For Full Preterists...

[Brandan Kraft]

Odyssey / Parousia / countrymouse... You're the complete preterists here.... I still see myself as a "partial" preterist, but am still studying this issue.... Would you mind giving me your perspective on this article?

Preterism & Biblical Prophecy
Is all prophecy already fulfilled?

by Fred G. Zaspel
Published by Word of Life Baptist Church

copyright © 1997 All rights reserved
Copying or reproductions are permitted for non-commercial use only.

Abstract

Preterism is a system of prophetic interpretation that understands virtually all of Biblical prophecy to be already fulfilled. The second coming of Christ and all attending events, the resurrection, etc., are all understood as now past. Christ has come, the kingdom has come, and the resurrection has occurred, all in a spirtual way. This brief paper provides a concise overview of how Biblical prophecy is fulfilled and this in light of the preterist claims.


The Nature of Prophetic Fulfillment

It has long been recognized that Biblical prophecy is normally fulfilled not in a single event but in a series of events which bring the prophecy to it final culmination. Seldom is the answer one-to-one but one-to-one, two, three, four, and so on. In the unfolding of redemptive history the prophecy is seen to take on a wider or more detailed significance.

Older Bible teachers described this as "double" or "dual" fulfill-ment and as the "near view" and "far view" of prophecy. Interpreters today speak more in terms of sensus plenior, a phrase offered to describe the "fuller sense" seemingly given to certain OT prophecies as they are unfolded in the light of NT revelation. Others would prefer to speak in terms of a "canonical process" which develops more fully and more specifically the original sense and intent of the prophecy. More popularly, interpreters speak of the "now and not yet" aspect of Biblical prophecy, emphasizing that a given prophey may well come to realization now yet await its fuller manifestation later; its fulfillment is both now and not yet.

Arguments could be made for the precise accuracy of preferable terminology, but our point here is simply to notice that Biblical prophecy normally unfolds in a progressively fulfilling way. In the unfolding of redemptive history the prophecy is seen to take on a wider or more detailed significance.

Yes, there is the occasional one-to-one fulfillment. The Bethlehem prophecy (Mic.5:2) provides one example. But it is generally more complex than this, and examples in the prophetic Word abound. The very first prophecy sets the stage. The Champion promised to defeat the tempter finds initial realization in the earthly ministry of Jesus and His casting out of demons (Mat.12:28). By His casting out of demons, He Himself explains, Satan's kingdom is invaded and plundered. In Jesus God has come good on His promise to defeat the tempter. But there is obviously more to it than that. And again Jesus Himself says so. In anticipation of His death He declares, "Now is the prince of this world cast out" (Jn.12:). Here, in Jesus' death, Satan loses his head (cf. Heb.2). Here the promise finds its fulfillment. Or does it? Writing to the Roman believers Paul declares that God will "crush Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom.16:20). So we find the promise is fulfilled and "not yet" fulfilled. And of course Revelation 20 fills in the final details with Satan's bondage in the abyss and then finally being cast into the lake of fire forever. Here, at last, the prophecy is finally and fully fulfilled. But you see, the answer to the original promise was not one-to-one. The fulfillment came in a succession of events which brought the promise to its full consummation.

This is the Bible's first prophecy. And it stands as the pattern of the fulfillment of so many others. Moses' prophecy of a prophet like him to come (Dt.18:15ff) surely finds its answer in the long succession of Israel's prophets (see E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets). God came good on His promise to provide continued direction for the nation of Israel in her land. But of course the prophecy is fully realized in Christ, the Prophet par excellence, the Son, the true revelation of God (Heb.1:1f).

The prophecies of the coming of the Messiah unfold similarly. They may not have known it beforehand, but it is clear that the Messiah's coming is a two-stage event. There is the first coming and the second. At the first the promise was realized, but not until the second is it consummated.

Indeed, the very promise of salvation is fulfilled "now" in Christ (Rom.5:1) but still awaits the people of God. It is presently realized but "not yet" fully manifested.

Antichrist provides another example. The details of Dan.11 so graphically portray Antiochus Epiphanes that critical scholars insist that "Daniel" wrote after the fact. Of course we deny their conclusion, but the prophecy's fulfillment in Antiochus is obvious. But then Jesus speaks of this "abomination" as yet future (Mat.24). As does Paul (2 Thes.2) and, (so it would seem from the many thematic parallels) John (Rev.13). And so the prophecy is fulfilled and yet is fulfilled again and is to be fulfilled still again, only more fully. But John tells us also that Antichrist "has come" (1Jn.4). He is the false teachers who lead men astray. So Antichrist "has come" and "will come." He is "now," and he is "not yet."

As I say, examples of this abound, even in many of the OT prophecies which are already fulfilled. Prophecies of the destruction of great cities are fulfilled by the ruthless actions of some conqueror, and then again more fully by another.

The same is true in reference to the Kingdom. It came with the coming of Jesus. His Kingdom is "now." But He also taught us to pray, "Thy Kingdom come" (Mat.6:10). He taught that the Kingdom was future (Mat.7:21; 25:31ff etc.). Paul and the other NT writers regularly spoke of Christ's Kingdom as future (e.g., 2 Tim.4:1). The Kingdom, for Jesus and the apostles, was "now and not yet." Its fulfillment comes in stages.

All of history is in the minds of the Biblical writers divided into two ages this age and the age to come. The age to come is the time of outpouring of Messianic blessing, and in the first coming of Jesus that age dawned. In Christ we are they "upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1Cor.10:11). Yet while the writer to the Hebrews can speak of this time now as "these last days" (Heb.1:1-2), Paul speaks of "the last days" as still future to him (2Tim.3:1). There is both, the "now" and the "not yet," a present realization and a future manifestation.

In other words, the prophecy is progressively fulfilled. Nor is it a mere "dual" prophecy. It is rather that the "sooner" realization is of a piece with the full and final manifestation of it. The single prophecy finds a progressive unfolding in stages.

I should not need to belabor the point any longer. This is enough to see that this matter of progressive fulfillment is standard issue in Biblical prophecy. It is not the exception but the rule. And it cannot be ignored. This simply must be borne in mind when seeking to interpret the prophetic Word, lest we take a mere part for the whole. The interpreter must be careful to be comprehensive in his study before announcing "this is that." Only when the prophecy is "full" is it "fulfilled."

Due recognition of this principle is vital to accurate interpretation of the prophetic Word. Often it is the case that two sides of a prophetic debate, each with a part of the whole, make as though the whole were their "part." It's often so that neither side is wrong in what they are saying, except that they have only one half of the picture. But not until all the parts are together is there the whole. And again, we must not announce fulfillment until we are sure the prophecy has been filled.


Preterism & the Kingdom

Here is one basic flaw of preterism as I see it. Ironically, it is the same mistake made by the older dispensationalists who said there was no present realization of the Kingdom, only future. They wanted it all "not yet." Preterism wants it all "now." Both hold a part to be the whole.

This flaw is evident in Preterism's understanding of the NT teaching that Jesus / the Kingdom will come "soon." This was Albert Schweitzer's observation, and it led him to conclude that Jesus was sadly mistaken. But does the NT lead us in this way? It does indeed announce that the Kingdom is "near" (eggizo; e.g., Mk.1:15). But it also makes the bold announcement of the presence of the Kingdom. In Jesus the Kingdom has not only "come near"; it has come (ephthasen, Mat.12:28; cf., 11:11ff; Lk.17:21). Curiously, the preterist loves to emphasize the nearness of the Kingdom in the teaching of Jesus. But the problem is more difficult than that: Jesus taught not only that the Kingdom was near, but that it had come.

[Brandan Kraft]

But Jesus speaks at least as clearly to the fact that there will be a "delay" before His coming, a delay of some duration. He spoke the parable in Luke 19:11-27 to explain this very thing. Luke gives us this interpretive clue when he says, "He spoke another parable because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the Kingdom of God would appear immediately" (v.11). Jesus went on to speak not in terms of a short time but of a long journey to a "far country" for the purpose of "receiving His Kingdom" and to return to exercise the attending rights of it. Mat.24:45-51 speaks of enough time prior to His return that allows evil men to be slothful because of the "delay" (v.48; cf. Luk.12:45). Mat.25:5 speaks again of the Bridegroom "delaying." Mat.25:19 speaks of the Lord's return as "after a long time." James 5:7-8 is often cited to emphasize the impending nature of Christ's return, and so it does; but it also speaks of time, time for growing frustration which in turn demands that we "wait patiently." The delay is of such duration that scoffers are able to mock and deny it (2 Pet.3:1ff). "I will be with you unto the end of the age" (Mat.28:20) does lead one to think in terms of some duration of time, more than just a few years.

How then are we to relieve this tension? How can the Kingdom come both now and later? The preterist insists that Jesus taught it was "near" and from that he argues that the Kingdom came in its fullness in A.D. 70. He may well hold a part of the truth in referring to the arrival of the Kingdom then. But we must say from the evidence that this is not the whole of it. The Kingdom comes in stages. Now and later. Here and then, following a time of delay.

This, in turn, forces us to re-evaluate the claims that the prophecies of the "coming" of the Son of man and the "Kingdom" which are fulfilled in A.D. 70 are exhaustively fulfilled there (e.g., Mat.10:23; 16:27-28). It would indeed be difficult to miss the connection with the events of A.D. 70. The destruction of Jerusalem was an enormously significant event in the prophecies of the Gospels. Like the Babylonian captivity in the OT, it was of a piece with the day of the Lord. There is a theological unity. But that it was the exhaustive fulfilling of that Day demands exegetical demonstration, and it is here that preterism fails. In holding that A.D. 70 exhausts the Kingdom and coming prophecies preterism dilutes much of the ideas contained in many of these prophecies.

For example, preterism is correct in that the Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom (Mat.12:28; 21:43; 23:13; Lk.17:20-21; etc.) And it is correct in that it is an earthly Kingdom (Mat.5:5; 8:11-12; Lk.19:11ff; 1Cor.15:22-28). But it does not go far enough with either consideration. The rule of the Kingdom is universal and one that is much more evident that it is today. A rule in which the will of God is everywhere perfectly done, admitting no rebellion. It involves a separation among men in which those who have followed the words of Christ continue in blessedness, and those who have not are destroyed in judgment (Mat.7:21ff; cf. Mat.8:11-12). This fullness of the Kingdom is preceded by the destruction of the wicked "at the end of this age" (Mat.13:38-42) and is characterized by the righteous "shining forth as the sun" in their absence (v.43). "This age" continues with its mix of evil and righteous, but in the Kingdom the evil are cast out (Mat.13:47-50). To be a part of His Kingdom is a future blessing of reigning with Christ which follows this time of difficulty in discipleship (Mat.19:27-29) "leaving all to follow Him" is for this age, and it is followed by reward in His Kingdom. This age runs its course as "this present evil age" (Gal.1:4), while believers do indeed enjoy a share in the Kingdom "ahead of time." But the fullness of the Kingdom awaits the return of our Lord from Heaven (1Cor.15:23-28). In short, some of the data suggests a present Kingdom. Some of the data suggests a future Kingdom. All the data together demands both.


Preterism & the Second Coming of Christ

Preterism fails in this regard also as it argues that the hope of Christ's return was likewise fulfilled in A.D. 70. To be sure, the destruction of Jerusalem was a "coming" of Christ in predicted judgment. But that it was "this same Jesus coming again in like manner as you have seen him go up into heaven" (Acts 1:11) is extremely difficult to conceive. Indeed, if it were, words would seem to have lost all meaning. "We shall see Him as He is" and so be "like Him" (1Jn.3:2) would appear misleading if A.D. 70 exhausted it. "Every eye shall see Him" (Rev.1:7) and "then shall you see" Him in His return coming "in great glory on the clouds of heaven" (Mat.24:30) in the company of all His saints (1Th.4:16f; Rev.19:11ff) and heralded by angels (1Th.4:16) in an event so spectacular that it cannot possibly be missed (Mat.24:26-27) and "coming again to receive you unto myself, that where I am there you may be also (Jn.14:3) all very naturally lead one to expect a personal, visible return as traditionally yes, unanimously understood by the saints throughout the church age. Indeed, to hear the preterist arguing that "Christ really did come in A.D. 70" reminds one of those against whom Jesus warned (Mat.24:26-27) (to paraphrase) "if they have to tell you I have come, rest assured that I haven't. Like the lightening, you won't be able to miss it." Those who try to convince us that Christ has come, announce by that very action that they are false teachers.

There is much that makes the preterist position difficult to believe. To say that the coming in judgment in A.D. 70 exhausts the blessed hope destroys the analogy of the first advent, it misses the overall pattern of prophetic fulfillment, it renders plain words mysterious and ethereal, and it plainly falls under the denial of our Lord Himself in Mat.24:26-27.


Preterism & the Resurrection

It is a curious thing that the over-realized eschatology of Corinth has re-surfaced in preterism. The ancient denial of the resurrection of the body may have been grounded in good Greek philosophy, but it was a denial of the essentials of the gospel (1Cor.15). In 1Cor.15 Paul explains something of the resurrection body, that it will be both different from and yet continuous with this body (vv.35-50). And whatever the differences, the body buried is the body raised (vv.42-44). So important is this that Paul hinges the truth of the gospel on it (vv.12ff). If Jesus did not experience bodily resurrection, then there is nothing left to preach, and we have no hope. But of course, "Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v.20). He did not remain in the grave; nor shall we.

This of course was one point of issue between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees affirmed the coming resurrection, the Sadducees denied it. Paul at times positioned himself with the Pharisees in this matter (Acts 23:6-8), thus showing his own beleif in the physical resurrection. But more than agreeing that a physical, bodily resurrection was to come, he boldly announced that in Jesus it had already taken place (Acts 4:1-2). Jesus arose, and not in a merely spiritual sense; His tomb became empty. And for this preaching he was mocked by the Greeks of his day (Acts 17:32), but undaunted he continued both to teach and to strive to be a part of that "out resurrection from out of the dead" (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron, Phil.3:11). His hope was to be part of that resurrection of the just "from the dust of the earth" (Dan.12:2).

Preterist denials of the bodily resurrection are as old as the Corinthian error, but they are no more valid today than then. To affirm that we are living in the resurrection today is, again, to take a mere part for the whole. In the resurrection there is no marriage (Luk.20:35). Family relationships as we know them will be then past a detail difficult indeed to reconcile with preterism's idea of present resurrection. To render Paul's hope of the resurrection purely spiritual renders his words and much of his persecutions (e.g., Acts 4:1-2; 23:6) meaningless. Worse, it makes him a liar (1Cor.15:15).

"But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like a cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some" (2Tim.2:16-18). In Paul's opinion, this preterist doctrine is a particularly dangerous one.

[Brandan Kraft]

Preterism & 2 Peter 3:8

It has been suggested (by preterists) that it is inconsistent or rather gratuitous to appeal to 2Pet.3:8 to explain the "delay" in Christ's return. "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day." But it must be noted that this is Peter's own explanation. The preterist argues that since Christ spoke of the "nearness" of His coming it must be that He has already come. The scoffers whom Peter addressed argued that the same evidence indicated that He will not come at all. And it is Peter's answer that leads us to think in terms of God's view of time. "For God, it's not been long at all!" This is an entirely legitimate argument. It has inspired apostolic endorsement.


