The last hour

[Josheb]

One reason that Israel missed who Jesus was is because they didn't know that the Messiah would also be God

That, and the fact God had blinded their already blind eyes.... as was prophesied.

There are several explanations for their missing the Messiah when he stood in their midst commanding the elements of creation. They had failed to correctly discern what God was saying almost from the beginning. Judaism got the priesthood wrong, the Law wrong, the monarchy wrong, the temple wrong, their identity wrong. Given those errors, it is not a mystery how the Messiah was missed.

For example, that part about the seed of a woman probably escaped their understanding in its entirety. A more readily accessible part of the messianic record would be the episode when Moses is summoned by God at the burning bush. As written, the account states God wanted Moses to go, and Moses alone. No one else was told to go or invited to go with Moses, and it is only through that foolish debate with God that Moses has to settle for second best and take his brother Aaron. This does not come openly labeled with flashing neon lights announcing every detail of what happened and every detail of Moses' disobedience. God used Moses (and Aaron) inspire of Moses' disobedience, not because of it. Moses was the o ne God asked to go back to Egypt. Yes, God did know Aaron was already on his way to come visit Moses but that does not change the fact Moses was the one directed by God (directed, not asked) to go back and speak for God as God set free the Hebrews as He had promised Abraham 400 years earlier.

Moses balked. That does not come explicitly labeled as disobedience but that is what Moses' response is. Anything not done in faith is sin and Moses is rife with doubt and disbelief (or he is feigning both). Because of Moses' response the civil leadership and the religious leadership of the sons of Israel became divided right then. That one detail stands in stark contradictory contrast to what happened when God established His standard. In God's standard, in every precedent reported in scripture, the civil rule and religious rule are the same. This is true in the examples of Melchizedek, the Judges, Jesus, and the Church. God does not divide the civil rule and the religious rule. He is God, King, Judge, and Ruler of everything and there is no lace i n which He is not God at any time.

But that is not how the Jews saw it and that is not how the Jew set up their doctrine, nor how they practiced their misguided understanding. They created a theocracy where the civil rule (a king God never wanted) ruled separately from a priesthood God never wanted. Later, much later, God told the Hebrews He would make them a nation of priests, not a nation with a separate priest caste that would rule them. It went right over their heads. Complete failure in understanding resulting in a complete corruption of their theology.


That is one of the reasons why they missed the Messiah. They were looking for a king, not a divine priestly ruler. You are correct observing they did not understand the Messiah would be God. They did know. They did not understand. They did not believe. They had rejected God as their King many centuries prior. Atop their completely failed understanding of civil and religious life, they also failed to grasp the monarchy correctly. That, in turn, became a part of their theology and that misguided, completely corrupted theology directly caused their missing the Messiah when he stood right in front of them commanding spiritual creatures and the wind and the waves, multiplying food, healing disease, transcending time and space, and making them look like fools every time they sought to do that to him.

Sin has consequences.

Blindness is one of them.

 

[Josheb]

My mention of the Qumran community's expectations for 2 or 3 Messiahs was meant to give evidence of why there were so very "many antichrists" present in those first-century days.

I understand.

This is not extraneous information. It is supportive.

That would be true if the op was asking for the identity of the antichrist, but that is not the subject specified. It is, therefore, extraneous information...... unless the position being asserted is the "last hour" to which John is referring is the last hour of the antichrist. I'll have some things to post in dissent of that position but assume that is not your intent since that position is nonsense.

Because Paul reminded them in 2 Thess 2:5-6 that he had already told them who both the "restrainer" and the "Man of Lawlessness" were when he was physically present among them earlier...............

That is sophistry. Before that position could have any veracity, it would first have to be established the with scripture the MoL and the antichrist are the same person and that has not happened. What you've just done is avoid the specific question asked.

Maybe Paul had disclosed the identity of the MoL but that does not mean you or I can state ben Nebedeus was that guy. If Paul had identified the MoL that does not mean he had identified the antichrist. You were asked, "How would the Thessalonians know about ben Nebedeus?" and the answer is Paul had identified the Mol earlier, but we have no idea who he named or that the MoL is synonymous with the antichrist.


Besides, the questions are asked rhetorically. I'm not actually looking for answers. The questions were asked to highlight the rankly speculative nature of any attempt to specify the identity of eschatological individuals.

"Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now YE KNOW what withholdeth....

Yes, they knew the identity of the MoL. They did not know the identity of the antichrist. You have conflated the MoL with the antichrist and done so without explanation. Until that explanation has been provided these posts are nothing more than a preterist version of rank speculation and I would prefer that you not misrepresent preterism because it will have all the non-prets thinking tu quoque and "They make stuff up just as much as they claim we do."

This op is about the last hour, not the antichrist. The antichrist is John's bad guy, not Paul's. Perhaps the two are the same guy but possibly (probably) not. There are, after all, by your own account, plenty of bad guys to go around.

Because the description of their actions and belief are the very same.

Make that case.

An "antichrist" is the same as a "pseudo-christ" - a "false christ" -

That is incorrect.

In Greek the prefix "anti-" simply means against, opposite of, or in place of. The prefix pseudo carried a completely different denotative and connotative meaning and John used anti, not pseudo.

which Christ warned in Matt. 24:5 & 23-26...

Oh, so now we're jumping from John to Matthew and adding Matthew to the mix with Paul without a single word of actual exegesis supporting the leaps. This is no better than what Dispensationalists do! Neither Matthew nor Jesus ever mentions the word "antichrist." Neither of them ever mentioned any man of lawlessness, either. What you're doing is eisegetic, not exegetic. Maybe the descriptions are the same but you have to make that case, not just make the claim baselessly. And you're supposed to stay on topic - which in this thread is the last hour, not the antichrist/MoL. This too is like Dispensationalists practices. They constantly change the topic and change the (supposedly) relevant scriptures.

would be claiming "I am Christ" - an attempt at being a false substitute for the Messiah

Yes, presumably someone claiming to be a messiah would do so instead of and in opposition to the actual Messiah but that is not John's definition of an antichrist. You've, once again, left the text of scripture to assert a series of assumptions. Some of them exegetically reasonable and rational, but not all. All of them are off topic.

However, as many do, I do NOT identify any of the three Beast figures in Revelation as being the Antichrist. Biographies of all these evil characters are totally different.

Hmmm.... so we're going to throw Revelation into the mix with John's mention of the last hour and change the topic to the antichrist and conflate that with the MoL and Matthew's report of Jesus' comments about multiple false messiahs.

What did John mean by the last hour?

Let's start with reiterating the answer to that question. To what do you think John was referring when marking the last hour?

 

[Marty]

I understand.

That would be true if the op was asking for the identity of the antichrist, but that is not the subject specified. It is, therefore, extraneous information...... unless the position being asserted is the "last hour" to which John is referring is the last hour of the antichrist. I'll have some things to post in dissent of that position but assume that is not your intent since that position is nonsense.

That is sophistry. Before that position could have any veracity, it would first have to be established the with scripture the MoL and the antichrist are the same person and that has not happened. What you've just done is avoid the specific question asked.

Maybe Paul had disclosed the identity of the MoL but that does not mean you or I can state ben Nebedeus was that guy. If Paul had identified the MoL that does not mean he had identified the antichrist. You were asked, "How would the Thessalonians know about ben Nebedeus?" and the answer is Paul had identified the Mol earlier, but we have no idea who he named or that the MoL is synonymous with the antichrist.


