The Dating of Revelation
A Formal Written Debate
Dr. Lloyd Olson– Late Date Advocate
Don K. Preston– Early Date Advocate (www.eschatology.org)
Second Negative by Don K. Preston–
I was correct to characterize Mr. Olson’s presentations as desperation. His bombastic, caustic style undeniably betrays that desperation, and is unbecoming. The emails to me strongly indicate that Mr. Olson’s acerbic style is highly offensive to those who want substance, not fire, in this discussion. Were it not for his acidic adjectives, Mr. Olson’s presentation would be much shorter! Mr. Olson’s presentation is one of the most confused presentations you will ever read, and I will demonstrate his fallacies unequivocally as we proceed.
I was correct to characterize Mr. Olson’s presentations as desperation. His bombastic, caustic style undeniably betrays that desperation, and is unbecoming. The emails to me strongly indicate that Mr. Olson’s acerbic style is highly offensive to those who want substance, not fire, in this discussion. Were it not for his acidic adjectives, Mr. Olson’s presentation would be much shorter! Mr. Olson’s presentation is one of the most confused presentations you will ever read, and I will demonstrate his fallacies unequivocally as we proceed.
The readers can easily see the fatal problems with Mr. Olson’s position. He emphatically denies that Israel could ever be destroyed. Yet, I have produced scriptures that emphatically declared that in the last days, Israel would indeed be destroyed. Not just chastised, but DESTROYED. Notice something.
He says that I have not responded to Jeremiah 31, and Israel’s existence related to "creation." Yes, I have responded repeatedly, showing that Isaiah 65 says that Old Israel would be slain when the old "heaven and earth" was destroyed! This is a total, definitive refutation of Mr Olson’s view.
But, Mr. Olson initially denied that Isaiah said Israel would be destroyed. However, as I have pressed the actual text, he finally admits that it does say that God would destroy Israel! However, he says it is "deception at its best" for me to appeal to this text to prove my case!
What Isaiah foretold is the destruction of Old Israel, and the creation of a New People, with a New Name. I have repeatedly noted that dispensationalism has no place in it for this.
To the readers: Is SLAYING someone a mere temporary chastisement, or is it DESTRUCTION? God said, "THE LORD GOD WILL SLAY YOU."
Mr. Olson, do you believe that Israel is SLAIN– not just chastised, but DESTROYED– and a New People, with a New Name is created, at the second coming of the Lord, to bring in the millennium? Yes or No?
Mr. Olson, do you believe that Israel is DESTROYED, and a New People, with a New Name, is created at the END of the millennium, in order to bring in the New Heavens and Earth, and New Jerusalem? Yes or No?
Mr. Olson says I ignore the rest of the text, which speaks of Israel in the millennium. NO, that cannot be Old Israel, because, remember, Mr. Olson, they would be D-E-A-D! Those in the verses cited are the New People, with the New Name!
Notice the contrast between positions:
Isaiah predicted (and Don K. Preston in agreement): The Destruction of Israel, creation of a New People, with a New Name, the bringing in of the New Creation.
Mr. Olson says Israel is NEVER DESTROYED, not at the Second Coming, not at the end of the millennium, and a New People, with a New Name is NOT created either at the Second Coming, or at the end of the millennium.
This is Isaiah versus Olson, and I know who wins!
ALL OF THIS HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE DATING OF REVELATION.
Watch the argument:
Revelation 21 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65-66, the promise of the New Heavens and Earth, and New Jerusalem, as a result of the destruction of Babylon, and at the end of the millennium.
But, Isaiah 65-66 said that the New Heavens and Earth, and New Jerusalem, would come when Old Israel was slain.
Therefore, unless Babylon in Revelation is a totally different entity from that predicted for destruction in Isaiah, it therefore follows that Babylon in Revelation must represent Old Covenant Israel.
Needless to say, Old Covenant Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. And no amount of denial, and caustic verbiage by Mr. Olson can change that historical fact.
The reader will note by the way, that I have offered one syllogistic argument after another, both affirmatively, and in the negative. Mr. Olson has not so much as acknowledged these arguments, much less attempted to prove my propositions wrong.
Lloyd Olson says, "Daniel 9:24 doesn’t say the holy city would be destroyed! The word "destroy" is Mr. Preston’s dishonest alteration of God’s word.."
Mr. Olson, here is what I said, "Daniel 9:24f emphatically predicted that the holy city would be destroyed." You ignored the "24f," which means "following." And, verse 26– which follows v. 24– emphatically says, "the people of the prince that shall come shall DESTROY the city…"
Daniel 9 says the city and sanctuary would be DESTROYED, Lloyd Olson says the city and sanctuary were NOT DESTROYED!
What does Josephus say of the A.D. 70 destruction: Josephus Wars, Bk 7:1 (Cornfeld, p. 454) "Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; …in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified,… but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited."
Mr. Olson is altering the text and denying history. Case closed, and Mr. Olson loses, again!
Mr. Olson says that I "unscrupulously" appeal to Daniel 12:7 to prove the destruction of Israel in the end time. Because I did not use his preferred translation, he says that I did not quote the verse. Of course, I did (The NKJV). Mr. Olson offers us a translation: "when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. Dan 12:7." Even this rendering proves my case, but, Mr. Olson is not honoring text, so it matters not to him!
Note, "When He has accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people." God (not the anti-christ of Mr. Olson’s world), would set out to scatter Israel. The word shatter/ scatter is naphats, (Strong’s #5310)– and means to shatter, to scatter, to
destroy. The New Jerusalem Bible has "crushing"; the ASV has "breaking in pieces"; The NASV has "shattering." Yet, Mr. Olson says, "there is no reference to destruction!" But notice the simple reading. God would "ACCOMPLISH" the shattering of the power of the holy people! Mr. Olson wants to make that mean that Israel would never be destroyed! For Mr. Olson, "completely shattered", or even "completely scattered" means NEVER DESTROYED!
Also remember that Daniel was told that fulfillment of his vision was far off, but John, reiterating Daniel’s prophecy was told that fulfillment was near! This temporal contrast is destructive to Mr. Olson, and he has desperately sought to avoid it. This brings up Mr. Olson’s comments: Revelation 1:19 speaks of the things to come in Revelation 1:19 as things "about to come." He says that I correctly noted that Blass and DeBrunner say that "mellein (in v. 19, DKP), with the infinitive indicates imminence." But, Mr. Olson says I did not make my point! Well, of course I made the point: "about to come" agrees perfectly with, "do not seal for the time is at hand"! And this destroys Mr. Olson’s entire affirmative and theology.
Now, ask yourself this question: What was the "power of the holy people"? The only "power" Israel ever had was HER COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH YHWH! Yet, God said He was going to completely shatter that power. This would be when He KILLED her, when the city would be destroyed, and He would leave them neither root nor branch (Malachi 4:1-3– cf. Matthew 3:9f, where the axe was already at the root)!
Notice Zechariah 11:7-14: God said that in the day in which His son would be sold for 30 pieces of silver, "I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I made with all the peoples…then I cut my other staff, Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."
Mr. Olson’s argument that says God’s covenant relationship with Old Israel could never be broken is refuted by YHVH. He said that He was going to break the covenant that He had made with them– this would be because the time of fulfillment had arrived. See Genesis 28:13f again, which Mr. Olson flatly refuses to address. Israel’s temporary time would end in the passing of her temporary covenant world, just as promised!
GALATIANS 4:22f AGAIN
I offered the following argument, and Mr. Olson never responded– except with ridicule.
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"- 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 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 ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH!
Thus, not only the Old Covenant, but, ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH was to be cast out, for persecuting the New Covenant, true Seed of Abraham.
And don’t forget that Mr. Olson has admitted this truth, for he has admitted that the True Jew is the person that is circumcised in the heart through faith in Christ!
But, the contrast is clear: Mr. Olson says Israel after the flesh does receive the promises; Paul says "the children of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
Paul said Israel after the flesh was persecuting the True Seed of Abraham; John said that Israel after the flesh was persecuting the True Seed of Abraham.