Preterism & Matthew 24

Mention of Mat.24:26-27 has already been made, that Jesus warns us against those who come to us and say that He has already returned. But there is more in the Olivet discourse that could be noted briefly here. That in the Olivet discourse Jesus has a close eye to the events of A.D. 70 is clear. But that it is exhausted there is not at all clear. The issue at hand is the the destruction of the temple, yes, but also the "coming" of Christ & "the end of the age." The disciples were clearly wanting to know of Jesus' return to them. This He had promised them (Jn.14:3), and they wanted to know more about it. Against that backdrop it would be difficult to limit Jesus' "coming" language to the events of A.D. 70; indeed, it would seem to render Jesus' reply misleading. To refer it exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem is just too much special pleading. It would never be the first reading of the passage, and for this reason alone, the preterist interpretation has never been very convincing. The first and most natural way of reading the passage is not likely the wrong one.

Similarly, talk of great cosmic disturbances involving the sun, moon, and stars would appear relatively meaningless and / or misleading if limited to the events of Jerusalem.

Similarly, the danger to "all flesh" (Mat.24:22) is too broad a statement to restrict it to Jerusalem. The preterist admits as much when he comes to v.30 the "mourning" of "all flesh," for the preterist, is global in significance.

One more. In Mat.24:21 Jesus cites Dan.12:1, and Dan.12:2 explicitly establishes the time frame as that of physical resurrection "from the dust of the earth." To say this refers to this day of spiritual resurrection just will not do.

Therefore, the traditional understanding of Mat.24 as refering to a literal and visible return of Christ to the earth, "immediately after the tribulation of those days" is the correct one. It speaks, of a yet to be experienced time of danger and trouble which is of a piece with and foreshadowed in the events of A.D. 70 (vv.15-22), a day of false teachers and apostasy and even supernatural phenomena (vv.23-25) and false announcements that Christ has already come (vv.26-28), following which Christ will return "on the clouds with power and great glory" (vv.29-31).


Conclusion

So yes, Christ came. Yes His Kingdom was established with Him. Yes, He came in judgment in A.D. 70. And yes, that was a great milestone in the progressive manifestation of His kingdom. And yes, He is still coming. He remains the object of our most blessed hope.

[Brandan Kraft]

I don't necessarily agree with all of this article either, except that I thought he brought up a pretty interesting point found in the first part of the article....


It has long been recognized that Biblical prophecy is normally fulfilled not in a single event but in a series of events which bring the prophecy to it final culmination. Seldom is the answer one-to-one but one-to-one, two, three, four, and so on. In the unfolding of redemptive history the prophecy is seen to take on a wider or more detailed significance.

This part really has me thinking.... What are your thoughts?

[Parousia70]

Hi Kermie,
Very interesting article. I have heard the Mulit fulfillment arguement several times and I keep coming back to Luke 21:20-22. "These be the days of vengence when ALL thing written will be fulfilled"..I don't know about you but I have difficulty attaching a "multiple fulfillment" to that verse. I DID notice how Mr. Zaspel carefully avoided "debunking" that verse and I feel it deserves mention.

The next question for me to those in the Multiple fulfillment camp is:
What keeps us from expecting multiple fulfillments of other prophesies?
Should we expect another virgin birth? or 3 or 4 more virgin births?
Should we expect another crusifixion? or 3 or 4 more?
another ascention?.......

Why Not??

The problem with multiple fulfillment is that you can never have consumation because something ELSE can always come along later to fullfill it Further, no matter how fulfilled you THINK it already is.

That being said, I do believe that since we are limited by our perception of time, our language has difficulty explaining the eternal.

The Parousia of Christ, while made temporally manifest in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD didn't begin there or stop there. It was the reality before the fall. It superceeds the Old Covenant because it PRECEEDED it. It is an unfolding reality of such depth that believers are resurreted into a unity with Christ that like Christ we are "With God" in the Beginning.

So, in the sense of how we can possibly grasp the meaning of "eternity" while we are trapped in this earthly tent, I agree that Christ came, is comming now, and will come again....tomorrow, and next week, and next month, and even later today.

St. John in the revelation saw the New Jerusalem "Coming down from Heaven" Never does he say it "Stops" coming down. It is in a state of ever outpouring of Heaven to earth that existed int he Garden of Eden, was suspended after the fall and began again in 70 AD never to be squelched.

Mr. Zaspel is very thorough, yet demonstrated that he is not very knowledgable of OT usage of "apoclyptic Language" otherwise he would realize that the use of such language as "Stars falling, sky darkening, etc" does not demand that those literal events ocourr, but infact is the way the Bible discusses the fall of a nation time and time again.

For example, when he said:

"Similarly, talk of great cosmic disturbances involving the sun, moon, and stars would appear relatively meaningless and / or misleading if limited to the events of Jerusalem."

Meaningless and misleading to HIM perhaps, but he ignores the original audience relevance. The original hearers were well versed in such "apocolyptic language" and would have absolutely applied it to a limited geographic scale, consistant with it's OT usage.

Wow! so much more could be said, but I'll deferr to the rest of the Full prets ont he board who more than likely can do a better job than I.

Thanks for the post Kerm, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Peter

[Brandan Kraft]

Awwe Peter, Thanks for your prompt reply.... The multiple theory is just one more aspect to think about... *sigh* will I EVER get my eschatology down? LOL

Your friend in Christ,
Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

By your argument above Peter, could you also say that Jesus returned, but never stopped returning, and will be "fully" returned in the future?

[Parousia70]

Not exactly Kerm,

The Presence of Christ on earth, the "Parousia", exists in it's fullness today, but I recognize it not as a one time event that happened once then ceased to be, but as an ongoing process which all creation is moving toward realizing.

It's not that He will be fully present at some later date. He is Fully present now, and In the Countless generations to come, through the spreading of the Gospel, his full presence will be ever increasingly understood. The little trickle that becomes the sea that covers the earth.

Will that consumate in a time in our future that there will be no more sinners on earth? I doubt it, because being Saved dosen't mean you are not a sinner or you stop sinning while on Earth. (for that reality, we'll have to wait till we "shed this earthly tent and be clothed in heavenly splendor")

The fact that Isaiah states that the INCREASE of Christs Government and peace shall be without end, leads me to believe that there will always be sinners who can and will choose to enter under His Governorship forever.

looking forward to hearing from some other prets on this topic!
Good thread!

[Odyssey]

Happy New Year!!

Kermie,

Thanks for this opportunity. I, like many others, have also heard of this 'multi-fulfillment' theory. And my argument is the same as Peter. What is to stop us from looking for future fulfillments, the real ones, of the Messiah? Maybe the first coming of Jesus was just that, a 'first coming' and we are still waiting for other comings of Jesus that will one day be his real coming. Where does it end?

Secondly, the idea of different 'comings' of Jesus is foreign in the NT. The speakers and writers of the NT had only one coming of Jesus in mind throughout their ministries. Someone would be hard pressed to prove they spoke of different comings. And, for the sake of argument, they did find different comings, which one was to 'shortly come to pass?' Everyone of the passages that refer to the coming of Christ is full of expectancy within their generation. That is what led me from a very short lived stint as a 'Partial' preterist. Which is something I find interesting. Partial Preterists are great at punching holes within dispensationalism. And how do they do that? By showing that the Dispensationalist ignores the time statements! And yet, they do the same thing! Go figure.

Thirdly, the idea of delay. Let's look at some passages that speaks of delay (I have cited these again and again to partial preterists and have not gotten any answers):

Matthew 24.45-51. ' "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth." '

In this parable, like the ones after it, Jesus refers to his coming. That is, his second coming. Please note that these parables are to explain the nature of his teaching in the first part of this chapter. Specifically, they refer to the timing of his coming. In this parable, Jesus is the 'master' who left a 'slave' in charge while he was away. The 'slave' represents Christains. But not Christians throughout the ages. No. The 'slave' represents a certain group of Christians. The ones who saw him leave. Notice that the 'master' left the 'slave' in charge. He didn't leave instruction to another slave to give to this 'slave' at a future time, but spoke to the 'slave' himself. The 'master' put the 'slave' in charge of his 'household.' The 'household' represents the first century church. But notice what happens next! The 'evil slave says in his heart, "My master in not coming for a long time." ' It is the 'evil slave' who claims that the coming of the 'master' is yet future! But when does the 'master' return? That is the key to eschatology; in fact, it was the disciples question--when is the 'master' returning and to whom? Notice that the 'master' returned to the 'slave' he left! He didn't return to the 'slave's' great-great-great grandchildren! In every one of the parables that Jesus used to explain his sermon in Matthew 24, in each one the person who left returned to the same people he left! Not once did he return to another generation of people. Therefore the 'delay' argument is built on fautly ground.

Fourthly, the delay continued. Do the parables speak of a delay? Does Peter write of a delay? Most certainly. No one is debating that. The problem comes when people try and make the delay thousands of years! That is completely foreign to the texts! How much comfort could Peter have given his recipients if his meaning was that Jesus was coming sometime?! No one knew the exact moment. However, Jesus was clear on who was to witness his coming-the very people he left. He said so on many different occaions.

The 'coming in like manner' argument. I have already addressed this. When taken to its ultimate conclusion, 'in like manner' destroys any future coming scenerio. Jesus left in the view of the disciples. He left alone. No 'thousands of his saints.' No 'white horse.' No 'trumpet.' Etc. For the futurist to make this work, they will have to reinvent what 'in like manner' means.

Well, I could go on and on and on and on and...But I will let the others comment.

Grace to you,

jak

[countrymouse]

Hello, Kermie!

I, too, thank you for this opportunity. Parousia 70 and Odyssey have already given you some excellent responses. It would take volumes to completely deal with all the objections you presented, and I don't know that I have the expertise to deal with it all to your satisfaction. Neither would I expect to convince you or anyone else over the matter of a short time. I will say, though, that, like jak, the journey from partial to full preterism didn't take long for me. The logical implications were inescapable.

I also don't expect to get all of this finished tonight, so bear with me!


from Fred Zaspel's article:

"It has long been recognized that Biblical prophecy is normally fulfilled not in a single event but in a series of events which bring the prophecy to it final culmination. Seldom is the answer one-to-one but one-to-one, two, three, four, and so on. In the unfolding of redemptive history the prophecy is seen to take on a wider or more detailed significance."


I am familiar with the argument of multiple fulfillments of prophecies. Thank goodness Zaspel recognizes that there must be an ultimate, final fulfillment! I can concede to a multiple fulfillment in a certain sense in that Jesus frequently compared the generation of Jews among whom he walked with the generation that was judged through the Babylonian captivity. Just as the Romans destroyed Herod's temple, Nebuchadnezzer had destroyed Solomon's. Just as Antiochus Epiphanes had profaned the temple, the Roman armies brought in their ensigns and bowed down to them. Also, the Zealots profaned the altars with the blood of the priests they murdered (see Josephus).

The generation of Jews during Jesus' ministry was stiff-necked like the generation that perished in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan; they rejected their Messiah because he didn't fulfill their own traditional expectations, even though he fulfilled the Holy Scriptures perfectly. And yes, Jesus defeated Satan, in one sense, by casting out demons during his ministry, and in another sense, by rising from the grave to guarantee eternal life to his elect.

But, all these things were pointing, during Jesus' ministry, to a soon-coming final fulfillment in the consummation of the Old Covenant age. The "this age" to which Jesus and the apostles so often referred was just that: the Old Covenant age. We are not living in that age; the 2nd destruction of the temple by fire was the unmistakable sign of the utter end of that age. This was the ultimate "day of the LORD" that the prophets foretold, and that was prefigured in previous judgments upon not only Jerusalem, but upon Babylon and other civilizations as well.

Here's the thing: rather than multiple fulfillment, I see what constitutes a prefiguring of the true fulfillment. The flood, the Babylonian destruction, the exodus from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea (or sea of reeds - point is, it was deep enough to drown horses and men! But I digress) and A. Epiphanes' desecration all prefigured God's final judgment of the apostate among his people and his deliverance of his faithful ones.
Now, in the New Covenant age, there are no apostates among God's elect! Unlike the Covenant of the Law, which was ineffective (unable to produce eternal life), the New Covenant is 100% effective. It produces life in all of God's people. Being a Calvinist, you know that very well! It is in that sense, also, that God's will is being done on earth as it is in heaven. To Zaspel I would say that Jesus didn't teach "us" to pray "thy kingdom come;" he taught his disciples in that generation, in those last days of the OC age to pray it. Audience relevance!


Ok, let's look at the parable in Luke 19.

vs 11: And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.
(ASV)

Jesus' disciples didn't yet understand how Jesus would fulfill prophecy. They expected him to claim the throne of Israel, gather an army, crush the Romans, and rule the world from Jerusalem. They didn't expect him to die at the hands of their oppressors and wait 40 years to return! Yes, he did delay, as he said. To them, in a generation in which reaching ripe old age was a very rare blessing, 40 years was an excrutiatingly long time to wait!

And, as jak said, in each of these parables, Jesus returned to the people he had left.


For the moment, I'm going to ask permission to come back to the issues of bodily resurrection and personal, visible return. Jak and Peter, don't hesitate to beat me to it if you want to! Those issues can be answered, Brandan, but it will take some time.


You said,
"Similarly, the danger to "all flesh" (Mat.24:22) is too broad a statement to restrict it to Jerusalem. The preterist admits as much when he comes to v.30 the "mourning" of "all flesh," for the preterist, is global in significance."

Here I would answer you the same way I would answer someone protesting predestination. You know that "Arminians" want to call attention to passages about God wanting to save "all men." (I put "Arminians" in parentheses because there are so few real ones left.) The same argument that apples to their protests also applies here. "All flesh," by analogy of Scripture, cannot be taken to mean every human being on the face of the earth! Obviously, at Pentecost, God's Spirit was not poured out on all the human inhabitants of the earth, even though Peter said it fulfilled Joel's prophecy about the last days.


Wow! it's after 11 pm; I will pick this back up when I'm not fighting sleep!

Keep on seeking, asking, and knocking! We're all still doing that!

[countrymouse]

Oops! :o

Sometimes I'm slow, but I eventually get there. Kermie's first three posts on this thread are all Fred Zaspel's article, not objections Kermie raised personally. Sorry, Brandan!

Ok, about 2 Peter 3:8, a day being like a thousand years, etc. Futurists always pull this verse out as though it's some kind of special silver bullet guaranteed to lay preterists to rest at last! However, "a long time," or "delay" does not need to be one or several thousand years! Forty will suffice!

Matthew 24:26-27, about not believing that Christ was in the inner rooms or out in the desert. Josephus, not likely even ever having heard or read this warning, bore witness to the fact that both these things happened. There was a false messiah that led a large number of people out into the desert. There was also someone who led a crowd up into one of the inner rooms of the temple right before it was burned, claiming that God would come down and rescue them if they followed him there. All those people (in both cases) perished at the hands of the Romans. What I find remarkable is that Jesus' warnings were so very specific as to these two events.

