The Dating of Revelation
A Formal Written Debate
Dr. Lloyd Olson– Late Date Advocate
Don K. Preston– Early Date Advocate
Third And Final Affirmative: Don K. Preston
It is lamentable that disputants resort to caustic language and arrogant attitudes when their paradigm crumbles before their eyes, but, that is precisely what we have witnessed with Mr. Olson. He can’t answer my arguments, so he labels me a God dishonoring, Bible perverting, Israel hater. Sad indeed.
Let me address some things that are by now clear to the readers of this exchange, but, Dr. Olson is probably hoping that he can divert my attention from them by all of his smoke and acerbic language. It will not work. The self contradictory arguments offered by Mr. Olson are incredible.
One of Dr. Olson’s many glaring self contradictions is his desperate argument on the imminence issue. Here is what has happened:
I argued that the, "the time is at hand," and, "Behold, I come quickly"statements demand an imminent fulfillment.
Mr. Olson argued– citing Ezekiel 12 and Acts 22:18– that the time statements there are adverbs indicating rapidity of action, not temporal imminence, thus, Revelation cannot be temporal imminence. By the way, you cannot make "the time is at near" an adverbial statement no matter how hard you try.
I went to Ezekiel and Acts 22 and proved beyond any doubt that Mr. Olson’s claims were false.
And now, amazingly, Mr. Olson says: "It is foolish to use a word from one context to define the same word used in another context. This is Mr. Preston’s folly."
Dr. Olson, THOU ART THE MAN! If it is wrong to use a word from one context to define the same word in another context, WHY DID YOU APPEAL TO THOSE OTHER TEXTS that you now admit speak of temporal imminence? This is double speak to say the very least.
Mr. Olson says that I change the everyday ordinary meaning of words to make them fit my view. Well, the readers of this debate will recognize instantly that Mr Olson is the guilty party. He takes "at hand", "has drawn near", etc. and turns them into adverbs. There is no grammatical support for his patently false claim, so, he accuses me of being the one changing the meaning of words!
ON 1 PETER AND REVELATION
My case on 1 Peter and Revelation stands unscathed by Mr. Olson’s attempts to refute.
He admitted that Peter speaks of the impending fall of Jerusalem, but, then tries to say that this is unrelated to the issue of Revelation, in spite of the fact that Revelation PREDICTED what Peter said had now come. Revelation wrote to the same people, about the same problem, and said it was coming. Peter said it was present. Any unprejudiced mind can see that correlation.
However, Mr. Olson revealed his true hermeneutic: "Common sense and the daily newspaper show that Mr. Preston has not read even the verse that he thinks can support his view."
The key to Mr. Olson’s view is "the daily newspaper." If the newspaper does not report it, it was not fulfilled!
The contrast between us is clear. I accept the inspired statements of Peter that, "the end of all things has drawn near", "the appointed time for the judgment has come" (1 Peter 4:7, 17), and bring my concepts of the nature of the end into conformity with inspiration.
Mr. Olson, clings to his misguided concepts of the nature of the kingdom, and as a result perverts the time statements. But, the reader will easily see that there is no justification for turning "has drawn near," and "the time has come" into "when the end finally comes, by and by, things will happen rapidly!"
BACK TO MATTHEW 24 AND LUKE 21:8
Now, I want the reader to catch the full power of what follows. In both of my affirmatives I have offered an argument based on Matthew 24 and Luke 21:8. YOU MUST REALIZE HOW DEVASTATING THIS ARGUMENT IS TO MR. OLSON. This single argument falsifies his entire theology. It is that devastating. Here what I have offered in both affirmatives:
Jesus gave signs to indicate the true nearness of his parousia (Matthew 24:4-33).
Jesus told his first century apostles not to believe (and thus not to make), premature declarations of the nearness of his parousia (the end- Luke 21:8).
But, Jesus’ first century, inspired apostles did say that the end and Christ’s parousia had drawn near, (Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8-9; 1 Peter 4:5-17).
Therefore, it must be true that Jesus’ first century, inspired apostles did see the signs of the true nearness of Christ’s coming, or,
It must be true that Jesus’ first century, inspired apostles actually made premature declarations of the nearness of the end and Christ’s coming.
Mr. Olson TOTALLY IGNORED MY CORE ARGUMENT, except to ridicule it!
Note carefully the following:
The presence of the signs of the end (Matthew 24:33) would indicate the OBJECTIVE NEARNESS OF THE END– not some adverbial "rapidity of action." If the signs were not present, in the first century, then Jesus’ own apostles were deluded in thinking they were, for they said the end had drawn near! Go back and look for Mr. Olson’s response. You will not find it!
The question is therefore, why can we not take THEIR time statements literally, since they were told not to make statements concerning the nearness of the end UNTIL THE SIGNS APPEARED? Why do we have to take their time statements ADVERBIALLY, when Mr. Olson believes that when the signs appear, they will indicate OBJECTIVE NEARNESS?
PETER –who was warned not to make premature declarations of the nearness of the end- wrote: "The end of all things has drawn near." (1 Peter 4:7); "The time has come for the judgment to begin." (1 Peter 4:17). You can’t apply these texts "adverbially" of manner except through overt distortion.
JOHN –who was warned not to make premature declarations of the nearness of the end- wrote: "These things must shortly come to pass…the time is at hand"; "Do not seal the vision of this book, the time is at hand… Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6-12).
