end to Judaism, andfulfill all the law without even a mention in the NT. Here are some reasons for why the events in 70 AD are so important:
 

1. 1 - Surely God wouldn't demolish the "holy city" of Jerusalem and destroy His holy temple without a single word.
2. 2 - Surely God views the fall of Jerusalem and the end of Judaism in 70 AD as significant.
3. 3 - This event was what ended Biblical Judaism and it hasn't existed on the earth for 1929 years to this day in 1999.
4. 4 - This event was specifically predicted by our Lord's own prophecy in the Olivet discourse.
5. 5 - This event is the one that Jesus Himself reveals to be the very judgment of God on those that persecuted His beloved apostles and saints of the first century.
6. 6 - This event brought Jewish persecution of Christianity to a sudden and complete stop.
7. 7 - This event was the casting out of Ishmael mentioned in Paul's letter to the Galatians (Galatians 4:21-31).
8. 8 - This event is associated with the coming of the Lord.

Therefore, take a long hard look at 70 AD from the eyes of God and the eyes of the horribly persecuted Christians of the first century. Whether you believe Jesus returned at that time or not, it is clearly not given the significance that it deserves in today's churches. If you were alive in the first century and being killed and horribly persecuted and Jesus and all the apostles are preaching a soon relief from this, and you discover that it really isn't coming until 2000 years later, you would be apt to reject Christianity altogether! If the vengeance of the Lord was not truly "at hand" then this is very cruel.

You gave an example of God putting off a decree in Ezekiel 20:6 and 15. He didn't really change His mind as you seem to be trying to prove, for He still brought them in to the promised land. There was a delay though. But this delay was a STATED delay of 40 years. In other words, the delay had a TIME STATEMENT. They did not get 30 years and then get off for good
behavior. Nether did God extend the time to 50 years for bad behavior. So even in your example, the judgement was put off, but the time statement was literal.

If fact, this 40-year period is an exact type of the period from 30 to 70 AD!
 

• Egypt = Bondage to sin
• Exodus from Egypt = Cross frees us from sin
• 3-days journey to cross Red Sea = 3-days later Jesus resurrected
• Crossing of Red Sea = Resurrection and baptism type
• 50 days later law received = 50 days later Holy Spirit comes (Pentecost)
• Law is written on stone = Law is written on hearts
• 3000 die at Mt. Sinai = 3000 born again at Pentecost (Mt. Zion)
• 40 years Joshua brings them into Canaan = 40 years Jesus brings us into Kingdom's fullness

Therefore, your belief that God may have postponed, has no scripture to stand on at all! You believe something that is entirely without scriptural support! Think about it.

You wrote, "I believe the above Scriptures (referring to Ezekiel 20:6, 15) make it plain that even when the Father swears with an uplifted hand to do something, the actions of the people can still alter it. Can not the words of Jesus be taken in the same light?"

Let me ask you.  God, through the OT prophets, predicted that:
 

1. 1 - The Messiah would come at a certain time.
2. 2 - The Messiah would be rejected.
3. 3 - That Messiah would suffer for our sins.
4. 4 - That Messiah would be raised from the dead.
5. 5 - That Messiah would ascend to the throne of David.
6. 6 - That Messiah would return
7. 7 - That the Kingdom of God was at hand in the days of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.

Therefore, of the above specifically and numerously predicted events, could the actions of the people alter them? If you say "yes", then all of Messianic scriptures are falsified and fulfilled prophecy has no meaning whatsoever. Why? Because I could argue that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah because some UNRECORDED action of the people forced God to
postpone the first coming of the Messiah. In fact, I could just as easily insert a gap of time between the 7th and 8th week of Daniel's prophecy since there clearly is a Biblical division there (7, 62, 1), and say that we are living between the 7th and 8th weeks of Daniel's prophecy and in
about 434 (62x7) years the real Messiah will rise to His throne and rightful place.