Paul spoke of casting out the Old Jerusalem so that the New Jerusalem could come. John wrote of the casting out of Babylon so that the New Jerusalem could come. So, unless Paul and John wrote of totally different cities, Seeds, and situations, this proves the early date of Revelation! See my Who Is This Babylon? for a full discussion of the connections between Galatians 4 and Revelation. (www.eschatology.org)
All of this establishes the early date of Revelation, and falsifies Mr. Olson’s theology.
Once again the reader will see Mr. Olson’s abject desperation. He says that I actually make his point! Let’s see.
The 144,000 were of the twelve tribes (Revelation 7, 14).
The 144,000 were the first fruit of those redeemed to God from among men (Revelation 14:2-4). Hebrews, James and 1 Peter- all written before A.D. 70– affirm that their Jewish Christian audiences were the first fruits- 2000 years ago!
The 144,000– the first generation of Jewish Christians– were, when John wrote, experiencing the Great Tribulation.
Therefore, the Great Tribulation was in the first century, and Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem.
Mr. Olson, you are NOT of the 12 tribes, and your are NOT one of the first fruit of those redeemed to God from man, unless you are 2000 years old!
Your claim that my argument proves your point is patently false.
Mr. Olson’s desperation manifested itself in glaring fashion here. You will probably never read anything, by anyone, that is more confused than what Mr. Olson offered on "forever" and circumcision.
Mr. Olson argues that God’s promises to Israel are forever, the Land belongs to them forever. And that means that no matter what, the land belongs to them, period.
I proved that the Hebrew word Olam simply does not demand the meaning that Mr. Olson imposes on it, and I gave the following examples:
The Mosaic Covenant curses would be on Israel forever (Deuteronomy 28:46). God would take away their heritage because His anger would burn against them FOREVER–(Jeremiah 17:4f); the land would be desolate forever (Jeremiah 18:16f); He would cast off Jerusalem forever (Jeremiah 23), etc.
I likewise noted that virtually every element of the Mosaic Covenant– the covenant that Mr. Olson says was a temporary covenant– was said to be forever, everlasting, etc.. This included the priesthood, sacrifices, burning of incense, circumcision, feast days, etc.
So, what does Mr. Olson say in response? He says that I impose a false definition on Olam, i.e that Olam means without
end. No, Mr. Olson, that is YOUR definition! That is what you are claiming in regard to the land promise, and Israel as God’s people, isn’t it?
But! Reader, take note: no less than THREE TIMES Mr. Olson says that the Mosaic covenant curses (Deuteronomy 28f), would be on Israel forever UNTIL removed, the reproach would be on them forever UNTIL removed! The land would only be cursed "forever" UNTIL God restored Israel. Do you CATCH THAT? Now watch:
Mr. Olson now admits that forever means UNTIL A GIVEN POINT, and that means that something given / commanded forever would last UNTIL THE TIME IT WAS INTENDED TO END!
AMEN AND AMEN! THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT! Now read Genesis 28:13f
"Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; FOR I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU UNTIL I HAVE DONE WHAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU."
Mr. Olson tries to make this simply a promise of Jacob returning to the land (which of course does not help!). No, it is the Abrahamic promise reiterated. And, YHVH said He would not forsake Jacob– the physical Seed– "UNTIL I have done what I have spoken."
So, per Mr. Olson’s fatal admission, YHVH Himself said that He would be with the seed of Abraham forever– UNTIL He had fulfilled His promises to them.
And when did Jesus say that all things written would be fulfilled? By the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22).
When does Revelation say that all that the prophets foretold would be fulfilled? In the sounding of the seventh trump– in the judgment of the city where the Lord was slain (Revelation 10:7; 11:8)
When did Zechariah say that YHWH would break His "eternal" covenant with them? In the day that His Messiah was sold for 30 pieces of silver, which would also be the day that they ate the flesh of their children (Zechariah 11:9)!! Mr. Olson, when did Israel eat the flesh of their own children? Answer: In the day that Messiah was sold for 30 pieces of silver!
So, Mr. Olson has surrendered his point on forever, because he has admitted that Olam can mean "until the time"!
CIRCUMCISION- FOREVER-THE GOSPEL- AND REVELATION
Mr. Olson wants me to give Internet sites documenting my claims about what dispensationalists believe about circumcision– and other things. I will get to some of that momentarily. But, really, all I have to do is to show that what they believe DEMANDS- logically, scripturally, what I am saying.
Let me go back over some vital ground.
Physical circumcision was the sign and seal of the land covenant (Genesis 17). He admits this, "He (DKP), rightly notes that the sign and seal of God’s promises was circumcision."
But, "physical circumcision has stopped." (Mr. Olson) (This verifies my "forever until" argument.)
Yet, Mr. Olson says the physical land promise remains valid! Mr. Olson, if circumcision is now spiritual, why is the land not spiritual, just as Hebrews 11:13f indicates?
Did you notice that Mr. Olson changed the NATURE of the circumcision necessary for the land promises to SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION? He cited Romans 2:28f and Colossians 2:14f. Just unbelievable.
But, Mr. Olson, the only circumcision that Paul said avails– is spiritual circumcision of the heart by faith in Christ! Are you now saying that Israel only has a right to the land if they are circumcised in the heart, through faith in Christ? If so, then what happens to your incredible claim that God would restore Israel to the land with un-circumcised hearts? That is not the circumcision of Genesis 17, Mr. Olson, and you have already admitted that!
I asked if circumcision will one day be divinely mandated again, replacing the gospel, which currently condemns circumcision.
Mr. Olson said, "What sensible Christian would suggest that the gospel would ever be replaced?"
And yet, YOU HAVE TO CATCH THIS, per Mr. Olson, Ezekiel 40-48 describes the worship in the millennium. And, in Ezekiel 44:9 it says PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION WOULD BE DEMANDED!
Let me repeat my previous argument, which Mr. Olson totally ignored.
Paul said that to be circumcised for religious reason is to forfeit Christ (Galatians 5:1-6).
In the millennium, Jew and Gentile alike must go to Jerusalem to worship, per dispensationalism’s view of Zechariah 14. To fail to do so BRINGS GOD’S CURSE.
But, in the millennium, circumcision is mandatory to enter Jerusalem to worship (Isaiah 52:1; Ezekiel 44:9).
So, if a person is not circumcised, they are cursed and cannot enter Jerusalem to worship.
If they are circumcised, they forfeit Christ, they fall from grace, Christ profits them nothing!
Mr. Olson has not touched this argument top, side or bottom.
Mr. Olson says that circumcision has been removed and– "Only a Christ denying self-righteous doctrine of law keeping is interested in circumcision."
But, Lloyd Olson’s doctrine of the millennium and temple worship DEMANDS THE PRACTICE OF PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION (Ezekiel 44).
Therefore, Lloyd Olson’s doctrine of circumcision in the millennium is, "a Christ denying self-righteous doctrine of law keeping."
Finally, notice this stunning development in Mr. Olson’s theology. He says: "Paul goes on to show that the true Jew is one who has been circumcised in the heart." There you have it, ladies and gentleman, THE TRUE JEW, the true seed of Abraham today, IS NOT THE PHYSICAL SEED OF ABRAHAM, but, THE TRUE JEW IS ANY PERSON WHO IS CIRCUMCISED IN THE HEART BY FAITH IN CHRIST! (One wonders why Paul didn’t inform the Jews in Acts 21 that Trophimus had the right to enter the temple because, after all, HE HAD BEEN CIRCUMCISED IN THE HEART!)
On the one hand, Mr. Olson tells us that Israel after the flesh- always identified through physical circumcision– is the people of God, to be restored to the land in the millennium– in fact, restored- un-circumcised in heart in 1948!
On the other hand, he tells us that the "true Jew" is not of the flesh after all, but, the person circumcised in the heart!
