The synagogue of Satan, pharisaical Babylonian munny changers re-contextualixed what the Word really says, forcing this future Izzy and unfulfilled prophecy garbage on US, imo.
I think there's a lot of mix-ups regarding the fulfillment of Revelations and prophecies regarding the end of the age.
I'm not going to get into a research paper here though I might write an essay for that, but in broad strokes I see the most sensible understanding of the topic is what I would call partial fulfillment.
Starting from Matthew 24:3, we see the disciples asked 3 questions at once and Jesus answered it with ambiguity regarding the separate parts. This is one of the most confusing verses in the whole Bible, but when you read it as Jesus somewhat cryptically answering multiple questions at once it makes much more sense.
As you point out, the end of the age and transition to the new covenant was with the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. This fulfilled much prophecy, but not all. The literal, physical return of Jesus and his millennial reign is absolute, you have to chuck out as much of scripture as dispensationalists to reach the conclusion that we're already there and everything was fulfilled, which is the *preterist view but it makes no sense.
The way the holy Spirit and my study has shown me to interpret is that the end of the age of Israel is parallel, and very much like the final end of the age, but there is a second end of the age that is prophesied and detailed especially in Revelation. This is the end of the age for the Brit Chadasha, or new covenant, and the entire world and is beginning to be fulfilled before our very eyes. Don't be deceived into thinking Christ won't or already has returned.
2 Thessalonians 2:3, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
Matthew 24:26-27 "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 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"
I believe that He is King, today, and has been at least since His ascension. His kingdom is inside me. He fulfilled the law and the prophets. I don't believe that pre or post millennial is correct, myself, nor am I amillennnial, however, amillennial would be closer to accurate.
I believe Scripture is clear that when He comes again, it will be a mop up job and no saints will be around to see it.
I find labels to be much of the problem. Labels and big theological systems that amount to whack all because none of them are correct, no matter how much you study you can't learn more than the holy Spirit shows you and excessive study just leads to prideful error.
Doing what God requires is actually what we're called to. Matthew 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Though we all have our place in the body. We're meant to work together to understand and fulfill God's will but there is great dysfunction in the body and it doesn't work in America, at least not commonly. There is far too much pride, vanity and selfishness.
Jesus is king, and yes you're right: He fulfilled God's word that began with the promise He made to Abraham, Genesis 22:18, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
God's promise was fulfilled in Christ and he is king, but the prince of this world still rules until all His enemies are made his footstool. That final fulfillment is not yet come. We will still be here 100%, the pre tribulation rapture is not in Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:49-52, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
This ties into the Revelation narrative about the trumpets sounding when God's wrath is poured out on the world after the great tribulation. It's a definite timeline of events and yes we'll be here for it. The saints are persecuted, unbelievers in Christ are not saints. I need to write up a full essay on the topic because it's a big and sorely misunderstood one and I've only touched on part of it. Be well sister and blessings!
Indeed, not all will die. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." A remnant will remain, how many who knows.
My personal theory as well is that not all unbelievers will die either. There is another rebellion after the millennium when Satan is loosed from the pit. If it were only the saints left on earth there'd be nobody to rebel. Also, the transformed believers become "kings and priests of Christ" so presumably they have someone to be kings and priests over. I can see the evidence already of many people who are not believers, but will also refuse the mark. They'll be the surviving people at the end of the age.
Matthew 24:22, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
With respect to Irenaeus _Against Heresies_ 5Iren 30.3, final sentence, I don't understand your reference to the Greek article "ὁ". That particular inflection is masculine, although it represents grammatical gender. I'd have to see your Greek to say too much more. Is ὁ freestanding or does it modify something that follows?
In the Greek that I have for that sentence there is only one article, and it appears in the phrase "towards the end of Domitian’s reign". Mine reads "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." *
"It" or "that" would appear to reference the vision, while "he" could reference "Antichrist". I'm not entirely sure yet how you are reading this. (Partly because it's past my bedtime.) The word used for vision, Ἀποκάλυψιν ("Apokalypsin"), is feminine. Ἀντιχρίστου ("Antichristou") is masculine. This is distinct from "him who beheld" (John), represented by a masculine participle ἑωρακότος.