Cosmic disturbances and visible return: Zaspel simply failed to consider or understand the apocalyptic nature of the Olivet discourse. Consider this passage from Isaiah 13, warning the Babylonians of the coming of the Medes:

9. Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation, and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.
11. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity: and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12. I will make a man more rare than fine gold, even a man than the pure gold of Ophir.
13. Therefore I will make the heavens to tremble, and the earth shall be shaken out of its place, in the wrath of Jehovah of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

It's no wonder that Isaiah was inspired to describe Babylon's judgment in such terms; Babylonians were famous astrologers, worshiping the sun, moon, stars, and planets. At her final judgment, Jerusalem is called "the secret Babylon" (Rev. 17:5), and Jesus' words hint at this.

Also, in Psalm 18, Consider how David described God delivering him from his enemies:

7. Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations also of the mountains quaked And were shaken, because he was wroth.
8. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, And fire out of his mouth devoured: Coals were kindled by it.
9. He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.
11. He made darkness his hiding-place, his pavilion round about him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
12. At the brightness before him his thick clouds passed, Hailstones and coals of fire.
13. Jehovah also thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered his voice, Hailstones and coals of fire.
14. And he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; Yea, lightnings manifold, and discomfited them.
15. Then the channels of waters appeared, And the foundations of the world were laid bare, At thy rebuke, O Jehovah, At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.


As for signs and portents, Josephus recorded several very strange things that happened. Tacitus, a well-known Roman historian, recorded some of them as well. For one, a cow was said to have given birth to a lamb, I think within the temple complex. On another occasion, the main gate of the temple opened by itself during the night, a gate that took the efforts of several men to open and close each day. Josephus said that those who understood knew that it meant impending judgment. Soldiers and chariots were seen marching upon the clouds over Jerusalem. Voices were heard on one occasion over the temple saying, "Let us depart from hence." Sounds like stuff from the National Enquirer, I'll grant you, but that Tacitus recorded them as well gives one pause.

Ok, this much about the resurrection of the dead: Paul explicitly denied that the body to be raised was an earthly, fleshly body. It is true that Jesus' physical body did not see corruption, and was raised. I wouldn't begin to claim to understand the exact workings of that event, any more than I would claim to understand exactly how Jesus could be completely human and completely divine; I simply know it's true because it's the clear teaching of Scripture. However, Paul's answer to the Corinthians' question about what kind of body the risen saints would have tells me that the Corinthians were probably concerned about the time that was passing, with the bodies of deceased believers decaying in their graves. How was God going to deal with this? Paul's answer:

42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45. So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46. Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
47. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.
48. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Note: "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." That takes care of it for me. Will our physical bodies be raised someday in the future? Not a chance! We already have, I believe, spiritual bodies that wait to "shuffle off this mortal coil."

As for the marriage question, jak and I both gave good answers to that in the "questions for preterists" thread.

Finally, the central message of the whole Bible is the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven at the consummation of the Old Covenant age. Now, how many times are we to expect the Old Covenant age to end and the eternal New Covenant age to begin??? Dare I say it one more time: John the Baptist and Jesus came preaching "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" It wasn't about to sort of come, or come in part; it was about to come! And it did.

I hope this helps! There are dozens of good articles at preteristarchive.com, and make sure you look at their "other study links" section as well.

[Brandan Kraft]

Did you ever find yourself torn between two opposing viewpoints that both seem to be correct? Well, that's where I find myself theologically speaking sometimes.... LOL

I'm sure about one thing... The tribulation already took place. That's not hard for me to grasp at all.... Why is the rest of preterism hard for me to cling to? I don't know...... Thanks for bearing with me, and responding to this article...

Countrymouse, you did a fine job defending your preterist position. I'll be back asking more questions I'm sure as I go off to research some more ;-)

Brandan

[Godswarrior]

Hi all.

Just wanted to introduce myself and say hello. Fine discussion you're all having.

My name is BJ and I hope to visit here more often if I find the time. I am a full preterist and I normally post at the preterist area at notdeceived.net. Perhaps other preterists here might want to check that space out sometime.

Once can get there by clicking here. (http://notdeceived.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=17)

In the meantime, I am glad my online friend Parousia 70 told me about this spot.

I'll keep lurking a bit, but for now just wanted to say hello.

YBIC,
GW

[Andrew]

countrymouse,
-------------
Note: "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." That takes care of it for me. Will our physical bodies be raised someday in the future? Not a chance! We already have, I believe, spiritual bodies that wait to "shuffle off this mortal coil."
-------------

Christians who believe in a "physical" ressurection are in no way saying/believing that they will be raised in their old-type physical flesh/blood bodies. ie the biological bodies u and i have now. We will have new bodies. what it is like i dont know, the Bible doesnt say, just know that it'll be something like Jesus' after he was raised. that's why Paul said "changed" in the twinkling of an eye. if I'm alive and remain when the rapture happens, then i'm certainly not going up in this old body, cos even if i cld survive the ascent and depressurisation, i wldn tbe able to stand in the glory of God! *LOL

For a diff perspective on God's timetable, you can check out the Tabernacle construction at

http://www.unlimitedglory.org/patterncontents.htm

[countrymouse]

Hi, Andrew! Nice to see you on this thread!

I'm glad we agree that the resurrection body is not of a corruptible, fleshly nature. Unfortunately, many non-preterists, in order to try to refute preterist eschatology, retreat to a hyper-physical concept of the resurrection.

You said:
"if I'm alive and remain when the rapture happens, then i'm certainly not going up in this old body, cos even if i cld survive the ascent and depressurisation, i wldn tbe able to stand in the glory of God! *LOL "

How true! :) Except that, as you know, I and many others believe that the resurrection has already happened!


Until about seven years ago, I, too, believed that the resurrection was yet to happen. I had read the popular books about last things, such as Late Great Planet Earth, and I was in general agreement with a premillenial, pretribulational model of eschatology. However, I kept feeling convicted that I should make sure that what I believed about this, as about other things, lined up with God's word, the Bible. I was also teaching a Sunday School class at the time, and we were rapidly approaching the book of Revelation. I knew I could teach the book from a premil point of view easily enough, but that nagging feeling that I needed to really check it out in the Scripture, that I could thoroughly back it up, wouldn't go away. I take a very high view of Scripture, by the way, as the infallible word of God and record of redemptive history.

Guess what: when I went to the word to try to show myself that what I'd been taught was true, the whole system fell like a house of cards! Not all at once, mind you. Nevertheless, concept by concept, the Bible itself showed me that what I had believed was false. Let me assure you, I took great care and much time over the matter, with a great deal of soul-searching and prayer. I wanted to be very careful not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." It wasn't until after I'd drawn the conclusions that led to the full preterist view that I discovered there were others who believed the same thing! I didn't even know there was a name for it!

I can also assure you that full preterist eschatology can be thoroughly and effectively defended through Scripture. However, each one has to make up his or her own mind! I also take a high view of God's ability and willingness to teach each one of us, through the Holy Spirit, just as he said he would. I would never want to beat you over the head with it (preterism), but if you want to discuss it, we can. I also promise that I will look at the link you posted above. Thanks for the response!

[Parousia70]

Thanks for stopping by BJ,
Keep lurking as long as you like, and I will join you in encouraging the other preterists here to hop over to notdecieved.net. some finre discussions going on there as well.

Again, Glad to have you BJ!

Countrymouse, Odyssey, Kermie etal, you'll find brother BJ to be quite eloquent and he has an uncanny ability to shed the "AH HAH!!" light on some of the most misunderstood areas of preterism. He has been a great blessing to me in my journey!(as have you all of course!)

Peace,
Peter

[Parousia70]

Hi Andrew, welcome back! I hope you decide to stick around a while.

Quick question..
Should we,as Christians support the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and subsequent re institution of animal blood sacrifices?
Do you support it?

Thanks,
Peter

[Brandan Kraft]

Found another article that I believe is very well written. It seems to be in the middle of most partial preterism and complete preterism.. I disagree with most of it, but find it interesting to say the least.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/mckenzie-duncan_pp_01.html

Would you mind telling me what you think of it?

Thanks!

Brandan

[Parousia70]

Hey Kerm,

I glossed over the link, I'll read in depth when I have the time.

Interesting stuff,
I find his "Gog Magog" theory somewhat intriguing but I'm just not ready to climb on board with the notion that a future battle of global superpowers will be fought with "spears, bows & arrows, sheilds and javelins"

Not to mention the 200 million man army on horseback.

(a side note on that: as far as my study into the topic goes, assuming the rate increases on it's present course, the global equine population won't reach 200 million until about the year 2330)

Gotta go...

Peace,
Peter

[Brandan Kraft]

Yeah, well I don't buy that either. LOL

He does present a different interesting perspective though that I have never really heard before...

Brandan

[Andrew]

Yeo Peter,
--------------
Quick question..
Should we,as Christians support the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and subsequent re institution of animal blood sacrifices? Do you support it?
---------------
Odd ?. is it a trick?*LOL
No I dont think they shld or need to cos it's gonna be rebuilt anyhow by the Jews. And no, Chrisitans wldnt support the reinstitution of blood sacrifices simply becos Jesus is the final sacrifice. :p

[Parousia70]

No. not a trick LOL.

your answer indicatied that Christians shouldn't support any rebuilding effort.
I agree.

now to take it a step further...

Should we as Christians actively work to prevent the rebuilding of the temple?

You did allude to a belief that the temple will get built anyway.

Nothing can be done to stop it?

If that is true, it must be "God Ordained", yes?
If so, why not support it?
If it is God's will it be built, shouldn't Christians want it built as well, or is this an instance where Christians should not support the will of God?

Peace,
Peter

[Andrew]

oh that's what you are getting at.

there's a diff. Christians "support" the rebuilding in the sense that they know that's another very clear sign of the return of Christ, as seen in the Bible. But that need not mean that they start giving money and start helping to lay the bricks so to speak. It's gonna be done anyhow, with or without the help of Christians. And it does not mean that they the also support the sacrifice of bulls and goats, you are lumping the 2 together.

again, what they are "supporting" is the return of Christ, the rebuilding of the temple being one very important milestone/sign, so they want to see that happening, not animal sacrifices.

will of God. Adam sinned. It was gonna happen like it or not. does that mean it's God's will that man sinned? and that we should cheer Adam on? i dont know and it doesnt really matter to me - too philosophical.

:)

[countrymouse]

Kermie,

I finished reading the article and am in the middle of writing a response to Dr. McKenzie's ideas. That's going to take some time, and it will be a lengthy response. But I can offer a few ideas in brief at this point:

Here's how I summarized Dr. McKenzie's ideas in the article, regarding eschatology: (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Dr. McKenzie said that Jesus returned in AD 70 and established the Kingdom. He sees the millennium as having begun in 70 AD, and believes it ended in 1948 with the “restoration” of Palestine to the Jews. It isn’t clear whether he equates the Kingdom with the millennial reign. He thinks that Israel (geographical) will soon come into a period of peace, and that Gog and Magog will then arise, led by Satan, to attack Israel, Christ will destroy them by fire, the white throne judgment will occur, and human history will end. He thinks that the “times of the Gentiles” (Greek, “nations”) was a period of opportunity for salvation extended to non-Jews, a period of time that ended in 1948. He claims that the millennium, which, according to his views, would now have lasted nearly 2,000 years, was the “Day of the Lord.”

1. timing of the millennium: I would place its beginning soon after the demise of Nero, with Vespasian ascending the throne and Titus taking up the war with the Jews. This is time during which Christ and his elect "ruled with a rod of iron" through Titus' armies; the precedence for that interpretation is supported by the OT concept in prophecy. I'll have to explain later. The apex would be the destruction of the temple (judgment of that world/age by fire). The "thousand years" in my opinion, does not stand for any length of time at all. It is a metaphor meaning "completely," or "perfectly according to God's will."

2. In the book of Revelation, Jerusalem is "Sodom and Egypt," (chapter 11, vs 8), and "Babylon" (14:8, 17:5, etc.). I think that sets an acceptable precedence for viewing the apostate and rejected Jewish non-believers as Gog and Magog. I could be wrong, but I see that battle as a metaphor for a persecution of Christ's church immediately preceding the white throne judgment.

3. times of the nations (gentiles): How old is Dr. McKenzie? I can't find any way around the logical implication of what he says about this, the implication being that anyone (gentile) who believed after 1948 is still in his or her sins! You can't get around this by saying, "But the church is Israel, therefore anyone within the church could still believe and be counted as saved." Sorry, won't work! It would be an oxymoron.

4. The "Day of the Lord" has lasted nearly two thousand years! Funny, it never took that long in any of the Old Testament Day of the LORD judgments!

5. Something I didn't mention above: Dr. McKenzie claims to be working by an exegetical hermeneutic. Does he know about analogy of Scripture? He said that it would have been possible for Paul or other true, elect believers of the apostolic period to lose their salvation! But wait! Jesus DID say:

John 6:
37. All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

"I will in no wise cast out." Here's the text with the Strong's reference numbers:

37. |3956| All |3739| that |1325| gives |3427| to me |3588| the |3962| Father |4314| to |1691| me |2240| will come, |2532| and |3588| he |2064| coming |4314| to |3165| me |3364| in no way |1544| I will eject. |1854| -

"in no way" - Strong's Ref. # 3364

Romanized ou me
Pronounced oo may

i.e. GSN3756 and GSN3361; a double negative strengthening the denial; not at all:

I think Dr. McKenzie's exegetical hermeneutic, however superior to a creedal one, is very suspect if it causes Scripture to appear to contradict itself! The Holy Spirit never contradicts himself!

One more objection, familiar to all full preterists: It's recorded in Matthew 5 that Jesus said (with emphasis):

18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

Could the law of Moses be carried out apart from the temple sacrifices??? I think not! "Heaven and earth" (and this can be verified by studying the major prophets) is a Biblical apocalyptic (revelatory) metaphor for the Covenant world. When the temple burned, the Old Covenant "heaven and earth" certainly did pass away, and the accomplishment of all things was finally finished!
Look at the white throne judgment passage in Revelation: see "earth and heaven" fleeing, because there is no place found for them? That's the Old Covenant "earth and heaven!"

Anyway, that's what I've got so far! Hope it helps.

[countrymouse]

Andrew,

I have started reading the article for which you posted the link; it's very interesting! It's a lot longer than McKenzie's article, but when I finish I'll give you a response if you want one. Just say the word. If not, I'll respect your wishes. I'm sure I'll have some questions for you about it, though!

Respectfully,
countrymouse

[Andrew]

countrymouse,

glad you are enjoying the article. The reason i highlighted it to you was more to show you the shadows and types of Jesus in the OT, and how this is one of the ways we can know that the Bible is def not man-made! It also shows that there are no superfluous details in the Bible. As long as you can see that, I'm happy.

:)

[Brandan Kraft]

Hi Dianne,

I read that article in depth and found all kinds of problems with it. It is a unique perspective, that's for sure. I had never thought you could be a dispensational preterist... amazing!

Thanks!
Brandan

[countrymouse]

Originally posted by Andrew
[ The reason i highlighted it to you was more to show you the shadows and types of Jesus in the OT, and how this is one of the ways we can know that the Bible is def not man-made! It also shows that there are no superfluous details in the Bible. As long as you can see that, I'm happy.

:) [/B]

I do agree, Andrew! The Bible is definitely not man-made! Our God is so powerful and good! I am familiar with the concept of shadows and types, although perhaps not so well-versed about them as you. Thanks for the reference.