Besides, the questions are asked rhetorically. I'm not actually looking for answers. The questions were asked to highlight the rankly speculative nature of any attempt to specify the identity of eschatological individuals.

Yes, they knew the identity of the MoL. They did not know the identity of the antichrist. You have conflated the MoL with the antichrist and done so without explanation. Until that explanation has been provided these posts are nothing more than a preterist version of rank speculation and I would prefer that you not misrepresent preterism because it will have all the non-prets thinking tu quoque and "They make stuff up just as much as they claim we do."

This op is about the last hour, not the antichrist. The antichrist is John's bad guy, not Paul's. Perhaps the two are the same guy but possibly (probably) not. There are, after all, by your own account, plenty of bad guys to go around.

Make that case.

That is incorrect.

In Greek the prefix "anti-" simply means against, opposite of, or in place of. The prefix pseudo carried a completely different denotative and connotative meaning and John used anti, not pseudo.

Oh, so now we're jumping from John to Matthew and adding Matthew to the mix with Paul without a single word of actual exegesis supporting the leaps. This is no better than what Dispensationalists do! Neither Matthew nor Jesus ever mentions the word "antichrist." Neither of them ever mentioned any man of lawlessness, either. What you're doing is eisegetic, not exegetic. Maybe the descriptions are the same but you have to make that case, not just make the claim baselessly. And you're supposed to stay on topic - which in this thread is the last hour, not the antichrist/MoL. This too is like Dispensationalists practices. They constantly change the topic and change the (supposedly) relevant scriptures.

Yes, presumably someone claiming to be a messiah would do so instead of and in opposition to the actual Messiah but that is not John's definition of an antichrist. You've, once again, left the text of scripture to assert a series of assumptions. Some of them exegetically reasonable and rational, but not all. All of them are off topic.

Hmmm.... so we're going to throw Revelation into the mix with John's mention of the last hour and change the topic to the antichrist and conflate that with the MoL and Matthew's report of Jesus' comments about multiple false messiahs.

Let's start with reiterating the answer to that question. To what do you think John was referring when marking the last hour?

Hello we already discussed this on this thread

 

[3 Resurrections]

That would be true if the op was asking for the identity of the antichrist, but that is not the subject specified. It is, therefore, extraneous information...... unless the position being asserted is the "last hour" to which John is referring is the last hour of the antichrist. I'll have some things to post in dissent of that position but assume that is not your intent since that position is nonsense.

The "last hour" with the "many antichrists" then present in 1 John 2:18 had been launched with the coming (and death) of the single Antichrist who had been one of the "many antichrists" that John referred to.

Hmmm.... so we're going to throw Revelation into the mix with John's mention of the last hour...

John announced in this context that "the world is passing away..." (1 John 2:17). That means this "last hour" is the same "hour" in Rev. 18:10 & 17 that it was going to take for Babylon to fall - in other words, a 3-1/2 year period from late AD 66 to 70. This I believe dates the composition of 1 John, written some time just after this "hour" of 3-1/2 years had been initiated.

Maybe Paul had disclosed the identity of the MoL but that does not mean you or I can state ben Nebedeus was that guy.

? I wrote that Ananias ben Nebedeus was the restrainer - not the Man of Lawlessness who took that "restrainer" out of the way by murdering him. And if the Thessalonians had been told who the restrainer was, of necessity they would also known the identity of who was being restrained. They had been told who the Man of Lawlessness was, as well as his restrainer. Ananias had been serving as high priest since AD 47, and 2 Thess. was written around AD 54, allowing almost 7 years to pass for the Thessalonians to become aware of who the high priest in Jerusalem was. Not a stretch.

That is incorrect.

In Greek the prefix "anti-" simply means against, opposite of, or in place of. The prefix pseudo carried a completely different denotative and connotative meaning and John used anti, not pseudo.

Since it is true that "anti" can mean "in place of", that is the definition of a substitute Christ, or a "false Christ". To say that "antichrists" and "pseudochrists" are "completely different" is just trying to split hairs.

Oh, so now we're jumping from John to Matthew and adding Matthew to the mix with Paul without a single word of actual exegesis supporting the leaps. This is no better than what Dispensationalists do! Neither Matthew nor Jesus ever mentions the word "antichrist." Neither of them ever mentioned any man of lawlessness, either. What you're doing is eisegetic, not exegetic. Maybe the descriptions are the same but you have to make that case, not just make the claim baselessly.

Ok which is it? Do you want me to make the case that the "false christs" of Matthew 24:24-26 were the antichrist Zealots? Or if I do supply this, are you going to jump on that as off-topic? The two "thieves" crucified beside Christ were Barabbas' co-conspirators in a Zealot insurrection (Mark 15:7). Also, these two men crucified beside Christ in Mark 15:27-28 were termed "the lawless" in the Isaiah 53:12 prediction of the crucifixion. "And the Writing was fulfilled that is saying, 'And with lawless ones he was numbered.' " "Lawlessness" was the Zealot cause which was surging in those first-century days. It was the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul in 2 Thess. 2 said was "already working" back then. The ranks of the "the lawless" Zealots were the source of most of the "antichrists" which were then present in John's "last hour" which had begun in AD 66.

Yes, presumably someone claiming to be a messiah would do so instead of and in opposition to the actual Messiah but that is not John's definition of an antichrist.

In Matthew 24, those "false christs" in the first century who would be claiming "I am Christ" were in essence denying that Christ Jesus had already come in the flesh in fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince". They would be denying the Father and His Son Jesus. As @ Marty has emphasized, (and you have agreed), this was to deny Jesus Christ His identity as being God in the flesh. This denial of the Christ having come in the flesh already and denying the Father and the Son is exactly the definition John gave of what an antichrist actually was.

 

[EarlyActs]

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin​

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64&nbsp;“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[<a href="Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26 - New International Version" title="See footnote e">e</a>]

65&nbsp;Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66&nbsp;What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67&nbsp;Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68&nbsp;and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Jesus wasn't killed for claiming to be the Messiah many people claimed that, Jesus was killed for claiming to be God. Notice in verse 63 that they stated that the Messiah was only the son of God and not God?

But they would have overlooked it if he had been a champion of their liking with convincing proof. See the line in John: 'when Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this?'

And he did claim to be Messiah, but not the one they imagined. The veil kept them from seeing what he was supposed to be. The veil made them read Is 53 as being about Israel in exile.

Messiah is 'the Anointed one.' So all the lines in Isaiah about the Anointed were to happen in him.

 

[Josheb]

The "last hour" with the "many antichrists" then present in 1 John 2:18 had been launched with the coming (and death) of the single Antichrist who had been one of the "many antichrists" that John referred to.


John announced in this context that "the world is passing away..." (1 John 2:17). That means this "last hour" is the same "hour" in Rev. 18:10 & 17 that it was going to take for Babylon to fall - in other words, a 3-1/2 year period from late AD 66 to 70. This I believe dates the composition of 1 John, written some time just after this "hour" of 3-1/2 years had been initiated.

????? If that were correct, then John would have been writing his first epistle while the city was being destroyed, and the book of Revelation would have had to have been penned prior to both the destruction of the city and the writing of the epistle. The hour in which Jerusalem is destroyed is a future event, and event in the future of John and his readers but the last hour has come in John's epistle. And the "one hour" is not actually an hour but 3.5 years?

This is the last hour
They will stand at a distance and cry, "For in one hour the judgment of you has come."

