Jesus told his disciples that some of them would live to ‘see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’ (Matt.16:24). At the time of writing 1 Thessalonians at least, Paul expected to be alive at ‘the coming of the Lord’ (1 Thess.4:15). His recommendation that the unmarried in Corinth should remain unmarried is based on the supposition that they would soon face considerable ‘distress’: the ‘appointed time has grown very short… the form of this world is passing away’ (1 Cor.7:25-31). He writes to the church in Rome warning them that it was time to ‘wake from sleep’ for ‘salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand’ (Rom.13:11-12; cf. 1 Thess.5:4:11); ‘the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet’ (Rom.16:20). He tells the Philippians that ‘The Lord is at hand’ (Phil.4:5).
James urges the brethren to be patient ‘until the coming of the Lord’, for ‘the coming of the Lord is at hand…, the Judge is standing at the doors’ (James 5:7-9). The unrighteous rich, on the other hand, should ‘weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you’ (5:1). Peter writes that ‘the end of all things is at hand’ (1 Pet.4:7). The churches face a ‘fiery ordeal’ because ‘the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God’ (1 Pet.4:12, 17). The phrase ‘household of God’ invokes the temple in Jerusalem at least as a figure for the community (cf. 1 Pet.2:5), but Peter also may have in mind the prospect of a final judgment on Jerusalem and its temple that will have repercussions for the whole Roman world. In his second letter he explicitly addresses the problem of a delay, but it is still appropriate to speak of believers as those who are ‘waiting for and hastening (being eager for) the coming of the day of God’ (2 Pet.3:12).
The writer to the Hebrews encourages his hearers not to neglect meeting together but to encourage one another, ‘all the more as you see the Day drawing near’ (Heb.10:25). A few verses later he quotes from the Septuagint translation of Habakkuk 2:3-4: ‘For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him’ (37-38).
Re: How long?
I have been reading through the thread "The Coming of the Kingdom of God" and I have found several assertions that are made within the text, but apparently not supported by any evidence within the text. In my opinion, these ostensibly unsupported assertions should be challenged with alternative explanations and the evidence for them.
I would like to begin this challenge to those ostensibly unsupported assertions with a general statement about the "kingdom of God." Within the NT we find references to the "kingdom of God," the "kingdom of heaven," the "kingdom of Christ" and several derivatives such as "His kingdom," "His heavenly Kingdom," the "kingdom of our Lord," etc.
Most, but certainly not all, students of the Bible assume that all these appellations are just different references to the same kingdom and do not give these appellations any further thought. While I agree that these various appellations are in fact different appellation references to the same kingdom; I think that a specific distinction is intended by the various biblical authors. In my opinion, the appellation the "kingdom of God" is intended to be a statement about the one that is going to establish the kingdom. Daniel 2:44 states, "…the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, i.e. "the kingdom of God."
While the appellations "the kingdom of heaven" and "His heavenly kingdom" are intended by the authors Matthew and Paul to be specific references to the location of the kingdom, i.e. in heaven.
Finally, the appellations "the kingdom of Christ," "His kingdom," and the "kingdom of our Lord" are intended as declarations of the one who is to rule/reign in the kingdom, i.e. Jesus Christ.
The first of the Ostensibly unsubstantiated assertions or assumptions which I wish to challenge is found in that portion titled "the build up to the war."
Therein, in the context of "…this ‘end’ will not be reached before the gospel has been preached ‘in the whole world as a testimony to all nations’ (Matt.24:14; cf. Mk.13:10);" the author states, "We must assume that, in the special and limited sense that it was intended, it has been fulfilled." While I agree with that assumption and think it is an accurate statement of the facts, I think that it is unfortunate that the author did not provide the biblical evidence that it had indeed been fulfilled. The apostle Paul directly declares the fulfillment in the following passages: Within the context of Romans 1:5-9, Romans 10:18, Romans 16:25-26, Colossians 1:6 & 23.
Within the same section there are two assertions in the following statement that I would like to address:
"The climactic moment in the judgment on Israel is the installation of the ‘abomination of desolation’ in the holy place (Mk.13:14; Matt.24:15)."
First, the judgment of "Israel" is not in the picture of the "abomination of desolation." The OT gives us the motif of God married to the 13 tribed nation of Israel (Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 3:26, 31:32, Ezekiel 16:32, 45, Hosea 2:2, 7, Joel 1:8, et al.). As it turns out God’s wife is a "whore." The whoring nation of Israel divided into two kingdoms - "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah." Thus, God became the Husband of two harlot wives - "Israel" and "Judah" (Ezekiel 16, 23; et al.) Because of her harlotries God divorced (Jeremiah 3:8) His wife "Israel" in the 8th century BC (Hosea) but remained married to the other harlot wife "Judah" (Jeremiah 3:8).
