Basic Eschatology Questions

[Guest]

1) What would amillenialists consider to be the meaning of "Satan being loosed" if we are currently in the millenium?

2) Besides Eusebius's refernce to the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in the First Century, is there any other early church writings that suggest that either Revelation or other New Testament prohecies refer to AD 70?

3) What are we to make of John 14:1-3, is this a reference to "mansions in heaven" or God dwelling in individuals?

4) What passage in Scripture allegedly makes a prophecy of a future regathering of Israel into Palestine? Is this being taken out of context?

5) What does Ezekiel 38-39 refer to?

6) How could Iraneus and others in his time possibly be futurists if such significant prophecies had been fulfilled only 100 years prior?

I'm sorry if these seem like basic questions. I also apologize if the answerrs are on other threads, please just direct me to them in that case. I am just trying to develop a more thorough understanding of amillenial preterist interpretations of these passages. Thank you for the help, God Bless.

[Guest]

1) What would amillenialists consider to be the meaning of "Satan being loosed" if we are currently in the millenium?

It refers to a time yet future when the nations will again be decieved by satan. What exactly this entails is speculation but I would say Revelation 11 may speak of this timeframe. It would be type of tribulation, in my opinion.

2) Besides Eusebius's refernce to the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in the First Century, is there any other early church writings that suggest that either Revelation or other New Testament prohecies refer to AD 70?

Don't know off the top of my head.

3) What are we to make of John 14:1-3, is this a reference to "mansions in heaven" or God dwelling in individuals?

The word 'mone' (translated mansions in the KJV) in the greek means dwelling places. The same greek word is only used one other time in the new testament, in John 14:23

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

The word 'home' here in the NKJV is the greek word 'mone'. It seems to refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (aka Spirit of Christ/God). The Father's house is those whom are being build up for Him to dwell in/with.

Peter puts it this way:
1 Peter 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

4) What passage in Scripture allegedly makes a prophecy of a future regathering of Israel into Palestine? Is this being taken out of context?

There are many used from the old testament. Since the new testament does not speak of such a thing as a future event, I don't see it being foretold. I think the prophecies in the OT refer to the now present Messianic kingdom. The "gathering" is our gathering to Christ.

5) What does Ezekiel 38-39 refer to?

It could refer to a few different things. One of those things could be your first point, about what does satan being loosed mean. This could be speaking about this event. Passages like this come out of one of the hardest books of the Bible to interpret and this leads to many views. Personally, this is not the best place to start when trying to understand eschatology, in my opinion.

6) How could Iraneus and others in his time possibly be futurists if such significant prophecies had been fulfilled only 100 years prior?

They were not futurist in the same way people today are futurists. They were not dispensational (they did not hold to a distinction between the Church and Israel), they did not look to a future 7 year tribulation, etc. So, they very well could see the prophecies about the destruction of the temple in 70AD made by Jesus, yet still expect a future 1,000 year reign of Christ. Just because a Church father believed something, doesn't mean it was what everyone believed, nor does it make it correct. Even Paul said that all who were in Asia had turned from him, in his own lifetime.

I'm sorry if these seem like basic questions. I also apologize if the answerrs are on other threads, please just direct me to them in that case. I am just trying to develop a more thorough understanding of amillenial preterist interpretations of these passages. Thank you for the help, God Bless.

You could listen to Steve's leactures on the subject. It conveys much more information than could possibly be typed here in a reasonable amount of time, he contrasts the Amil and Dipensational Premil positions, as well as mentioning other views as well.

But if you have further questions, please ask.

[Guest]

Sean,

Thank you for the answers. Perhaps, I'm still a little unclear on some things that I would like to be. I plan on listening to Steve's lectures on Eschatology again this summer when I have some time, as it has been a while since I have heard them. They represent the most balanced and insightful information I have received on the subject matter. So here are some things that I'm still not totally clear on.

1) Would an amillenial preterist really expect a future rebellion by Satan against Christ? I don't believe I have ever heard this before. Certainly a postmillenialist would not, since they would posit a strong church in the end.