Rev. 18:10 would not be prophetic if its hour and the epistle's hour are the same. It would have to be part of Rev. 1:19 that has either already transpired or was then currently happening. And the "one hour" is not actually an hour but 3.5 years? Why wouldn't the trembling kings just say, "For in one 3.5 years your judgment has come?"

 

[Josheb]

Since it is true that "anti" can mean "in place of", that is the definition of a substitute Christ, or a "false Christ". To say that "antichrists" and "pseudochrists" are "completely different" is just trying to split hairs.

Yes, I completely agree but the salient point is being missed. John defines the antichrist and john's definition is specific. That definition(s) is not found applied to the MoL.

Ok which is it? Do you want me to make the case that the "false christs" of Matthew 24:24-26 were the antichrist Zealots?

I would like to read the evidence from scripture proving the MoL and the antichrist are the same person.

 

[3 Resurrections]

????? If that were correct, then John would have been writing his first epistle while the city was being destroyed, and the book of Revelation would have had to have been penned prior to both the destruction of the city and the writing of the epistle. The hour in which Jerusalem is destroyed is a future event, and event in the future of John and his readers but the last hour has come in John's epistle. And the "one hour" is not actually an hour but 3.5 years?

Yes, John was writing his first epistle while the city of Jerusalem's "days of vengeance" from AD 66-70 had already been initiated by the city being put under siege by the "lawless" Zealots. That was the meaning of his statement that "the world is passing away...".

Yes, the book of Revelation was penned prior to both the destruction of the city and the writing of the 1 John epistle. Revelation was written somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60, by its own internal evidence of datable events.

Yes, the "one hour" is not an actual 60 minutes but a total of 3.5 years for the city to be taken down - the same as the 42 months siege period from AD 66-70 for Jerusalem to be "trodden underfoot".

Rev. 18:10 would not be prophetic if its hour and the epistle's hour are the same.

Yes, the "hour" in Revelation 18:10 was prophetic for Jerusalem in the very near future for Revelation's readers. Revelation being written between late AD 59 and early AD 60 was indeed prophetic of Jerusalem's soon approaching AD 66-70 "days of vengeance" when the city would be "trodden underfoot" for those 42 months. Revelation 1:19 not only included past events, and current events for John's days, but also "things that are ABOUT TO BE hereafter". Those "about to be" events in Revelation included the "hour" of the 3.5 years it took to bring Jerusalem down. It was Jerusalem's "last hour", just as it was the "last state" and the "latter end" for Israel as a people.

Why wouldn't the trembling kings just say, "For in one 3.5 years your judgment has come?"

Well, why would John predict that the saints of Smyrna would have "tribulation 10 DAYS"? He was abbreviating a 10-year period from AD 60 to AD 70, to reassure the saints that, in comparison to the "crown of life" of their eternal destiny as martyrs, their immediate trials would last but a brief time (as in 2 Cor. 4:17 - the "light affliction which is but for a moment...").

Likewise, calling it an "hour" for Jerusalem to fall was also not a mere 60 minutes, but the duration of 3.5 years of the siege period. Compared to the expectations of the Jews that their temple and Jerusalem was divinely indestructible, calling this only an "hour" to bring it to ruin was to emphasize just how temporal God considered that physical temple to be.

I would like to read the evidence from scripture proving the MoL and the antichrist are the same person.

I repeat.

The two "thieves" crucified beside Christ were Barabbas' co-conspirators in a Zealot insurrection (Mark 15:7). Also, these two men crucified beside Christ in Mark 15:27-28 were termed "the lawless" in the Isaiah 53:12 prediction of the crucifixion. "And the Writing was fulfilled that is saying, 'And with lawless ones he was numbered.' " "Lawlessness" was the Zealot cause which was surging in those first-century days. It was the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul in 2 Thess. 2 said was "already working" back then. The ranks of the "the lawless" Zealots were the source of most of the "antichrists" which were then present in John's "last hour" which had begun in AD 66.

Those "Lawless" Zealots with their nationalistic zeal for an independent Israel were attempting to provide their own substitute "Messiahs" (the "false christs", aka, the "antichrists") to fulfill the Daniel 9 prophecy of the "Prince that should come" in the AD 30 year, according to Daniel's 70th week. Because the majority in Israel had rejected Jesus as being the fulfillment of that prophecy by His "coming in the flesh" as the incarnate Son of God, many of the "Lawless" Jewish Zealots were presenting themselves as being that "Messiah the Prince" in those days. Their timing of matching the AD 30 year was off, of course, but they were hoping their false claims to this Messiah role could deceive the people as to the timing of the prophecy's fulfillment.

 

[Josheb]

I repeat.

Yes, and what is repeated is a pile of post hoc eisegesis.

Those "Lawless" Zealots with their nationalistic zeal for an independent Israel were attempting to provide their own substitute "Messiahs" (the "false christs", aka, the "antichrists") to fulfill the Daniel 9 prophecy of the "Prince that should come" in the AD 30 year, according to Daniel's 70th week. Because the majority in Israel had rejected Jesus as being the fulfillment of that prophecy by His "coming in the flesh" as the incarnate Son of God, many of the "Lawless" Jewish Zealots were presenting themselves as being that "Messiah the Prince" in those days. Their timing of matching the AD 30 year was off, of course, but they were hoping their false claims to this Messiah role could deceive the people as to the timing of the prophecy's fulfillment.

All people are lawless (apart from Christ). All people deny the specific criteria John provided (apart from God having worked in their life to acknowledge, accept, trust, believe, and commit to His resurrected Son). The problems with all these appeals to lawlessness are 1) there is an abject failure to discriminate between what applies to everyone and what applies specifically to the two men in question (the MoL and the antichrist), and 2) the neglect of John's specific criteria. Do not assume attributes of the MoL or the antichrist, don't assume a conflation, and do not expect me to consider eisegesis an answer to the question asked.

You got the majority of Jews denying Jesus coming in the flesh and being lawless. Great. If that was John's meaning, then he'd have come right out and said so. The problem is every single Gentile on the planet (apart from those chosen by God from eternity) also meet all those same criteria and yet John is writing about one specific individual. Not only do the two populations share the exact same metrics, but those two populations here the exact same metrics all over the planet and in every era of history. Yet John has specified a very specific temporal criteria as well as a very specific character and applied it to one specific individual. Paul did likewise but Paul used a different criteria and specified a different label.

You have been asked to prove the two men are the same person and you're posting generalities and eisegesis. Try stepping back from the investment in answering my question and try reading your own case objectively. Maybe ask, "Why would I expect Josh to be persuaded by the case presented?" or "Where can I be critical of my own case?" Then fill in the holes. I do not dispute the lawless reference being one that goes back to Isaiah (or Moses). Nor do I dispute the fact the Zealots were lawless. That is not what was asked. Do not assume the MoL and the antichrist are the same person just because all Jews are lawless and deny the Messiah, or even because the two men logically share some of the same attributes. You and I were once lawless and Christ denying. That does not make us apocalyptic characters or the fulfillment of prophecy. There are too many construction errors for that case to withstand critical examination and stand as correct veracious.

 

[Josheb]

Those "Lawless" Zealots with their nationalistic zeal for an independent Israel were attempting to provide....

Dispensationalists make most of the same assumptions. They too appeal to Isaiah (and Moses and other prophets), so do not imagine these posts prove more efficacious and veracious just because a few of the particulars have been modified while the assumptions are the same. I reiterate everyone is lawless and denies Christ, but Paul and John were writing about someone specific. Note the revealing of the MoL is a conditional event, while the antichrist is inevitable. Unless the apostacy occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed the day of the Lord will not occur. That is a predicate condition.