There are some things that cannot be altered once God says them. Forexample, what if all of Israel accepted Jesus as their king when He came the first time? Would He have still been crucified? Would there be a resurrection or even a need for one? Could the world have been saved? Was
the method completely optional to God? Or did He have to fulfill it the way He said He would in Isaiah 53 and the rest of the Messianic prophecies?

So the question is, if God stated that the time was "this generation," and "some standing here shall not taste death", and "the time is at hand," and "I am coming quickly" the burden of proof is on you to show not that God COULD postpone, but that it is very likely that indeed He DID postpone. And for that you have not one single scripture.

So, shall I stand on air or scripture? I choose scripture. No offense. God has not seen fit to give me anything else. His last words to us are "this generation," "soon come to pass," "some standing here shall not taste death," "time is at hand," "I am coming quickly."  Shall I believe His last words, or make them say the EXACT OPPOSITE?
 

(7) GOD CANNOT ALTER HIS WORD
 

You wrote, "Personally I do believe that it was God's very intent to end things soon.  This is consistent with all of the words of Jesus. However, I believe that after the ascension of Jesus, things could have easily been modified that allowed God to extend more mercy than what he
originally thought possible."

Whoa there. "Things could have easily been modified"? Well and good, but where IN SCRIPTURE have things been modified? Where is this "could have easily been modified" at? Did God do it and not tell us about it? Or did God just NOT do it at all?  You said "I believe that AFTER THE ASCENSION . . ."  Well, we have PLENTY of scripture "after the ascension", in fact the entire NT is written "after the ascension". So if things were modified "after the ascension", show me where. There should be an example somewhere, surely. Instead I find that all the apostles are STILL expecting the SOON coming of Jesus. Was Paul, Peter, Jesus, John, Jude,
Luke, Matthew, Mark all wrong in this expectation and you are right? For you said, "I do believe that it was God's very intent to end things soon.", but all the writers of the NT disagree with you! Why, because they do not say that God INTENDED to end things soon. They all say that
God definitely WOULD end things soon. There is a big difference between "could" and "would".

Christ's return was not imminent, in the definition used today. Nowhere is there a statement that says that He "could" return any moment. Instead we find that He was expected in a certain range of time . . . period.

1 Peter 4:7 ¶ "But THE END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."  Peter did not say that the end of things "could" be at hand, or "might" be at hand, or the signs seem to indicate that they were at hand.

1 John 2:18 ¶ "Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that IT IS THE LAST TIME."
John, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, is able to discern that it was definitely the last time. He did not indicate that it "could" be the last time, he was proving to his readers that he definitely knows it is the last time and gives contemporary evidence for it.

1 Corinthians 10:11 " Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, UPON WHOM THE ENDS OF THE WORLD ARE COME."
Paul thought (wrongly according to you) that the ends of the world had come upon him and his generation.

Hebrews 1:2 " Hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Matthew 24:34  "Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED."

Luke 21:20 ¶ "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." 21 " Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." 22  "FOR THESE BE THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE, THAT ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED."

My dear brother, you can think anything you want, but you cannot prove your theory from scripture . . . surely you will admit this. All NT writers disagree with you and were in great anticipation of "the end of all things." They believed them to be "at hand." So if you believe that
they weren't really "at hand", or that at the time they were at hand but now they are not, then you plainly have no scripture to stand on. I could easily build up any fake eschatology if I don't have to support it with scripture! I could say aliens from Mars altered God's decision after John
wrote Revelation. In fact, I could say that the angel Moroni appeared to me and gave me the real gospel of Jesus Christ and that it is included in a book named after him. For what in scripture would forbid a further revelation from God, if scripture could be correct "at the time" and wrong now?

We could say when Paul says:

Galatians 1:8  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

 . . that this was correct "when stated" and "at that time", but now it is no longer correct. When Paul said that, he didn't understand it to mean that God would give a deeper and fuller revelation to the angel Moroni to give to man. Stick with scripture. You are clearly outside of it with this belief. In your example of Ezekiel 20:6 & 15, you are not outside scripture. But God DID EVENTUALLY fulfill this word. The generation he swore it to, as a whole, did not enter in, but don't forget Joshua and Caleb! They heard the word AND they saw its fulfillment.
 