The entire sentence from which that was translated reads "Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς." The implied subject ("that") comes from the verb ἑωράθη ("heōrathē" -- ὁράω Verb 3 singular aorist passive indicative, to see, view, perceive), which offers no clue. **
In my Greek, there's no grammatical gender for the subject of the sentence because there's no subject. That's not uncommon in the Greek. I think you probably have room there to read it whichever way makes sense to you in the larger view. I certainly do see the grammatical issue. What I don't see so far is "ὁ".
I'll take another look at this when I have time and I am wide awake, and I'll continue reading. I've observed a lot of twisting of the Greek by "scholars", and nothing about this issue would surprise me very much.
Let me try to clarify a little, by example, having had some sleep. Matthew 6:9 begins the prayer proper with Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. The article ὁ appears without a verb, implying "is", and without modifying anything else. The article itself in this case takes on the meaning "who". The phrase is ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and can be translated "who is in the heavens". "ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" is "in the heavens". (Yes, "heavens" is plural here in the Greek, but is translated singular for some reason. In another place in the NT the same words are translated plural.)
I am wondering, then, if there is another rendition of the Greek of Irenaeus that uses ὁ in this way in this place. I like where you seem to be going, but I need to be able to see it in the Greek, and at the moment it sounds like we might have different versions of it at this critical spot. That would not be terribly surprising, but I would like to confirm if that is the case.
Thank you and I always appreciate your comments CM. I will admit I’m still very much a novice when it comes to Greek so I’m still relying on the scholarship largely for this parsing of Iranaeus. I’ll got some of the papers I was reading to you when I’m behind my computer again.
You're welcome. "Scholarship" is the reason I have spent a substantial portion of my life these past four years picking up what I can of Koinḕ!
I spent a much longer time being fooled by the "critical scholars". I met and work with some of these folks -- as the sound tech at Westar's "Jesus Seminar on the Road" conferences in Auburn, California, 2017-2019. (I had first encountered them in print in the mid-1990s.) I provided the sound system and they provided the entertainment. I found some of them quite likeable and I enjoyed talking with them. But they regarded scripture as mere literature to be studied, relying solely on their own abilities to understand and interpret it. That doesn't work.
I am very far from being an expert at the ancient Greek, but I learned something years ago while dealing with health and nutrition issues, and with the many "studies" that come out making this or that false claim. Even though it was completely out of my field (computer science), I was able to learn to read these studies and spot the more obvious flaws that anyone could spot who spent enough time learning the jargon, and the common methods employed to fudge the results.
Something similar applies here, although with the Greek, it takes more than just learning some jargon and recognizing a few deceptive tricks. But I have tagged texts that my software parses for me, and I have several good lexicons, several grammars, and a pile of commentaries written by people who know the Greek intimately and who also view scripture as the Word of God. It's been a four-figure investment so far, but it seems worthwhile.
Irenaeus presents some special challenges, and I have to be especially careful with it. I've never trusted the guy, for one thing, although I need to actually read more of his work. It sounds like you have some similar feelings.
I do think you are on to something well worth pursuing, and I am leaning in the same direction, but I would like to understand what gives with this particular passage, which is indeed critical to the dating question, and whether it has multiple competing textual variants, with at least one containing that extra ὁ. It may or may not actually matter -- the other points you have made can stand on their own -- but if that alternate text exists it might be helpful to see it. The editor of my edition of the text may have removed it as spurious.
Additionally, the Introduction of C.S. Keener’s commentary on Revelation, Ch. 8 of John A.T. Robinson’s Redating the NT, and Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell discuss the Irenaeus translation as well (the latter two I have linked in this article).
I must say, your faith journey sounds fascinating from the bits you have shared with me. If you are open to it, I’d love to discuss it and your experience with the Jesus Seminar, please reach out to my scheduler if so: contactdfr@proton.me
Thank you so much, Scipio. for publishing this vital essay- needed more than ever because of increasingly deceptive pop eschatology.
Having escaped from American dispensationalism nearly 40 yrs. ago,
It is only in the last few years that i have come to realize that Revelation is not some cryptic letter which can only be "understood" by implementing absurd spiritual gymnastics.