Watch what this does to Mr. Olson’s theology.
The true Jew is any person circumcised in the heart by faith in Christ (Romans 2:28f; Galatians 3:26-29).
The land promises given to Abraham belong only to the true seed of Abraham, i.e. the True Jews.
Therefore, the land promises (now) belongs only to those circumcised in the heart by faith in Christ!
The land promises given to Abraham now belong only to those who are true Jews, those circumcised in the heart by faith in Christ (Lloyd Olson).
But, those who were "restored to the land" in 1948, are
not circumcised in the heart by faith in Christ. They are not true Jews! (Lloyd Olson now agrees!)
Therefore, the land promises to not belong to those who were restored to the land in 1948. In other words, God gave the land to a bunch of folks WHO ARE NOT EVEN TRUE JEWS– by Mr. Olson’s own definition!
NOW WATCH HOW THIS RELATES TO REVELATION!
The true Jew is any person circumcised in the heart, i.e. the follower of Jesus (Lloyd Olson).
In Revelation, the persecuting power, "the city where the Lord was slain", was comprised of those, "who say they are Jews but are not, for they are liars" (Revelation 2, 3), those UNCIRCUMCISED IN THE HEART!
But, the destruction of those who "say they are Jews and are not," the uncircumcised in the heart, was at hand, coming soon, in the judgment of "the city where the Lord was slain."
Therefore, the judgment of Old Jerusalem, and those uncircumcised in the heart, "those who say they are Jews and are not" i.e. was at hand, and coming soon.
Mr. Olson has, with just a few taps on the key board, disavowed his dispensational theology!
ISRAEL THE SHADOW– CHRIST THE BODY!
I have and do argue that Old Covenant Israel was a mere type and shadow of better things to come. This is what scripture affirms repeatedly. Stunningly, Mr. Olson says of my claims, "He starts out well by saying, ‘the body of Christ is what Abraham and Israel foreshadowed and anticipated." He then says that, "the essence of preterism is that the carnal gave way to the spiritual. While this statement is true in general it is totally false when applied to national Israel." So Preston is right to say that Abraham and Israel were shadows of better things to come, and that, "the carnal gave way to the spiritual," but, this has nothing to do with national Israel! And remember that Mr. Olson has now abandoned physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the land promises to national Israel! Desperation exemplified!
"Abraham and Israel foreshadowed and anticipated" the body of Christ.
But, the shadow was TEMPORARY, to endure only until the arrival of the "the better things" i.e. the body of Christ (Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 9:6-10; 10:1-3, etc.)!
Therefore, Abraham and Israel (the physical aspects of the promises), were temporary, to endure only until the arrival of the body!
Mr. Olson then goes on a caustic tirade, claiming that Preston "has shamefully misrepresented dispensationalism." The claim is false to the core. The fact is that I know dispensationalism very well. Dispensationalists like Thomas Ice and Mr. Olson don’t like it when their fallacies are exposed, so, they falsely accuse me of misrepresenting dispensationalism. This is nothing but a debater’s trick, but will not work for the discerning reader. Let me illustrate.
He calls on me to give Internet sources to prove my points. Well, I don’t have to give Internet sources. I have the books from whence I have done 30+ years of research. Furthermore, I can– and have– demonstrated that the logical, scriptural necessity of dispensationalism is precisely that which I charge them with. Let me prove this.
Mr. Olson says that I misrepresent dispensationalism by saying that the blood bought body of Christ will be replaced by the nation dedicated by the blood of bulls and goats.
What do leading millennialists say about this? Dwight Pentecost, in his Things To Come wrote: "Gentiles will be the servants of Israel during that age." (1980, P. 508). "Objection is sometimes raised that God has forever broken down the barrier that separates Jew and Gentile and makes them one. This view arises from the failure to realize that this is God’s purpose for the present age, but has no reference to God’s program in the millennial age" (P. 528). LaHaye and Ice (Mr. Olson’s hero), state, "In the tribulation, there is no longer a body of believers knit into one living organism. There is rather a return to national distinctions and fulfillment of national promises in preparation for the millennium."(Charting the End Times, (Eugene, Ore., Harvest House, 2001)117)
So, there will "no longer be a body of believers knit into one living organism." Mr. Olson, that is the WORST SORT of replacement theology imaginable!
This one argument falsifies your charges of misrepresentation. Now to Mr. Olson’s next false charge.
I charged that dispensationalism replaces the circumcision of the heart with the circumcision of the flesh. Mr. Olson responded, "This is hilarious." I don’t think Mr. Olson is laughing too much. Go back and read our comments above, but let me re-emphasize the issue. But first, take note that Mr. Olson has already told us that spiritual circumcision has REPLACED physical circumcision! That is a REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, you are teaching, Mr. Olson!
FACT: The blood bought gospel of Christ condemns physical circumcision for religious reasons. (Lloyd Olson now admitting).
: The blood bought gospel of Christ condemns physical circumcision for religious reasons. (Lloyd Olson now admitting).
FACT: Physical circumcision is DEMANDED in the millennium– (Ezekiel 44:9-Lloyd Olson).
: Physical circumcision is DEMANDED in the millennium– (Ezekiel 44:9-Lloyd Olson).
Therefore, in the millennium, the blood bought gospel of Christ is replaced with the covenant that demands physical circumcision!
MR. OLSON, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, (THAT CONDEMNS PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION), IN THE MILLENNIUM, WHEN PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION IS REQUIRED, UNDER PENALTY OF CONDEMNATION FOR FAILURE TO BE CIRCUMCISED?
YOUR DILEMMA IS INESCAPABLE:
If you say that physical circumcision is not restored, and mandated by God, in the millennium, you recant your interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14 and of Revelation.
But, if physical circumcision is restored and mandated by God in the millennium, then the gospel of Christ is replaced / nullified!
Mr. Olson, no amount of name calling, claims of mis-representation, or obfuscation can deliver you from this undeniable dilemma. Your doctrine is falsified.
Mr. Olson says that I falsely claim that dispensationalism replaces the gospel of Christ, which took away the bloody sacrifices: "Dispensationalism does not REPLACE the gospel of Christ by restoring sacrifices. The restoration of sacrifices during the millennial rule of Christ is done as a memorial."
FACT: Once forgiveness of sin was obtained, the animal sacrifices "would cease to be offered" (Hebrews 10:1-4). Mr. Olson CEASE does not mean restored!
: Once forgiveness of sin was obtained, the animal sacrifices "would cease to be offered" (Hebrews 10:1-4). Mr. Olson CEASE does not mean restored!
FACT: Those (by the way, PERPETUAL), animal sacrifices were only to stand, "until the time of the reformation" (Hebrews 9:6-10).
: Those (by the way, PERPETUAL), animal sacri
fices were only to stand, "until the time of the reformation" (Hebrews 9:6-10).
FACT: Mr. Olson is wrong when he says that the millennial animal sacrifices would be MEMORIAL. Not one verse says so. Ezekiel 40-48 emphatically says that those bloody sacrifices would be "for atonement", "for sin offering," for "trespass offering" (Ezekiel 42:13f; 43:18-27; 45:15-25).
: Mr. Olson is wrong when he says that the millennial animal sacrifices would be MEMORIAL. Not one verse says so. Ezekiel 40-48 emphatically says that those bloody sacrifices would be "for atonement", "for sin offering," for "trespass offering" (Ezekiel 42:13f; 43:18-27; 45:15-25).
Mr. Olson, neither the word MEMORIAL, or the concept is found in Ezekiel! To say, "for a memorial" when the text says "to make atonement" is a perversion of the text.
So, the blood bought gospel (and body) of Christ, has now caused the bloody animal sacrifices to cease- because of the reality of the forgiveness of sin.
But, in the millennium, the bloody animal sacrifices will be restored, and will be, "to make the atonement", and for sin and for trespass offerings.