(8) GOD IS NOT A FALSE PROPHET
 

Deuteronomy 18:18  "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20  But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21  And if thou say in thine heart, HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE
LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN? 22  When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, IF THE THING FOLLOW NOT, NOR COME TO PASS, THAT IS THE THING WHICH THE LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

There was no time statement related to the Ezekiel 20 passage. But the event of which it speaks did have a time statement attached . . . 40 years as I stated earlier. So God did eventually fulfill the word. It was just put off. Now the actions of the people did not cause God to not bring ANY of the children of Israel into the promised land, instead He rejected only THAT PARTICULAR GENERATION of Israel and instead brought their children in (along with Joshua and Caleb). So the thing DID indeed come to pass that the Lord spoken.

As a caution to the futurist in the same book of Ezekiel, take a look at this warning:

Ezekiel 12:21 ¶ "And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 22  Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, THE DAYS ARE PROLONGED, and every vision faileth? 23  Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, THE DAYS ARE AT HAND, and the effect of every vision. 24  For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25  For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; IT SHALL BE NO MORE PROLONGED: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD.
26  Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 27  Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, THE VISION THAT HE SEETH IS FOR MANY DAYS TO COME, and he prophesieth of THE TIMES THAT ARE FAR OFF. 28  Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall NONE OF MY WORDS BE PROLONGED ANY MORE, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD.  Here is a very pointed example of someone reading a prophecy and prolonging the predictions made therein. God's timing is taken VERY seriously with regards to a prophecy. I believe you will find it true in every single prophecy where time is involved. Some well-known examples:"
 

1. 1 - 40 years was 40 years of wilderness wandering, a year for every day they were gone to spy the land.
2. 2 - 70 years of Babylonian captivity to make up for the missed land-sabaths.
3. 3 - 483 (69 sevens) years from the decree of Cyrus to "Messiah the prince".

So again:
 

1. 1 - What if it had been 47 years because of bad behavior of the people? Or what if it had been 30 years because of good behavior? Wouldn't Moses then be found a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18 as stated above?
2. 2 - Or what if they started keeping the sabbaths after the prophecy of the 70 years, would it have been 60 years or so? If so, then wouldn't Jeremiah be a false prophet?
3. 3 - What if the Messiah did not come within Daniel's 70 weeks? Would the action of the people change the timing of this critical prophecy? Is so, couldn't we call Daniel a false prophet and make Mohammed the Messiah instead?

If we can change figures so freely then the Deuteronomy 18 check for false prophets is nothing but vain-speaking. There is no way to measure a true prophet or a false one. Timing is the most critical thing in a prophecy. If the timing is off you can imagine absolutely anything with regards to what it is saying and to whom it is speaking.

I appreciate your imagination, but you are really "out on a limb", further than I dare to go. In fact, without scripture, I would have to say that you are not on a limb at all, your theory hangs on a
philosophical thought, not a Word of God.

You wrote, "The futurists believe in absolute foreknowledge which makes them unable to understand, or accept, the clear admonition in Scripture that the end was near.  However, the Preterists assume that once God says something, this even binds him and he somehow loses his
sovereignty (it must happen this way and he cannot change it requardless (sic.) of what happens)."

God binds Himself to His word: Numbers 23:19  "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: HATH HE SAID, AND SHALL HE NOT DO IT? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Even a man is known by his word. If his word cannot be trusted then neither is the man. If his word can be trusted, then so can the man. Jesus said to let our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no" and that anything more than that was evil. Men bind each other and sue each other
over their words.
God is only as good as His word. And He has magnified His word even above His name (Psalm 138:2)! And His name is higher than any other name (Philippians 2:9)!