JESUS, who was the one that warned of making premature declarations of the end, said, "Do not seal the vision of this book, the time is at hand… Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6-12).
Mr. Olson ignored my questions, so, I will ask them again THE THIRD TIME. Mr. Olson, please answer, without evasion: (Remember that Mr. Olson says when a debate opponent ignores an argument, it demonstrates his INABILITY to answer it.)
DID PETER AND JOHN MAKE PREMATURE DECLARATIONS OF THE NEARNESS OF THE END? YES OR NO? Go back and look for Mr. Olson’s response. You will not find it!
DID JESUS, WHO WARNED OF MAKING PREMATURE DECLARATIONS OF THE NEARNESS OF THE END, THEN MAKE PREMATURE DECLARATIONS OF THE NEARNESS OF THE END? YES OR NO? Go back and look for Mr. Olson’s response. You will not find it!
If the inspired statements of Jesus and his apostles were not premature, (and of course, they WEREN’T), then a first century, pre-A.D. 70 provenance and application of Revelation is the ONLY viable interpretation.. So, my argument stands unmoved.
As I said, you must catch the power of this singular argument. You cannot twist "the time is at hand," and, "these things must shortly come to pass" into, "I come on a fast cloud." The undeniable reality is that the very apostles that Jesus spoke to about the danger of premature declarations of the nearness of the end MADE DECLARATIO
NS OF THE NEARNESS OF THE END! They were either right– which totally falsifies Mr. Olson’s theology– or, they were wrong– which makes them the very false prophets Jesus warned them about.
Worse still, Jesus himself made what Mr. Olson must consider to be premature declarations of the nearness of the end!
Let the reader take full note that Mr. Olson has totally ignored this issue, and attempted to cloud the issue. But, he has not answered it, and HE CANNOT ANSWER IT!
Since John was one of those who heard Jesus’ warnings against premature declarations of the nearness of the end, and since John wrote- through the Spirit from the Father– that the time had come, all of Mr. Olson’s pontifications are falsified, and my affirmative is established.
A COROLLARY AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT ON THE IMMINENCE OF REVELATION:
Revelation reiterates the prophecies of Daniel concerning the time of the end. (Mr. Olson agrees).
Daniel was told that fulfillment of his vision was FAR OFF, and NOT NEAR (Daniel 12:4, 9f).
Daniel was told to SEAL HIS BOOK, because the time was far off (Daniel 12:4, 9f).
It was (let’s round the numbers off for ease of expression), 500 years from Daniel to John.
John, reiterating the prophecies of Daniel, was told, "Do not seal the vision of this book because the time "the appointed time is near" (ho kairos gar eggus estin– kairos means appointed time.)
So, the appointed time of the end predicted by Daniel, that was far off when he wrote, had now drawn near when John wrote!
Yet, per Mr. Olson, although it has been four times longer from John to the present day, John was wrong. FULFILLMENT WAS NOT NEAR, IT WAS NOT AT HAND!
John should have been told to seal the book since fulfillment was still not near when he wrote, if Mr. Olson’s view is correct!
So the contrast is clear, and undeniable:
Daniel– SEAL the prophecy, fulfillment is FAR OFF.
John– DO NOT SEAL the prophecy (the same prophecy as Daniel)– THE TIME IS NEAR.
Yet, per Mr. Olson, time statements mean nothing! Dr. Olson, there are no adverbs here. There is no "rapidity of action" here. There is positive, definitive TEMPORAL CONTRASTS, and this contrast between not near and near destroys my opponent’s negatives.
ISRAEL’S LAST DAYS ACTS 2, ROMANS 10, HEBREWS 10.
You just must realize how UTTERLY DEVASTATING this argument is for his view, yet, totally supportive of my affirmative!
Let the reader go back to my second affirmative and read it carefully.
Here is the summation of what I said:
Mr. Olson’s dispensational view says that Israel’s last days were not in existence on Pentecost, or anytime in the N. T. period. Israel’s last days do not resume until the imaginary rapture.
If, however, Israel’s last days prophecies were being fulfilled in the first century, Mr. Olson’s entire theology falls to the ground. READ THAT STATEMENT AGAIN!
I cited Acts 2, where Peter, quoting Joel 2:28, the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit to restore Israel, Peter said "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." (Acts 2:15).
I noted that Paul, in Romans 10, said that his ministry to the Gentiles was in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32:21f, the prediction of Israel’s last days. In Romans 10:13 Paul said that what Joel 2 predicted for Israel’s last days was then being fulfilled: "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
In Hebrews 10:33f, the author quotes from Deuteronomy 32, the prophecy of Israel’s last days, to promise the soon coming judgment.
Here is what Mr. Olson offered in "response": "An aspect of Preston’s confusion is that he thinks the last days of prophecy of Deut 32 was being fulfilled in Paul’s gentile ministry." That is Mr. Olson’s total "refutation" of my in-depth analysis. No, Mr. Olson, I don’t "think" Deuteronomy 32 was being fulfilled in Paul’s ministry. I KNOW IT! This destroys your theology, and you know it!
I commented that Deuteronomy 32 is paradigmatic for the N. T. writers. Mr. Olson said this was "reprehensible." Yet, look at the references above, and many more could be given. Mr. Olson has not explained why Peter, Paul, and John cite it so often in their proclamation of the gospel. The inspired writers were eagerly expecting fulfillment of Deuteronomy. Mr. Olson calls that undeniable reality "reprehensible."