2) I have read Eusebius and I am convinced that he applied the Olivet Discourse to AD 70. Since he wrote a Church History, I was wondering if there were any others that shared his beliefs, and if anyone before the Jesuit (I think his name was Luis De Alcazar) who applied Revelation to AD 70 or hinted at it, despite its late acceptance into the canon.

4) With respect to the regathering, can anyone point me to some of the specific passages, just so I can be aware of them myself.

5) Hearing that Ezekiel 38-39 may refer to a rebellion in the end seems new to me from an amillenial perspective. I've always heard that it refers to some ancient war that has already been fought. Can you expand a little more?

6) Iraneus made many statements suggesting that there would be an antichrist figure and it seems that he was trying to guess what 666 meant in relation to this person. While I know he wasn't suggesting a distinction between the Church and Israel, he does seem to be indicating a future (from his vantage point in the 2nd Century) fulfillment of Revelation, contrary to what preterist assert. I see that Iraneus has made other such errors, my only difficulty is how can a person in the 21st century legitimately claim that Revelation and other prophecies refer to AD 70 when Iraneus, a church father, seems to be oblivious to such an assertion? Wouldn't he be in a better position to judge that than me.

The more of read the New Testament, the more I see the symbolism between the Church and Israel. Also, the dispensational arguments make little sense to me when reading the Bible as a whole. I just find these lingering questions that I haven't found satisfactory results to. Thanks.

[Guest]

1. It's just my opinion. Revelation 20 says there will be a rebellion after the 1000 years, so there will be. Either it describes a physical battle, spiritual battle or physical gathering to do battle that never actually comes to war before the fire comes down from heaven and devours them.

2. Don't know

3. ?

4. Ezekeil 37 for one
See "Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu" thread for specific quotes given by those who see these passages that way.

5. Just mentioned it as a possibility, could also be 70AD. I'm not real concerned about it to be honest with you. When trying to understand eschatology I stick with the apostles interpretations of OT passages and try to draw as much understanding as I can from the clearest passages, not the vaugest.

6. You asked "Wouldn't he be in a better position to judge that than me."
Why would he be? I hear this a lot from those who follow ther early fathers closely. Paul stated that all who were in Asia turned from him (2 Tim 1:15) That's every church that was mentioned in Revelation. So if people can turn away from Paul enen during Paul's own life, then why would someone who lived a generation or more after Paul be correct? Just for being close? I don't buy it. Just read the epistles, they are full of correction, to people that Paul originally taught! In some of these Churches, Paul did the teaching, and later had to correct these same people because they already fell into error. Galations is a good example of this. Traditions are established quickly.

[Guest]

I have read Eusebius and I am convinced that he applied the Olivet Discourse to AD 70.

JJR, please give me references. I have never encountered anything like that in Eusebius.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Here are the references:

In the Church History, Book 3 "Missions and Persecutions" Eusebius makes many references to the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in AD 70 .

While discussing the Roman siege of Jerusalem in Section 5, he states, "They can study all the details of the entire war and how in the end the Abomination of Desolation, declared by the prophets, was set up in the very temple of God, celebrated of old, when it was utterly destroyed by fire."

Furthermore, he discusses Jesus' predictions in Section 7 after recapping Josephus's account of the siege, writing, "Such was the reward for the guilt and impiety of the Jews against the Christ of God. It is worth appending to it the infalliable prediction of our Savior regarding these very things in this prophecy: Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For at that time there will be great suffering such as has never been seen from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." Thus, Eusebius applied Matthew 24:19-21 to AD 70. I only wish I could find similar applications throughout early church history. I certainly believe that the Olivet Discourse (of each synoptic gospel) and Revelation apply to AD 70, but it has always puzzled me why more in church history didn't see this sooner, especially because they were alive at a time when a fulfillment of prophecy such as this would've certainly strengthened the argument for the Jesus being the Messiah. Perhaps there are many other writings but they have just been lost. Interestingly, Eusebius writes as if this is common knowledge, not as if he is positing a novel theory.

Hope this helps.

JJR