Kermie,

"dispensational preterist," huh? Another oxymoron, isn't it? lol :)

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Kermie,

"dispensational preterist," huh? Another oxymoron, isn't it? lol :)

Yeah, it's about as strange as me being a Calvinistic Anabaptist!

[disciple]

Originally posted by Parousia70
Hi Kermie,
Very interesting article. I have heard the Mulit fulfillment arguement several times and I keep coming back to Luke 21:20-22. "These be the days of vengence when ALL thing written will be fulfilled"..I don't know about you but I have difficulty attaching a "multiple fulfillment" to that verse. I DID notice how Mr. Zaspel carefully avoided "debunking" that verse and I feel it deserves mention.
i don't know if i agree here. why do you need to "debunk" this verse. perhaps he should have explained it but any calvinist (if that's what you are) knows that all doesn't always mean all without exclusion but is determined by the context. does this verse mean that all things ever written (prophetically by implication i assume) will be fulfilled? i'm not convinced that it does. in fact the parallel in matthew 24:33-34 defines what all things he's talking about, "So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." all means all the things prophetically that He was telling them about in answer to their question, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" perhaps this includes a judgement, a resurrection, and a coming of Christ (vv. 4-32) but i don't think it need be everything that was ever written prophetically as it appears you might read lk 21:20ff.

[disciple]

i've heard the explanation that this generation could be translated this race or that this could refer to the generation that experiences those things spoken of in vv. 4-32. what would be the preterist response to that?

[Odyssey]

disciple,

If one were so inclined as to do a study of the phrase 'this generation' in Matthew, it would be seen that everytime, without fail, Jesus was referring to his generation.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

you are correct. but does this have to mean that this must refer to the generation he was speaking to? is this phrase never used in any other way? it only occurs in four separate places (11:16, 12:41-45, 23:36, and 24:34). is it required that the four contexts be the same reference to the listening generation? i don't necessarily have a problem taking it to be the generation of the people he was speaking to (audience relevance) but do have a problem taking this to mean that all things ever written prophetically were fulfilled and completed in 70AD (note my previous comment on the bottom of page 2 of this thread).

[Odyssey]

disciple,

I think that this is a misunderstanding of some preterist interpretation. I believe all escatological prophecy was fulfilled by 70. There are still ongoing things today.

Grace to you,

jak

PS: Try out this article (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/dennis-todd_p_01.html) by my good friend Todd Dennis.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
There are still ongoing things today.
Like what for example?

[Odyssey]

The furthering of the Kingdom; the eternal gospel; salvation through Christ; the resurrection; etc.

Grace to you,

jak

[Odyssey]

Some interesting statements by N.T. Wright:



Jesus and the Victory of God" (Fortress Press, 1996). Referring to the 13th chapter of Mark and the parallel Gospel accounts in Matthew and Luke, where Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, Wright observes (pp. 343-344): "One of the main reasons, I suppose, why the obvious way of reading the chapter has been ignored for so long must be the fact that in a good deal of Christian theology the fall of Jerusalem has had no theological significance. This has meant not only that Mark 13 is found puzzling, but also that all the references to the same event elsewhere in the gospels -- even where it stares one in the face, as in Luke 13:1-5 -- have been read as general warnings of hellfire in an afterlife, rather than the literal and physical divine-judgment-through-Roman-judgment that we have seen to be characteristic of Jesus' story."

Wright goes on to note that today's scholars, preachers, and laymen tend to read Jesus' apocalyptic discourse on the Mount of Olives, where he makes his fall-of-Jerusalem prophecy (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) as an account of the end of the space-time universe and of Jesus' downward travel to earth in a cloud. But Wright rejects this view as anachronistic -- that is, as totally out of sync with the time and place of Jesus' 1st-century ministry. Wright points out (pp. 345-346): "We must...stress again: as far as the disciples, good first-century Jews as they were, were concerned, there was no reason whatever for them to be thinking about the end of the space-time universe. There was no reason, either in their own background or in a single thing that Jesus had said up to them at that point, for it even to occur to them that the true story of the world, or of Israel, or of Jesus himself, might include either the end of the space-time universe, or Jesus or anyone else floating down to earth on a cloud."

"The disciples WERE, however, very interested in a story which ended with Jesus' coming to Jerusalem to reign as king. They WERE looking for the fulfillment of Israel's hopes, for the story told so often in Israel's scriptures to reach its appointed climax. And the 'close of the age' for which they longed was not the end of the space-time order, but the end of the present evil age...." Jesus' apocalyptic discourse on the Mount of Olives therefore has to do with his "'coming' or 'arrival' in the sense of his actual enthronment as king, consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city."


Taken from the Preterist Archive.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

how did this event (70 AD) provide comfort? how was this the fulfillment of israel's hopes? was this His being enthroned as king or did that happen at the acsension? the apostles in acts seemed to see Jesus already enthroned as king and seemed to see Him as their hope. and the hope of israel was the Christ and the resurrection (acts 23:6, 26:6f, 28:20) not an event like 70AD. how is 70AD the resurrection? weren't they spiritually resurrected already and before that event (if that is how you interpret the resurrection in 1 co 15 et al)? i don't get it? it just seems like we're trying to cram too much into an event like 70AD.

[dogwood]

It's not only those born from Abraham that are Israel. For now there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave or free, male or female. All are made equal in Christ.

The events of AD70 completed the prophecy of Jesus on the Mt. of Olives of the Temple coming down, stone by stone. After that, there was no going back to the Temple system. It was replaced completely and forever more by faith in Christ alone.

Sacrifices were finished. The Priesthood was over, not needed, for Jesus is now HIgh Priest. The Temple was no longer central to worship.

We who believe in Christ from that time to now encompass the New Jerusalem, where God is worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, not only in the city of Jerusalem, but everywhere, just as Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well.

The end of all things was really the end of the strictly Jewish age and the beginning of the New Covenant. Many times it is referred to as the end of the age, which is much more accurate a meaning than the end of the world.

[dogwood]

Originally posted by disciple
i've heard the explanation that this generation could be translated this race or that this could refer to the generation that experiences those things spoken of in vv. 4-32. what would be the preterist response to that?

Jesus goes on to clarify that He means those He is talking to by saying, "some of you who are standing here will not taste death until you see the kingdom of God come upon the earth."

In another place He infers that John may live to see Him return, but that Peter most likely won't. "what is it to you if I will that he (John) tarry 'till I come?"

The only generation that could possibly see the Temple come down was the one of the 1st century. That is in the past and happened right within the time frame of a generation.

[disciple]

Originally posted by dogwood
It's not only those born from Abraham that are Israel. For now there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave or free, male or female. All are made equal in Christ.
i realize this and also realize that Christ fulfilled the OC. this still didn't answer my question. what is the "hope of Israel" in Scripture? how was 70AD the hope in this sense?


The events of AD70 completed the prophecy of Jesus on the Mt. of Olives of the Temple coming down, stone by stone. After that, there was no going back to the Temple system. It was replaced completely and forever more by faith in Christ alone.
amen. but this was true earlier (just read hebrews written pre-70AD).


Sacrifices were finished. The Priesthood was over, not needed, for Jesus is now HIgh Priest. The Temple was no longer central to worship.
again true but didn't need 70AD for this. this was already true and happened at the crucifixion. the veil was rent and at the acsension went into the true Holy of Holies in heaven. the temple was no longer central from that very moment for all those between crucifixion and 70AD. He was our High Priest as well before that.


We who believe in Christ from that time to now encompass the New Jerusalem, where God is worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, not only in the city of Jerusalem, but everywhere, just as Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well.
this too was true pre-70AD. sorry but the Scriptures are clear on this. and don't make too big a deal out of Hebrews 8 where it talks about the Old Covenant being ready to disappear. this does not then make all this about Christ untrue or unrealized until 70AD b/c of this statement. i guess that's the major problem i have for preterism. it makes more out of this event (i.e., 70AD) than out of the crucifixion and acsension. everything seems to ride on 70AD for the preterist. nothing about Jesus seems to be actual or realized until 70AD. too much for me to swallow. i'm sorry...

[dogwood]

Hi Disciple,

Well, the veil was torn according to scripture, but they must have sewn it back together because they did continue sacrificing animals up until AD70. It's a historical fact. It was even in the Nat. Geographic magazine the Feb or Mar. issue. It was the destruction of the Temple that finally ended animal sacrifices. Jesus' crucifixion ended the NEED for them, but the priests continued to offer them.

Those priests had to be physically removed from their office, thus fulfilling Jesus' admonition, "woe to you scribes and Pharisees, keepers of the Law."

[Odyssey]

disciple,

The hope of Israel had always been the resurrection. It wasn't until after Jesus that the disciples 'added' him, if you will, to that hope, for, as you know, he 'is the resurrection.'

How does 70 fulfill that hope for Israel? First, during that time period, there were two parties claiming to be 'Israel,' the Jews and the Christians. 70 proved once and forever who was the true Israel. Second, all throughout the OT, there was always a two edged sword regarding the coming of god--one of judgment and the other side of salvation/restoration. This same thing took place in 70, judgment came to the OC people while deliverance/salvation/restoration came to the NC people.

Regarding Hebrews 8: That is a 'big deal.' For it shows that the OC system was still going on after the crucifixion and ascension. To the 'natural man' they saw that the temple, with all of its functions, still proceeding onward, like nothing had happened. Indeed, to the 'natural man' all appeared the same. However, to the true Israel, letters were written to them showing the spiritual/true importance of Jesus. Although things appeared to be normal, they really weren't. They were beginning to crumble and would continue to do so until the 'end of the age.'

Regarding emphasis of 70: True, a lot of emphasis is placed on this event. It by no means is to take away from Christ's passion. However, to most of us, that event was never even heard of. Also, it fulfills the purpose of the High Priest. According to Lev. 16, the High Priest was to return to the people he left, and place his hands on the scape goat, confess the sins of the nation, and have the scape goat led into the wilderness, signifying that god had forgiven the people and removed their sins. Since Jesus was the HP, and he told those people that he would come to them, he had to to prove that the sins of the people were removed and that they were actually saved. If he has not yet returned, we don't know.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by dogwood
Well, the veil was torn according to scripture, but they must have sewn it back together because they did continue sacrificing animals up until AD70. It's a historical fact. It was even in the Nat. Geographic magazine the Feb or Mar. issue. It was the destruction of the Temple that finally ended animal sacrifices. Jesus' crucifixion ended the NEED for them, but the priests continued to offer them.
sure but what does this have to do with the Christian? you have still not adequately answered my questions. all these things ended and were fulfilled in Jesus (for the Christian) at the crucifixion and acsension. perhaps this mattered to the unbelieving Jews but not to Christians. the disciples didn't wait until 70AD to figure it all out. they were commissioned and they new exactly what to do and weren't left to wonder whether sacrifices had really ceased and whether they really needed the temple anymore. i think that the crucifixion and ascension ended the covenant more than 70AD. certainly to the unbelieving Jew it made it certain that the OC had ended but the Christians already realized this and this is obvious from reading the NT (even though they didn't really realize this as they just replaced the temple and sacrifices with other rituals).

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
How does 70 fulfill that hope for Israel? First, during that time period, there were two parties claiming to be 'Israel,' the Jews and the Christians. 70 proved once and forever who was the true Israel. Second, all throughout the OT, there was always a two edged sword regarding the coming of god--one of judgment and the other side of salvation/restoration. This same thing took place in 70, judgment came to the OC people while deliverance/salvation/restoration came to the NC people.
i agree but the followers of Christ were already living fully in the NC and all this was a reality to them immediately after the crucifixion. they didn't need to wait until 70AD to have this shown. it just seemed that dogwood was placing too much empahsis on 70AD to the point of almost denigrating the crucifixion and ascension.


Regarding Hebrews 8: That is a 'big deal.' For it shows that the OC system was still going on after the crucifixion and ascension. To the 'natural man' they saw that the temple, with all of its functions, still proceeding onward, like nothing had happened. Indeed, to the 'natural man' all appeared the same. However, to the true Israel, letters were written to them showing the spiritual/true importance of Jesus. Although things appeared to be normal, they really weren't. They were beginning to crumble and would continue to do so until the 'end of the age.'
certainly this ended the sacrifices in practice for the unbelieving Jews but they were already fulfilled and ended in Christ for the Christians. dogwood seemed to be applying 70AD to the Christians and their need to see the OC end.


Regarding emphasis of 70: True, a lot of emphasis is placed on this event. It by no means is to take away from Christ's passion. However, to most of us, that event was never even heard of. Also, it fulfills the purpose of the High Priest. According to Lev. 16, the High Priest was to return to the people he left, and place his hands on the scape goat, confess the sins of the nation, and have the scape goat led into the wilderness, signifying that god had forgiven the people and removed their sins. Since Jesus was the HP, and he told those people that he would come to them, he had to to prove that the sins of the people were removed and that they were actually saved. If he has not yet returned, we don't know.
but Christ's resurrection and ascension is what proved that the sins were removed and that they were forgiven and saved. they didn't need 70AD to know this. this also is very clear from reading the NT and the whole tenor of the NT. they realized that their sin had been taken care of and that there was no longer any need for sacrifice b/c Christ was the fulfillment. they already knew this and did not need a 70AD event to prove this. again, you're proving my point that there is way too much emphasis placed on the 70AD event in the life of a Christian. it seems to further illustrate that a preterist minimizes the importance of the crucifixion and ascension in the life of a Christian. the focus becomes skewed IMHO. hope has never been applied to the 70AD by Scripture or by any church fathers. my hope is founded in the crucifixion (resurrection) and ascension and not in 70AD. i think this lines up much better with the Scriptures.

[dogwood]

Disciple,

How do you interpret Luke 21:20-28? What does verse 28 mean? When these things take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

Does it mean their redemption was not yet complete until those things happened? It seems that way to me.

The reason I think the Temple coming down was so very necessary, is because during the time of intense persecution the new converts would be tempted to go back to what was more comfortable for them. The persecution came more from the Pharisees than it did from the Gentiles. Nero's persecution began much later and was not nearly as intent on erradicating them as the non believing Jews were.

In Acts 3 we see Peter and John still praying at the Temple. Then they heal the beggar and the priests and co. come in to question them and Peter gives his eloquent Spirit filled sermon and in ch. 4 they order them to stop preaching about Jesus. They refuse and at this point in time there is nothing the priests, etc can do because the people just witnessed this miracle.

It's not until Acts 10 that Peter learns (vs. 34, 35) that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right. Then in vs. 44-48 they witness the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles, which confirms it.

Now the church is starting to spread around the world the way God intended.

Judgment was pronounced on the scribes and Pharisees in Matt. 23.

In Matt. 27:25 the people answered, "Let His blood be on us and on our children." Flip back to Matt. 23: 35-38 where Jesus prophecied this exact event. He held that generation (that saw His miracles and heard Him teach) responsible for all the evil done to God's people from Abel to Zecharia(A to Z, in other words, all of them).

They were not to know the day or hour, but they knew the judgment would come to pass within a generation and the key sign they were given was the temple coming down.

[Odyssey]

Concerning salvation: As I stated before, the return played a key point in salvation. It coincided with the return of the high priest from the holy of holies and the release of the scapegoat. This event signified to the people that god had indeed forgiven them. That is, their salvation would not be complete until the high priest returned to the people he left. We see the same things taught about Jesus:

Romans 13.11. 'And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.'