Don't roll the proverbial eyes, think I am trolling, or wrongly imagine me to be obtuse. Do not tell me, "But Josh, the day of the Lord did occur!" because that is a post hoc response that does not prove Paul's reference to the day of the Lord is identical to what happened in 66-70 AD. It most definitely does not prove the MoL and the antichrist are the same person. Yes, the Jewish War was a day of the Lord, but there are many days of the Lord. The Jewish war was a day of the Lord similar in substance and consequence to the day of the Lord suffered in the wars with Assyria and/or Babylon. That is not a point in dispute. Jesus' indictment and judgment of the Pharisees (Mt. 23) was a day of the Lord the OT predicted.

Paul was addressing the mistaken belief the resurrection had occurred and the Thessalonians had missed it. Unless you are a full-preterist, the resurrection hadn't occurred and still has not occurred. We await the coming of the Lord during which time we will all be raised incorruptibly and immortal to eternal life (1 Cor. 15). Paul was not writing about the same event John was writing about. Paul used different criteria than John and Paul used a different label than John. Maybe the two sets of information are synonymous but all I am asking, for now, is to read proof, not speculations, the MoL and the antichrist were the same person. I do not dispute the reference to Isaiah (or any other exegetically demonstrable reference) but the fact is Dispensationalists make similar arguments built on similar assumptions (like the assumption the MoL and the antichrist are the same individual). I do not dispute the lawlessness of the Zealots, either. That does not prove the MoL and the antichrist are the same person.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Josh, there is a critical time marker in Christ's prediction concerning the "false christs" and the "false prophets" in Matthew 24. As you no doubt remember, Christ warned His disciples that these would be reputed to be showing up in the "wilderness" or in the "secret chambers". Underline this "secret chambers" term. Inside the second temple there was a room called "the chamber of secrets" - a repository for anonymous donations for the poor, which would be distributed anonymously at intervals. There was also a collection site for donations for temple upkeep called "the chamber of vessels".

Once the second temple was torn down to the last stone in AD 70, there would no longer be anybody claiming that a "false christ" or a "false prophet" was in this "chamber of secrets", because it would have been torn down by then. Therefore, Christ's warning concerning those "false christs" and "false prophets" had to be limited to a time when the second temple was still standing intact with its "chamber of secrets" still in existence.

"False christs" are the very same thing as "antichrists". They were substitute christs, in place of the true "Messiah the Prince" which Daniel predicted would show up in AD 30 at the beginning of the 70th week. The Pharisees were well aware of the significance of this AD 30 year, and all the people of Israel were also "in expectation" of this at that time. Those many "antichrists" were a first-century phenomena, because they were all attempting to fulfill Daniel's timing of the AD 30 prediction for the Messiah's appearance.

 

[Josheb]

Josh, there is a critical time marker in Christ's prediction concerning the "false christs" and the "false prophets" in Matthew 24.

Great. We are, however, discussing the temporal marker of John's epistle, not Matthew's gospel.

This is another thing Dispies do: jump from book to book, verse to verse, neglecting the original text and what it states, never resolving any verse they broach, and never addressing the concerns of others (and often times acting as if it is the inquirer that is the problem). I mean no offense (because I would like to discuss the specified topic), but why would I entertain anything you post when you cannot or will not focus first and foremost on 1 John and act like a Dispy? I am not going to chase a fellow preterist around scripture at every whim any more than I will do so with a dispy.

1 John 2:18
Children,
it is the last hour;
and just as you heard that antichrist is coming,
even now many antichrists have appeared.
From this we know that it is the last hour.​

What is the last hour? The hour in which the antichrist is coming, and many antichrists have already come. The existence of many antichrists having already come was indicative of the last hour. The pending arrival of the antichrist was indicative of the last hour. Why is it necessary to leave the Johannine epistle to define the last hour when John himself does so? What in John's epistles directs us to do so?

1 John 2
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

What did John mean by the last hour? Obviously not the end of the world.

Obviously not.

Aside from the antichrists' coming and the pending arrival of the one antichrist of specified concern, their coming into the "us" and their leaving (because they did not belong to the "us") was indicative of the last hour. Who or what is the "us"? Is it the apostles? Is it the specific audience to whom he is writing? Is it the larger group of Jews that had converted to Christ? Is it the larger, encompassing group of all Christians? Well..... if we start with John's epistle and look for how he defined his "us," then we have the following.....

1 John 1:6-10
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.


That is how John described the "us" leading up to verse 2:19 . The "us" would, therefore, be those in whom the truth abides, those forgiven consequent to confessing their sins, those cleansed from all unrighteousness. Subsequent verses leading up to 2:19 would add those who have Jesus as the propitiation for their sin and an advocate with the Father, Jesus the Messiah. That is the "us," according to John.

One matter pertaining to the "last hour" no one has yet broached is for whom is the "last hour" the last hour? Is it the last hour for John and his first century readers to wait? We all agree it was not the last hour of the world. Was it the last for the world? We seem to have consensus with the last hour being the last hour of the age, but for whom is that age relevant? Mayans, Inuit, Aborigines, and countless others knew nothing and were oblivious to what John was writing.

Furthermore, you, @3 Resurrections have gone on and on and on and on about the MoL and the antichrist being the same person and how it must be one particular Zealot over all the others when we know from John's epistle if the MoL and the antichrist are the same in dividual and that individual was a Zealot, then that Zealot had to have been a (false) Christian at some time before his arrival as the MoL/antichrist. Why? Because John stated the antichrists came from among them, the "us" of his epistle .

Which Zealot, again, would that be?

Judas fit the bill, but he was dead by the time John wrote his first epistle.


Do you @3 Resurrections, now understand 1) why your last half-dozen posts are time-wasting nonsense and 2) how important it is to be just as critical of the PhDs and ThDs we read as it is to be critical of my posts? The depth of historical knowledge is impressive, but it misses very important facts of scripture. That makes it worthless for the specified subject of this op's topic, and some of the "exegesis" in the posts I've read is sloppy (like the attempt to tie John's last hour to Rev. 18:10).


I am inclined to agree with the current consensus the antichrist was a Jew, not a Roman. John's comment the antichrist came from among them limits the field of possibilities enormously. That qualifier definitely precludes Nero (despite what other preterists may say in dissent). It is possible a Gentile had a false conversion and entered the fellowship of Christ's body before departing, but John is the most Judaic of the New Testament writers, so it is, therefore, not the most likely possibility. Since we are also confident the last hour was a last hour pertaining to some also unidentified Christological age (happy to explain that if necessary since we haven't specifically covered that point) the likelihood is that it is also tied to the Jewish religion (as opposed to some Roman, Greek, Celtic, Swahili, or Outer Grazafastafidian age).

None if that does much to answer question: the last hour of what? The last hour is when the antichrist arrives. So what? What ends - relevant to the first century Church - when that happens? As preterists, we could look at history and say, "Well, it was the end of Jerusalem's economic power in the region," or "It was the end of the Judaic order involving the monarchy, theocracy, and Levitical priesthood and all within that order that Christ fulfilled," but our doing so would be post hoc and that would make us no better than the Dispensationalists! The better alternative is, therefore, to stick first and foremost with scripture, practice sound exegesis, keeping speculation to a minimum and definitely not subjecting scripture to history (like the dispies do), and figure out how scripture defines the last hour of the age.