And remember the exhortation of the false prophets in Deuteronomy 18 quoted above. Can you show me a real example in scripture where God declares a thing and it did not come to pass? I really can't think of one. I can think of where He puts a condition on whether something comes
to pass or not, like the repentance of Nineveh, or the continued dwelling in the promised land. Clearly when God threatens a judgment, mercy is a way out. But, a people can reach the point of no return. Clearly when God promises blessing, sin is a hindrance. Some examples would be nice if you have any.

When God binds Himself to His word He doesn't loose His sovereignty. Nor does He use His sovereignty as an excuse to lie. In my sovereignty over my children, if I promise them they can have ice cream after supper and I do not deliver, I am a liar. They fulfilled their part of the bargain
(covenant) so I must do mine or I am a liar. What other option is there? My children would judge rightly. Does God do the same? Does He change His Word at His "sovereignty" and alter the things gone out of His mouth based upon man's actions? If He does, what is to keep Him from opening the chute and sending us off to hell when we are judged? Nothing. He
could "sovereignly change His mind about our salvation in Jesus Christ and send us to hell. This would not make Him a liar? Perhaps some of us are such bad cases that even Jesus' atoning death was not sufficient to save us? Perhaps there is a hidden rule and purpose for sovereignly
sending us to hell even though we believed in Jesus Christ as our savior?

Or take the opposite. Perhaps God changes His word and chooses to save all those that don't believe on Him. Can He do that too and still be found righteous?  I cannot accept such a belief system . . . again, no offense.

You wrote, "God brings destruction because he cannot afford the continuance of the sin, but it is not his will and it does break his heart to annihilate people."

I agree with you brother! And God so states. His heart is grieved by man's sin. But did the promise of judgement on Jerusalem not happen? Though it may have broken His heart to annihilate people, did He postpone the judgement? Was the destruction of the city and the temple in 70 AD
NOT God's judgment that Jesus predicted and the apostles expected? Are we to lightly skip over the events of 70 AD and postpone their fulfillment to the distant future, now amounting to 2000 years in the future?

If God postponed the judgement then what was all the commotion in 70 AD? Was this historical event not God's judgement? If God postponed the judgement, what do I use as scripture to prove it, or even suggest it? Can I show how that the Jews repented as a whole of their murder of the
Messiah and the persecution of the first-century Christians? Can I show that God extended His mercy to them in some other form other than the repentance and promised deliverance from the "wrath to come" by accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior? If you can show me this, I am all ears, but to base the foundation of your entire eschatology on an idea that has no
direct scriptural support, to me is dangerous.

And if God did postpone the fulfillment of Revelation in spite of what he says in the opening three verses (which are in perfect accord with the entire NT!), then scripture AS IT STANDS TODAY IN OUR HANDS is a complete lie. For "at hand" is not really "at hand". "Quickly" is not really
"quickly". "This generation" is changed to "some generation in the future". The number "70" in Daniel's 70 weeks means nothing. "Some of you standing here shall not taste death . . ." means that some of them DID taste death.

You wrote, "Therefore, I believe that you all take the time statements the way they were meant.  I however still believe that both schools of thought are wrong (or at least they don't agree with my concept of how God governs the universe.)  See Finney for my concept of God's Moral
Government.  I believe that God meant it when he said it, but future action of his saints have given him the moral reason to extend more grace.  However this window of opportunity is not endless, and one day will close.  How is that for a completely unorthodox position.  An you thought you were out on a limb!"

You believe that "God meant it when he said it, but future action of his saints have given him the moral reason to extend more grace"? Scripture please. Did God make the promise of His coming conditional on the actions of His saints? Could we somehow prevent the first coming of Jesus? Or the second? What if we all, as the human race, reject Christ? Will God destroy the whole earth and universe? Is that what He said?

If God can say one thing and do another, then what hope is there in the Bible you hold in your hand? It may be true, or it may not. What it says may happen, or what it says may not happen. If God so chooses He can change His mind AND CHANGE HIS WORD. And further, how can we even trust what He says about Himself? Maybe He tells us He is merciful, and yet,
when He chooses, He is spiteful.

With a belief system like that the last words of the Bible should be:

Revelation 22:18  "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
22  ALL THE WORDS OF THIS PROPHECY ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FROM GOD."

