@33:40 mark “‘At hand’ doesn’t mean thousands of years from now, it means imminent, coming in moments”. In similar manner, a lot of second coming passages use the identical ‘at hand’ expression in the Greek. 1 Peter 4:7 James 5:8 Hebrews 10:25 Romans 13:12
Dear Pastor. If Daniel 7:13 was fulfilled in the First Century, how then does Christ say to the High Priest, at His trial, that "ye shall see" (Future Indicative Middle, 2nd person plural) quoting directly the events of Daniel 7:13? Does Christ not speak of a yet a future event? How would they see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power? How will they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven? Are you saying (if this event is fulfilled in heaven) that the high priest or the Jewish leaders (the ones who rejected and called for the crucifixion of Christ) will be in heaven to witness this event? By the way, if Jesus was only anointed as King after His ascension, does that mean He was not King before His incarnation?
If Christ said they would see him coming in power from Heaven and lament being shut out themselves of the kingdom, you should take his word for it. Unless you’re waiting for the history books to corroborate it, in like manner as you would still be waiting for the history books to corroborate all the other miracles and supernatural events recorded in the books of the Bible.
If we are living in post-millennial time, when did the battle of Ezechiel 38 take place? Any takers? 😂 I’ll be waiting… I wonder if anyone sees my uncomfortable question. No one ever replies. Makes me wonder if I am the only one seeing it (shadow-banned).
The battle you speak of is neither uncomfortable nor a problem for those of us who hold to a postmillennial understanding in our eschatology. The very fact that Satan is unbound is an evidence that previously to this point he has been bound. This is a postmillennial understanding of his current condition where we believe he is bound from blinding the nation's to Christ's gospel. That he is loosed by God himself is evidence that all power & all authority are right now currently resting with Jesus. That Ezekiel describes this satanic attack as attacking an uncalled city at peace is evidence of the power the gospel has had at this stage of future human history. Isaiah speaks of a future where men have beaten their swords into ploughshares & spears into pruning hooks. All this speaks to the post mil conviction that the gospel will spread throughout the earth, That the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as waters cover the sea. That in that day His name will be the only name and the blessings if the prophets will be realized. E.g. the life of man extended, wars becoming unknown, world at peace, leopards lying with sheep and blessings on earth as far as the curse is found. In other words, paradise restored. It should be of note that it is God himself who destroys this gog magog fools errand and Satan finds his fitting end. For as Paul says the last enemy to be destroyed is death itself at his glorious return. I hope this helps with your question?
Assume for a moment that the battle of Ezekiel 38 is in fact a historical event. What evidence would you require to believe that it occurred? By comparison, what evidence do you require to believe other historical events in the Bible occurred? What standard(s) do you have to believe the plagues in Egypt occurred, the Red Sea exodus occurred, the events at Mount Sinai occurred, the supernatural collapse of the walls of Jericho occurred, the victory of Gideon and the 300 occurred, David slaying the giant Goliath occurred, the deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from the fire occurred, the deliverance of Daniel from the lions occurred, Elijah's resurrection of the widows son occurred, Christ's resurrection of Lazarus occurred, Christ's multiplication of bread and fish occurred, Christ walking on water occurred, Christ healing the lame, deaf, blind and demon-possessed occurred, etc, etc, etc? If your belief in the foregoing as historical events is based on different standard(s) than that which would be necessary for you to believe that Ezekiel 38 occurred, why would you think it is right to have a double standard in respect of Ezekiel 38 than you do the other scriptures?