Therefore, the blood bought gospel (and body) of Christ, which has now caused the bloody animal sacrifices to cease, with be replaced with a covenant that REQUIRES bloody animal sacrifices "to make the atonement," for sin and trespass offerings!
Mr. Olson, what happens to the gospel (and body) of Christ in the millennium, SINCE THE GOSPEL CONDEMNS ANIMAL SACRIFICES?
I have not misrepresented anything about millennialism, Mr. Olson, and you know it!
I said that per millennialism, the True Tabernacle of Christ– the church of the living God– would be replaced by an Old Covenant Temple, which was a mere shadow of the true. My argument is taken from Hebrews 8:1f.
FACT: Lloyd Olson admits that Israel was a shadow of coming better spiritual things.
: Lloyd Olson admits that Israel was a shadow of coming better spiritual things.
FACT: Those temporary shadows of Israel’s world, would only stand valid "until the time of the reformation" (Hebrews 9:6-10– until the fulfillment of the shadows, Colossians 2:14-16). MR. OLSON, DEFINE FOR US THE "TIME OF REFORMATION."
: Those temporary shadows of Israel’s world, would only stand valid "until the time of the reformation" (Hebrews 9:6-10– until the fulfillment of the shadows, Colossians 2:14-16). MR. OLSON, DEFINE FOR US THE "TIME OF REFORMATION."
FACT: God said that He does not dwell in Temples made with hands- in the New Creation World of Isaiah 65-66!
: God said that He does not dwell in Temples made with hands- in the New Creation World of Isaiah 65-66!
Mr. Olson says that the church and the restored Temple, priesthood, physical circumcision, animal sacrifices, Jew/Gentile distinctions will be "parallel" with one another in the millennium. But, the body of Christ stands in diametric opposition and in condemnation of all of those carnal things! The Old Covenant, "forever until" things, would only stand "until the time of the reformation," the time of fulfillment, when those things would cease– not be restored!
Furthermore, if this is not a TWO COVENANT THEOLOGY, what is it? Mr. Olson says that there will be one covenant in the millennium, with Judah and Israel that DEMANDS worship at Jerusalem, bloody animal sacrifices, physical circumcision imposed on Jew and Gentile alike, and much more. He then says that the gospel which will never be removed, and, WHICH FORBIDS ALL OF THESE THINGS, will run "PARALLEL" with that covenant!
MR. OLSON, YOU DO TEACH A TWO COVENANT DOCTRINE, DON’T YOU?
Mr. Olson says it is "sacrilege" for me to say, from Hebrews 8, that Christ was already establishing the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31. Unbelievably, he then also says, "The advent of the New Testament did not do away with the Old."
Well, he has already told us that the Old Covenant was temporary.
He has even admitted that Hebrews 8 said that the Old Covenant was "nigh unto vanishing away" Hebrews 8:13). Mr. Olson, VANISH does not mean remain valid, or restored!
He has admitted that the Old Law was only to be UNTIL the arrival of "the faith" (the gospel, the New Covenant, Galatians 3:23-25). By the way, Mr. Olson says the gospel has been here since Genesis 3:15. No, Mr. Olson, Genesis promised the COMING of Christ and the New Covenant of grace. It was always in the mind of God to be sure. However, Jesus shed his blood to establish and serve as the surety of the New Covenant (Hebrews 7:22). Since Paul said that the Law would remain valid UNTIL THE FAITH CAME, (until the time of reformation), if, as you say, the gospel of grace had ALWAYS existed, then Torah would never have been effective at all! Paul said Torah UNTIL THE GOSPEL CAME! You say the gospel "the faith," always was in force! Wrong again.
MR. OLSON’S EXTERNAL SOURCES
Mr. Olson– in violation of the proposition to discuss what the Bible says– introduced several external sources in his desperate attempt to justify the late date.
What he failed to tell the readers is that virtually all of them were reliant on one man, Iranaeus, who has been confused in doctrine, and unreliable in his history.
I gave numerous examples of Iranaeus’ eccentricity– none of which Mr. Olson will accept as true. He ignored the examples simply stating, "Preston dared called (sic, DKP) Iranaeus eccentric and historically unreliable." Go back and read those. In addition, take note that Iranaeus believed that the Jews were only a temporary plan of God! Here is what he said: "But that the administration of them (the Jews) was temporary, Esaias says: ‘And the daughter of Zion shall be left as a cottage in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.’ Isaiah 1:8 And when shall these things be left behind? Is it not when the fruit shall be taken away, and the leaves alone shall be left, which now have no power of producing fruit?" (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103404.htm). And guess what? He said God took away their place in A.D. 70! (Op cit). Mr. Olson, do you accept Iranaeus on this? Remember, he is supposedly beyond reproach, per your view!
I likewise showed that Iranaeus believed that the great commission had already been fulfilled. How did Mr. Olson "refute" this? By setting up a straw man. He says: "I searched the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and could not find a reference to the word "commission" in Irenaeus’ (sic, DKP) Heresies, Bk III. I challenge this. I ask for the Chapter and Paragraph reference to such an outlandish statement!" (Go to the link above and read it, Mr. Olson!) He then challenged me to give book chapter and verse where Paul said the great commission had been fulfilled. This is the worst sort of debater’s trickery.
Here is his "logic." Because Iranaeus or Paul, did not use THE SPECIFIC TERM "great commission" this proves that they did not believe that the world mission had been fulfilled!
Hey, Mr. Olson, I searched the Internet, the concordance, I looked EVERYWHERE, and guess what, JESUS NEVER USED THE TERM "GREAT COMMISSION!" So, per your so-called logic, this proves that Jesus did not even give the great commission! (Oh, I also looked for the specific word "rapture" in the Bible. It is not there. Therefore, per your "logic," the doctrine cannot be true!)
However, Iranaeus– your hero– did say the gospel had been preached to "the ends of the world," and "in all the world."
Jesus said to preach the gospel into all the world, and Paul said the gospel had been preached into "all the world" (Colossians 1:5f).
Jesus said to preach the gospel to every creature. Paul said the gospel had been preached, "to every creature under heaven." (Colossians 1:23).
Jesus said to preach the gospel to all the nations, Paul said the gospel had been preached to all the nations (Romans 16:25-26).
In fact, every word translated as "world," "earth," "nations," etc. in Jesus’ prediction and command of the preaching of the gospel into all the world, is used by Paul to say the gospel HAD BEEN PREACHED to all the nations, in all the world, to all the earth, to every creature! So, Jesus said do it, Paul said it had been done! Mr. Olson, was Paul wrong?
See my book Into All the World, Then Comes The End, for proof of these facts (www.eschatology.org). It is undeniable, and proves that Revelation 14 was not looking beyond A.D. 70, but was describing what had already happened, and thus, the end was near!
But, because of Mr. Olson’s overarching paradigm, he rejects Paul’s repeated divine statements.
Amazingly, he cited Clement to prove his point. I noted that Clement stated that the teaching ministry of the apostles ended in the time of Paul– THUS DEMANDING THE EARLY DATE OF REVELATION. So, what does Mr. Olson do? He cites an idiosyncratic statement from Clement to the effect that Jesus’ ministry was only one year long! Wow! And how does that help establish Clement as a trustworthy witness for the late date, Mr. Olson? You just discredited YOUR OWN WITNESS! I also took note that Clement did not actually name Domitian, a rather inconvenient fact for Mr. Olson, so, he ignored it.
The reader will observe that I cited many late date advocates who openly admit that Domitian NEVER persecuted the church! Thus, Mr. Olson’s appeal to a Domitianic persecution of the church in Revelation is null and void. Not one word of response.
I proved that Mr. Olson’s outline of Revelation is fatally flawed. He says that Revelation 1:19 proves that everything from Revelation 4-22 was future. I showed from those chapters that this is false. And now, look at his comments on Revelation 12! He admits my argument is true, and his outline is false. His admission that Revelation 12 gave A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF PAST EVENTS, gives credence to the fact that the 144,000 were, when John wrote, coming out of the great tribulation. Look at other examples:
The martyrs of chapter 6 had already been slain, for they are included in Isaiah’s prediction of the avenging of the blood of the martyrs (Isaiah 4:4)- the prophecy that Jesus applied to A.D. 70!