Paul said he preached NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF ISRAEL.
Paul says his ministry is what Deuteronomy 32 foretold.
Yet, per Mr. Olson, there is no connection between Paul’s ministry and Deuteronomy 32!
Now, CATCH THIS, Mr. Olson actually said this in response to Acts 2– which encompasses all of the above references to Israel’s last days: "Acts 2 was only a partial fulfillment of Joel."
This is a TOTAL CAPITULATION. It is why Mr. Olson went over it so quickly, without comment. He was hoping I would not notice it.
If the events of Pentecost– or of Paul’s ministry– were– to ANY DEGREE WHATSOEVER– the fulfillment of Israel’s last days prophecies, then Mr. Olson’s theological paradigm IS 100% FALSIFIED! Ponder that irrefutable fact for a moment.
Not one element of Deuteronomy 32, Joel 2 or Daniel LIE OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL’S LAST DAYS!
This means that Israel’s last days were not postponed. It means that Paul was right when he said his Gentile ministry was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32– the prophecy of Israel’s last days.
It means that Jesus and Paul’s statements concerning Israel filling the measure of her sin IN THEIR GENERATION belong to the last days foretold in Deuteronomy 32– and Daniel 9.
It demands therefore, that Revelation– being about the fulfillment of Daniel 9– was written before the fall of Jerusalem, and the consummation of Israel’s last days.
SO, when Mr. Olson admits that Acts 2 was TO ANY DEGREE, a fulfillment of Joel, he has, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT surrendered his doctrine.
AN AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT ON THE GREAT TRIBULATION
Here is Mr. Olson’s "argument." "I asked Mr. Preston to answer some basic questions such as:
1. Has the anti-christ appeared?
2. Has Jesus returned visibly to the entire world?
3. Has there been an earthquake the size of which has never yet happened?
4. Has 25% of the earth been destroyed by hunger from one catastrophe (Rev 6:7-8)?
5. Has 33% of the seas been turned to blood (Rev 8:8)?
6. Has the sun lost 33% of its brilliance (Rev 8:12)?
7. Has anyone seen locusts of the type described in the fifth trumpet of Rev 9?" (End quote)
He then trumpeted that I had not responded, and this proves his case. (Go back and take note of all of my arguments that he has totally ignored!)
Let me take his "argument", and turn it into an affirmative for my position.
In many ways, this is Mr. Olson’s KEY argument. Here is what he is saying:
Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Revelation predict the end of time, earth, and human history as we know it, at a literal, bodily coming of Christ on cumulus clouds.
Those events have not happened as Mr. Olson presupposes.
Therefore, these prophecies have not been fulfilled.
This is total presupposition! Notice that conspicuously absent from his list, is that Revelation 12:4 speaks of a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, etc. This dragon is so monstrously HUGE, that he can knock one third of the stars out of the sky! Now, Mr. Olson can’t interpret
the dragon symbolically, because after all, the Bible has to be understood literally! (And after all, the locusts are literal!) Mr. Olson imposes his concepts on authors writing thousands of years ago, demanding that they could never have written in figurative, poetic, metaphoric language!
He is doing precisely what the Jews of Jesus’ day did. They had a concept of Messiah. Jesus did not fit that concept, so, they killed him! After all, their preconceived ideas had to be right, just like Mr. Olson!
Let the reader be aware that all of these events belong, in Mr. Olson’s paradigm, to the seven years between the imaginary rapture and the beginning of the millennium at the Second Coming. So, to speak of one of these elements of necessity speaks of them all.
WITH THIS IN MIND, CONSIDER THE 144,000 SAINTS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION
The 144,000 were of the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 7, 14).
The 144,000 would experience the Great Tribulation: They "came out of the Great Tribulation" (Revelation 7:14–literally, "those who are coming out of the Great Tribulation"– it is a present participle! Where is your literalism on this, Mr. Olson? The text says they were experiencing the Great Tribulation when John wrote!).
The 144,000 are "the first fruit unto God and to the Lamb."
YOU HAVE TO CATCH THE POWER OF THIS!
The 144,000 are the first fruit Jewish Christians– which means, of necessity, that THEY WERE THE FIRST GENERATION OF JEWISH CHRISTIANS.
THIS MEANS THAT THE GREAT TRIBULATION OCCURRED IN THE FIRST CENTURY!
The first fruit does not mean the 50th fruit!. It cannot refer to anything other than the F-I-R-S-T! You cannot make first, to mean NOT first!
Here is my argument in syllogistic form (note again that Mr. Olson has not addressed a single one of my syllogisms).
The 144,000 Jewish Christians would experience the Great Tribulation.
But, the 144,000 were THE FIRST GENERATION OF JEWS REDEEMED TO CHRIST.
Therefore, the Great Tribulation must have occurred in the first century generation.
Now watch this:
James, writing "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad" said, "of his own will He begot us,… that we might be a kind of first fruit unto him." His audience, undergoing persecution (James 5:1-6), was promised that "the parousia has drawn near." (James 1:1, 18, 5:8–No adverbials allowed here, Mr. Olson! "Has drawn near" cannot be perverted into "rapidly.")
Likewise, note Hebrews 12:21: "You have come to Zion, the city of the living God, the church of THE FIRSTBORN ONES…" (Again, no adverbials allowed! "You have come," can’t mean, "things will happen rapidly when they finally happen one day by and by!")
