The Sequence of Events associated with The Parousia

The foundational premise of this blog, that the events of Revelation are chronological, they are presented as a clear sequence of events.  Is not based on saying all Prophecies are that way, but that Revelation is uniquely chronological because it's purpose is to REVEAL how everything else ties together.

In some cases the apparent chronology of events in other prophecies fit Revelation's fine.  In some cases where a dual fulfillment may be involved it could be the older prophet's sequence of events fits the near/local fulfillment more then it does the final Eschatological fulfillment.

It's mainly in the late 30s of Ezekiel where it looks like YHWH revealed things to that Prophet practically backwards if one of my theories about them is true.

But it is in particular when a lot of things seem to be happening very quickly over a relatively short period of time that it shouldn't be that difficult to get that the shorter briefer description is perhaps not as strictly chronological.  If someone came to you and said "man you won't believe all the crazy stuff that just went down at the corner" and then rapidly rambled a bunch of things you wouldn't be too surprised to find out the order of events as they first described them were slightly off.

And that is the case with The Parousia.

The word Parousia doesn't appear in Revelation, but the events associated with it when Jesus first defined it for us in Matthew 24:30-31 and later elaborated on by Paul in the Thessalonian Epistles and parts of 1 Corinthians 15, and has a lot of other even briefer references.  Clearly happens in Revelation starting in Chapter 11 Verse 15 and are finished by the end of chapter 14.  It is pretty clear to me that Revelation is far more concerned with the proper order of events.  Still I do believe they will all happen over the course of a few days at most and maybe less then an hour.

However pretty much every Futurist who disagrees with Pre-Trib founds that opposition on some clear timing statements in Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2 that place the "Abomination of Desolation" before any of the Parousia events.  But doesn't my chronological interpretation place that in the middle of the Parousia?

Strictly speaking The Abomination of Desolation is not in Revelation Chapter 13.  That chapter is about the deification of "The Beast" broadly speaking, and mentions an "Image" that it doesn't tie to any particular geographical location.  But there is no illusion to anything happening in specifically Jerusalem or any other city.

Paul associated the Man of Sin showing himself to be God in The Temple with his revealing.  I have already argued for the removal of restraint being in Revelation 9, and after that comes the first clear reference to The Beast in chapter 11 when he's described as ascending out of the Abyss and kills the Two Witnesses.  Chapter 13 is just his formal introduction.

"But didn't you just earlier this month make a post arguing the "Great City" of chapter 11 isn't Jerusalem?"

Again that was a post made for arguing rhetorically with Preterists and anyone else who thinks "Great City" must always be referring to the same city every time it's used.  If the name of Babylon doesn't prove anything geographically neither does being tied to the Crucifixion.

However I also no longer necessarily think the AoD has to happen in Jerusalem.  In fact I'm definitely coming to highly doubt a proper Third Temple will be built at all.  There are aspects of the Historicist interpretation of II Thessalonians 2 and Daniel 7 that make sense to me.

However I don't think it's already fulfilled by The Pope or even the Byzantine Emperors I've talked about playing devil's advocate with them.  It will be something unmistakable when it happens, in such a way that even if it happens nothing like how any of us expected we will still not doubt that it just happened when it does.

Maybe it'll happen in Jerusalem, maybe it'll involve a Third Temple, but what's important is it will not be debatable anymore once it happens, that's the key point of why Paul was bringing it up, it obviously hadn't happened yet, and if it obliviously hadn't happened yet then it hasn't happened yet now.

Or maybe the Son of Perdition being "revealed" is really when he kills the Witnesses in Revelation 11:7, given that is the first time Revelation is definitely indisputably referring to that individual.