Revelation 11:8– the great city had, in the past, killed the Lord.
Revelation 14– the gospel had been preached into all the world, as we have proven. And we have already proven our case in regard to THE FIRST FRUIT JEWISH CHRISTIANS, an irrefutable fact that Mr. Olson has not touched, and cannot deny.
Revelation 17– the list of kings: five are fallen (past tense), one is (things that are), and one is yet to come (future to John).
Everywhere you turn in chapters 4-22 you find a mixture of past, present, and future.
I showed that Mr. Olson’s own outline of Revelation demands that the only chapters he can appeal to for the "things that are" would be chapters 2-3. I challenged him to show us a single reference to Domitianic persecution in these chapters. I proved from these chapters that the then present "things that are" of Revelation 1:19 WAS JEWISH PERSECUTION! What was Mr. Olson’s response? TOTAL (but revealing) SILENCE! And all of his caustic, pejorative, un-Christian name calling will not change these facts.
DEUTERONOMY 30– ROMANS 11:25F- THE DATING OF REVELATION
Mr. Olson says that Preston pulled a "real laugher" by quoting Thomas Ice, who posits the second coming (of Romans 11), as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30. He says that he assumes that I lost my debates with Mr. Ice. Well, that is the problem with ASSUMING something, Mr. Olson, because you are wrong. You say you would love for me to debate Mr. Ice again. Well, AMEN! Set it up, Mr. Olson! I have a man in northern Utah that is more than willing to help sponsor such an event, perhaps even, at a college! Come on now, see if you can get this done! PLEASE!
Anyway, Mr. Olson is seeking desperately to cloud the issue. Watch the argument:
The second coming of Christ of Revelation 19– and Romans 11:25-27– is the coming of Christ of Deuteronomy 30, for the salvation of Israel– PER ALL LEADING MILLENNIALISTS. MR. OLSON HAS NOT DENIED BELIEVING THIS!
But, the salvation of Israel promised in Deuteronomy 30 would only come when Israel repented and OBEYED THE MOSAIC COVENANT!
Mr. Olson sought to deflect the power of this argument by saying, "No one is ever justified by the Law!" He added, "Any move to link saving repentance to the Mosaic Covenant is open blatant, "cultic heresy." This is pure smoke, total desperation! Let’s see how this works out for him.
I simply noted that Deuteronomy 30 says– three times– that God would return Israel from captivity only if they repented and obeyed the words of the covenant that Moses spoke to them "this day." (Deuteronomy 30:2, 8, 10). And don’t forget the Mr. Olson has already noted that Deuteronomy 30 is part of the Mosaic covenant.
So watch what Mr. Olson has done to himself– AGAIN!
"Any move to link saving repentance to the Mosaic Covenant is open blatant heresy." (Lloyd Olson)
Millennialists– INCLUDING LLOYD OLSON– claim that Deuteronomy 30 foretold the salvation of Israel at the second coming of Christ– the parousia of Romans 11:25f; Revelation 19, etc.
But, Deuteronomy 30 links Israel’s salvation to repentance and obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 30:2, 8, 10).
Therefore, millennialism– i.e. Lloyd Olson– is guilty of "open blatant ("cultic") heresy."
So, the millennial doctrine that Deuteronomy 30 predicted the second coming demands that the Mosaic Covenant will be in effect at the time of the Second Coming of Christ.
Mr. Olson charged me with "blatant" and "c
ultic heresy", claiming that I say the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect. Well, as I said, he should read more carefully before he starts hitting the keyboard. I never said that I believe the Mosaic Covenant will be in effect at some future second coming of the Lord! I proved, irrefutably, that by positing the second coming as the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30– as Mr. Olson does– demands that the Mosaic Covenant IS STILL IN EFFECT! Since I hold that Christ did come at the end of the Mosaic Covenant age, in A.D. 70, this is no problem for me, and establishes the early dating of Revelation. However, it totally devastates Mr. Olson’s theology!
Watch another argument– and see how he ignores:
The second coming of Christ would be in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30, when Israel repented and obeyed the Mosaic Covenant– Mr Olson.
But, the Mosaic Covenant was "nigh unto vanishing" in the first century (Hebrews 8:13).
Therefore, Christ’s second coming– the coming of Romans 11 and Revelation 19– had to occur before– or at– the passing of the Mosaic Covenant, in the first century! This demands a pre-A.D. 70 date of Revelation!
I want the reader to take particular note that I made several arguments on Romans 11 that devastate Mr. Olson’s entire theology– and prove the early dating of Revelation.
I showed that the parousia of Christ in Romans 11- and thus, Revelation 19– would be when Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 would be fulfilled.
ISAIAH 27 foretold the salvation of Israel at the time when the altar would be turned to chalk stone, the city destroyed, and when the people created by YHWH would be given no mercy. Mr. Olson’s response is that since he did not see anything, it did not happen! Well, Mr. Olson, we DO SEE that the altar and city was destroyed, and the people that YHVH created received no mercy! And since you love newspaper exegesis, all of that was recorded in the newspaper called Josephus!
Israel was to be eschatologically transformed, from the shadow (carnal, national), into the spiritual body of Christ, when she passed through judgment.
ISAIAH 59- I showed that the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel, would also be at the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Jesus said the time of his coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood would be in his generation (Matthew 23:29-37f).
Therefore, the coming of Christ of Romans 11 (and Revelation 19), would be in Jesus’ generation at Christ’s coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent, i.e. in A.D. 70.
Thus, the pre-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation is firmly and undeniably established.
Reader, catch this!: DISPENSATIONALISM DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COMING OF CHRIST FORETOLD BY ISAIAH 59 / ROMANS 11 / REVELATION 19 IS THE TIME OF JUDGMENT OF ISRAEL FOR SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD! Dispensationalism is thus in open denial of the emphatic and specific words of the inspired text.
What was Mr. Olson’s response to Isaiah 59? DEAFENING, UTTERLY REVEALING, SILENCE!
Now watch what this does to Mr. Olson’s theory about the Roman Catholic Church and Revelation 19. YOU JUST HAVE TO CATCH THIS!
The coming of the Lord of Revelation 19 is the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 27, 59.
The coming of the Lord of Isaiah 27, 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Revelation 19 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
But, the coming of the Lord of Revelation 19 is the coming of the Lord against Babylon for shedding innocent blood.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord against Babylon was the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
This is a TOTAL REFUTATION of every argument that mr. Olson has offered.
COMMON SENSE LITERALISM
I demonstrated without any possibility of refutation that the language of the sun being darkened, the moon turning to blood, etc., is typical Hebraic metaphoric language that was never intended to be taken literally. I proved this with several O.T. passages– texts that are even cited in Revelation! Mr. Olson imposes his Grecian cosmology and thought on Hebrew literature, and comes up with interpretations that do violence to the text.
Mr. Olson’s response? He did not so much as mention the texts and my arguments from them! All he did was, once again, resort to un-becoming, unethical name calling. This is not argumentation, it is desperation!
Mr. Olson claims I gave a cavalier dismissal of his "argument" from Apollonius, simply because Apollonius was a non-Christian. No, I dismissed Apollonius’ testimony by showing that HE DID NOT SAY ONE WORD ABOUT DOMITIAN BEING A PERSECUTOR OF THE CHURCH! This falsified Mr. Olson’s argument, proving his inability to present a logical argument.
Mr. Olson claims that the Nicolaitans gave birth to the Roman Catholic church. Did he provide any proof of this claim? Not one key stroke! Just his personal pontifications.
I noted that the Nicolaitans dealt with the eating of meats sacrificed to idols– an issue that fits the early dating of Revelation. Mr. Olson’s response?: "What nonsense." Really, Mr. Olson?