Here, we find the church of the firstborn (i.e. the first fruit), and they had arrived at Zion! Where did the 144,000 of Revelation 14 stand? Read Revelation 14:1-2– ZION!
Both James and Hebrews were written to the first fruit of Jewish Christians, enduring persecution. They were told that Christ’s parousia had drawn near, and would be, "in a very, very little while" (James 5:8; Hebrews 10:37).
Both James and Hebrews were written before A.D. 70.
Revelation speaks of the first fruit of Jewish Christians, and says they were, when John wrote, "coming out of the Great Tribulation." They were told that Christ’s coming was at hand, the time had drawn near, and he was coming quickly (Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6-12).
Therefore, like James and Hebrews, Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
It does not matter what your concept of things might be, if you violate–as Mr. Olson does- the irrefutable fact that the Great Tribulation was to occur in the lifetime of the first fruit of Jewish Christians, then your concepts are wrong.
REVELATION AND COVENANTAL LANGUAGE
Mr. Olson totally ignored the fact that his own hero, Thomas Ice, says that the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 WAS the outpouring of Mosaic Covenant Wrath. (He also says Ice defeated me in our four debates. I suppose that this is why, although invited repeatedly to debate me again, Mr. Ice refuses to do so! Perhaps Mr. Olson can get Mr. Ice to "whip" me again? I have some men that would be glad to help underwrite such an event!)
Mr. Olson must now admit that Revelation is indeed about the outpouring of Mosaic Covenant Wrath– this proving the early date of Revelation. Here is why.
Revelation 18-19– per Mr. Olson– is about consummation of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, and, CHRIST’S SECOND COMING, to initiate the millennium. But, per millennialism, THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF DEUTERONOMY 30 (Walvoord, Pentecost, et. al)! PLEASE READ THAT CAREFULLY.
Now watch: Revelation (15, 19, etc), is about the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32– the prophecy of Israel’s last days.
Now, do you remember this from Mr. Olson’s first negative?: "Deuteronomy 32 is part of the Mosaic Covenant, a conditional covenant of blessings and curses for one special nation: Israel." SO…
Revelation is about Daniel 9– the seventy weeks– ISRAEL’s LAST DAYS (Lloyd Olson).
Deuteronomy 32 is about ISRAEL’s LAST DAYS (Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:20, 29).
THEREFORE, REVELATION IS ABOUT DEUTERONOMY 32- Lloyd Olson has not denied this!
Let’s build on that:
Revelation is about Deuteronomy 32 (This is irrefutable).
BUT, DEUTERONOMY 32 IS THE MOSAIC COVENANT INCLUDING THE LAW OF BLESSINGS AND CURSES OF DEUTERONOMY 28-30 (Lloyd Olson-First negative)!
THEREFORE, REVELATION IS ABOUT THE FULFILLMENT OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT INCLUDING THE BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS.
Lloyd Olson’s admissions concerning Deuteronomy 32 have vindicated my affirmative and destroyed his own argument!
So, of ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE NECESSITY, Mr. Olson’s paradigm demands that:
The Mosaic Covenant curses and blessings ARE STILL VALID TODAY– since he says Revelation is unfulfilled, OR,
The Mosaic Covenant Curses and Blessings WILL ONE DAY BE RESTORED. (As a rule, dispensationalism rejects the idea of the future restoration of the Mosaic Covenant.)
In his first affirmative, Mr. Olson told us, correctly, that Deuteronomy 32 is about ISRAEL. So, exactly how does the Roman Catholic church fit into Revelation, since Revelation is irrefutably–now established by your own words– about the fulfillment of Mosaic Covenant Wrath?
So, Revelation IS about the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant curses– according now to Mr. Olson!
But, the Roman Catholic Church was never-and will never be under- the Mosaic Covenant.
Therefore, Revelation cannot be about the Roman Catholic Church.
Revelation is focused on a city subject to the Mosaic Covenant. That can be only one city– the city of killing the apostles and prophets of Jesus– Old Covenant, first century Jerusalem.
And of course, this demands that Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
IMPORTANT!! Note that Mr. Olson says that Israel STANDS UNDER GOD’S JUDGMENT TODAY. UPON WHAT BASIS? She has to be returned in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30, correct? Well, it was the Mosaic Covenant that provided for exile due to sin (Leviticus 26 / Deuteronomy 28-30). So, Mr. Olson, is Israel under judgment due to her present disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant? DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!
!! Note that Mr. Olson says that Israel STANDS UNDER GOD’S JUDGMENT TODAY. UPON WHAT BASIS? She has to be returned in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30, correct? Well, it was the Mosaic Covenant that provided for exile due to sin (Leviticus 26 / Deuteronomy 28-30). So, Mr. Olson, is Israel under judgment due to her present disobedience to the Mosaic Covenan
t? DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!
This issue of Revelation being the fulfillment of Mosaic Covenant wrath is a critical issue, and totally destructive to my opponents negative, and his entire theology. Yet, it supports my view 100%!
LET’S TALK ABOUT DANIEL 9, THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE FILLING THE MEASURE OF SIN– AND MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT
Before we get back to this issue of filling the measure of sin, however, notice Mr. Olson’s glaring, self contradiction. I must give a good bit of his text here for you to catch the power of how self contradictory he is:
Mr. Olson queries: "Where in Lev 26 and Deut 28-30 is a curse upon Jerusalem that encompasses a fourth part of the earth (Rev 6:8)? Where in Lev 26 and Deut 28-30 is a curse upon Jerusalem where the sun became black as sackcloth and the moon became as blood (Rev 6:12)? Where in Lev 26 and Deut 28-30 is a curse upon Jerusalem where the stars of heaven fell unto the earth (Rev 6:13)? Where in Lev 26 and Deut 28-30 is a curse upon Jerusalem where the kings and mighty men of earth hide themselves in dens to escape from the wrath of the Lamb (Rev 6:15-16)?