When clarity from the Holy Spirit (after seeking humility before the King) began to shine, many more New Testament "dots" began connecting for me [& other brethren].
Does not the evil one actively suppress the glorious truth that King Jesus accomplished exactly what He said He would and SOON?
The Lion of the tribe of Judah destroyed His 1st century Luciferian enemies and is ruling & reigning till all are put under His feet!!! (1Cor.15:25 et.al.) Anyone that denies this robs Christ of His glory.
One notable scholar you did not mention in your essay is Phillip Kayser.
Many have benefited from his meticulous labor in the book of Revelation- ( Kayser will admit when he is wrong and he gracefully credits other people's work in various systems)
An outstanding work that I am sure will be used with those people who need clarification on the truth.
The synagogue of Satan, pharisaical Babylonian munny changers re-contextualixed what the Word really says, forcing this future Izzy and unfulfilled prophecy garbage on US, imo.
I think there's a lot of mix-ups regarding the fulfillment of Revelations and prophecies regarding the end of the age.
I'm not going to get into a research paper here though I might write an essay for that, but in broad strokes I see the most sensible understanding of the topic is what I would call partial fulfillment.
Starting from Matthew 24:3, we see the disciples asked 3 questions at once and Jesus answered it with ambiguity regarding the separate parts. This is one of the most confusing verses in the whole Bible, but when you read it as Jesus somewhat cryptically answering multiple questions at once it makes much more sense.
As you point out, the end of the age and transition to the new covenant was with the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. This fulfilled much prophecy, but not all. The literal, physical return of Jesus and his millennial reign is absolute, you have to chuck out as much of scripture as dispensationalists to reach the conclusion that we're already there and everything was fulfilled, which is the *preterist view but it makes no sense.
The way the holy Spirit and my study has shown me to interpret is that the end of the age of Israel is parallel, and very much like the final end of the age, but there is a second end of the age that is prophesied and detailed especially in Revelation. This is the end of the age for the Brit Chadasha, or new covenant, and the entire world and is beginning to be fulfilled before our very eyes. Don't be deceived into thinking Christ won't or already has returned.
2 Thessalonians 2:3, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
Matthew 24:26-27 "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 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"
I agree, I don't subscribe to full preterism either, much has indeed been fulfilled but not all.
Job is clear he will see his Redeemer in the flesh:
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Job 19:25-27 KJV
Do you accept the label pre-millennial ?
Is King Jesus the King of kings, today ?
Not looking for argument, just interested.
I believe that He is King, today, and has been at least since His ascension. His kingdom is inside me. He fulfilled the law and the prophets. I don't believe that pre or post millennial is correct, myself, nor am I amillennnial, however, amillennial would be closer to accurate.
I believe Scripture is clear that when He comes again, it will be a mop up job and no saints will be around to see it.
If I'm wrong, please show me, with Word. Thanks !
I find labels to be much of the problem. Labels and big theological systems that amount to whack all because none of them are correct, no matter how much you study you can't learn more than the holy Spirit shows you and excessive study just leads to prideful error.
Doing what God requires is actually what we're called to. Matthew 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Though we all have our place in the body. We're meant to work together to understand and fulfill God's will but there is great dysfunction in the body and it doesn't work in America, at least not commonly. There is far too much pride, vanity and selfishness.
Jesus is king, and yes you're right: He fulfilled God's word that began with the promise He made to Abraham, Genesis 22:18, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
God's promise was fulfilled in Christ and he is king, but the prince of this world still rules until all His enemies are made his footstool. That final fulfillment is not yet come. We will still be here 100%, the pre tribulation rapture is not in Scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:49-52, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
This ties into the Revelation narrative about the trumpets sounding when God's wrath is poured out on the world after the great tribulation. It's a definite timeline of events and yes we'll be here for it. The saints are persecuted, unbelievers in Christ are not saints. I need to write up a full essay on the topic because it's a big and sorely misunderstood one and I've only touched on part of it. Be well sister and blessings!
Thanks for the answer. So, the saints are warred* against and overcome, but some, a remnant, will survive ?
Indeed, not all will die. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." A remnant will remain, how many who knows.