Hebrews 9.28. 'so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.'

1Peter 1.6-9. 'In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.'

It seems that there was an aspect of the dreaded 'already but not yet' going on during the NT time. Although they were given the promise and seal of the Holy Spirit, their salvation would not be complete until the 'apppearing a second time' of Christ. This promise was to be fulfilled within their lifetime based on the express teachings of both the Old and New Testaments, specifically Lev. 16 and the teachings and parables of Jesus.

What 70 did was bring the promised judgment and salvation when it was supposed to happen. It fulfilled the word of god to the letter and once and for all proved that the church was the 'Israel of God.'

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by dogwood
Disciple,

How do you interpret Luke 21:20-28? What does verse 28 mean? When these things take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

Does it mean their redemption was not yet complete until those things happened? It seems that way to me.
yes there is an "already/not yet" aspect of our redemption but this applies to everyone even us today. our bodies have not yet been redeemed in the Ro 8:23 and 1 Co 15 sense. of course this is yet another area which must be reinterpreted by preterists b/c all has been fulfilled. to say that redemption was not complete until 70AD (and this alone was the fulfillment) is to again minimize the ascension and denigrate the finished work of Christ.

also, in the sense that Christ is our redemption (cf. 1 co 1:30, then yes if He is coming (or came) in judgment a la Mt 24 (lk 21 et al) then their redemption was drawing near, approaching, or coming near however you want to translate it.

the Scripture while having this "already/not yet" aspect clearly says that our redemption was complete prior to 70AD (cf. ro 3:24; eph 1:7; col 1:14; heb 9:12, 15). but there is still yet a future aspect of redemption (cf. ro 8:23; eph 1:14, 4:30) even for us. of course the preterist would put this all at 70AD. again, i think it puts too much of our salvation and hope in an event that was meant for judgment on Israel or the Jews. this is wrong and misguided focus IMHO.


The reason I think the Temple coming down was so very necessary, is because during the time of intense persecution the new converts would be tempted to go back to what was more comfortable for them. The persecution came more from the Pharisees than it did from the Gentiles. Nero's persecution began much later and was not nearly as intent on erradicating them as the non believing Jews were.
this is true. but this is never said to be their hope in the Scripture. this doesn't fit the picture of hope. an act of judgment by outside nations was never a source of hope for God's people. Christ is the hope b/c He is the resurrection. OD was right that the hope of Israel was the resurrection. this is verified all over the OT and in the Gospels and Acts. also reading the Aprocrypha it is readily apparent that the resurrection was the hope of God's people. but Christ doesn't get "added" but He is the fulfillment because He is the resurrection.

also the fact of the matter is that as i said previously, the true believing Jews who were Christians didn't need 70AD. while some were confused about the Gentile issue, they were not at all confused about sacrifices, etc. they didn't need 70AD to tell them that they no longer needed to sacrifice, etc. believing in Christ required one to understand that He was the anti-typical sacrifice for the OC and that He was the fulfillment. this is basic to the Christian faith and the entire NT.

[Odyssey]

Except for the fact the many of the Jewish Christians were still 'zealous for the law' (Acts 21.20). Paul even continued to go to the temple for feast days and such. He even shaved his head because of a vow to god (21.20-26). The whole tenor of the book of Hebrews was about not going back to Judaism. In all appearances, the OC was still operational. The Jewish Christians were torn between two worlds--one visible; one invisible. It was not as easy as you make it out to be. Look at Paul's struggle in Romans 7.

Furthermore, the future aspect that awaits 'all Christians' is erroneous. The Bible clearly teaches that those things were coming upon the first century church; that they were not yet established. In fact, the judgment and the resurrection were both tied to the 'end of the age.' There is no way around that. If it did not happen we need to ask ourselves why. If it did not happen, we need to ask ourselves about the diety of Jesus of Nazareth; the 'authority' of the apostles; and the infallibility' of the 'bible.' This issue has not been dealt with. If Paul believed and taught a lie, then what does that make of our 'salvation?' Why would the apostles state that there was still a future aspect to salvation if it was all accomplished at the passion and resurrection of Jesus?

Concerning the other aspects of those things, i.e., what nature they partake, all the preterist has to do is re-think his tradition. Show me where the apostles ever taught a third or fouth coming of Jesus--one that was the 'real' coming. Show me where they taught that the fall of Jerusalem would only be a type of the 'real' end. Show me where the judgment of Israel was only a picture of the 'real' judgment at the 'end of the world.' If this can be proven, then I will gracefully bow out.

I had the great honour of speaking with David Chilton before he died (he came to OK back in Feb. of '95, I think). He asked me if I had read his book Paradise Restored. I told him that we started to, but quickly put it down. He asked why. We told him that, while we thoroughly enjoyed the way he proved the error of dispensationalism by using audience relevance and time statements, we couldn't accept his future coming of Jesus because of the audience relevance and time statements. That is, everyone of the passages he used to support his view of a future coming, had time statements and audience relevance all over them. He asked me, point blank, 'Why didn't you tell me?' I said, 'Me? Whom am I? I am just a layman. You are a theologian. You wouldn't have listened to me.' To make a long story shorter, before our conversation was through, we were all crying and hugging. It was a great experience.

My point in that story was to show that even those who hold to partial preterism, like Chilton used to (he became a 'full preterist' before his death), maintain that most of the NT was fulfilled by the time Jerusalem fell, to hold on to their futurism, they have to ignore the same things the dispensationalists do--audience relevance and the time statements. Granted, those things make the 'great white throne judgment,' the resurrection, the judgment of Satan, etc. difficult (or down-right impossible) to interpret. However, we can't just pretend that those statements couldn't have happened because they don't fit our understanding of them. The 'church' has taught for centuries that infant baptism is ok. But it can't be supported in Scripture. It has taught that the 'Lord's Supper' actually becomes the 'flesh and blood' of Jesus, also without Scripture. The point here is that, just because the 'church' has always believed something, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
Except for the fact the many of the Jewish Christians were still 'zealous for the law' (Acts 21.20). Paul even continued to go to the temple for feast days and such. He even shaved his head because of a vow to god (21.20-26). The whole tenor of the book of Hebrews was about not going back to Judaism. In all appearances, the OC was still operational. The Jewish Christians were torn between two worlds--one visible; one invisible. It was not as easy as you make it out to be. Look at Paul's struggle in Romans 7.
true. i don't deny this. but they did not continue to practice sacrifices. if you can show me that they (true Christians and not unbelieving Jews) still did then i stand corrected. also it is quite evident that they understood or were told clearly that the temple and sacrifices were no longer necessary (cf. all of galatians, acts 15, col 2:16-23; all of hebrews). you can try to lump it all together (i.e., cultural/religious practices with sacrifices and temple) but the NT does not show this. your implications seem to indicate that you believe that some who embraced Christ as the complete and final sacrifice still wanted to go to the temple for sacrifices. i don't think one could have been a true Christian who believed and practiced this. and the book of acts or any other NT writing gives the impression that they still wanted to maintain sacrifices, etc. (perhaps they wanted to keep some jewish customs and those who professed Christ were tempted to return to judaism b/c of the persecution a la the book of hebrews but it does not follow that they also wanted to continue to offer sacrifices, etc.


In fact, the judgment and the resurrection were both tied to the 'end of the age.' so was Christ only with them (the disciples according to audience relevance) and only until 70AD (mt 28:19ff)? and do you take the Great Commission to only apply to the disciples who He was talking to here or does it apply to us now as well? if you carry your audience relevance hermeneutic to its logical conclusions then nothing in the NT applies to us (including mt 28:19ff). how about when He or the disciples called someone to believe in the NT? He/they were speaking to specific individuals so it must not apply to or be directed to us as well, correct? so how can we apply these principles (the gospel, etc.) to anyone but to those to whom it was spoken in accordance with audience relevance? it just seems to minimize the fact that Scripture is living and active and is directed not only to those whom it was originally written (in the writer's mind, etc.) but by the design of God was also written with us in mind.


Why would the apostles state that there was still a future aspect to salvation if it was all accomplished at the passion and resurrection of Jesus?
you must not have read my entire post. as a reminder i said, "the Scripture while having this "already/not yet" aspect clearly says that our redemption was complete prior to 70AD (cf. ro 3:24; eph 1:7; col 1:14; heb 9:12, 15). but there is still yet a future aspect of redemption (cf. ro 8:23; eph 1:14, 4:30) even for us. of course the preterist would put this all at 70AD. again, i think it puts too much of our salvation and hope in an event that was meant for judgment on Israel or the Jews. this is wrong and misguided focus IMHO."


Show me where they taught that the fall of Jerusalem would only be a type of the 'real' end. Show me where the judgment of Israel was only a picture of the 'real' judgment at the 'end of the world.' If this can be proven, then I will gracefully bow out.
you assume based on your presupposition that 70 AD was what Jesus was referring to (e.g., mt 24, etc.) what do you do with events in the OT that forshadow the 'real' end and the 'real' judgment at the 'end of the world?' what do you do with antiochus epiphenes? what was this. you cannot prove with chapter and verse that 70AD was the (one and only) fulfillment of Jesus words (e.g., mt 24, etc.) any more than i can reference chapter and verse for any events in OT times or NT times that truly forshadowed or pictured prophecy. there isn't any for OT or NT. the only specific prophecies that were confirmed to have been fulfilled were all those related to the Messiah. these were all confirmed in writing in the NT.


The 'church' has taught for centuries that infant baptism is ok. But it can't be supported in Scripture. It has taught that the 'Lord's Supper' actually becomes the 'flesh and blood' of Jesus, also without Scripture. The point here is that, just because the 'church' has always believed something, doesn't necessarily make it right.
yes but there have always been those who have opposed this and there has always been teaching otherwise. this is not the case with preterism. nothing of the sort (all prophecy has been completely fulfilled) was taught prior to the last 100 or so years as far as i know. this is not support for preterism but just perhaps something to think about for those wanting to cherish those doctrines and traditions that aren't actually substantiated from Scripture. the only thing is that i truly believe futurism is substantiated from Scripture.

[Odyssey]

But what are you basing your futurism on? Why go to the extreme when we refer to audience relevance? You only seem to do this with issues you don't agree with. When it comes to soteriology, you use audience relevance. But, here, when it comes to eschatology, you go to the extreme. For you its either one or the other. You stated that I am assuming that all was fulfilled in AD 70, while you are assuming it was not. What do you base your assumption on? Because things weren't fulfilled physcially? Because they weren't recorded in history exactly the way they were spoken? I base mine on the express statements of Jesus and the apostles that their generation would witness those events. Either they did (and the writers were right) or they didn't (and they were wrong). He told them that they should go to Jerusalem and wait until the comforter came. What did they do? Did they say, 'Well, this is for all Christains and doesn't really mean us.' No. They went to Jerusalem and waited. When he told Paul to go to Rome, did Paul not go?

Furthermore, if we go to the extreme, why did the Jewish Christians practice any of the OC at all? Since Jesus fulfilled it all at the cross, what was the point of going to the temple on holy days? Or debating circumcision? Or dietary laws?

Concering the 'great commission:' I whole-heartedly believe that that was for the disciples. Does this mean that I don't believe we are supposed to witness? Of course not. That is the whole point of biblical interpretation--to determine what is useful for us today and what is not. Do we look at the OT and state, 'Well, it's all history so it has no relevance for us today.' No. And no preterist that I know has ever even implied that concerning preterism. It is always made by those who oppose it. As I have showed before, there is express teaching that the gospel continues beyond the end of the OC age.

Concerning 'sacrifices' made by Jewish Christians: So are we gong to debate what things we should still practice and what things we shouldn't? Are only the sacrifices fulfilled? And are only the blood sacrifices fulfilled? I don't know if they did or not. However, you can't prove if they didn't. With that stated, there are strong implications regarding the continuation of the Law (Acts 15, Galatians, etc.). The Law would include sacrifices. If they (and we are both speculating here) did not follow certain aspects of the law, why don't we have any teaching on what they should continue doing and not doing? Instead, we see Jewish Christians still going to the Temple for Holy days, making vows according to Law, requiring circumcision, dietary laws, etc.

Concering the longevity of preterism: Have you read the articles at the Preterst Archive? Most of the 'church' has some form of preterism in its history (heck, even dispensationalists have some!). And, when lumped all together, because they didn't agree with what passages were already fulfilled, you have 'full' preterism.

Concerning Matt. 24 not being fulfilled in 70: So when Jesus told them about the destruction of the temple, they would not have thought it was there own? The one that they just left? You are assuming that Jesus did not mean 70 in Matthew 24. Read Malachi. God clearly taught that the generation that saw 'Elijah' would see the end of the 'world.' Jesus' contemporaries saw him. Daniel was told that his resurrection would be at the 'full end of the age.' If you conclude that that age ended in 30, where was Daniel's resurrection? If it ended in 30, why does the writer of Hebrews state that it was still existing and 'becoming obsolete'? What was the 'end of all things' that Peter wrote about? What was the 'judment about to come' that Paul and Peter wrote and spoke about? What was the 'rising up of the righteous and unrighteous' that Paul said was 'about to' take place? What event in their immediate history would qualify for the fulfillment of those things? Are we going to erroneously apply 2Pet. 3 to those time statements to make them fit our understanding?

John wrote that only after the wrath of god was fulfilled could people enter into his presense (Rev. 15.8). Do we not have access to god's presense today?

I am sorry, but no matter how one wants to slice it, if those things did not take place when they were supposed to (which is just as important as to what was to take place), then Jesus was a false prophet and we above all men, should be pittied. Our lives have been based on a lie.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
But what are you basing your futurism on? Why go to the extreme when we refer to audience relevance? You only seem to do this with issues you don't agree with. When it comes to soteriology, you use audience relevance. But, here, when it comes to eschatology, you go to the extreme. For you its either one or the other.
perhaps you didn't read my post close enough or i wasn't clear enough. i was using your reference to audience relevance (in the case of mt 24, etc.) as an illustration by bringing it to its logical result. if you are to take it to the extent you are with mt 24 et al in the soteriological passages you'd have no message to pass on to others. you'd have no gospel and no great commission. that was all i was saying. if in mt 24 he was talking to the disciples and only them then the same applies in mt 28:19ff. get the connection?


You stated that I am assuming that all was fulfilled in AD 70, while you are assuming it was not. What do you base your assumption on? Because things weren't fulfilled physcially? Because they weren't recorded in history exactly the way they were spoken? I base mine on the express statements of Jesus and the apostles that their generation would witness those events. Either they did (and the writers were right) or they didn't (and they were wrong). He told them that they should go to Jerusalem and wait until the comforter came. What did they do? Did they say, 'Well, this is for all Christains and doesn't really mean us.' No. They went to Jerusalem and waited. When he told Paul to go to Rome, did Paul not go?
i wasn't saying that it (70AD) wasn't a fulfillment of mt 24. i'm just saying that you cannot chapter and verse the exact fulfillment or prove it from Scripture any more than you can in the OT (excepting the fulfillments of Jesus). you conjecture that 70AD was the fulfillment. i'm not arguing that it wasn't a fulfillment but that i cannot chapter and verse where 70 AD is a shadow or type any more than you can chapter and verse where it says that 70AD is THE fulfillment. this is what i was responding to:


Show me where the apostles ever taught a third or fouth coming of Jesus--one that was the 'real' coming. Show me where they taught that the fall of Jerusalem would only be a type of the 'real' end. Show me where the judgment of Israel was only a picture of the 'real' judgment at the 'end of the world.' If this can be proven, then I will gracefully bow out.