If there were such a verse as Revelation 22:22, then I could accept your theory. But as the Word of God stands, I cannot.

(9) ESCHATOLOGY AFFECTS GOSPEL PREACHING AND ATTITUDE
 

You wrote, " . . . I can see no hindrance to the Gospel either way." I can, just as you guessed. Those that believe that Jesus is "just about to break the eastern sky", or that we are the "final generation", or the "generation that will see the rapture of the church" decidedly DO NOT
plan to be here long. So why get involved with politics, government, schools, big ministries built to last, . . . ? Why polish brass on a sinking ship? And this IS the attitude of most of them, not all of them. In fact, charismatics seem to be the biggest exception. They build huge ministries with a great scope and future planned, but then preach the "last of the last of the last days" in their eschatology.

I have a friend at work who is a futurist (goes to a Baptist church that is pre-millennial pre-tribulation rapture dispensational) and believes that we are in the "last of the last days" and that he will see "the rapture". He said what you did, that he couldn't see a hindrance either
way. So I asked him, and I ask you, Have you ever made a "life's" decision on the soon coming of the Lord? He was quite surprised at his own answer. He had recently told his wife that there was no need for him to go back to school to better himself for his job because Jesus was coming soon anyway and he probably wouldn't even have time to finish school.

That is what I'm talking about. His world view forces him to make this kind of decisions even if he is not really conscience of it. Is he thinking of his children's future? No, only of his escape from the earth.

Now, I don't know if he is typical, but I know I was just like him at one time or another. You can't help it!

I am planning on the world becoming a better and better place, not a more horrible and more horrible place, because I believe that God's kingdom is now and that it will indeed last forever and grow into a great mountain and fill the earth just as God told Daniel in Daniel 2. I believe the
Kingdom of God is a present reality and Jesus is the king of it, therefore, how could it possibly fail? Look at its current success: started with 12, now there are millions.

Hope this hasn't bored you to tears. I look forward to your comments, if any.

Your brother in Christ Jesus (the reigning King on David's Throne),
Greg Kiser (a co-reigning heir and descendent of Abraham)
<[email protected]>

This Email was received August 13, l999 from Greg Kiser:
____________________________________________________________________________
Jim,

Check this type in the OT out:

Jeremiah 50
1 ¶ The word that the LORD spake against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet.
2  Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.
3  FOR OUT OF THE NORTH THERE COMETH UP A NATION AGAINST HER, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove,
they shall depart, both man and beast.

The above prophecy is given to the faithful who are taken captive by Babylon. God is encouraging them that Babylon will be judged 70 years after their captivity began. The country that comes "out of the north" is Media/Persian, which is proven by the following verse as well as a chronological study of Daniel's prophecies.

Jeremiah 51
11  Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the KINGS OF THE MEDES: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

Whoa! Did you catch that? "to destroy it; BECAUSE it is the VENGEANCE of the LORD, the VENGEANCE of his TEMPLE".

Do you get the type? Let's go back and make it clear:

Jeremiah 50
9 ¶ For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an ASSEMBLY OF GREAT NATIONS FROM THE NORTH COUNTRY: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain.

The assembly spoken of by Jeremiah is, in this prophecy, the kings of the Medes. But the antitype of the NT is, of course, the Roman army in 70 AD:

Luke 19
43  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

Next:

Jeremiah 50
11  Because ye were glad, because ye rejoiced, O YE DESTROYERS OF MINE HERITAGE, because ye are grown fat as the heifer at grass, and bellow as bulls;

Babylon was being destroyed because they destroyed God's heritage, that is,
His people. Antitype:

Matthew 23
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35  THAT UPON YOU MAY COME ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED UPON THE EARTH, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon THIS GENERATION.
37  O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them
which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39  For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Next:

Jeremiah 50
15  Shout against her round about: she hath given her hand: her foundations are fallen, her walls are thrown down: FOR IT IS THE VENGEANCE OF THE LORD: TAKE VENGEANCE UPON HER; AS SHE HATH DONE, DO UNTO HER.