CONTEXT RULES! Context dictates that Revelation is talking about the end of the EARTH – not the end of one little city. Failure to use CONTEXT is why Mr. Preston was whipped in four successive debates with Thomas Ice and now is receiving the same embarrassing whipping here. CONTEXT RULES! (Mr. Olson likes to throw around the word "CONTEXT," but does not seem to understand what it actually MEANS.)
One only has to look ahead to the remaining chapters of Revelation to see that they DO NOT APPLY TO ISRAEL. They apply to the description given in Daniel 9:24.
Has the world openly worshipped (sic) the dragon (Rev 13:4)?
Has the mysterious beast working with signs caused the world to worship the dragon (Rev 13:11-13)?
Does the beast control the world’s economy (Rev 13:16-17)?
Has an angel preached to the everlasting gospel to the earth (Rev 14:6)?
Has there been a war where blood flowed to the horse bridles for 184 miles (Rev 14:20)?
Has the sea turned to blood where every living thing died (Rev 16:3)?
Have the fountains of the earth ceased (Rev 16:4-7)?
Has the great city Babylon been divided into three parts by a great earthquake (Rev 16:19)?
Has the great city Babylon been destroyed such that it shall be found NO MORE (Rev 18:21)?
Has heaven opened so that Christ can make open war with the beast (Rev 19:11ff)?
Have the beast and false prophet been cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19:20)?
Has the devil ceased tempting us because he is in a bottomless pit (Rev 20:4-6)?
Has the Great White Throne judgment happened (Rev 20:11-15)?
Has a new heaven and a new earth been created (Rev 21:1)?
Has a new Jerusalem descended out of heaven (Rev 21)? (end quote)
Okay, now watch what he has done. Because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not use the PRECISE LANGUAGE OF REVELATION, then Revelation cannot be the fulfillment of Mosaic Covenant curses. Such is Mr. Olson’s "logic."
HOWEVER! Mr. Olson says that Revelation is Daniel 9.
ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION: WHERE ARE ANY OF THE 15 ITEMS THAT MR. OLSON GIVES MENTIONED IN DANIEL 9? Where is the beast, Babylon, the New Heavens and Earth, et. al.? Per Mr. Olson’s "logic" Revelation cannot be about Daniel, because Daniel does not mention a single one of these tenets!
However, DANIEL DOES MENTION THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, that was to occur at the climax of the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:26-27). And yet, although Mr. Olson says Revelation is about Daniel 9, he says that Revelation has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem! This inconsistency is glaring and undeniable. So much for Mr. Olson’s "hermeneutic."
NOW TO THE FILLING THE MEASURE OF SIN, DANIEL 9, AND THE DATING OF REVELATION
Daniel 9 foretold the filling of Israel’s sin ("seventy weeks are determined to finish the transgression." She would kill the Messiah (Daniel 9:26). And of course, Jesus taught that this was involved in Israel filling the measure of her sin– in his generation (Matthew 21:33f; 23:29f).
Jesus and Paul said that Israel would fill the measure of her sin in the first century– by killing the apostles and prophets- and by killing Jesus. Mr. Olson has repeatedly ignored this indisputable fact.
If Israel has not yet filled the measure of her sin, it must be true that she will be worse, in the tribulation period, than she was when she killed Jesus!! Mr. Olson ignored Matthew 12:45. In fact, he 100% ignored the following:
(And, keep in mind that Mr. Olson says when a man will not answer his opponent’s arguments, that it signals defeat. Well, he did not even address these questions!)
Mr. Olson: DO YOU DENY THAT ISRAEL FILLED THE MEASURE OF HER SIN IN THE FIRST CENTURY, IN FULFILLMENT OF OUR LORD’S WORDS IN MATTHEW 23:29F? PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Likewise, Paul said due to their persecution of the prophets, of Jesus, and the apostles and prophets of Jesus, that Israel was, WHEN HE WROTE, filling the measure of their sin, and that judgment was about to fall. Mr. Olson has admitted that Paul was speaking of A.D. 70!
Mr. Olson: DO YOU DENY THE INSPIRED WORDS OF PAUL, WHEN HE SAID THAT ISRAEL WAS FILLING THE MEASURE OF HER SIN IN THE FIRST CENTURY?
As the negative, Mr. Olson has to prove, definitively, that there is no link between Jesus, Paul and John, and the theme of the filling the measure of sin. But, watch the Biblical progression.
Jesus said that Israel WOULD FILL the measure of her sin in his generation, through killing his apostles and prophets. Did Mr. Olson address this? Not a word.
Paul said Israel WAS FILLING the measure of her sin in his generation, through killing the apostles and prophets. Did Mr. Olson address this? Not a word.
John said that Babylon HAD FILLED the measure of her sin through killing the apostles and prophets (17:6f; 18:20-24)! Did Mr. Olson address this? Not a word!
Now watch, as we go back to Revelation 1:19.
