My dear brother Phoneman and I have talked to each other in long posts and this is another one. If anyone chooses not to read it, I certainly understand as I do not like long posts either.
"
How can Futurism fulfill Revelation 1:1 when the antichrist of Futurism doesn't arrive on the scene until 2,000 years later? It is Historicism that fulfills Revelation 1:1 of events soon to come:"
As I have said before, the Historical/Preterits' view that you are espousing atempt to squeeze Jesus baptism (
which is not mentioned in Daniel), His ministry and crucifixion all in the final week of Daniel. However, Daniel makes it clear that the Messiah is "cut off" (crucified) BEFORE the one week is confirmed.
When that event is misunderstood, everything else simply falls apart.
Other events that never occurred are as follows:
*Jesus never returned to the earth in VISIBLE fashion.
Rev 1:7 ("every eye shall see him").
*Nobody was subjected to the mark of the beast, or the number of his name. Although the other views attempt to ascribe this to Nero, 2 Thess makes it clear that the antichrist is destroyed by the brightness of Jesus' coming, Nero committed suicide. Nero could only be considered a type of antichrist, but does not meet the requirements to be THE antichrist of Revelation 13, and Nero never had an image made that was to be worshipped and given life to (
Rev 13:15). There is no historical evidence that anyone under Nero or Titus was prevented from buying or selling unless they had the mark of the beast or the number of his name, and there is no evidence that anyone was martyred because of rejecting such (
Rev 15:1-3).
*The mount of olives did not split in two.
Zechariah 14:4. Also,
Revelation 6:14-15 states that every mountain and island were moved out of their places, and the heaven departed as a scroll.
*The Euphrates river was not dried up.
Rev 9:14-15,
Rev 16:12
*The number of the armies in
Rev 9:16 (200 million) far exceeds any amount of any army in existence at the time of Nero. Even today, the only army that could possibly fit that number would be China which fits Daniel and Revelation's claim that this army comes from the East. This also brings up another fact that the armies gathered against Israel partly come from the East, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem. Therefore Titus and Nero could not possibly have fulfilled Daniel or Revelation.
*In AD 70, only ONE army attacked Jerusalem (Rome). Scripture indicates that God gathers ALL NATIONS against Jerusalem.
Zech 12:3,
14:2.
*The amount of the world's population that is killed by the judgments never occurred in AD 70.
Rev 6:8,
Rev 8:11,
Rev 9:15-20.
*The amount of physical destruction to the earth never occurred in AD 70.
Rev 8:8-12.
Not only did these events not occur in AD 70, they have never occurred at any time since then. Historicists and some Covenanters attempt to explain they gradually occurred through out history, but that is not only a gross interpretation of Scripture, but it defies all of the timelines given in Revelation that make it clear all of these events occur within a 7 year period.
Rev 8:1,
11:3,
12:6,
14;
13:5.
There are many more examples, but these should be enough to prove that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (among others) were not fulfilled in AD 70, nor at any other time in history to date.
Then comes the problem ....
The Church Has Not Replaced Israel.
The claim that the church has inherited all of the promises of the covenants to Israel and thus has replaced Israel is probably the most popular of the Historical view. The Historical view denys that God will restore the literal nation of Israel in the end times. The historicists and preterists even go so far as to blame the dispensationalist view of those who believe in the literal restoration of Israel on a Jesuit priest named Ribera in the 1500s. That claim has been done right here. The claim is that the Catholic church (RCC) need a response to the claims that Revelation pointed to the RCC as the whore of Babylon, and thus Ribera created futurism which was then later passed on to John Darby, then to Scofield and Larkin.
Not only is that claim historically absurd due to the early church "fathers" that also held to a futuristic view, but Ribera's commentary was never translated from Latin and there is no evidence that Darby ever read his works and he never referenced them. Furthermore, Ribera's only similarity from what I have read is that there will be a future kingdom, there is nothing remotely similar about Ribera's writings and the pre-millenial views. Moreover, the RCC has never believed in pre-millenialism or a pre-tribulation rapture, and those who hold to those views still identify the RCC as the beast and the antichrist so whatever views are attributed to Ribera, do not look like the scheme worked even if it were true.
This subject has had entire volumes written about it so I won't do much justice to the subject here, but just a few short observations from Romans 9-11 which is a death blow to the Historical view regarding Israel:
*Paul argues that "hath God cast away his people that he foreknew?"
Romans 11:1-2. So clearly, the contention is that someone had been cast away due to the dispensation of grace. If the church had replaced Israel, this question would not even be up for debate with Paul. If the church replaced Israel, why would the question be asked if God cast away His church which He foreknew? Who was Paul referring to that was cast away and that God foreknew? Surely Paul is talking about the literal Hebrews, and he answers the question with a resounding NO.
*Paul describes the nation of Israel as his brothers "according to the flesh".
Rom 9:3. The church are not Paul's brothers according to the flesh, church members are made family by adoption through the Holy Spirit, not by promise of covenants with Israel.
Rom 8:23. Thus Paul sets the entire tone of Romans chs 9-11 by identifying his discourse about Israel as being his physical lineage, not about promises given to the church by transference.
*The other view often cite Luke 13 where Jesus cursed the fig tree as evidence that Israel will never be restored. However,
Rom 11:15 clearly shows that God will raise Israel as a nation "from the dead". Therefore Luke 13 can only be temporary as is confirmed by Paul in
Romans 11:25.
*Paul repeatedly makes distinctions between the Jews and Greeks (gentiles) throughout Scripture (
Rom 1:16,
Acts 28:29 which you will only find in a KJV). In
Rom 11:13, Paul confirms that he is the apostle to the Gentiles and makes the distinction between his office over the Gentiles, and those who are of his flesh (v 14).
*
Revelation 7:4-8 clearly shows that during the tribulation, 144,000 Jews will be sealed. If those who profess that the church replaced Israel, then let me ask to which of the twelve tribes listed in
Rev 7:5-8 do you belong to?
*It is obvious from
Daniel 9:25-27,
2 Thess 2:1-12, and
Rev 11:1-2 that there will be temple rites practiced again during the tribulation, such as would not be practiced by the church. Furthermore, saints saved during the tribulation are said to "sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb". The church would not be singing the song of Moses, that is a clear indication that there will be literal, physical blood-line Jews present during the tribulation that are saved in accordance to God's promises to them in the OT and Paul's statement in
Romans 11:26.
I apologize for the length of this post but I do hope that those who read it will be informed and blessed and even confirm their notions on the subject we are talking about.