28  The voice of them that FLEE AND ESCAPE OUT OF THE LAND OF BABYLON, to
declare in ZION the VENGEANCE of the LORD our God, the VENGEANCE of his temple.
29  Call together the archers against Babylon: all ye that bend the bow, camp against it round about; let none thereof escape: RECOMPENSE HER ACCORDING TO HER WORK; ACCORDING TO ALL THAT SHE HATH DONE, DO UNTO HER: for she hath been proud against the LORD, against the Holy One of Israel.

Luke 21
20 ¶ And when ye shall see JERUSALEM COMPASSED WITH ARMIES, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21  Then let them which are in Judaea FLEE to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it DEPART out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22  For these be the DAYS OF VENGEANCE, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Revelation 18
6  REWARD HER EVEN AS SHE REWARDED YOU, and double unto her double
according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Revelation 19
2  For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS AT HER HAND.

That one is almost too much! Now, with those NT scriptures in mind here are some pointed other verses in this powerful type of judgement on Babylon in this prophecy. Pay close attention to these words, don't just skim over them or you will miss something very good.

Jeremiah 51
6  FLEE OUT OF THE MIDST OF BABYLON, and DELIVER EVERY MAN HIS SOUL: BE NOT CUT OFF IN HER INIQUITY; for this is the TIME OF THE LORD'S VENGEANCE; he will render unto her a RECOMPENCE.
7  Babylon hath been a golden CUP in the LORD'S hand, that MADE ALL THE
EARTH DRUNKEN: the NATIONS HAVE DRUNKEN OF HER WINE; therefore the nations are mad.
8  Babylon is SUDDENLY FALLEN and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for
her pain, if so be she may be healed.
9  We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: FORSAKE HER, and
LET US GO EVERY ONE INTO HIS OWN COUNTRY: for her judgment REACHETH UNTO HEAVEN, and is LIFTED UP EVEN TO THE SKIES.
10  The LORD hath brought forth our righteousness: come, and let us declare
in Zion the work of the LORD our God.

Wow! If you read that carefully and are familiar with Revelation 18 it will blow you away. They were instructed to flee Babylon before its destruction, that it was the Lord's vengeance because of His temple (i.e. the church), that the earth was drunken by the wine of her fornication, that her sin had reached to heaven, that she was suddenly judged and then the deliverance of verse 10 is a perfect type and shadow of when the kingdom fully came in at the passing of Judaism in 70 AD!

I can't help it, read this antitype:

Revelation 18
1 ¶ And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, BABYLON THE GREAT IS FALLEN, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3  For ALL NATIONS HAVE DRUNK OF THE WINE OF THE WRATH OF HER FORNICATION, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the
merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4  And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, THAT YE BE NOT PARTAKERS OF HER SINS, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5  For HER SINS HAVE REACHED UNTO HEAVEN, and God hath remembered her
iniquities.
6  REWARD HER EVEN AS SHE REWARDED YOU, and double unto her double
according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7  How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8  THEREFORE SHALL HER PLAGUES COME IN ONE DAY, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
9 ¶ And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, SHALL BEWAIL HER, and LAMENT FOR HER, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
10  Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

17  For IN ONE HOUR so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

20  Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; FOR GOD HATH AVENGED YOU ON HER.

24  And in her was found the BLOOD OF PROPHETS, and of saints, and of ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EARTH.

That last verse should remind us of Jesus' own prophecy:

Matthew 23
35  That upon you may come ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED UPON THE EARTH, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias,
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon THIS GENERATION.

Finally:

Jeremiah 51
11  Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; BECAUSE IT IS THE VENGEANCE OF THE LORD, THE VENGEANCE OF HIS TEMPLE.

25  Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and WILL MAKE THEE A BURNT MOUNTAIN.

Remember the great mountain burning with fire that was cast into the sea in Revelation 8:8?