If John was writing of what was PAST, OR PRESENT, in regard to Babylon filling the measure of her sin by killing the apostles and prophets, then this means that Babylon had to have been a first century entity, AND THIS FALSIFIES MR. Olson’S VIEW. And of course, Revelation 17-18 says that BABYLON HAD, WHEN JOHN WROTE, FILLED THE MEASURE OF HER SIN. Mr. Olson’s response? Thunderous SILENCE!
If, however, Babylon had not yet filled the measure of her sin through killing the apostles and prophets, it is Mr. Olson’s responsibility to divorce the theme of filling the measure of sin by killing the apostles and prophets from Jesus and Paul’s emphatic declarations. Of course, he cannot do this.
Also, if Babylon had not yet filled the measure of her sin through killing the apostles and prophets, she had to be "about to" do so, within the "the time is at hand," time frame established by the Father!
NOW, LET’S TIE DANIEL 9 INTO THIS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE:
Seventy weeks were determined for Israel and Jerusalem to fill the measure of her sin (Daniel 9:24f).
Revelation is about the fulfillment of Daniel 9- the city (Babylon) filling the measure of her sin.
Therefore, Revelation- being about Daniel 9- is about Israel and Jerusalem filling the measure of her sin. (See how this dovetails with Deuteronomy 32?)
Seventy weeks were determined for Israel and Jerusalem to fill the measure of her sin (Daniel 9:24f).
Jesus said that Israel and Jerusalem would fill the measure of her sin in his generation.
Therefore, the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24– and Revelation– the fulfillment of Israel filling the measure
of her sin, would be fulfilled in Jesus’ generation.
Revelation is about Daniel 9– Lloyd Olson.
But, Daniel 9 predicted the filling of Israel’s sin, inclusive of killing Messiah (Daniel 9:24-26), and the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26-27).
Revelation predicted the judgment of the city "where the Lord was slain", and the filling of the measure of sin (Revelation 11:8).
But, Jesus said the judgment of Jerusalem for shedding all the righteous blood shed on the earth– inclusive of his blood– (i.e. filling the measure of Israel’s sin), would be in his generation (Matthew 23:29f).
Therefore, the fulfillment of Daniel 9 and Revelation– the judgment of Jerusalem for shedding the blood of Messiah and the righteous saints– was in the first century.
This fully establishes that the Apocalypse was written before the fall of Jerusalem, and was predictive of that event.
Here is what Mr. Olson has offered as a "rebuttal":
"In my first negative response I showed how ludicrous it was to expect that the sins of one tiny city at a particular moment in history would fill up the sins of an entire nation for the entirety of history. Preston responded by saying that filled up the measure of sin was linked to the destruction of the saints. Notice how he tries to redefine "fill up their sins" from 1 Thess 2:16 so that it matches the filling up the sins from Dan 9:24. Israel’s sin brought God’s wrath and judgment upon them at one moment in time. But this is not what Preston makes of it." (End quote)
It would take volumes to respond to all of the error found here! But, let me note a bit of it.
Daniel foretold Israel / Jerusalem would fill the measure of her sin.
Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the O.T. prophets.
Paul said Israel was filling the measure of her sin in his generation.
Therefore, Israel filling the measure of her sin in Paul’s generation was in fulfillment of the O.T. prophets.
So, if 1 Thessalonians 2:14f is different from the filling the measure of sin foretold in Daniel 9, Mr. Olson must produce the O.T. prophecy that predicted what Paul was writing about! He can’t do it!
Mr. Olson is, essentially, ridiculing JESUS. He says it is Preston that said that "one tiny city" at a particular moment in history would fill the sins of an entire nation." (It is interesting, is it not, that Mr. Olson can on the one hand make Israel / Jerusalem the center of God’s eschatological plan, and yet, on the other hand, disparage her significance because she was "just one little city"?!)
But Mr. Olson, DOES BELIEVE that Daniel 9 predicted that Jerusalem, "one tiny city" would, AT SOME POINT, FILL THE MEASURE OF HER SIN! He simply rejects Jesus’ and Paul’s time statements concerning WHEN it was happening.
Mr. Olson, would do well to read, and heed, the Lord’s words in Matthew 23: 31-36: "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
JESUS SAID that Israel / Jerusalem of his day would fill the measure of her sin, through persecuting his apostles and prophets.
JESUS SAID that Israel / Jerusalem of his day shared in their father’s guilt of shedding all the blood shed on the earth.
JESUS SAID that "all of the righteous blood shed on the earth" would be avenged and judged in his generation.
On the other hand..
LLOYD OLSON DENIES that Israel / Jerusalem of Jesus’ day would fill the measure of her sin, through persecuting Jesus’ apostles and prophets.
LLOYD OLSON DENIES that Israel / Jerusalem of Jesus’ day shared in their father’s guilt of shedding all the blood shed on the earth.
LLOYD OLSON DENIES that "all the righteous blood shed on the earth" would be avenged and judged in Jesus’ generation.
There could not be a more stark contrast between positions. Mr. Olson stands opposed to Jesus (and of course Paul). I will stand with Jesus on this.
Remember also that I asked the following:
DOES MR. Olson believe that Israel, during the Great Tribulation between the imaginary rapture and the second coming, will fill the measure of her sin, through the persecution of the saints? No, he believes that ISRAEL IS THE PERSECUTED. Most millennialists believe that Israel is, for all practical purposes, an "innocent victim" of the anti-christ during the Tribulation.