My personal theory as well is that not all unbelievers will die either. There is another rebellion after the millennium when Satan is loosed from the pit. If it were only the saints left on earth there'd be nobody to rebel. Also, the transformed believers become "kings and priests of Christ" so presumably they have someone to be kings and priests over. I can see the evidence already of many people who are not believers, but will also refuse the mark. They'll be the surviving people at the end of the age.
Matthew 24:22, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
With respect to Irenaeus _Against Heresies_ 5Iren 30.3, final sentence, I don't understand your reference to the Greek article "ὁ". That particular inflection is masculine, although it represents grammatical gender. I'd have to see your Greek to say too much more. Is ὁ freestanding or does it modify something that follows?
In the Greek that I have for that sentence there is only one article, and it appears in the phrase "towards the end of Domitian’s reign". Mine reads "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." *
"It" or "that" would appear to reference the vision, while "he" could reference "Antichrist". I'm not entirely sure yet how you are reading this. (Partly because it's past my bedtime.) The word used for vision, Ἀποκάλυψιν ("Apokalypsin"), is feminine. Ἀντιχρίστου ("Antichristou") is masculine. This is distinct from "him who beheld" (John), represented by a masculine participle ἑωρακότος.
The entire sentence from which that was translated reads "Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς." The implied subject ("that") comes from the verb ἑωράθη ("heōrathē" -- ὁράω Verb 3 singular aorist passive indicative, to see, view, perceive), which offers no clue. **
In my Greek, there's no grammatical gender for the subject of the sentence because there's no subject. That's not uncommon in the Greek. I think you probably have room there to read it whichever way makes sense to you in the larger view. I certainly do see the grammatical issue. What I don't see so far is "ὁ".
I'll take another look at this when I have time and I am wide awake, and I'll continue reading. I've observed a lot of twisting of the Greek by "scholars", and nothing about this issue would surprise me very much.
* APOLOGISTS ENGLISH, The Christian Apologists (English) (APOL-E), English derived from the public domain translations of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Language updated and modernized by Rex A. Koivisto. This edition copyright © 2007 OakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.6
** APOLOGISTS GREEK, The Christian Apologists (APOL-T) A digital version of selected works from Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Graecae (Paris, 1866). Volume 6. Morphologically tagged by Rex A. Koivisto, Multnomah University, Portland, Oregon USA. Corrected and improved with the help of Marco V. Fabbri, Pontificia Università della S. Croce, Rome. Copyright © 2009 OakTree Software, Inc., Version 2.5
Let me try to clarify a little, by example, having had some sleep. Matthew 6:9 begins the prayer proper with Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. The article ὁ appears without a verb, implying "is", and without modifying anything else. The article itself in this case takes on the meaning "who". The phrase is ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and can be translated "who is in the heavens". "ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" is "in the heavens". (Yes, "heavens" is plural here in the Greek, but is translated singular for some reason. In another place in the NT the same words are translated plural.)
I am wondering, then, if there is another rendition of the Greek of Irenaeus that uses ὁ in this way in this place. I like where you seem to be going, but I need to be able to see it in the Greek, and at the moment it sounds like we might have different versions of it at this critical spot. That would not be terribly surprising, but I would like to confirm if that is the case.
Thank you and I always appreciate your comments CM. I will admit I’m still very much a novice when it comes to Greek so I’m still relying on the scholarship largely for this parsing of Iranaeus. I’ll got some of the papers I was reading to you when I’m behind my computer again.
You're welcome. "Scholarship" is the reason I have spent a substantial portion of my life these past four years picking up what I can of Koinḕ!
I spent a much longer time being fooled by the "critical scholars". I met and work with some of these folks -- as the sound tech at Westar's "Jesus Seminar on the Road" conferences in Auburn, California, 2017-2019. (I had first encountered them in print in the mid-1990s.) I provided the sound system and they provided the entertainment. I found some of them quite likeable and I enjoyed talking with them. But they regarded scripture as mere literature to be studied, relying solely on their own abilities to understand and interpret it. That doesn't work.
I am very far from being an expert at the ancient Greek, but I learned something years ago while dealing with health and nutrition issues, and with the many "studies" that come out making this or that false claim. Even though it was completely out of my field (computer science), I was able to learn to read these studies and spot the more obvious flaws that anyone could spot who spent enough time learning the jargon, and the common methods employed to fudge the results.