Jeremiah 51
45  My people, GO YE OUT OF THE MIDST OF HER, and deliver ye every man his
soul from the fierce anger of the LORD.

Again, the command to go out of Babylon just like Revelation 18:4 quoted
above.

There are probably many more, but I just couldn't help but mention these more prominent ones. This is a facinating witness that God painted for us in the types of the OT to reveal to us the meaning of the NT more clearly.

Truly the destruction of Judaism in the temple and city of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD was a judgement of God and is the one that is being told us in the Lord's own prophecies and the prophecies of Revelation.

Praise Him!

Greg

The following is from an Email received from Jim Rittenhouse August 12, 1999:
____________________________________________________________________________
An interesting point Greg made the other day about Stephen that I would like to expound on.  In Acts 6:11-7:60 they falsely accuse Stephen of blasphemy because He said that "Jesus would come and destroy this temple and change the customs which Moses delivered to us" (departure of the old covenant).

When they ask Stephen if he had said these things he does not deny them but rather explains the history of how Israel had resisted God through their history even to the point of killing their Messiah. At which point they were pierced to the heart and proceeded to stone him to death.

Now IF Stephen was a "false prophet" and Jesus was NOT about to return and destroy the temple (historically 70 AD) which He Himself claimed He would do in Luke 20:16, then why did He stand when this "false prophet" was being stoned?

It's ironic to me that some in the modern church hold such an exalted view of those blood related to Abraham living in the land of Israel.  If blood kinship of Abraham had anything to do with a special place in God's heart, then why don't they instead idolize the descendants of Ishmael? He was the oldest and therefore by tradition the "heir" (wives don't influence the inheritance, just look at Jacob), he was circumcised as are the Arabs to this day! I thought Jesus summed up the value of blood kinship very succinctly by saying "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham".

Now surely every Christian should know that salvation was only offered through one of Abraham's descendents that would come through the promised line (Isaac) and that descendant was Jesus. There is no salvation through any other aspect of Abraham and the fact that "only through the promise" is how it can be made available to all nations and tongues. Blood kin is nothing in the kingdom of God.

When I think of the "Judaising" that goes on in this day and age by some in the church (believers being the "true" Jews), including wanting to rebuild "old covenant" Israel and its temple, it seems hauntingly reminiscent of when Ahab rebuilt another city that God had destroyed, "Jericho."  We all know what God thought of that.

In Revelation, God calls the city of Jerusalem "Sodom" and "Babylon", the city where the blood of the prophets and of the saints and ALL who were slain on the earth was shed. We know that not every prophet, disciple, and righteous man slain was slain in one city, but Jesus said in Matthew 23:35 that all the "righteous" blood from Abel to Zacharias would come upon Jerusalem (in that generation) because they would kill the "prophets" and "wise" men (not to mention the Lord Himself!) that He would send to them after saying they would never have done the works of their fathers (killing the prophets) had they have lived in those days.  Sounds to me like Jesus has a "slightly" different view of this city than do many in the modern day church.

The implication is that some special consideration will be given to those blood kin to Abraham through Isaac, who remain in unbelief and die, while the Arab man, when he dies in unbelief he goes into damnation because he was only kin to Abraham through Ishmael. I believe this is gross contempt before the Lord and even though it is done in ignorance, it is reprehensible none-the-less.  I do not agree with Islam in the least, but you have to admit,
the Dome of the Rock sitting on the annihilated temple mount is poetic irony to those who hold to the belief I just stated.  In this ignorance, in which most of us at one time or another have partaken, to one degree or another, we do the Israelis a great disservice by deluding them with false teaching of a separate covenant dispensation that will allow them to continue in unbelief and be justified by their blood relation to Abraham through Isaac.

I often wonder how many of them have died in unbelief and have been lost forever, no thanks to this hideous dogma.  They are our fellow man and we have an obligation to them to get our doctrinal act together and I believe we will accomplish this objective in the not too distant future. Godspeed to the Truth.

        Peace brothers,
        Jim
 

 Also see:  Will All Jews be Saved