DOES MR. Olson BELIEVE that Israel, during the millennium, will fill the measure of her sin– through persecuting the saints? No. Israel is NEVER depicted as the persecutor of the saints in the millennium!
Mr. Olson, at what point of time in your millennial scheme does Israel fill the measure of her sin through the persecution of the saints, become like Sodom, a generation of vipers, and is judged / destroyed for those sins, in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32? (Note also: Mr. Olson totally ignored my argument about Deuteronomy 32, Israel, Sodom, and the generation of vipers.)
LET ME REITERATE– AGAIN– MY AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT based on Deuteronomy 32, Hebrews and Revelation– an argument that Mr. Olson totally ignored.
In Hebrews, WRITTEN BEFORE A.D. 70, the saints were being persecuted (Hebrews 10:30-35).
The author said their vindication and the judgment of their persecutors, AS PROMISED IN DEUTERONOMY 32, was coming "in a very, very little while, and will not delay" (v. 37– Cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:4-12). (Which means the Mosaic Covenant was still valid, of course.)
DEUTERONOMY 32– the prophecy of the vindication of the saints in Israel’s last days, WAS ABOUT TO BE FULFILLED!
Now watch: Revelation 18-19 anticipated the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32:33-43, the last days judgment of Israel when God would avenge the blood of the martyrs.
Revelation posits that fulfillment in the judgment of Babylon.
Like Hebrews, Revelation promised that the judgment was at hand, the time had come.
Now, unless Mr. Olson can divorce, DEFINITIVELY, Hebrews from the context of Deuteronomy 32 and Revelation, and / or show conclusively that although both Hebrews (again, written before A.D. 70), and Revelation cite the identical prophecy from Deuteronomy, and both say the fulfillment of Deuteronomy was near, then, since Hebrews was written prior to A.D. 70, this proves that Revelation was likewise written before A.D. 70.
CATCH THE POWER OF THIS: Revelation is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32. Mr. Olson can’t deny this, for Deuteronomy is about Israel’s last days, which he claims is Revelation.
Revelation is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32. Mr. Olson can’t deny this, for Deuteronomy is about Israel’s last days, which he claims is Revelation.
Here is the argument:
Hebrews, written before A.D. 70, anticipated the soon coming fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32 TO AVENGE THE BLOOD OF THE SUFFERING SAINTS.
Revelation 19 anticipated the soon coming fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32 in the judgment of Babylon TO AVENGE THE BLOOD OF THE SUFFERING SAINTS.
THEREFORE, REVELATION WAS WRITTEN BEFORE A.D. 70.
DR. Olson DID NOT TOUCH THIS ARGUMENT and yet, it fully establishes my affirmative. He simply ri
dicules me for daring to accept the words of Jesus and Paul that emphatically posit the filling up of the measure of Israel’s sin in the first century.
DANIEL 9, REVELATION, LUKE 21, THE DATING OF REVELATION
Daniel 9:24– Seventy weeks were determined to "seal vision and prophecy," ( i.e. To bring an end to the prophetic office through final fulfillment of all prophecy. See my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy for a full vindication of this: www.eschatology.org. Virtually all scholarship is agreed on this point.)
At the sounding of the seventh trump in Revelation (10:7), the mystery of God foretold by the prophets would be fulfilled.
But, in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: "these be the days of vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled (Luke 21:22– The reader must realize that Mr. Olson admits that Luke 21:20-24 predicted the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem.)
Now, Mr. Olson has already told us that Revelation is about Daniel 9. So,
Daniel 9 says seventy weeks were determined to fulfill all prophecy.
and, Jesus said ALL THINGS WRITTEN would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
It therefore means that no matter who you identify as Babylon, the writing of Revelation had to have been before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70- when "all things written" would be fulfilled.
(It will do no good to say that Luke 21 refers only to all written prophecies of the fall of– ("one little city")– Jerusalem, BECAUSE ALL ESCHATOLOGICAL PROPHECIES, i.e. the parousia, the judgment, the end of the age, the resurrection, the New Creation, etc. are all posited in Scripture at the end of Old Covenant Israel/ Jerusalem!)
This is categoric proof of the early date of Revelation.
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT– ISAIAH 65
I argued the following:
#1– Abraham looked for A HEAVENLY CITY AND COUNTRY as the ultimate fulfillment of YHVH’s promises to him (Hebrews 11:13f). Mr. Olson did not deny.
– Abraham looked for A HEAVENLY CITY AND COUNTRY as the ultimate fulfillment of YHVH’s promises to him (Hebrews 11:13f). Mr. Olson did not deny.
#2– The Hebrew writer says that they had approached that longed for city– "You have come to Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the church of the living God." (Hebrews 12:21f– Note that ZION, in Messianic prophecy, was to be the capital of the Davidic kingdom. Thus, when Hebrews says they had, at that time, COME TO ZION, he was saying that the time of fulfillment had arrived. No postponement, no failure, no delay!) Mr. Olson did not even breathe on this devastating point!
– The Hebrew writer says that they had approached that longed for city– "You have come to Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the church of the living God." (Hebrews 12:21f– Note that ZION, in Messianic prophecy, was to be the capital of the Davidic kingdom. Thus, when Hebrews says they had, at that time, COME TO ZION, he was saying that the time of fulfillment had arrived. No postponement, no failure, no delay!) Mr. Olson did not even breathe on this devastating point!
#3– This "heavenly Jerusalem" is the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21. Mr. Olson did not deny.
