[RnMomof7]

This text is used by a Calvinist premil Pastor as a verification of the premil position..as it (he says ) is an interpretaion of the first part ..not a continuation of it..thus the change of tense...unpon reading it I tend to agree ..it seems to be restating the first part in a future tense

[Frumanchu]

I would not call that a verification. If he wants to cite it in support that's understandable I supposed, but it is certainly not something that puts the issue to rest:)