Furthermore, if we go to the extreme, why did the Jewish Christians practice any of the OC at all? Since Jesus fulfilled it all at the cross, what was the point of going to the temple on holy days? Or debating circumcision? Or dietary laws?
very true. but i think that it is clear that they if they received Christ that they no longer offered sacrifices.


Concering the 'great commission:' I whole-heartedly believe that that was for the disciples. Does this mean that I don't believe we are supposed to witness? Of course not. That is the whole point of biblical interpretation--to determine what is useful for us today and what is not. Do we look at the OT and state, 'Well, it's all history so it has no relevance for us today.' No. And no preterist that I know has ever even implied that concerning preterism. It is always made by those who oppose it. As I have showed before, there is express teaching that the gospel continues beyond the end of the OC age.
on what basis do you determine what is useful for us today and what is not? how do you weed out or determine when audience relevance can be applied to us?


Concerning 'sacrifices' made by Jewish Christians: So are we gong to debate what things we should still practice and what things we shouldn't? Are only the sacrifices fulfilled? And are only the blood sacrifices fulfilled? I don't know if they did or not. However, you can't prove if they didn't. With that stated, there are strong implications regarding the continuation of the Law (Acts 15, Galatians, etc.). The Law would include sacrifices. If they (and we are both speculating here) did not follow certain aspects of the law, why don't we have any teaching on what they should continue doing and not doing? Instead, we see Jewish Christians still going to the Temple for Holy days, making vows according to Law, requiring circumcision, dietary laws, etc.
you're right we could speculate and go back and forth on this all day. i'm basing my assertion on the writings of the NT (as i'm sure you are too), in particular the writings of Paul in romans, gal, the book of hebrews, and 1 peter. they were very strong in telling the readers that Christ was the final sacrifice and substitute.


Concering the longevity of preterism: Have you read the articles at the Preterst Archive? Most of the 'church' has some form of preterism in its history (heck, even dispensationalists have some!). And, when lumped all together, because they didn't agree with what passages were already fulfilled, you have 'full' preterism.
some of them. there were no really definitive early witnesses. they did not confirm a preterist view. i can see that they saw mt 24 et al as fulfilled in 70AD but not 1 co 15, 1 th, 2 th, and rev. and judgment, resurrection, and second coming.

[Odyssey]

The basis for what is useful today is the same to which you would hold, i.e., there are principles in the Bible that are eternal. However, when god told Moses that he would be a 'god' to the people, we can't take that for us today. Furthermore, when he told him to go strike the water and it would turn to blood, we can't use that today. That had specific, historic, relevance. When god told Abram to sacrifice his son, we can't use that for us today. I could on and on. However, we can look at the principle in those things, eg., Abram--forsaking everything, even those things that are most precious to us, and follow god.

Furthermore, there are promises (which I have stated before) about the continuing on of the gospel (Isaiah 65-66, for example). The healing tree in Revelation for the healing of the nations. Why would the nations need healing if this was heaven?

Concerning audience relevance and it's 'logical conclusion': Your definition is no more logical that stating that salvation should not be preached because god elects those whom he will save. You are building a straw man here.

Concerning 70 as 'a' fulfillment of Matt. 24: Show me what else it could be? All throughout the NT the writers wrote that the end was coming soon--did it or didn't it? They all, in one accord wrote and preached of only one end. Were they wrong?

Jesus stated that he would return and 'reward everyman according to his works' before those standing with him had all died. Was he wrong?

He also stated that his generation would 'see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven.' Was he wrong?

Paul preached that the judgment and resurrection were 'about to' take place. Was he wrong?

Peter wrote that 'the end of all things' was at hand. Was he wrong?

The writer to the Hebrews wrote 'a very, very little [while]' Jesus would come and 'would not tarry.' Was he wrong?

John wrote that it was the 'last hour' and that antichrist was already present and that the 'world was passing away.' Was he wrong?

He also wrote that the all of the events of Revelation 'must shortly take place' because time for their fulfillment 'was at hand.' Was he wrong?

You may be able to state that they were. And I would respect that. I, on the other hand, can't state such things.

Grace to you,

jak

[Parousia70]

This is a great discussion you are having here!
I'd like to interject a couple of observations if i may......


Originally posted by disciple

if you can show me that they (true Christians and not unbelieving Jews) still did (practice sacrifices) then i stand corrected.

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. (Paul included)

I assume you agree that Paul was a "True" Christian?
Why did Paul, and the apostles in general, continue to sacrifice in the temple after the crusifixion? Jesus told them to!

Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Disciple, correct me if I'm wrong but, if you are teaching others that the Law of Moses is not to be followed today, and Heaven and earth have yet to pass, then isn't Jesus referring to you here?



Originally posted by disciple
you assume based on your presupposition that 70 AD was what Jesus was referring to (e.g., mt 24, etc.) what do you do with events in the OT that forshadow the 'real' end and the 'real' judgment at the 'end of the world?' what do you do with antiochus epiphenes? what was this.

Jesus bypassed any declared fulfillemnt of Daniels AoD in Antiochus, claiming that partiular prophesys fulfillement was yet future when he spoke, and His interpratation is authoritative for me. Antiochus didn't fulfill any of Daniles AoD. not even a smidgen.


Originally posted by disciple
you cannot prove with chapter and verse that 70AD was the (one and only) fulfillment of Jesus words (e.g., mt 24, etc.) any more than i can reference chapter and verse for any events in OT times or NT times that truly forshadowed or pictured prophecy.

I believe I can do Just that.
Jesus himself placed a terminus on the fulfillment of everything written about Him:

Luke 18:31
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.

And Jesus placed this terminus at 70 AD.

Luke 21:20-22
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

The "all things written" of Luke 18 are the same "all things written" of Luke 21. They can not be divorced from oneanother.
All things written about Messiah were fortold to be accomplished in the one and only messianic generation, which began at the "end of the age" and consumated with the establishment of the full grown church being declared for every eye to see as Gods one and only Chosen people, and Holy nation.
This "messianic generation" prophesy did not fail. It all came to pass, on time, as prophesied.

Jesus Himself declares the events that were to transpire between 66-70AD to be the fulfillment of all things written about Him by the law and the prophets, and His intrpratation is, once again, authoritative for me.

Your theory would have some teeth if Jesus in fact came the first time to usher in another age of types and shadows, however we know that is not true. Jesus is the fulfillment.

It dosen't keep getting fulfilled again and again in a greater way.

Is Calvary a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin? If not Why not?

As Odyssey said, there are plenty of Biblical truths that have ongoing relevance for all the generations of man, into the ages, world without end, amen. But the endtimes isn't one of them.

There can be only one endtimes generation, and all the apostles believed and taught that they were that generation, and yet again, their inerpratation is authoritative for me.

YBIC,
P70

[disciple]

thanks for the comments parousia. i'll have to chew on that a bit.

i've been thinking about it and i believe i've pinpointed the problem i have with a preterist view of the covenants. i don't have a problem with the OC continuing on or overlapping with the NC because the covenants were made with different parties. where i have a problem is when preterists seem to be saying that the NC didn't really start until 70AD. i would say that more accurately that the NC started fully at the cross and the OC was disabled at the cross but was not fully passed away until 70AD. perhaps i'm reading into it but it just seems that preterists minimize the cross in the NC. i think that 70AD only had application to the OC and those who were under it and had no application whatsoever for the NC and those who are under it. for those who were under both covenants then they were still under the OC until 70AD so it would affect them. do you know what i'm saying? can you appreciate that? if i'm mistaken with the preterist notion of applying 70AD to the NC then please correct me. thanks!

[Parousia70]

Hi disciple,
I certainly can appriciate and understand how you would come to that conclusion, but I think you are overlooking a few things.

The 40 years between The cross and 70 are the fulfillment of the "type" seen in the exodous. The Jews were wandering in the wilderness 40 years after being set free from egypt. Even though they were free from the bondage of Egypt the moment they left, they still considered themselves slaves to egypt up until the moment they entered the promised land.

Their freedom was paid for the moment they left Egypt, but was not fully realized until they entered the promised land 40 years (a generation) later.

While I agree the NC was born on the cross, I believe your assertion that the NC Church was born "full grown" has various problems.

There are several things that were yet to come to pass at the time of pentacost that had to come to pass before the NC Church could be established in it's "fullness".

I believe the NC was indeed paid for on the cross, and the Church was established in infancy on Pentecost. She was incomplete in organization (there were no elders for some time), she was incomplete in composition (there were no Gentiles converted on Pentecost were there?); and she was incomplete in her constitution (revelation was not completed until later).

Here's an exerpt from Don Prestons thoughts on the matter. I believe they address your difficulty quite well.
**************************************

What follows will demonstrate the fallacy of teaching the church was established in full power, glory, completeness, and maturity on Pentecost.

Some Powerful Implications

If it is the case that miracles were to equip the church to do the work of the ministry until the church came to maturity, Ephesians 4:8-16, and; if it is the case that the church was established in full completeness and maturity on Pentecost; then it must be true that miracles were to equip the church to do the work of the ministry only until Pentecost. This automatically implies that the church was established and in existence sometime prior to Pentecost!

If it is the case that all revelation and confirmation of the word had to happen before the church would come to maturity, Ephesians 4:8-13; and if it is the case that the church was established in full completeness and maturity on Pentecost; then it must be the case that all the word had been revealed and confirmed prior to Pentecost. This automatically implies that the entirety of what we call the New Testament, since written after Pentecost, is not divinely revealed and confirmed! Now whose doctrine has dangerous implications?!?

If it is the case that the church was established in full glory and completeness on Pentecost, and; if it is the case that the church was established on Pentecost prior to the conversion of the Gentiles; then it must be the case that the conversion of the Gentiles was not essential to the establishment of the church in full glory and completeness. It is the case the church was established on Pentecost prior to the conversion of Gentiles. Therefore, per the anti-Preterist posit the conversion of the Gentiles was not essential to the completeness of the church! But any one who knows the Old Covenant scriptures knows that the calling of the Gentiles was part and parcel of the establishment of the kingdom, Isaiah 2, 11, 65, Amos 9:11, etc..

If it is the case that the church was established in full power and completeness on Pentecost, and; if it is the case the church was established without elders, then it must be true that the church was established in full power and completeness without elders. What we have then is a full-grown church that was not even fully organized!

If it is the case that the purpose of miracles was to reveal and confirm the word of God until all of that word had been revealed and confirmed, I Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4, and; if it is the case that when all God's word had been revealed and confirmed by miracles the church would be at a state of maturity, Ephesians 4; then it must be true that the presence of miracles demonstrated the immaturity of the church. There were miracles after Pentecost; therefore the church was still in a state of immaturity after Pentecost. But if miracles were for the purpose of bringing the church to maturity (by revealing and confirming the word) and would cease when maturity arrived; and if it is the case full completion of the church was established on Pentecost then there should have been no miracles after Pentecost. Since there obviously were miracles after Pentecost this proves that either 1. miracles were not solely for the purpose of revealing and confirming the work, (does this not open the door to the Charismatic contention of miracles for edification, personal growth, faith; and thus a continuing need today for them?) 2. the contention that the church was established in full completeness and power on Pentecost is false. Since it is the case that miracles were for the purpose of revealing and confirming the work, Mark 16:17-20, Acts 14:3, I Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4; it must be true that the church was not established in full completeness on Pentecost.


Summary: The posit that the church was established in full completion on Pentecost implies several things which are false. It implies that the purpose of miracles was not to reveal and confirm the word; it implies all revelation was complete before Pentecost; it implies all books written after Pentecost are uninspired, (that is the entirety of the New Testament!); it implies Gentiles were not necessary to the composition of the kingdom; it implies the eldership is not a vital part of the organization of the church.

Don K. Preston
*****************************************

I tend to agree with his assesment.

YBIC,
P70

[disciple]

Originally posted by Parousia70
Hi disciple,
While I agree the NC was born on the cross, I believe your assertion that the NC Church was born "full grown" has various problems.

There are several things that were yet to come to pass at the time of pentacost that had to come to pass before the NC Church could be established in it's "fullness".

I believe the NC was indeed paid for on the cross, and the Church was established in infancy on Pentecost. She was incomplete in organization (there were no elders for some time), she was incomplete in composition (there were no Gentiles converted on Pentecost were there?); and she was incomplete in her constitution (revelation was not completed until later).
i never said that the NC Church was born "full grown." these are your words and not mine. i said, "where i have a problem is when preterists seem to be saying that the NC didn't really start until 70AD. i would say that more accurately that the NC started fully at the cross and the OC was disabled at the cross but was not fully passed away until 70AD." of course there was development and growth of the church but i was talking about the NC not the NC church. please don't reinterpret or misquote what i said. my point is that while there were some jews who were confused about things, the NC didn't need to wait for 70AD before it really began.

[countrymouse]

This is indeed an interesting discussion!

Disciple, I don't think I've encountered any full preterist who claims that the New Covenant didn't actually begin until AD70 rather than at the cross. One of the things we all agree about is that, in the NT, we encounter a sense that it (the NC) was already established, but not yet completely fulfilled. In the events leading up to and including the destruction of the city and temple in 70, full preterists believe we recognize the fulfillments of those prophecies that were awaiting fulfillment while the NT was being written.

Grace and Peace to you,
cm

[disciple]

Originally posted by Parousia70
Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. (Paul included)

I assume you agree that Paul was a "True" Christian?
Why did Paul, and the apostles in general, continue to sacrifice in the temple after the crusifixion? Jesus told them to!
i think you've misread the quote. you seem to imply that it was business as usual for the jew who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. i don't think this is the case based on the whole tenor of the NT. let's look at the entire context of your Acts 21:26 quote:

Acts 21:17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 "What, then, is to be done They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. 27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.

it appears clear to me that this was done by paul in order to not offend and to avoid strife among those judaizers who believed that Christ was the Messiah. and it was done under the directions of others and not of his own initiative. he was doing exactly what he wrote about in 1 co 9:19ff which was written pre-70AD (~55AD):

1 Co 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

it is clear here that paul did not view himself as under the Law or even without law because he was under the law of Christ. he clearly understood this distinction pre-70AD. this is exactly what paul was doing in acts 26. this wasn't just paul's daily practice and business as usual (i.e., going to the temple to offer sacrifices for his sin). he is even clearer in galatians:

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

once they (i.e., Jews under the law) had been lead to Christ they were no longer under a tutor. it's that simple. and this was written pre-70AD (~50AD). he's even stronger in chapter 4 where he says to the galatians (pre-70AD) who had already received the Spirit who were already adopted as sons and had already been redeemed from the law by Christ who became a curse for them (gal 3:10-14). i really feel your preterism has forced you to misinterpret the entire tenor of the NT at this point. in order to maintain consistency in your eschatology you have minimized the impact, reality, importance, effect, efficiency, power, NC Christians understanding, etc. of the cross in the transitionary period and have misunderstood the covenants in general (IMHO). the cross turned the world upside down right then and it didn't need 70AD to prove this or make this real or make it complete. 70AD was clearly judgment on the jews who crucified the Savior and not a device for Jewish Christians to realize that they needed to cease going to the temple and sacrificing. it was clearly a judgment for the OC people who failed to embrace Christ as the Messiah and failed to see the fulfillment of the OC and was not a promise of hope, etc. to NC Christians. it was not for the NC participants as far as i can tell (IMHO).