– This "heavenly Jerusalem" is the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21. Mr. Olson did not deny.
#4– The Heavenly Jerusalem– the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant– would come when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed, and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:11f). Mr. Olson sought to deny this last point by simply asserting– without proof, "God will not cast off Jerusalem. Jerusalem will NEVER be destroyed. Israel will NEVER be destroyed."
– The Heavenly Jerusalem– the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant– would come when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed, and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:11f). Mr. Olson sought to deny this last point by simply asserting– without proof, "God will not cast off Jerusalem. Jerusalem will NEVER be destroyed. Israel will NEVER be destroyed."
I gave the entire text of Isaiah 65:11f which unequivocally asserts of Old Covenant Israel: "The Lord God will slay you, and call His people by another name." YHVH would SLAY Old Covenant Israel to bring in the New Creation of the Abrahamic promise! All Mr. Olson could do was ask if the lion and lamb lay down together– and apply his wooden literalism. He refuses to allow the Biblical writers to express themselves anyway but woodenly literal.
Let me briefly address his argument from Jeremiah 31, that Israel would remain a people as long as the heavens stood.
In Isaiah 65, YHVH predicted that He would slay Old Covenant Israel- and create "A New Heavens and a New Earth," for the former– the former heavens and earth!– would not be remembered! So, YHVH Himself said that the Old Heavens would pass away, and, He would slay Old Covenant Israel "The Lord God will slay you"! Mr. Olson flatly denies YHVH’s words.
Mr. Olson says that Isaiah 65 describes life in the millennium. Okay, Mr. Olson, will God slay Israel when He introduces the millennium? The blessings of Isaiah 65, where ever you posit them, only come AFTER GOD SLAYS ISRAEL! This is undeniable!
Daniel 12:1-3- emphatically says that the time of the end, the kingdom, etc. would come– "When the power of the holy people is completely shattered" (Daniel 12:7). The "power of the holy people" was HER COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH YHVH. Thus, Old Covenant Israel would indeed be "shattered." Not arbitrarily, not capriciously to be sure. But, as we showed from Genesis 28– a text 100% ignored by my opponent– only when He had finished His work with / for her. The shadow was to give way to the "better things" of the substance, the body of Christ.
Finally, though much more could be given, consider GALATIANS 4:22f
In Paul’s allegory there were two women, two sons, two mountains, two cities…
The two women Sarah and Hagar, represent TWO PEOPLE– Israel of the flesh, and Israel of the promise.
They represented THE TWO COVENANTS, the Old Covenant and the New.
They represented TWO JERUSALEMS "the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children," (that is Paul’s "now"- Old Covenant, first century Jerusalem), and the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM– THE CITY OF THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE– the city of Hebrews 12- to which they had now come to, i.e. Zion, the church of the living God, the church of the firstborn ones!
Old Covenant Jerusalem / Israel of the flesh was, when Paul wrote, persecuting the children of the promise (the Abrahamic promise, Galatians 3:6f).
Paul said ,"Cast out the bondwomen and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." (Galatians 4:30).
Paul did not simply say, "Cast out the Old Covenant." He said, "cast out the bondwoman AND HER SON." THE SON REPRESENTED OLD COVENANT ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH.
Thus, not only the Old Covenant, but, OLD COVENANT ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH was to be cast out, for persecuting the New Covenant Seed of Promise, i.e. the true Seed of Abraham.
This is precisely what Revelation teaches. (See my book Who Is This Babylon? for a fuller discussion of this critical topic www.eschatology.org. Galatians 4 and Revelation are parallel).
In Revelation the Jews, the Seed of the flesh, were persecuting the Seed of promise (Revelation 2:9; 3
There are TWO WOMEN, the bride and the harlot.
There are TWO CITIES, the New Jerusalem (of Galatians 4), and "Babylon," the Great City, where the Lord was slain. (There are also two mountains)
So, Galatians and Revelation depict two women representing two cities. Galatians speaks of Hagar representing, "Jerusalem that now is," guilty of persecuting the seed of promise. Revelation tells of the Great Harlot, (And who did Jesus identify as guilty of "adultery"?) Babylon, (Revelation 17-18) that was guilty of persecuting the seed of promise (Revelation 2-3; 12).
Galatians speaks of the other woman and city. This woman represented the, "Jerusalem that is above." This woman, and her seed, stands triumphant when the old Jerusalem is cast out. In Revelation, the Bride, the new Jerusalem, comes, "down from God out of heaven" (Revelation 21:2), when the old city, Babylon, is destroyed. (She denies she is a WIDOW!, 18:7)
Undeniably, Paul was speaking of Old Covenant Jerusalem. The parallels between Galatians and Revelation are exact. To negate this, Mr. Olson must prove that although Paul and John both spoke of CONTEMPORARY SITUATIONS, they spoke of two different women, that represented two different cities, guilty of persecuting the chosen seed, for which sin both cities would be destroyed. He can’t do it, thus, Babylon in Revelation is Paul’s "Jerusalem that now is", and Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70.
I will close with these affirmatives. I have presented positive, unequivocal proof that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. I have examined Mr. Olson’s attempts at refutation, and shown him to be guilty of eisegesis, ad hominem, and a priori arguments, with no exegesis whatsoever. He has done nothing but offer sarcasm, ridicule and unproven claims.
I have, in every way possible, proven my proposition: The book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and was predictive of that event.