Here's one possibility. It is an odd one but it's firmly couched in scripture. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and stated the ends (plural) of the ages (plural) had come. The multiple ends of multiples ages had come. While the text does not use the word "all," the implication is all the ages, not just one age, was concluding. That would make John's last hour the point at which God stopped measuring his involvement with humanity in "ages." We now live in an ageless time, a time without ages, a time not measured by ages. That would make sense since Jesus has fulfilled the promises of God and rules as both Lord and Savior over all things, all persons in all places at all times. No more ages. The chief problem is I have to leave John to make that case and that makes me no better than @3 Resurrections. John never uses the word aionion . It's kind of odd because he never wrote of ages in his gospel or his prophecy, either (I checked).


So.... the last hour of what?

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is how John described the "us" leading up to verse 2:19 . The "us" would, therefore, be those in whom the truth abides, those forgiven consequent to confessing their sins, those cleansed from all unrighteousness

That is an assumption, but I don't think it was what John was referring to as "US". The author of 1 John was an Israelite. I believe John's intent was in saying that the many antichrists had "gone out from among them" by their turning traitor to Israel's own people. The Zealots were the ordinary Israelites' own worst enemies - even worse than the Romans. They preyed upon their own people by stealing, harassing, and killing any of their own countrymen which they thought were in favor of maintaining peace with Rome. This is something which Christ had predicted would happen "from henceforth" during His earthly ministry. "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father..." etc.. Zealotry divided family members against one another - even in the high priesthood.

The only reason why I apply other texts is that we are supposed to prove a point with two or three witnesses from Scripture that agree with it. Scripture is united, and the message is unified. None of it should contradict other Scripture passages. If you don't like pulling proof from various Scripture texts that all address the same subject, that just seems strange to me.

I am inclined to agree with the current consensus the antichrist was a Jew, not a Roman.

The Antichrist was most certainly a Jewish individual - not a Roman. Only a Jewish individual would have been trying to present themselves as the substitute Messiah to try to fulfill Daniel's prophecy of "Messiah the Prince".

Here's one possibility. It is an odd one but it's firmly couched in scripture. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and stated the ends (plural) of the ages (plural) had come. The multiple ends of multiples ages had come.

Yes, a set of multiple ages was ending in AD 70. It was the end of Daniel's statue, which was about to be crushed by Christ the "stone" kingdom striking a blow to the feet of that statue, and having the entire thing crumble to pieces together and blow away like dust on the wind. It was the end of all the ages up until then in which the Satanic realm had worked behind the scenes in those various empires, trying to disrupt God's redemptive plans for the nations. Every member of the Satanic realm was completely destroyed in AD 70. The world that was coming in John's near future would not be subjected to the presence of the wicked angelic members anymore, who were judged at that point and destroyed by Christ. Paul wrote to the Romans around AD 60 that God was going to crush Satan under their feet "shortly", and He did in AD 70.

While the text does not use the word "all," the implication is all the ages, not just one age, was concluding. That would make John's last hour the point at which God stopped measuring his involvement with humanity in "ages."

No, Paul mentioned "the ages (PLURAL) to come" in Ephesians 2:7. Also in Ephesians 3:21, Paul said, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout ALL ages, world without end." By using the word "ALL", Paul was talking about three or more ages in which the church would be manifesting God's glory. Otherwise, Paul would have said "both ages", or something like that. So, Paul was sitting in the first of those plural "ages" of the church, with at least two more ages of the church to follow. Actually, I believe that Scripture shows a pattern of seven millennial ages for fallen mankind from the Fall until the final judgment. We are currently sitting at the end of the sixth one which ends in 2033.

So.... the last hour of what?

The "last hour' of Satan's "short time", which would end in AD 70 when he was turned into ashes on the earth.

 

[Josheb]

That is an assumption, but I don't think it was what John was referring to as "US".

How about we not work from assumptions? What I posted is not an assumption. What I posted was John's words straight out of John's epistle.

The author of 1 John was an Israelite.

That depends on what you mean by Israelite AND you've once again left the text of John's epistle.

I believe John's intent was in saying that the many antichrists had "gone out from among them" by their turning traitor to Israel's own people.

Of course you do. That is what fits your already existing preterist biases (and those from whom you got all that history you've posted). Redefining scripture to fit the eschatology is another thing Dispies do, btw. I believe you know better. You know about both audience affiliations and temporal markers. John provided an audience affiliation for the "us." All the epistolary writers did. Paul was the most explicit, but they all did so. It was common practice in those days to introduce yourself and identify your reader when writing a letter.

Now apply that audience affiliation to the "us," and form thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly. Be consistent with your preterism.

The Zealots were..........

I know. Very little you've posted is unknown to me. You are not the only one familiar with the preterist understanding of history's facts. I am appreciative of your knowledge and learned a thing or two reading your posts but most of it was a waste of time because it does not address the facts of scripture (and you don't seem to have realize that). You do not get to bend scripture to your biases. John explicitly stated the antichrists "went out from us." That "us" could be any group had John not already defined his "us." You don't get to deny that fact.

The exact same thing happens when Paul writes about "us." His "us" is identified by the Paul in his introduction of his epistle. Synergists constantly try to make Paul's use of "us" apply to the unsaved, unregenerate non-believer. They abuse Paul's "us" every time that happens. The same thing happens with "we" and "our."

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

The "us" in those verses is not Jews who do not salvifically believe in Jesus. The "us" is not unsaved, unregenerate non-believers. of any ethnicity.

Perhaps one of the Zealot leaders had given Christ some allegiance and then, like Judas, abandoned him. It is very likely many Zealots followed Jesus prior to his crucifixion and then abandoned him because he didn't overthrow the Romans. Which one? Who knows. Our not knowing does not change what John wrote.

The Zealots were....

More time-wasting nonsense.

The Antichrist was most certainly a Jewish individual....

Yep. I am pretty sure we've established that.

Yes, a set of multiple ages was ending in AD 70.

Then the question the op asks has been answered.

No, Paul mentioned "the ages (PLURAL) to come" in Ephesians 2:7.

Yep. I am aware.

However, he's using a different conjugation of aion and writing in a different context. The differences are missed in the English. The aionon of Ephesians 2 can be translated "everlasting," as in the "everlasting to come." That is completely consistent with what I posted.

Also in Ephesians 3:21, Paul said, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout ALL ages, world without end."

That does not conflict with the ageless age at all.

By using the word "ALL", Paul was talking about three or more ages in which the church would be manifesting God's glory. Otherwise, Paul would have said "both ages", or something like that.

Let me encourage you to examine the Greek before you post further dissent. The Greek of Eph. 3:21 is "age of ages," or "age of the ages." That's an idiom for everlasting.

The "last hour' of Satan's "short time", which would end in AD 70 when he was turned into ashes on the earth.

Possibly. The problem with that is scripture elsewhere states Satan was already defeated.


Colossians 2:15 ESV
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Hebrews 2:14
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil...

It is true that Paul wrote, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Rom. 16:20), but he did so within the context of Satan already being a defeated enemy. Remember: if the tradition holding Satan to be the fallen angel Lucifer, then Satan was already defeated and has never been more than a minion serving his Creator's will, never his own. The moment he sinned he became enslaved to sin and became dead in sin. Sin kills. Jesus stated he'd seen Satan fall and whether he was referring to an historical event that occurred prior to his incarnation or was speaking about the effects of the disciples' mission trips (as some interpret that text) the fact remains Satan was defeated already. Jude tells us the angels who did not keep their proper abode were already held in eternal bonds of darkness. Satan has never been a free agent. What happened in 70 AD had little, if anything to do with Satan. Satan did not make the Jews rebellious. Sinful flesh did that. Satan gets destroyed for the exact same reson every other human gets destroyed: sin!!!