Something similar applies here, although with the Greek, it takes more than just learning some jargon and recognizing a few deceptive tricks. But I have tagged texts that my software parses for me, and I have several good lexicons, several grammars, and a pile of commentaries written by people who know the Greek intimately and who also view scripture as the Word of God. It's been a four-figure investment so far, but it seems worthwhile.
Irenaeus presents some special challenges, and I have to be especially careful with it. I've never trusted the guy, for one thing, although I need to actually read more of his work. It sounds like you have some similar feelings.
I do think you are on to something well worth pursuing, and I am leaning in the same direction, but I would like to understand what gives with this particular passage, which is indeed critical to the dating question, and whether it has multiple competing textual variants, with at least one containing that extra ὁ. It may or may not actually matter -- the other points you have made can stand on their own -- but if that alternate text exists it might be helpful to see it. The editor of my edition of the text may have removed it as spurious.
Here’s those papers: https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/75727/excerpt/9780521675727_excerpt.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/fallacy-of-the-domitian-hypothesis-critique-of-the-irenaeus-source-as-a-witness-for-the-contemporary-historical-approach-to-the-interpretation-of-the-apocalypse/899CC2AC9AB3B64DFF836944AE223BB7
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614530
Additionally, the Introduction of C.S. Keener’s commentary on Revelation, Ch. 8 of John A.T. Robinson’s Redating the NT, and Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell discuss the Irenaeus translation as well (the latter two I have linked in this article).
I must say, your faith journey sounds fascinating from the bits you have shared with me. If you are open to it, I’d love to discuss it and your experience with the Jesus Seminar, please reach out to my scheduler if so: contactdfr@proton.me
Thank you so much, Scipio. for publishing this vital essay- needed more than ever because of increasingly deceptive pop eschatology.
Having escaped from American dispensationalism nearly 40 yrs. ago,
It is only in the last few years that i have come to realize that Revelation is not some cryptic letter which can only be "understood" by implementing absurd spiritual gymnastics.
When clarity from the Holy Spirit (after seeking humility before the King) began to shine, many more New Testament "dots" began connecting for me [& other brethren].
Does not the evil one actively suppress the glorious truth that King Jesus accomplished exactly what He said He would and SOON?
The Lion of the tribe of Judah destroyed His 1st century Luciferian enemies and is ruling & reigning till all are put under His feet!!! (1Cor.15:25 et.al.) Anyone that denies this robs Christ of His glory.
One notable scholar you did not mention in your essay is Phillip Kayser.
Many have benefited from his meticulous labor in the book of Revelation- ( Kayser will admit when he is wrong and he gracefully credits other people's work in various systems)
https://biblicalblueprints.com/list/series/Revelation
MP3 or text: (Printed lessons have corrected a few of the recording errors)
https://revelation.biblicalblueprints.com/sermons
Alternate source:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/8791?sort=oldest
Definitely before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ish AD.
My friend, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, has come a long way, as have I, since we
met over 2 decades ago. He certainly understands Kingdom Now. All of us
still have a ways to go, but, his teaching about King Jesus and 1st Century
realities are a great start.
FYI:
I study scriptures with Holy Ghost.
My Bible study mentor is Charlie Steward.
I am digging into Pastor Ted Wieland's teaching.
Pastor Chuck is worth following and supporting. We are at different stages.
ChuckBaldwinLive.com
GodSendUsMen.com
BibleVersusConstitution.org
Pastor Baldwin is highly appreciated here, he has an excellent sermon on this topic:
https://youtu.be/15cooyytp1Q?si=vmZ6TjBlThErMKXa
Thank you. You're a breath of fresh air, here, along with those participating in this thread. :-) I'm going to watch that message again.
Fascinating. And it makes sense, it really does. But leaves a multitude of other questions lol.
Who is Israel ? Is that one ? Lol
Israel is a people, not a place.
First, Jacob, then, 12 tribes, finally, saints (born-again)
"Fulfillment theology"
Also, Hebrews Chapter 8 was like some hidden chapter at one of my early adult churchian stops inside so-called Christian Zionism.
For like a decade. 😬