Read Revelation 2:14-15– Balaam and the Nicolaitans were contemporary issues. His argument that the "you also" (of v. 15) proves that there was no correspondence between the two groups is pedantry. Balaam and Nicolas in the Greek essentially mean the same thing, Mr. Olson! See the Balz and Schnieder Greek Lexicon for a discussion. The fact is that the eating of meats was one of the issues at Pergamos, and this positively fits the early dating, not the later.
MR. OLSON, WHERE IS YOUR ESSENTIAL DOMITIANIC PERSECUTION IN THE TEXT?
Mr. Olson simply ignored the sources that I cited, which completely discount his argument here. He cites Schaff on the issue, but, fails to point out that in spite of some perceived question of the Smyrnean church, SCHAFF TOOK THE EARLY DATING OF REVELATION! So, I don’t guess Schaff thought too much of Mr. Olson’s argument!
MR. OLSON, WHERE IS DOMITIAN’S PERSECUTION TO BE FOUND IN SMYRNA?
I find FALSE JEWS– Israel after the flesh!– persecuting the TRUE JEWS, but, NO DOMITIAN!
Mr. Olson fails to delineate between the city and the church in the city. He fails to delineate between the self perceived spiritual wealth of the Laodiceans, and the financial wealth of the citizens of the city. He fails to delineate between the early earthquake and the latter, which in the final analysis may not actually have any bearing whatsoever on the issue of the self satisfaction and arrogance of the Nicolaitans! He focuses on something the text does not mention. Mr. Olson, you have not proven one single thing
BY THE WAY, WHERE IS THE DOMITIANIC PERSECUTION, MR. OLSON?
AMOS 9:11– ACTS 15:14F
Amos predicted the re-establishment of the relationship between Israel and YHVH, so that– catch that- SO THAT the Gentiles could call on God for salvation!
Peter had preached to the Gentiles, offering them salvation in equality with Israel (Acts 10).
James (Acts 15:14f), said that Peter’s actions fulfilled Amos 9– "To this– (the conversion of the Gentiles by Peter, DKP)– agree the words of the prophet, "I will raise again the tabernacle of David… so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord."
Now, notice likewise that Joel said the Spirit would be poured out, in Israel’s last days, for the salvation of the remnant– resulting in, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord" (Joel 2:28-32). And don’t forget that Mr. Olson has admitted that Joel 2 began to be fulfilled on Pentecost!
And then, notice what Paul said, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13– a direct quote from Joel 2)!
So, only if / when Israel’s restoration, through the Spirit, became a reality could the Gentiles be offered salvation (Joel 2; Amos 9). Amos does not say the Gentiles would be saved first, then the Tabernacle of David (not a literal tabernacle!), would be restored, SO THAT THEN the Gentiles could be saved.
The salvation of the Gentiles in fulfillment of Joel and Amos was taking place in Acts 10, and Romans 10.
Therefore, the salvation (restoration) of Israel through the Spirit was taking place in the first century– in the body of Christ! This is why Paul could say: "Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but, THE ELECT HAVE OBTAINED IT, and the rest were blinded" (Romans 11:7, my emphasis).
WHATEVER IT WAS THAT ISRAEL LONGED FOR, THE ELECT REMNANT WAS RECEIVING IT IN PAUL’S DAY– and Paul had already cited Joel 2, and Deuteronomy 32 as the source of that hope!
Once again, Mr. Olson makes a fatal appeal to another text.
He claims it is the restoration of national Israel in the millennium. But note!
Isaiah said that God does not dwell in temples made with hands!
And yet, Mr. Olson’s doctrine of the millennium demands a temple for YHVH! And, let’s not forget that STEPHEN SAID THAT THE TIME FORETOLD BY ISAIAH HAD ARRIVED (Acts 7:49)! Furthermore, John said that in the New Creation, there would be no temple (Revelation 21), just as Isaiah foretold! Jesus said THE TIME HAD ARRIVED in which men would no longer go to Jerusalem to worship (Jeremiah 3:14ff– Malachi 1:12f–John 4:20-24).
Furthermore, don’t forget that the blessings of Isaiah 66 are the blessings for the New People with a New Name– AFTER GOD WOULD SLAY OLD ISRAEL– Isaiah 65:13f!
Does Isaiah 66 promise the continuance of the "Seed?" ABSOLUTELY! But who is that seed? It is the New People– THE TRUE JEW- who is not a Jew after the flesh. Remember that Mr. Olson has told us that the TRUE SEED OF ABRAHAM (Galatians 3:6, 26-29) is any person circumcised in heart by faith in Christ! As usual, Mr. Olson’s appeal to any verse falsies his theology.
MR. OLSON’S DOCTRINE OF A FAILED MESSIAH
I noted that Mr. Olson’s entire theology is based on THE FAILURE OF JESUS. He did not deny this! He admitted that Jesus offered the kingdom to Israel. However, "When Israel rejected its Messiah, the promised kingdom was put on hold." (Lloyd Olson). Mr. Olson says, "Preston thinks this is ludicrous." He is right, I reject any doctrine that says my Lord failed!
Please follow carefully.
The kingdom was to be established in the last days (Isaiah 2:2f). Mr. Olson has already admitted that Jesus came in the predicted last days. He has also admitted– GRASP HOW DEVASTATING THIS IS– that the last days promise of Joel 2, BEGAN TO BE FULFILLED ON PENTECOST. But, Pentecost was after the supposed postponement of the last days countdown!
I have irrefutably proven that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32– the prophecy of Israel’s last days– and this was well after the supposed postponement of the last days countdown! ISRAEL’S LAST DAYS WERE NOT POSTPONED! Now watch this.
The kingdom was to be established at the end of the seventieth week of Daniel 9 (Mr. Olson agrees).
Jesus (and John the Immerser), said– making a bona fide offer– "the kingdom has drawn near" (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15).
Therefore, the end of the seventieth week had drawn near.
So, the correct, prophesied time for the establishment of the kingdom had truly come. Now, YOU MUST CATCH THE POWER OF WHAT FOLLOWS!
God appointed the time of the kingdom, the last days, and sent His son "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), which means just the right time. (cf. "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom has drawn near" Mark 1:15).
God predicted the rejection of Jesus, as part of the seventy week countdown! (Daniel 9:26). Let me prove that beyond doubt with a quick insertion:
Seventy Weeks were determined to make the atonement and to put away sin (Daniel 9:24).
The death of Jesus was for the making of the atonement and to put away sin (Hebrews 9:24-28).
Therefore, the death of Jesus belonged to the Seventy Week countdown. Of course, the death of Jesus was to occur after the sixty-ninth week (Daniel 9:26), but, since it is indisputably essential to the making of atonement and putting away of sin, it still belonged to the Seventy Weeks! I develop this at length in my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy (www.eschatology.org)
God knew His son would be rejected, but, He said He would laugh at man’s attempt to thwart His plan, and set His king on the throne in spite of man’s rejection (Psalms 2).
God would send His son to establish the kingdom, and promised, "he shall not fail nor be discouraged" (Isaiah 42:4-6)!
God vowed to set His son on the throne of David, and promised, "I will not alter the word that has gone out of my mouth" (Psalms 89:34-37f).
SO, ACCORDING TO GOD’S WORD:
God set the time for the kingdom– and Jesus came at "just the right time," to establish the kingdom.
God predicted that His son would be rejected, and said that He would laugh at man’s rejection, and set His king on the throne anyway! (Take a look at Luke 10:1-9, where Jesus sent his disciples out with the message of the nearness of the kingdom. He warned them that the message would be rejected, but told them to tell unbelieving Israel, "Nevertheless, the kingdom has drawn near!" Jesus said that IN SPITE OF ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF, THE KINGDOM WAS NEAR! No postponement!)
God said His son WOULD NOT FAIL!