Remember Revelation 1:19. Some of what was written in the book of Revelation had already occurred. It was in John's past. Some of it was happening at the time Revelation was written. Only a portion remained in John's future and if anything written in that book was to occur in our future then it was a very small portion of what was written in that book. All this debate about the millennial binding of Satan could be Jude 1, part of what John had already seen.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

More importantly, you are scripture-jumping again, practicing eisegetic copy-and-paste, ignoring scriptures that preclude such an interpretation, and probably taking the word of some other person who wrote a web article, or maybe a book, that made these mistakes without telling the reader he hadn't consulted the whole of scripture . Someone I might otherwise respect and hold with some modicum of esteem. 70 AD was God judging Israel. Or, more accurately, 70 AD was God judging Judaism and its misguided, rebellious, sin-saturated Jews. God came for the Romans later. They had their day of the Lord, too, just as Assyria and Babylon had before Rome. God typically judges those He uses to mete out judgment on the Jews.

I am curious about that part where Satan is turned into ashes but that's off topic. Maybe some other time.

The "last hour' of Satan's "short time", which would end in AD 70 when he was turned into ashes on the earth.

Which falls under the auspices of the ends of the ages and the beginning of an age of ages, a time of very long time, or eternity and the eternal reign of Christ.

Even that has limiting context. Why? Because if Jesus is God, as the doctrine of the Trinity asserts, then there has never been a single fraction of a nanosecond anywhere in creation when Jesus was not already King, ruler of all rulers. God cannot not be King. A god who is not also always and everywhere King is not a God and is most definitely not the God of the Bible.

1 Samuel 8:7
And the LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them.

God did not stop being King just because the Jews asked for a human monarch. He picked a guy and blessed the guy as a king, but every bit of that want for a human king was nothing more than fleshly, rebellious sin. Not a bit of it ever changed the fact God and God alone is King. The Creator of all that was made cannot not be King. Technically, there has always been only one age: the age in which the Creator rules His creation. It is His revelation to humanity that he divided up into ages, not creation.

The "last hour' of Satan's "short time", which...

...falls under the auspices of the ends of the ages and subsequent eternal rule of Christ.

 

[3 Resurrections]

John explicitly stated the antichrists "went out from us." That "us" could be any group had John not already defined his "us." You don't get to deny that fact.

There were Zealots even among Christ's 12 disciples, as I'm sure you know. Simon Zelotes was one. Judas Iscariot was likely another. The church would have had these Zealots circulating among them also in those last days, looking to attach themselves to any group which was teaching about a Messiah having come. Even in Acts 1, the apostles themselves were still asking Christ, "wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom?" At that time, they were still in mistaken expectations that Christ Jesus as the Messiah would surely restore the physical kingdom of Israel's independence once more before He left.

That does not conflict with the ageless age at all.

An "ageless age" is an oxymoron. Like a "non-pregnant pregnancy".

Possibly. The problem with that is scripture elsewhere states Satan was already defeated.

The "last hour" of Satan's "short time" or "little season" of release from his millennial chain would end with his utter destruction when he was brought to ashes upon the earth. God was going to slay that Dragon. This was more than just the annulment of Satan's power to accuse the brethren, which defeat happened in heaven at Christ's resurrection-day ascension when Satan and his devils lost the war and were cast out of heaven down to earth for that "short time" beginning in AD 33. Satan as an angry defeated foe became a dead foe in AD 70. His head crushed, just as God promised Eve long ago, and as Paul promised the Roman believers would happen "shortly".

Hebrews 2:14
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil...

I believe the Greek word there "katargese" is not defined as God killing Satan at that point, but in rendering Satan "entirely idle". Satan's power as "the accuser of the brethren" was halted completely at Christ's resurrection-day ascension when He was anointed our Great High Priest. Satan didn't have a legal leg to stand on from then onward, so he was cast out of heaven.

this debate about the millennial binding of Satan could be Jude 1, part of what John had already seen.

Of course the millennium was past, as part of what John had already seen. The millennium of Satan's deception being bound ended with the First resurrection in AD 33 when that "remnant" of Matt. 27 saints came to life again on the same day as Christ. Literally a thousand years from 968/967 BC until AD 33.

if Jesus is God, as the doctrine of the Trinity asserts, then there has never been a single fraction of a nanosecond anywhere in creation when Jesus was not already King, ruler of all rulers.

Yep. Absolutely. That is why the second person of the Trinity was NOT limited to a mere thousand years of reigning. The time limit was put on Satan's deception of the nations - not on Christ's reign.

Technically, there has always been only one age: the age in which the Creator rules His creation. It is His revelation to humanity that he divided up into ages, not creation.

Yep again. God "inhabiteth eternity", but for our sakes has divided up His revelation to humanity into ages in which He has progressively developed His plan for our redemption from the Fall to the last final judgment. And as I believe Scripture shows, this is divided into seven millennial ages, each with a prevailing theme which matches God's particular creative activity during the seven days of Creation week. Those seven days of Creation week have matched perfectly with the redemption theme of each millennial age of fallen mankind's history - so far.

 

[Josheb]

There were Zealots even among Christ's 12 disciples, as I'm sure you know. Simon Zelotes was one. Judas Iscariot was likely another. The church would have had these Zealots circulating among them also in those last days, looking to attach themselves to any group which was teaching about a Messiah having come. Even in Acts 1, the apostles themselves were still asking Christ, "wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom?" At that time, they were still in mistaken expectations that Christ Jesus as the Messiah would surely restore the physical kingdom of Israel's independence once more before He left.

Which is exactly what I said.

An "ageless age" is an oxymoron. Like a "non-pregnant pregnancy".

No, it is not. It is an age in which no OTHER ages exist.

The "last hour" of Satan's "short time" or "little season" of release from his millennial chain would end with his utter destruction when he was brought to ashes upon the earth.

Why measure time by Satan and not God? Can you see the presuppositional problem with that practice? Do you sincerely believe John was writing about the last how of Satan's work (or the last hour of God's work)?

Of course the millennium was past, as part of what John had already seen.

Glad we agree, although I was only suggesting the possibility, not stating that is the correct understanding of the text.

The millennium of Satan's deception being bound ended with the First resurrection in AD 33 when that "remnant" of Matt. 27 saints came to life again on the same day as Christ. Literally a thousand years from 968/967 BC until AD 33.

Am I to read that to say Rev. 20:10 has already occurred?

Yep. Absolutely. That is why the second person of the Trinity was NOT limited to a mere thousand years of reigning. The time limit was put on Satan's deception of the nations - not on Christ's reign.

I am glad we agree. Do you then see why it is important to define the last hour by God and not Satan?

Yep again. God "inhabiteth eternity", but for our sakes has divided up His revelation to humanity into ages.....

