War in Heaven

[seanD]

The fact that Michael is rarely ever referenced in scripture, and the fact that both Dan and Jesus claimed that the times would be like nothing ever experienced in history of mankind (which would mean that Gabriel and Jesus contradicted each other if if they weren't correlated) does sort of make the argument for a correlation pretty strong.

[One Bad Pig]

1. Both passages mention Michael playing a pivotal role.

Ok.

2. The passage in Daniel clearly refers to "the time of the end."

Ok. Per preterism it has been the time of the end since Jesus came.

3. Daniel calls the time "unparalleled distress" and Rev speaks of a war in heaven (doesn't get more distressing than that).

Seriously?

4. Gabriel clarifies in Daniel that Daniel's people are "all whose names are written in the book" and it is clear that he is referring to the "Lamb's book of life" found in Revelation. Meaning that "Daniel's people" are not just the Jews but Christians as well.

ok.

5. In Revelation, Satan is hurled to the earth during and shortly before great destruction (the greatest distress the world has ever seen) is taking place, which Daniel associates with "the time of the end" and Christ associates with His return.

Which preterists associate with c. AD 70.

6. Daniel associates Michael's war with Satan with the time of the resurrection, which most preterists and all futurists agree is future.

Preterist understanding of Daniel 12 is that it's talking about the many saints who were raised along with Jesus (and the "war in heaven" language is from Revelation, not Daniel).

The passages may be talking about the same event, but equating the two is not the death knell for preterism.

[Darfius]

Ok. Per preterism it has been the time of the end since Jesus came.

Huh? Bit of a long end, isn't it? What made it the end after Christ came? When will the end end?

Seriously?

No, unseriously.

Which preterists associate with c. AD 70.

I'm curious, do preterists associate this:

Ezekiel 28:17

Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

with 70 AD as well?

I realize that preterists would have us believe that Satan's "hurling" to earth was as invisible as Christ's "return" was, but Scripture paints a different picture. Isaiah 14 presents a graphic display of Satan's future humiliation as well.

Preterist understanding of Daniel 12 is that it's talking about the many saints who were raised along with Jesus (and the "war in heaven" language is from Revelation, not Daniel).

No dice.

Daniel 12:2

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Unless you're prepared to assert that some of the unrighteous were also "raised along with Christ" to suffer shame and everlasting contempt, then it's clear that Daniel is there referencing the general resurrection. Which means Michael "stands up" for God's people around the time of the general resurrection. Which means the tribulation occurs around the time of the general resurrection. Which means that preterism is a dangerous and false heresy.

The passages may be talking about the same event, but equating the two is not the death knell for preterism.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Littlejoe]

After reading Daniel 12 and Revelation 12, I am still at a loss as to why you feel futurism gets a pass on the timing issue in Rev 12:1-6. Let's review:

Rev 12:1-6 ENIV

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

The timing seems clearly to be Christ Death and Resurrection. Then verse 7 starts the war...why do you think futurism gets to ignore that the war then the "resurrection" start right after the Ascension of Christ?

LJ

[theblueprint_Ni]

After reading Daniel 12 and Revelation 12, I am still at a loss as to why you feel futurism gets a pass on the timing issue in Rev 12:1-6. Let's review:

Rev 12:1-6 ENIV

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

The timing seems clearly to be Christ Death and Resurrection. Then verse 7 starts the war...why do you think futurism gets to ignore that the war then the "resurrection" start right after the Ascension of Christ?

LJ

Revelation is a complicated book. I'm decidedly against dogmatic interpretations of most of its extended prophetic messages. Timing is one of those issues that frustrates anyone's interpretation. Everyone has to jump around at one point or another. My view is that we can only guess at the meaning that complies with our understanding of God's relationship with Israel and the Church

The above passage seems to jump around through time, somewhat irrespective of sequential order. The way I read it, Israel gave way to Christ while under the watch of Satan, who was the one responsible for convincing 1/3 of the host of heaven to rebel against God. After Christ's birth, Satan conspired against him knowing that he was the rightful King of Heaven. After the resurrection, Israel will flee to a place 3.5 years--presumably at a future time when Israel could rightfully be called a nation because this never happened during the Roman war--which corresponds to the timeline given in Daniel 9.

[One Bad Pig]

Huh? Bit of a long end, isn't it? What made it the end after Christ came? When will the end end?

It was the end of the kingdom of this world. The end will end when all enemies are put under Jesus' feet, which will be done when God wills it.

I'm curious, do preterists associate this:

Ezekiel 28:17

Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

with 70 AD as well?

I realize that preterists would have us believe that Satan's "hurling" to earth was as invisible as Christ's "return" was, but Scripture paints a different picture. Isaiah 14 presents a graphic display of Satan's future humiliation as well.

Ez. 28:17 is referring to Tyre. It could also refer to Jerusalem, in which case I'd say that Judea capta was rather a spectacle. I haven't read any preterist commentary on Ezekiel yet though, so I dunno what others think of it.

Daniel 12:2

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Unless you're prepared to assert that some of the unrighteous were also "raised along with Christ" to suffer shame and everlasting contempt, then it's clear that Daniel is there referencing the general resurrection. Which means Michael "stands up" for God's people around the time of the general resurrection. Which means the tribulation occurs around the time of the general resurrection. Which means that preterism is a dangerous and false heresy.

Let's see: Just as the righteous will walk in the city of the New Jerusalem after the general resurrection, the Old Testament saints who were raised with Jesus walked in the old Jerusalem. Will the unrighteous awake to walk in the New Jerusalem? No. Therefore, it is not surprising that those who awoke to shame are not recorded as walking in the old Jerusalem either. Furthermore, it was not necessary for Matthew to mention them in order to show fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 12, since reference to a part was sufficient to bring the whole to mind.

[seanD]

I don't see the correlation with Michael standing up during a time of great distress (such as not ever seen before) and the incident in Matthew 27:52-53.