Gal 4:3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

this was fully true for them pre-70AD. they were fully sons and no longer a slave under the law (for they had been redeemed from it pre-70AD) and it was therefore clearly not business as usual with them continuing to go to the temple to offer sacrifices. and there's even more and it is so strong and clear:

Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain....19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you 20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. 21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more numerous are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband." 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son (i.e., the OC with the law), For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
This is indeed an interesting discussion!

Disciple, I don't think I've encountered any full preterist who claims that the New Covenant didn't actually begin until AD70 rather than at the cross. One of the things we all agree about is that, in the NT, we encounter a sense that it (the NC) was already established, but not yet completely fulfilled. In the events leading up to and including the destruction of the city and temple in 70, full preterists believe we recognize the fulfillments of those prophecies that were awaiting fulfillment while the NT was being written.

Grace and Peace to you,
cm
yes i agree with you that there always seems to be an already/not yet element with these things. preterists though put the terminus at 70AD where i'm not sure you can Scripturally do this. also, note that i'm saying that all preterists are outright saying that "the NC didn't actually really fully begin until AD70", but parousia appears to be one that does. saying that the early Christians in the transitionary period were commanded to continue going to the temple and offering sacrifices is enough for me to say this. i know that is bogus at a minimum.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Parousia70
Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Disciple, correct me if I'm wrong but, if you are teaching others that the Law of Moses is not to be followed today, and Heaven and earth have yet to pass, then isn't Jesus referring to you here?
is this all you get out of this passage? do you actually see this passage as Jesus commanding the disciples to continue to go to the temple and offer sacrifices during the transitionary period?

first of all, verse 17 is one of the richest verses in the Bible of Jesus's purpose of coming to this earth. he didn't come contrary to the OC or to the OT writings but to fulfill. He also didn't come to replace them. His mission was a mission of fulfillment or completion. i'm sure you recognize this about this passage as well. note the following:


Mt 11:13, (NAS), "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Lk 16:16, (NAS), "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Lk 24:44, (NAS), Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."


John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Jn 1:45, (NAS), Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Acts 28:23, (NAS), When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

amazing! the entire OT (i.e., law and prophets) was about the Messiah! it also says that all the prophets and the Law prophesied (Mt 11:13). so the Law (torah) looked toward, pointed to, fortold, proclaimed, etc. the Messiah. and the NC Christians used the Law and Prophets (i.e., OT) to prove that Jesus was this Messiah.

further, the writings of Scripture (e.g, God's word, the OT; the only Scripture that they had at this time) were something which was more firm than the very heavens and the earth (v. 18). that's all that the phrase in verse 18 means. this is also spoken of in Lk 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." Jesus later elevates His words to this same status in Mt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." actually His whole discourse (cf. 5:21-48) speaks to this same thing ("you have heard...but I say"). so far from being a command for the disciples to continue going to the temple and offer sacrifices it is a rich and full testimony to Christ's mission and the true meaning and function of God's revelation in the OT.

[countrymouse]

Disciple, in my opinion, you are side-stepping an important issue. While that is not all that I get from the passage in question, it is clear to me, even from an exegetical point of view, that Jesus directly stated that he expected Jewish believers to keep the whole Law until heaven and earth passed away. The purpose of exegesis is not to find an alternative explanation that allows us to sidestep what is obvious. And, P70 did an excellent job of demonstrating, from Scripture, the Jewish believers' adherance to this command during the transition period. Paul even had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), because his mother was Jewish and his father Greek.

With the destruction of the temple, the Law could no longer be kept, and it was never meant to be kept in part, but as a whole. It seems to me that it is completely reasonable to perceive that the destruction of the temple marked the destruction of the OC heaven and earth.

Think also about this: According to what the Revelation says about the New Jerusalem, there is never any night there. I think this means that at no time is it impossible, under the NC, to keep covenant. Consider that under the OC, any time the people were separated from Jerusalem and the temple, they were separated from God. They could not carry out the requirements of the Law apart from the city and the temple. This happened many times because they were unfaithful. We can never be separated from God, because we do not need a temple or city made with human hands. Therefore, I think all prophecy indeed has been fulfilled!

Grace and Peace to you,
cm

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Disciple, in my opinion, you are side-stepping an important issue. While that is not all that I get from the passage in question, it is clear to me, even from an exegetical point of view, that Jesus directly stated that he expected Jewish believers to keep the whole Law until heaven and earth passed away. The purpose of exegesis is not to find an alternative explanation that allows us to sidestep what is obvious. And, P70 did an excellent job of demonstrating, from Scripture, the Jewish believers' adherance to this command during the transition period. Paul even had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), because his mother was Jewish and his father Greek.
i'm not side-stepping anything. i have shown that acts 26 is not proof that it was business as usual. the only reason paul did those things in acts 26 was because he was instructed to and was to not offend others al a 1 co 9. this is clear. this is also clear with the circumcision of timothy. look at your passage (acts 16:3) and you'll see that it is further verification of what i say, "acts 16:3 "Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." he didn't want to hinder the reception of the message because timothy was a half-breed (his father was a Greek) so he circumcised him. notice the presence of the word "because." this gives the reason he was circumcised. it wasn't because of mt 5:18. on the other hand if the gospel is jeopardized (justification by faith alone) then he would not circumcise (gal 2:3). so why did paul circumcise timothy and not titus? why did he circumcise timothy? answer these questions honestly without being ruled by your eschatological presuppositions and you'll find that it wasn't for the reasons that you suppose.

i have also looked at several commentators on mt 5:18 and none saw this as a command to continue sacrifices, etc. during the supposed transitionary period. this is only arrived at based on your presuppositions.

[disciple]

it is true that the law was meant to be kept as a whole not piecemeal. this is where the cross comes in. this was the freedom that resulted in the life of a jew who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. you cannot get around this fact. none of you have dealt with the passages in romans, 2 co 3, colossians, galatians, and hebrews which clearly and unequivocally state that they (pre-70AD jews) were no longer under the law and no longer under a tutor. this is what preterists are clearly side-stepping. they have to reinterpret all this and put this as being ambigious and not understood until after 70AD. they have to make this mean something different for those pre-70AD or mean something different altogether than what they truly and clearly say and mean. if anyone is side-stepping anything it is the preterist and not me. it seems that you are grasping at straws.

[countrymouse]

Disciple, I don't believe any of us has said that the Jewish believers were still "under the Law" in the sense of depending upon it for salvation. I certainly wouldn't! However, I disagree with your stance that Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount are to be taken in some mysterious way such that Law-keeping, as a formality, was not expected of them! And who instructed Paul to have Timothy circumcised? Paul explicitly forbade Gentile believers to participate in circumcision. He had no fear of Jews concerning this matter, whether believers or not. He would lay no additional unnecessary yoke on the necks of the Gentiles. But Timothy's mother was Jewish, although his father was not. Therefore it looks as though Paul was concerned to give no occasion for stumbling or appearance of evil. Perhaps, and you will tell me this is speculation, as it is, that was exactly the reason Jesus exhorted his disciples to keep the Law as a formality until he returned.

I am confident we will know the answer eventually.

cm

[disciple]

so you must reinterpret what "under the law" means?! so they're no longer under the curse of the law but they're still to observe the law? this makes no sense whatsoever. what about where is says that they are no longer under the Law but under grace and under the Spirit (cf. ro 6:14f; gal 5:18)? were they now under the curse of grace or the Spirit? this is fancy and curious exegesis if you ask me. to me it really seems more like eisegesis to maintain eschatological presuppositions.

also, you've still ignored the context of acts 16:3 "because of the Jews who were in those parts." it was not because of mt 5:18 but "because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." also why does it say, "for they all knew that his father was a Greek?" what would this have to do with circumcision and the motive for keeping the law? if it is as you assert then it would say, "for they all knew that his mother was a Jew."

[disciple]

also, regarding the sermon on the mount, your interpretation makes little sense in light of the rest of the sermon (all that follows v. 17-19). i recognize that there is considerable debate on how to interpret and apply the sermon on the mount (reformed, lutheran, NCT, disp, etc.) but to me it is clear that Jesus is establishing a new rule with all things being new. He is establishing here the NC code of ethics and not telling them to wait with what I'm about to tell you until 70AD. there is no hint of this whatsoever. everything about Matthew is to show Christ as the fulfillment of all the OT and to show the new economy of things.

[disciple]

i was thinking about your treatment of timothy's circumcision on the way home from work and i thought of several other inconsistencies. timothy was saved as a youth correct (cf. 2 tim 1:5)? if he was just doing business as usual and obeying the law like he was supposed to al a mt 5:18 then why wasn't he circumcised at 8-days old according to the law? why did paul have to circumcise him when he was old and even that only "because of the Jews who were in those parts." so i'm sorry but your understanding of timothy's circumcision and the motive for it does not line up with the evidence of Scripture in the least.

[Parousia70]

Originally posted by disciple

yes i agree with you that there always seems to be an already/not yet element with these things. preterists though put the terminus at 70AD where i'm not sure you can Scripturally do this.

Jesus himself places the terminus around the 66-70AD events.

Lk 24:44, (NAS), Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Luke 21:20-22 (NAS)
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

You can not exegetically divorce the "all things written" in Luke 24 from the "all things written" in Luke 21. They are the same.

You are correct in saying I do not believe the NC began at the Cross. I believe it began earlier than that. I believe it began at Jesus' Baptism, was paid for on the cross, then reached full maturity at AD70

I apologize for making the assumption earlier that you believe the Church was born full grown, when you it seems you meant the NC was born full grown. I am clear on this distinction now, thanks for correcting me.

I do not believe the NC could be "full grown" without the complete Church, and I believe it reached this maturity at 70AD. That is not to say it didn't exist prior. I hope this is clear to you now.

YBIC,
P70

[countrymouse]

from disciple:
so you must reinterpret what "under the law" means?! so they're no longer under the curse of the law but they're still to observe the law? this makes no sense whatsoever. what about where is says that they are no longer under the Law but under grace and under the Spirit (cf. ro 6:14f; gal 5:18)? were they now under the curse of grace or the Spirit? this is fancy and curious exegesis if you ask me. to me it really seems more like eisegesis to maintain eschatological presuppositions.

I'm sorry, but your position looks equally untenable to me! I don't see how i'm "reinterpreting" what "under the law" means.


also, you've still ignored the context of acts 16:3 "because of the Jews who were in those parts." it was not because of mt 5:18 but "because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." also why does it say, "for they all knew that his father was a Greek?" what would this have to do with circumcision and the motive for keeping the law? if it is as you assert then it would say, "for they all knew that his mother was a Jew."

This calls for logic and common sense. Based on what we know about Paul's position regarding circumcision for Gentiles, Timothy's father being Greek would have had no significance whatsoever had his mother not been Jewish.


also, regarding the sermon on the mount, your interpretation makes little sense in light of the rest of the sermon (all that follows v. 17-19). i recognize that there is considerable debate on how to interpret and apply the sermon on the mount (reformed, lutheran, NCT, disp, etc.) but to me it is clear that Jesus is establishing a new rule with all things being new. He is establishing here the NC code of ethics and not telling them to wait with what I'm about to tell you until 70AD. there is no hint of this whatsoever. everything about Matthew is to show Christ as the fulfillment of all the OT and to show the new economy of things.

One only needs to reinterpret Jesus' words about the Law not passing away (until heaven and earth passed away),and about
preserving its practices, if one's presuppositions demand such a reinterpretation.


i was thinking about your treatment of timothy's circumcision on the way home from work and i thought of several other inconsistencies. timothy was saved as a youth correct (cf. 2 tim 1:5)? if he was just doing business as usual and obeying the law like he was supposed to al a mt 5:18 then why wasn't he circumcised at 8-days old according to the law? why did paul have to circumcise him when he was old and even that only "because of the Jews who were in those parts." so i'm sorry but your understanding of timothy's circumcision and the motive for it does not line up with the evidence of Scripture in the least.

Why wasn't Timothy circumcised on the eigth day? Let's see...

His mother was Jewish. She married outside the faith. How do we know? If her husband had been a proselyte, Timothy would have already been circumcised. Why wasn't he circumcised when he was baptized? I don't know, and neither do you. All we can do is speculate. He was not reared as a Jew, and very likely did not think of himself as a Jew.

So why did Paul, Mr. "Not under the Law," have Timothy circumcised? The text tells us, "because of the Jews." But, again, we have to speculate about what that means, because we're not told. Using what we already know from Paul's own letters, we can surmise that Paul was not afraid of the Jews. We know that Paul was always concerned not to give offense where none was necessary, and he had a policy of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." (I know that's not a quote from Scripture, btw.) Otherwise, I do know that Timothy could not have entered the temple area (beyond the court of the Gentiles) unless he was circumcised.

However, none of this means that it had nothing to do with Jesus' instructions about keeping the Law until all things were fulfilled. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that women should not engage in public discussion in the assembly, one of the reasons being that it was not allowed under the Law. And you have been given plenty of other Scriptural evidence.

Please note: I am not saying that Jesus made Law-keeping a condition of salvation. He clearly did not. But he did say
to his disciples, who were Jews, that those who did not keep it and taught others not to keep it would find themselves in very low position in the Kingdom.

=============

Peter, I agree with you that the NC actually began at the inception of Jesus' public ministry.

Grace and Peace to all,
cm

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by countrymouse
This calls for logic and common sense.This is off topic, but just wanted to point out that I sometimes wonder about the notion of "common sense." Maybe it isn't as COMMON as we presume it to be?

[countrymouse]

Interesting...

Hi, Brandan!:)

...Maybe it's just that there are some areas to which we don't habitually apply it. Food for thought, anyway!

cm

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
I'm sorry, but your position looks equally untenable to me! I don't see how i'm "reinterpreting" what "under the law" means.
what does "under the law" mean to you? can one still be required to observe the law but not be "under the law?" how does this interpretation fit with romans 6:14f? what does it mean that Christ was "born under the Law?" did it just mean that He was born under it's curse or does it mean that He was born under its administration and was required to keep it? perhaps reinterpret wasn't the right choice of words...maybe misinterpret is better.


This calls for logic and common sense. Based on what we know about Paul's position regarding circumcision for Gentiles, Timothy's father being Greek would have had no significance whatsoever had his mother not been Jewish.
there's that word again--common sense. someone else pulled that on me the other day. perhaps it isn't clear what i'm saying. it says in acts 16:3 that paul wanted timothy to go with him as they were revisiting all the church plants (acts 15:35-41). it doesn't say that he was going to the temple or anything of the sort and that's why he circumcised timothy. i'm not sure where you've got this. further it is significant that the phrase says, "for they all knew his father was a Greek" because his mother was a Jewish believer (i.e., Christian). certainly his father was not Jewish but this does not mean that he was not a Christian. perhaps it's implied but it's speculation either way. so did the samaritans still circumcise? just because his father was Greek doesn't automatically follow that he wouldn't have been circumcised as an infant since his mother was jewish. it is significant that paul had timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who were in those parts (not because of the temple or to now have timothy start to keep the law)" and it was done "for they all knew his father was a Greek" suggesting that paul feared that an uncircumcised half-breed may hinder the message to the jews. i don't understand why this isn't obvious to you.