The salient point is that eternity is ageless. Everlasting has a beginning; eternity does not. Eternity extends in all directions without limit. What if the "last hour" was a veiled way of saying there would be no more hours? We'd still have to ask and answer, "No more hours of what?" because clearly time continues on within creation. This would make sense given the canon of scripture is closed. No more revelation from God. The last hour of revelation. John would go on living, but he would soon not write another revelation from God. What if John's last hour was the last (figurative) hour of revelation? The antichrist would come and be dealt with by God and the conclusion of God's judgment would arrive. If we were to couch that in history, then we should do so within the history the Bible provides. You like to appeal to Daniel, but I do not think that goes back far enough. It's a good and valid point of measure because to the temporal markers provided but Daniel is written about the covenant conditions first uttered by God hundreds of years prior. For example, while the text does not provide specific timestamps, it does describe what occurred: Deuteronomy 28. Dispies like to cite this chapter as proof of God's everlasting plan for the Jews but they use the text selectively. They use only the blessings parts, ignoring the curses. God promised those in attendance a series of violent consequences if they disobeyed Him and broke faith with His covenant. In the New Testament we later learn that not everyone in that audience was a descendant of Abraham because they were not descendants of promise (or faith thereof). God told them their offspring would be cursed, the suffer pestilence, disease, blindness, confusion, enslavement, famine, war, and eventually..... destruction. God spoke about destruction seven times in that chapter and he said those curses were everlasting - just as everlasting as the promises. Dispies like to qualify those words with an appeal to God always preserving a remnant and to support that position they abuse Romans 11:5, ignoring the fact that verse explicitly states, "at the present time," and not some yet unidentified time in the far, far distant future.

The last hour of the covenant had arrived. The last hour of God's covenant tolerance with the disobedient, the covenant-breakers, had arrived. God had already divorced Israel back in Jeremiah's day because of its idolatrous adultery. The Law stipulated adulterers be stoned to death. Capital matters had to be decided with two or more eyewitnesses. That alone would explain the incarnation. That God also sent His Son to save is a function of grace. God is also a just God so the incarnation cannot be a Law-breaking event. It has to be a promise fulfilling and Law fulfilling event for both grace and justice. The exact same cross that saves also condemns.

The last hour of Deuteronomy 28 had come, and the destruction would be everlasting. The Judaic system, with all its legalism, hypocrisy, heresy, and disobedience was destroyed in the last hour of God's grace. All the promises made were fulfilled.

Exodus 19:5-6
Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Blessings fulfilled. Then came the curses and they included promises of destruction. It was the last hour of covenant blessings and curses. The eternal reign of Christ would continue agelessly for no new revelation would/will be provided.








As a side note, let me encourage you to consider Matthew 21:18 all the way through to Matthew 26:5 a single report. We divide is up into chapters and verses and do a disservice to the Matthew's narrative. Matthew was recording the events of one single day, the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem, the day after he cleaned out the temple (see Leviticus 14). That entire 4+chapter narrative is rife with prophetic relevance describing what happened with bloodline Israel's/OT Judaism's/Jerusalem's destruction. Appeals to Matthew 24 prove insufficient, inadequate, woefully incomplete. Dispies cherry pick from 24 because the whole of the narrative leaves them speechless (or ad hominic). It's always a flag when someone appeals to 24 in neglect of the rest of Matthew's report.
.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, it is not. It is an age in which no OTHER ages exist.

An "ageless age" is still a contradiction in terms, because an age is still an age composed of a set number of years. Are you attempting to latch onto the common expectation expressed in the KJV that "there shall be time no longer", with people thinking this means a cessation of the passage of time altogether? When Rev. 10:6 really means "there shall be delay no longer" - not that the passage of time ceases at that point and eternity future begins.

Why measure time by Satan and not God?

Because Satan, just like humanity, had a point of origin in time and also a point of his death when that formerly "anointed cherub" would not exist anymore (Ez. 28:18-19). God the Creator has no beginning or ending, but His creatures do. Only the "elect angels" in heaven have been rendered deathless. Not those who chose to rebel against their Creator. As you wrote earlier, sin always results in death - even for the angels which fell.

Do you sincerely believe John was writing about the last how of Satan's work (or the last hour of God's work)?

Yes, I do see all of Scripture teaching the exact point of the entire Satanic realms' demise. It was in AD 70. In the age that was coming, the world would not be subjected to their presence anymore (Hebrews 2:5), and those angels were judged (1 Cor. 6:3). This is why ALL the elements composing the ENTIRE statue of Daniel crumbled "TOGETHER" at one time by Christ's single blow to the feet and turned to dust on the wind. We know that each of those empires had fallen from power at various times over the course of history, so that statue can't just be only a symbol of the governmental structures of those ancient empires. This Daniel 2 statue also represented the Satanic and demonic powers that had always been working behind the scenes of those empires (such as Daniel's evil angelic "Prince of Persia" that for 21 days was resisting the angel's efforts to come to Daniel). In AD 70, God killed the entire Satanic realm in the city of Jerusalem where they had been "imprisoned" (Rev. 18:2, Is. 24:21-23), and made good on His promise to Eve that He would crush the head of the Serpent. Satan's "short time" and "little season" came to an end at that point at the close of the "last hour" that John was writing about.

Am I to read that to say Rev. 20:10 has already occurred?

Yes, you certainly ARE to read this as a past fulfilled event. It is included as one of the revealed prophecies that was then "AT HAND" (Rev. 1:3 and 22:10). Satan and his devils were to share a tormented period of time WITH the Scarlet Beast and the False Prophet in the "Lake of Fire" which was the city of Jerusalem's "second death". And we are told in Rev. 17:8 that the Scarlet Beast once "WAS" in existence, and "IS NOT" in existence while John was writing, but was "ABOUT TO ARISE... and GO INTO DESTRUCTION". Now, if Satan was to share the same experience with the Scarlet Beast, who was ABOUT TO be destroyed in John's near future, then Satan and his devils and unclean spirits were also destroyed in that same location and at the same time.

That "Lake of Fire" environment in the city of Jerusalem (as it was dying for a second time) had been "prepared for the devil and his angels" from antiquity. The unclean spirits knew this and dreaded this torment, even in Christ's days (Mat. 8:29). We see this same shared death in Jerusalem back in Isaiah 24:21-23. God was going to punish the "host of the high ones that are on high" along with the high priest "kings of the earth". These were all to be gathered together like prisoners in a pit for "many days", and after those many days, they would ALL be "found wanting". This means ALL of them would be GONE from existence.

There have been no high priest "kings of the earth" serving since AD 70, and there are also no longer any members of the Satanic host present anymore either. God had "NOW" promised in Hebrews 12 that "in a little while" He was going to "shake not only the earth but the heavens also" so that what was shaken would be "REMOVED". The entire Satanic realm with its hosts of evil angelic beings was "NOW" shaken back then, and was "REMOVED" from existence in this world.

Deuteronomy 28. Dispies like to cite this chapter as proof of God's everlasting plan for the Jews but they use the text selectively. They use only the blessings parts, ignoring the curses.

They sure do. They tend to ignore the "song of Moses" in Deuteronomy 32 (also being sung in Rev. 15:3), when God predicted Israel's "latter end". During their "latter end", the Lord would "judge His people" by enacting His "vengeance" upon them. Christ spoke of His own wicked generation's "last state" when the unclean spirits He was then casting out of them would return, each bringing seven unclean spirits more wicked than themselves, so that the "last state" of that wicked generation of Israelites would be "worse than their first" (Matt. 12:43-45).

All of this ties together, whether you consider this to be "scripture jumping" or not. The "latter end" of Israel as a people (Deut. 32:29), when God would "shatter the power of the holy people" (Dan. 12:7) was the same as Israel's "last state" (Matt. 12:43-45) when they were plagued by the entire Satanic realm coming upon that wicked generation. This was the same as the "last hour" of 1 John 2:18 when Satan's "short time" (Rev. 12:12) and "little season" (Rev. 20:3) of existence was coming to an end in AD 70 Jerusalem along with the Judean Scarlet Beast - the year of Christ's second coming return.