The harlot wife which God divorced was "scattered among the gentiles" (Hosea 8:8, Amos 9:9, et al.) and as a wife — was no more. Now fast forward with me to the first century. God’s divorced harlot wife - "Israel" - was long gone; having been "swallowed up by the gentiles" (Hosea 8:8), she is still "scattered" among the gentiles (John 7:35; Acts 15:14, et al.) and God’s other harlot wife - "Judah/Jerusalem" - is the only wife in the land and she is still a harlot. Thus, the harlot ex-wife - "Israel" - was not in the land in the first century and "the abomination of desolation does not pertain to her, but only to the then present harlot wife - "Judah/Jerusalem (Revelation 17; et al.). It is she that was to be judged and punished by the wrath of God (Colossians 3:6, Revelation 14:10, 15:1, 7, 16:1; et al.) in the first century.
(The above view is fully documented in this writer’s book The Olive Tree Mystery.)
Second, the "abomination of desolation" was not, indeed could not have been committed by the Roman soldiers. Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertion of the author the phrase "the abomination of desolation" did not "originally alluded to the erection of an altar to Zeus in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC" and it did not become, "the archetypal act of desecration and readily finds fulfillment in the impiety of Titus’ soldiers, who offered sacrifices before their standards as the sanctuary burned."
The Hebrew word translated "abomination" in Daniel 9:27, 12:11 and 11:31 is "shiqquwts (shik-koots’) and Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s use of this word in addition to Daniel’s tells us exactly who was to be responsible for the "abomination of desolation." While Jeremiah and Ezekiel each use this word many times, only the most salient to our topic are shown below:
Given the demonstration above, it should now be clear to all; that only the harlot wife of God - "Judah/Jerusalem" - could and would be responsible for the "Abomination of Desolation" of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. Neither Antiochus nor the Roman soldiers were responsible; only God’s harlot wife - Judah/Jerusalem - could be responsible for the "Abomination which caused desolation." (The above view is thoroughly document in this writer’s books The Oracle of Destruction and The Last Days Re-visited.)
By the same token, Paul’s Man of lawlessness was ostensibly the apostate Jewish community or one of its members.
Now in reference to the section titled "The Coming of the Son of Man." In this writer’s opinion the ascension described in Acts 1:9-11 is a direct statement of the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13. The parallels within the two passages are overwhelming. In both passages the Son of man leaves the earth, ascends in the cloud and goes/comes to the Father.
However, Daniel 7:14 is not fulfilled at that time, rather it is fulfilled in the receiving of the kingdom some 40 years later, at the Parousia of Christ (1Cor 15:23; et al.) where He is joined by the resurrected ones (Dan 7:18, 22, 27; Rev 20:4; et al.).
In the section titled "The conflict with Rome" the author asserts:
" The destruction of the fourth beast in Daniel’s prophecy, which appears originally to have been an allusion to Greece, is reused as an image for the defeat of imperial Rome: ‘the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur’ (Rev.19:20). "
This writer thinks that there are some other explanations that are far more satisfactory. To this writer, Daniel’s fourth beast does not appear to have "originally been an allusion to Greece," but to Rome. additionally, this writer finds no hint of "the defeat of imperial Rome" in Daniel or Revelation.
While Revelation 19:20 does state, "the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur."
In this writer’s opinion, "the beast" that is taken along with the false prophet is not "imperial Rome" (the beast that arises from the sea in Rev 13:1, but Paul’s "man of Lawlessness," i.e. the beast of the land in Revelation 13:11ff.
Without going into all of the details here, a very careful examination of all the pertinent texts (Rev 13, 17, & 19) and the parallels therein will clearly establish that it is not "imperial Rome" that is "taken" and "cast into the lake of fire" but the Jewish beast of the land (Revelation 13:11ff) and the Jewish "false prophet" that are taken by the armies of "imperial Rome" which are acting as an agency of the Lamb to bring the "vengeance of God"(Romans 12:19, 13:1-4; et al.) in destruction and desolation to Jerusalem/Judah. (This view has been well documented in Studies in Revelation by this writer. This material is readily available to all who might be interested in it.)
That Andrew substantially agrees with the view stated above is evident in his statement, "A detailed parallelism emerges between these two apocalyptic texts which suggests that Paul envisaged an ‘end-time’ dénouement centered on Jerusalem…"
Unfortunately, having stated the above, Andrew then draws (in this writer’s opinion) an erroneous conclusion, "and the eruption of an extreme lawlessness from the heart of Roman imperialism, culminating in the parousia of the Lord Jesus." While it is true, that in the person of Nero, there was a severe persecution of the Christians in Rome, it was not "an extreme lawlessness from the heart of Roman imperialism" that culminated in "the parousia of the Lord Jesus," but "an extreme lawlessness from the heart of" apostate Judaism which brought about the judgment and destruction of the harlot city of Jerusalem that signified "the parousia of the Lord Jesus" in 70 AD. "The power that brings about the overthrow of" the apostate Judaizers, "however, is simply the ‘word of God’, the preaching of the gospel (2 Thess.2:8; Rev.12:11, 19:13, 15; cf. Eph.6:17)."