God said He WOULD NOT ALTER, (change), His promise concerning the kingd
om! (And folks, if it was God’s plan to establish the kingdom when Jesus said it was near, and God changed that plan, postponing it for 2000 years so far, THAT IS AN ALTERATION OF THE PLAN, anyway you want to slice it or dice it!)
Mr. Lloyd Olson says:
Jesus came at the right time.
Jesus came to establish the predicted kingdom.
He made a bona fide offer of the kingdom. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO MR. OLSON:
Jesus failed to do what he came to do! (The "just the right time," turned out to be the WRONG TIME, after all, per Mr. Olson!)
God did not set His king on the throne in spite of man’s rejection of His king, as He said He would.
GOD DID ALTER HIS WORD because instead of the kingdom being established at the predicted "just the right time," He postponed the kingdom by 2000 years, and counting!
Watch what will happen: Mr. Olson will undoubtedly say that God will, ONE OF THESE DAYS BY AND BY, eventually laugh at man, and will set His Messiah on the throne. But, allowing man to thwart your ORIGINAL PURPOSE, when He said that it was the "right time," and POSTPONING the ORIGINAL PLAN by 2000 years, is not laughing at man! It is FAILING; it is ALTERING the Plan! But, Peter’s divine declaration: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," proves beyond doubt that the Plan was not postponed. There was no failure, no alteration of the Plan! Everything was right on time, just as predicted! To prove this, I want Mr. Olson to answer one critical question:
In Acts 2:34f Peter directly quoted Psalms 110- the prediction of Messiah being exalted to the right hand of the Father, and said Jesus had been so exalted to the Father’s right hand. So, the question is, WAS JESUS’ EXALTATION TO THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER THE ACTUAL FULFILLMENT OF PSALMS 110? YES OR NO? Please do not fail to answer! We will very eagerly await your answer, Mr. Olson!
So, yes, Mr. Olson’s I do reject your man-made doctrine that is based on the failure of my Savior. For more on this entire issue, see my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy. (www.eschatology.org)
ISAIAH 2– THE LAST DAYS- LUKE 23– THE SEALS OF REVELATION
Mr. Olson claims that I misunderstand the issue of the last days, and specifically Isaiah 2. Let’s take a look at his claims, refute them, and prove the early date of Revelation.
The kingdom was to be established in the last days– see Mr. Olson’s fatal admissions on Joel above.
The Lord’s house would be established. Paul called the church the Lord’s house (1 Timothy 3:15f), THE PROMISED TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL 37 (2 Corinthians 6:14f)!
Nations converted- Mr. Olson says the nations are not flowing into the kingdom. Well, on Pentecost, there were Jews out of every nation under heaven present, and many of them obeyed the gospel, and entered the KINGDOM (Colossians 1:13), that was being delivered in Hebrews 12:28. Paul also said the gospel had been preached "to every creature under heaven," in "all the world," and was bringing forth fruit!
Law goes forth- Mr. Olson says the Law is not going forth from Zion. Well, the Hebrew Christians had come to Zion (the heavenly country / city promised to Abraham). The Old Law was nigh unto vanishing, and the New Covenant was being delivered and confirmed.
Peace– He says that men have not turned their swords into plowshares. And yet, Jesus forbad Peter to take up the sword– in contrast to the Old Kingdom– because the way of the sword is not the way of the kingdom of Christ. And, Christ does give peace that is beyond understanding. It is God’s peace (Philippians 4:7f).
Men running to the hills– Now, lets use this to refute all of Mr. Olson’s bluster about Revelation. In my previous negative, I made the following argument– which Mr. Olson totally ignored. And yet, this single argument falsifies not only his late date position, but, his entire theology! I give that argument here again, with editing for brevity.
THE SIXTH SEAL
Mr. Olson simply applies his newspaper hermeneutic, and asks if any of the things foretold in Revelation 6:12f have occurred. He boldly claims that none of this has happened because he did not see it. (This is called ad hominem argumentation). Lamentably, but predictably, he has ignored context.
REVELATION 6:12F IS A DIRECT CITATION OF ISAIAH 2-4 and the prediction of the Day of the Lord in the last days (Isaiah 2:2f; 10f, 19f). In that Day of the Lord, men would run to the hills and call on the rocks to fall on them.
NOW, WATCH: Men would run from the Day of the Lord, and call for the hills to fall on them.
: Men would run from the Day of the Lord, and call for the hills to fall on them.
In Luke 23:28-31, as Jesus was led to his crucifixion, the women who loved him wept for him. He turned to them and said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’"’
Virtually all commentators apply Jesus’ words to the coming A.D. 70 judgment of Jerusalem for her guilt in killing the Lord! So, JESUS APPLIED ISAIAH’S PREDICTION OF THE DAY OF THE LORD TO THE A.D. 70 JUDGMENT OF JERUSALEM! So, here is my argument:
Revelation 6:12–quoting from Isaiah 2:10f; 19f– foretold the Day of the Lord when the martyrs would be avenged, when men would run to the hills.
Jesus, in predicting the A.D. 70 judgment of Israel for killing him, applied Isaiah 2:10f, 19f to the A.D. 70 judgment.
Therefore, Revelation 6:12f, predicting the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction of the Day of the Lord was to be fulfilled in the A.D. 70 judgment of Israel for killing Jesus.
REVELATION 6 QUOTES FROM THE SAME VERSES IN ISAIAH THAT JESUS APPLIED TO A.D. 70.
Therefore, Revelation 6 must apply to the A.D. 70 judgment of Israel!
Ask yourself: What is the justification for saying that John radically altered Jesus’ application of Isaiah, although John quotes from the exact verses that Jesus applied to A.D. 70? Answer: There is no contextual justification for such a dichotomy. The ONLY REASON one would do so is if they had an "overarching perspective" TO IMPOSE ON THE TEXT.
What did Mr. Olson say about this? Not a single, solitary word about Jesus’ application of Isaiah! He just said that because he did not see the Lord come, then He didn’t come. Mr. Olson is so intent on imposing his overarching theology onto the text, that he is willing to ignore– and deny– the Lord’s own divine application of Isaiah! Jesus applied Isaiah to his coming in judgment of Jerusalem for killing him– at the time of the judgment of Israel for bloodguilt (4:4). John foretold the judgment of the city "where the Lord was slain," and cited the exact prophecy from Isaiah that Jesus applied to the impending A.D. 70. ju
dgment! And yet, we are to accept Mr. Olson’s pontification that Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with how Jesus applied Isaiah!
Mr. Olson is like the first century Jews. They had a concept of the kingdom, and the king, and because Jesus did not match their concepts of the nature of the kingdom, they killed him! Mr. Olson’s concept of the nature of the kingdom is as materialistic and national as theirs. But, when they initially offered Jesus the kingdom– as they wanted it to be– JESUS REJECTED THEIR OFFER (John 6:15)!
THE FACT IS THAT THE JEWS NEVER REJECTED JESUS AS KING OVER THE KINGDOM, UNTIL JESUS FIRST OF ALL REJECTED THEIR OFFER OF THE NATIONALISTIC, WORLDLY KINGDOM! Jesus refused to be a physical king, over a nationalistic kingdom, because from the very beginning, that kind of king was AN EXPRESSION OF REBELLION AGAINST HIS FATHER (1 Samuel 8:8f; 10:19), and was a great sin (1 Samuel 12:17f)! Mr. Olson’s theology wants to restore the symbol of Israel’s rebellious attitude!
ISRAEL RESTORED IN UNBELIEF
Unbelievably, Mr. Olson offers Ezekiel 37 as a promise that God would restore Israel in a state of rebellion! Frankly, this entire concept, that God would reward Israel for her rebellion, is staggering. It nullifies the law of Blessings and Cursings, and makes a mockery of the Holiness of YHVH! See my book Israel 1948 Countdown to No Where. I examine every text offered by Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye in their mis-guided attempt to prove that God promised to restore Israel in a state of rebellion. God emphatically promised that the rebels of Israel would NOT enter the land (Ezekiel 20:35-38). But, look at Ezekiel 37.