As a side note, let me encourage you to consider Matthew 21:18 all the way through to Matthew 26:5 a single report. We divide is up into chapters and verses and do a disservice to the Matthew's narrative. Matthew was recording the events of one single day, the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem, the day after he cleaned out the temple (see Leviticus 14). That entire 4+chapter narrative is rife with prophetic relevance describing what happened with bloodline Israel's/OT Judaism's/Jerusalem's destruction. Appeals to Matthew 24 prove insufficient, inadequate, woefully incomplete. Dispies cherry pick from 24 because the whole of the narrative leaves them speechless (or ad hominic). It's always a flag when someone appeals to 24 in neglect of the rest of Matthew's report.

Yes, I agree that this is all part of a single report - not to be subdivided or chopped up as many Partial Preterists do, as well as Dispensationalists. I have always regarded Matt. 21:18 through Matthew 26:5 as a whole unit - even to the Leviticus 14 reference of examination of the infected "house" - a connection with the corrupted second temple's destruction down to the last stone, which I posted about on another forum long ago. We are on the same page here.

 

[Marty]

Great. We are, however, discussing the temporal marker of John's epistle, not Matthew's gospel.

This is another thing Dispies do: jump from book to book, verse to verse, neglecting the original text and what it states, never resolving any verse they broach, and never addressing the concerns of others (and often times acting as if it is the inquirer that is the problem). I mean no offense (because I would like to discuss the specified topic), but why would I entertain anything you post when you cannot or will not focus first and foremost on 1 John and act like a Dispy? I am not going to chase a fellow preterist around scripture at every whim any more than I will do so with a dispy.

1 John 2:18
Children,
it is the last hour;
and just as you heard that antichrist is coming,
even now many antichrists have appeared.
From this we know that it is the last hour.​

What is the last hour? The hour in which the antichrist is coming, and many antichrists have already come. The existence of many antichrists having already come was indicative of the last hour. The pending arrival of the antichrist was indicative of the last hour. Why is it necessary to leave the Johannine epistle to define the last hour when John himself does so? What in John's epistles directs us to do so?

Obviously not.

Aside from the antichrists' coming and the pending arrival of the one antichrist of specified concern, their coming into the "us" and their leaving (because they did not belong to the "us") was indicative of the last hour. Who or what is the "us"? Is it the apostles? Is it the specific audience to whom he is writing? Is it the larger group of Jews that had converted to Christ? Is it the larger, encompassing group of all Christians? Well..... if we start with John's epistle and look for how he defined his "us," then we have the following.....

1 John 1:6-10
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.


That is how John described the "us" leading up to verse 2:19 . The "us" would, therefore, be those in whom the truth abides, those forgiven consequent to confessing their sins, those cleansed from all unrighteousness. Subsequent verses leading up to 2:19 would add those who have Jesus as the propitiation for their sin and an advocate with the Father, Jesus the Messiah. That is the "us," according to John.

One matter pertaining to the "last hour" no one has yet broached is for whom is the "last hour" the last hour? Is it the last hour for John and his first century readers to wait? We all agree it was not the last hour of the world. Was it the last for the world? We seem to have consensus with the last hour being the last hour of the age, but for whom is that age relevant? Mayans, Inuit, Aborigines, and countless others knew nothing and were oblivious to what John was writing.

Furthermore, you, @3 Resurrections have gone on and on and on and on about the MoL and the antichrist being the same person and how it must be one particular Zealot over all the others when we know from John's epistle if the MoL and the antichrist are the same in dividual and that individual was a Zealot, then that Zealot had to have been a (false) Christian at some time before his arrival as the MoL/antichrist. Why? Because John stated the antichrists came from among them, the "us" of his epistle .

Which Zealot, again, would that be?

Judas fit the bill, but he was dead by the time John wrote his first epistle.


Do you @3 Resurrections, now understand 1) why your last half-dozen posts are time-wasting nonsense and 2) how important it is to be just as critical of the PhDs and ThDs we read as it is to be critical of my posts? The depth of historical knowledge is impressive, but it misses very important facts of scripture. That makes it worthless for the specified subject of this op's topic, and some of the "exegesis" in the posts I've read is sloppy (like the attempt to tie John's last hour to Rev. 18:10).


I am inclined to agree with the current consensus the antichrist was a Jew, not a Roman. John's comment the antichrist came from among them limits the field of possibilities enormously. That qualifier definitely precludes Nero (despite what other preterists may say in dissent). It is possible a Gentile had a false conversion and entered the fellowship of Christ's body before departing, but John is the most Judaic of the New Testament writers, so it is, therefore, not the most likely possibility. Since we are also confident the last hour was a last hour pertaining to some also unidentified Christological age (happy to explain that if necessary since we haven't specifically covered that point) the likelihood is that it is also tied to the Jewish religion (as opposed to some Roman, Greek, Celtic, Swahili, or Outer Grazafastafidian age).

None if that does much to answer question: the last hour of what? The last hour is when the antichrist arrives. So what? What ends - relevant to the first century Church - when that happens? As preterists, we could look at history and say, "Well, it was the end of Jerusalem's economic power in the region," or "It was the end of the Judaic order involving the monarchy, theocracy, and Levitical priesthood and all within that order that Christ fulfilled," but our doing so would be post hoc and that would make us no better than the Dispensationalists! The better alternative is, therefore, to stick first and foremost with scripture, practice sound exegesis, keeping speculation to a minimum and definitely not subjecting scripture to history (like the dispies do), and figure out how scripture defines the last hour of the age.

Here's one possibility. It is an odd one but it's firmly couched in scripture. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and stated the ends (plural) of the ages (plural) had come. The multiple ends of multiples ages had come. While the text does not use the word "all," the implication is all the ages, not just one age, was concluding. That would make John's last hour the point at which God stopped measuring his involvement with humanity in "ages." We now live in an ageless time, a time without ages, a time not measured by ages. That would make sense since Jesus has fulfilled the promises of God and rules as both Lord and Savior over all things, all persons in all places at all times. No more ages. The chief problem is I have to leave John to make that case and that makes me no better than @3 Resurrections. John never uses the word aionion . It's kind of odd because he never wrote of ages in his gospel or his prophecy, either (I checked).


So.... the last hour of what?

I think its pretty obvious that the "us" is the church but who were the "they"?

I believe that the last hour was the end of the temple age.

 

[Josheb]

An "ageless age" is still a contradiction in terms, because an age is still an age composed of a set number of years.

You mean like eternity, or the eternal age?

 

[Josheb]

I think its pretty obvious that the "us" is the church but who were the "they"?

Where's that emoji with the little guy and the huge thumbs up?

I believe that the last hour was the end of the temple age.

Make the case.

I'm curious because God never wanted the temple of stone. I am unaware of God ever marking time by the temple (other than the temple that is His resurrected Son). That's one of the reasons I went back to the covenant. We could say it was the end of the earthly monarchy, or the earthly temple, but those were both idolatrous acts of disobedience. Same thing is true of the Levitical order, except with the LO we have Hebrews to explain to us Jesus' replacement of that in favor of the Order of Mel . While it is true the age of the temple's significance ended, it seems strange to define the last hour by something God never wanted. I read that in the same manner as @3 Resurrections' belief the last hour is a reference to Satan's short time.