Mr. Olson conveniently ignored the fact that God said He would put His Spirit in Israel to restore them (Ezekiel 37:12-14). According to chapter 36, when God gave His Spirit to restore Israel, they would be obedient (36:25f), and they would be CLEANSED OF THEIR SIN! So, Mr. Olson: DID GOD PUT HIS HOLY SPIRIT IN ISRAEL IN ISRAEL IN 1948? Were they obedient? Were they cleansed of their sin? And, was Israel given her New Covenant, under Messiah, and the New Temple, in 1948, as promised in chapter 37? After all, that is what would happen when He put His Spirit in them and restored them!
Watch this, now. Ezekiel 37 said that in the day God restored Israel, gave her the New Covenant under Messiah, He would set His Tabernacle among them, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Ezekiel 37:27).
Paul, who, remember, preached nothing but the hope of Israel, wrote to the church at Corinth. He told them, "You are the temple of the living God, as God said: ‘I will dwell in them, and be among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’" HE DIRECTLY CITES EZEKIEL 37!
PAUL SAID THAT THE CHURCH WAS WHAT EZEKIEL PREDICTED!
No amount of name calling, no amount of denial, no amount of obfuscation, can change this. Paul, through inspiration of the Spirit, said that Ezekiel’s prophecy of the Kingdom Tabernacle, was fulfilled in the church of Jesus Christ, in the first century!
AS CORROBORATION NOTE NOW, ISAIAH 49:6-8, AND 2 CORINTHIANS 6:1-2
Isaiah said Messiah would come, Israel would be restored, the Gentiles called, the New Covenant given, in the Day of Salvation, the acceptable time."
Remember, now, Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel as found in Moses and the prophets (Acts 26:21f).
Paul, writing to the church at Corinth, not only told them that they were the Temple of God AS FORETOLD BY EZEKIEL 37, he also directly quotes from Isaiah 49:6f, and says, "Behold, NOW is the accepted time, behold, TODAY is the day of salvation!"
So, the argument is:
Israel would be restored, the Gentiles called, the New Covenant given, in the Acceptable time, the Day of Salvation.
But, Paul said that the acceptable time and the day of salvation was present in the first century.
Therefore, Israel was being saved, the Gentiles called, the New Covenant given, in the first century.
No postponement, no putting on hold, no failure!
And, since Israel’s salvation would be consummated at the parousia of Christ, this demands that the coming of the Lord of Revelation had to be truly near, for remember, Jesus said, "this generation shall not pass until all of these things be fulfilled." This demands a pre-A.D. 70 dating of Revelation.
THE LAST GENERATION
I took note that Mr. Olson’s claim that the "restoration of Israel" in 1948 and his claim that the end is near, demands that Jesus’ disciples were false prophets. Remember, Jesus told his disciples not to believe or make premature declarations of the nearness of the end. Mr. Olson has admitted that they did in fact say the end was near, 2000 years ago. His denies the end was truly near, thus the Biblical writers are of necessity, per Mr. Olson’s view, false prophets. He has not answered this, and he can’t!
I asked why we should accept his time statements as indicative of genuine imminence, but reject the "at hand" "has drawn near" statements of the inspired apostles. He never uttered a word of explanation.
Furthermore, his insistence that the end is truly near now, means that this has to be the final generation. He tries to deflect the power of this argument by citing Matthew 24:36, "but of that day and hour no man knows." But this is just more smoke.
Jesus said the generation to see the signs, WOULD NOT FAIL TO SEE HIS COMING! He did not say that the generation of the signs MIGHT BE the generation of the end: "this generation shall by no means pass until all of these things be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:32-34).(Of course, the signs appeared in the first century, as we have proven.)
By the way, Mr. Olson, your hero, Thomas Ice, says that 1948 was the "Super Sign of the End." Now, if 1948 was the GREATEST POSSIBLE SIGN OF THE END, then this MUST be the generation of the end. The problem is that it has now been 60 years since 1948! That calendar is almost expired! (By the way, are you working on getting Mr. Ice to debate me, Mr. Olson?)
Mr. Olson will be– just as Mr. Ice, LaHaye, Hagee, Jeffrey, et. al– proven dead wrong.
Mr. Olson says that I ignored most of the seals, the trumpets and the vials. Well, evidently Mr. Olson does not grasp how logic works.
I demonstrated that the sixth seal predicted the A.D. 70 judgment of Jerusalem, based on Jesus’ inspired application of Isaiah 2. Since the Seals are sequential, Mr. Olson, that means that I don’t have to discuss every previous seal, since I have irrefutably demonstrated from the mouth of Jesus that Revelation 6 is predictive of the A.D. 70 judgment. This proves my affirmative, and falsifies your’s! That is how logic correctly works, Mr. Olson.
Now, consider the Vials again. He says I ignored #s 1-6. Well, once again, the proper use of logic says that if I demonstrate that the seventh vial was predictive of the A.D. 70 judgment, then I do not have to discuss every detail
in the previous six vials! That is how logic properly works, Mr. Olson. And of course, this refutes all of his illogical verbiage concerning the Trumpets as well.
Let me state my argument succinctly, in the hope that Mr. Olson will actually deal with it. Please go back to my first negative to read the more in-depth explanation.
No man could enter the MHP until the wrath/vengeance of God was fulfilled (Revelation 15:9).
Man could enter the MHP at the end of the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 9:9-10).
Therefore, the wrath / vengeance of God would be fulfilled at the end of the Mosaic Covenant.
Man could not enter the MHP until the wrath/vengeance of God was fulfilled in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 15:9; 16:17).
But, God wrath’s / vengeance would be fulfilled in the destruction of Old Covenant Jerusalem (Luke 21:20f)- "when all things that are written must be fulfilled."
Therefore, Babylon of Revelation was Old Covenant Jerusalem.
I asked Mr. Olson if the faithful child of God enters the Most Holy when they die today. He has refused to answer, because if they do, the Vials have been poured out, God’s vengeance has been fulfilled, Babylon has been judged!
But, if man does not enter the Most Holy today, then the Mosaic Covenant remains valid (Hebrews 9:6-10).
Mr. Olson has no answer for this. This is prima facie proof of my theology, and of the early dating of Revelation. It falsifies Mr. Olson’s theology and affirmative. Little wonder he tried desperately to avoid the issue.
IF PRESTON IS RIGHT, GOD IS A LIAR
It is quite amazing that Mr. Olson said that one of my problems was that, unlike himself, I do not know how to read scripture through an overarching hermeneutic. When I agreed that I do not do this, he then ACCUSED ME OF DOING IT! Now, he demonstrates his arrogance even more.
He says that, "If Preston is right, then God is a liar" in regard to the New Heaven and New Jerusalem. No, Mr. Olson, what it proves is that MR. OLSON IS WRONG IN HIS INTERPRETATION. You have so steadfastly imposed your overarching hermeneutic on scripture that you would actually dare to call God a liar if your interpretation of scripture is falsified! Such arrogance is Pharisaic, to say the very least.
I have, once again, responded to, and refuted every salient point that Mr. Olson has offered. He is in open denial of the emphatic words of the text.
He relies on unreliable external, uninspired, self-contradictory men for his authority.
He imposes his overarching theological presuppositions onto the text.
He assumes things that are not true.
He redefines terms and denies the proper definitions.
He imposes a Grecian world view on the Hebraic text, refusing to allow the ancient writers to express themselves metaphorically.
He says that Jewish unbelief led to Jesus’ failure and the postponement of the kingdom; but, God predicted that rebellion. He included Jesus’ death in the seventy week countdown, proving definitively that there was not postponement.
He openly rejects Jesus’ own inspired, infallible application of Isaiah 2, denying its fulfillment at the time Jesus said, all because of own presuppositional overarching theology that he insists on imposing on the text.
I have fully, undeniably, and definitively refuted every major point Mr. Olson has raised.