One only needs to reinterpret Jesus' words about the Law not passing away (until heaven and earth passed away),and about preserving its practices, if one's presuppositions demand such a reinterpretation.
perhaps you've missed what i said. the phrase "heavens and earth passing away" refers to the firmness of the word of God. look at the parallel idea in luke 16:17f. also it says, "until all (the Law) is fulfilled." you'd take this to mean everything written in the OT (law and prophets, v. 17). i'd take this to mean all determined by the context and not all things that were ever written (v. 18). the referent or antecedent to all is the Law. Jesus fulfilled the entire Law and all that was written about Him in the OT in His life, death, and resurrection. Jesus said, "it is finished. (john 19:30)" the veil was torn in two (mk 15:38; lk 23:45). everything points to the fact that Christ fulfilled the Law and there was no reason for those who embraced Him as the promised Messiah to continue in the Law (hebrews is clear on this pre-70AD; heb 7:18-28, 8:13, 9:1-15, 9:24-26, 10:1-22, 28-29, 12:18-24, 13:10-13). i think preterists are making too much out of mt 5:18 (kind of like dispies do with rev 20:2ff) and making the all be more encompassing than the immediate context and overall flow of what He's saying will allow. it seems to require the preterist to change other clear NT doctrines to keep a consistent eschatology. not something i'm willing to do.


However, none of this means that it had nothing to do with Jesus' instructions about keeping the Law until all things were fulfilled. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that women should not engage in public discussion in the assembly, one of the reasons being that it was not allowed under the Law. And you have been given plenty of other Scriptural evidence.
was this quote in corinthians because they were required to keep the law? i doubt it very much since the corinthian church was a very mixed church (i.e., jew and gentile; see history on the city of corinth). this would contradict the message of acts 15. seems to me that paul was appealing to the Law not because it was to be obeyed and rigorously followed but to prove his point (since God did not prescribe things in the Law just for the heck of it). notice also that this is kind of a tack on at the end of his instruction, "just as the Law also says." the implication of the Greek is that he's making a comparison or using it for support and not because they are supposed to keep the Law (continue to offer sacrifices, etc.).


Please note: I am not saying that Jesus made Law-keeping a condition of salvation. He clearly did not. But he did say to his disciples, who were Jews, that those who did not keep it and taught others not to keep it would find themselves in very low position in the Kingdom.
Law-keeping was never a condition of salvation, even in the OT. this was clear to the true believers. i don't see this interpretation in mt 5:18 since in the following verses (mt 5:20ff) He's establishing a New Law--the Law of Christ. and saying, "you have heard...but I say to you (He's contrasting His words with the words of the Law and this is clear with the use of the word but; His word is as authoritative as the Law)." in these verses He is not just reinterpreting the Law or giving them the correct interpretation but is raising the standard and giving a whole new code of ethics for the Christian. John the Baptist's words are very similar (lk 3:10ff).

further see paul's words upon realizing that he no longer needed to keep the law:


Philippian 3:4...If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

the implication by this entire text is that the law keeping, etc. was in the past. we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that he came to this realization (vv. 7-11) and kept right on with businesss as usual keeping the Law. paul's other letters and writings make it clear that he did not. why is the preterist forced to ignore this? to keep their eschatology consistent.

obviously CM and other preterists, our presuppositions and reading of certain Scripture in this area is much too different and if we cannot agree on terminology we will have little chance for any more meaningful discussion. thanks for your time.

[countrymouse]

Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Disciple, what do you do with this statement? For how long was this to be true? Which commandments was Jesus speaking of?

cm

[disciple]

i think the implication is that He is speaking of the commandments He is about to teach (vv. 21-48). He certainly didn't name any of the commandments previous to this verse and i don't think the implication is that He is speaking of the OC law because this is what He just said that He would fufill and complete, not them (v. 17f). also note that this is spoken before the fulfillment (i.e., His crucifixion) and to those who were still under the Law. so even if this did refer to the OC Law it wouldn't show that those living in the post crucifixion era were still to be under the Law. so no matter how one slices it, the NC Christian (Jew or Gentile) was not under the Law in any sense whatsover and this is further evidenced by the NT epistles (rom, 2 co 3, gal, heb, etc.) and the book of Acts.

[Brandan Kraft]

I would definitely have to agree with disciple on this point. The word "commandments" doesn't necessarily mean OC law. Jesus made gave us many "commandments" we are to keep. (eg. "love one another", "resist not evil", etc..)

[countrymouse]

Guys, I disagree. But I never expected we would agree about everything! :)

I've never seen this interpretation elsewhere, but that certainly doesn't mean that it does not elsewhere exist, and you can probably provide a link.

disciple, I hope I haven't offended you; I would never do so intentionally.

Grace and Peace to you,
cm

[Brandan Kraft]

CM, this is a major foundation of NCT I believe. It's obvious to me now how preterism really changes this system of theology to fit its presuppositions.

My friend Jim Charnock wrote the following in this article on the law... : http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=143


Also, the law of Moses did not cover all areas of life comprehensively and exhaustively. Christ pointed this out on more than one occasion to the experts of the OC law. However, the NC law of Christ and the apostles, the commandments they refer to in their writings, are to love Him and each other - a new commandment. This is by far a more comprehensive and exhaustive standard than the law of Moses, and better the Scriptures say. These could never be legislated externally. Morality cannot be legislated from the outside in.

[Odyssey]

I dunno. Maybe it's just me. But the whole 'presupposition' thing is really getting under my skin. I see it all of the time regarding preterism. It's almost like no other group has any presuppositions regarding scripture. Whatever.

Be that as it may, the questions have been asked and they haven't been aswered. Where Jesus and the apostles wrong when they declared that the Second Coming, the Great White Throne Judgment, the crushing of Satan, the Resurrection, etc. were to take place before their generation was over? We have shown that this is what they taught and preached. No one, no one, has answered them. I completely understand that there things have difficulties, but that does not negate the clearest statements of Scripture. All I and others are asking is that maybe, just maybe, our understanding of those things is wrong. Preterists do not maintain to know all of the answers. We do, however, maintain that the NT writers and speakers were right in there assessment of their age. That those things that were 'about to' take place, really did. We are just trying to work out the rest of it. If that makes us have 'presuppositions,' so be it. Sometimes, that is the only way of understanding certain things. Take Jesus, for example. For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, we have a presupposition when reading the OT. We 'see' Jesus in every passage. We see him in the garden. We see him in the sacrifice of Isaac. We see him in the life of Joshua. We see him in the 'angel of the Lord.' Etc., etc.

So, yes, preterists have presuppositions. But so does everyone else I know.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Guys, I disagree. But I never expected we would agree about everything! :)

I've never seen this interpretation elsewhere, but that certainly doesn't mean that it does not elsewhere exist, and you can probably provide a link.

disciple, I hope I haven't offended you; I would never do so intentionally.

Grace and Peace to you,
cm
you would probably find it in anabaptist literature and perhaps in lutheran writings. i read it in the writings of douglas moo (The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views or Five Views on Law and Gospel; both the same book but different titles; http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=21271&p=1010575) and d.a. carson (his treatment on the sermon on the mount; see http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bookrev/cmmtary.htm and http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bookrev/hermlaw.htm). it is also found all over in NCT writers. it's just not in the reformed tradition because it's not a reformed view of the law. so you probably won't find it among authors you're accustomed to reading. some more links are http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/new_c_law.htm, http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/lawr.htm, http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/fulfillment.htm

[disciple]

i'm sorry it is getting under your skin OD. but the fact of the matter is that we all have presuppositions. we all have biases. none of us come to the Scripture with zero preconceptions. we've decided already what we believe about A so this colors how we interpret B and C. the task for us all is to make sure our presuppositions come from Scripture and line up with the whole of Scripture. i don't think we'll ever figure it all out. it will never all fit nicely in a box with a bow. i've come to realize this with my own theology and understanding and while i'm not entirely comfortable with it (i'm an engineer--what can i say, i like it to all fit nicely in a box) i have to accept that my knowledge and understanding is quite limited. so my apologies for offending you with bringing up presuppostions, etc. but the fact of the matter is that until we can deal with our difference in presuppositions we'll never have meaningful discussion. our methods of approaching, interpreting, and applying Scripture are just too different. our definitions and terminology are different. i want to emphasize that i'm not saying that everyone has presuppositions but me. i realize that i have them as well and they impact how i approach Scripture as well. i just think in this case that the preterist's eschatological presuppositions (e.g., they have already decided that all Scripture has been fulfilled) have skewed (IMHO) their interpretation and understanding of other fundamental doctrines of Scripture. if this happens then i think we need to rethink our presuppositions.

[countrymouse]

Yes, we do all have presuppositions. For me and for many other preterists, embracing fulfilled eschatology represents a paradigm shift and a change in some of the presuppositions we had formerly held.


from disciple:
i just think in this case that the preterist's eschatological presuppositions (e.g., they have already decided that all Scripture has been fulfilled) have skewed (IMHO) their interpretation and understanding of other fundamental doctrines of Scripture.
Many of us arrived at this position through study of Scripture and history, without even knowing initially that anyone else held this position. We didn't first decide that all Scripture must have been fulfilled and then work from there to formulate everything else we believe.

What I really, really do not want to ever do is just bicker and criticize any other believer for disagreeing with me. None of us are infallible, and I fully realize that five or ten years from now I will not hold exactly the same ideas that I do today. Neither will you. The truth is there, and by God's grace we will all be closer to it as we grow.

========

As for NCT (and this is a little off topic), it is superior to CT in many ways. However, every new system is influenced by some degree of reactionism, and none are ever perfect. Someone I admire has pointed out that every systematic theology leaves something "hanging out of the suitcase." That includes full preterist eschatology. Still, in my opinion, full preterist eschatology (as a system) is superior to any other eschatology I have encountered thus far. I find that there are far more questions left unanswered by other systems.

=========

Grace and Peace to you all,
cm

[disciple]

Originally posted by countrymouse
Yes, we do all have presuppositions. For me and for many other preterists, embracing fulfilled eschatology represents a paradigm shift and a change in some of the presuppositions we had formerly held.
i understand. the same has happened with me when finding NCT. actually, i already held NCT views before finding out about it, but i didn't know what to call myself or where i fit in (since i didn't really fit into any dispie or CT circles).


Many of us arrived at this position through study of Scripture and history, without even knowing initially that anyone else held this position. We didn't first decide that all Scripture must have been fulfilled and then work from there to formulate everything else we believe.
i understand and did not mean to imply that this was the pat method for all preterists. my point is that since through the study of Scripture and history one has arrived at the conclusion that all prophecy has been fulfilled this often seems to flow into other areas and influence understanding of other doctrines in order to maintain consistency in what one has already decided on in a particular area.


What I really, really do not want to ever do is just bicker and criticize any other believer for disagreeing with me. None of us are infallible, and I fully realize that five or ten years from now I will not hold exactly the same ideas that I do today. Neither will you. The truth is there, and by God's grace we will all be closer to it as we grow.
i understand and agree. i don't want to criticize you for disagreeing with me but i do see a gap and degrading in our communication with one another. i believe this is attributable to our difference in presuppositions. i also realize that none of us are infallible (i especially realize this of myself) and that there may be much that we are wrong on. i have changed views on several doctrines a number of times. i always joke that i'll get to heaven and be suprised when i realize all the stuff i was completely wrong on. i think we all could use this type of forum setting to have iron sharpen iron and hone our views and understanding of Scripture. all these discussions on eschatology has certainly done this for me.


As for NCT (and this is a little off topic), it is superior to CT in many ways. However, every new system is influenced by some degree of reactionism, and none are ever perfect. Someone I admire has pointed out that every systematic theology leaves something "hanging out of the suitcase." That includes full preterist eschatology. Still, in my opinion, full preterist eschatology (as a system) is superior to any other eschatology I have encountered thus far. I find that there are far more questions left unanswered by other systems.
yes this is true and a very good picture of the reality of things (i.e., every systematic theology leaves something "hanging out fo the suitcase"). i gravitate towards a systematic approach to theology and Scripture but i understand that this sometimes doesn't always work out like i'd prefer. like you, i think that NCT as a biblical theological system is superior to any other out there and leaves the least unanswered questions by other systems. this is why i embrace it. and as far as eschatology goes, i haven't found any system thus far that adequately answers all the questions in my mind. and this is the area that i think i will leave last as i believe it is a non-essential. i would much rather begin with a consistent biblical theology and have my eschatology be inconsistent. i feel i am safer in this. as melanchthon said, "in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, liberty. in all things, charity." may this be true among us who are seeking the truth and in this forum.

[Odyssey]

Amen.

Grace to you,

jak

[countrymouse]

Thank you, disciple! Yes, "in all things, charity." :)

[Brandan Kraft]

Hey, now that's something we all agree on ;)

[Odyssey]

All I can state is what I have stated before: Every person who is honestly looking into their eschatological view must answer the question(s) I, and others, have posted regarding the integritiy of Christ and his disciples, i.e., were they wrong in their teaching and preaching regarding the fulfillment of those things by the end of their generation.

I pray that god will help all of us answer this question.

Grace and Peace to you all,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by kermie
Hey, now that's something we all agree on ;)
at least in theory anyway ;) in practice this is not so easily applied (i'm referring to my own life) but i believe it is the standard and goal for all of us who are sincerely pursuing God and His truth. Amen!

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
All I can state is what I have stated before: Every person who is honestly looking into their eschatological view must answer the question(s) I, and others, have posted regarding the integritiy of Christ and his disciples, i.e., were they wrong in their teaching and preaching regarding the fulfillment of those things by the end of their generation.
or could we misunderstand the time statements and the extent and nature of their applicability? there are many unknowns here and i'm not as willing as preterists to say that the time statements drive everything else. i'll continue to think on this very thing and perhaps provide answers as i learn.


I pray that god will help all of us answer this question.
And may God also help us to have unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. Amen

[Odyssey]

But what would be the point of god telling people that something would happen to them, when it wasn't going to? That's misleading. Where else has god ever done that? He told Noah that judgment was in 7 days and it was. He told him that it would last for 40 days and nights and it did. He told Pharaoh, through Moses, that death would be at midnight and it was. He even had this to say to the fleshly people of Israel:

Ezekiel 12.21-28. Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Son of man, what is this proverb you people have concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The days are long and every vision fails’? Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel." But tell them, "The days draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision. For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. For I the LORD shall speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I shall speak the word and perform it," declares the Lord GOD.’" Furthermore, the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ "Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,"‘" declares the Lord GOD.

It seems to me that god puts some major emphasis on when something was to be fulfilled. The 'when' is just as important as the 'what' in prophecy. We all know what god said regarding prophets who don't speak the truth:

Deuteronomy 18.20-22. But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

If what Jesus and the apostles stated was 'presumptuous' they should have been killed. If they stated that something was to come 'about to' take place and it didn't, then they were not prophets.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

first of all, we need to note that He and the apostles didn't give a number as in the examples you gave (i.e., no. of days, months, years, etc.). you would say that He did...He told them this generation ~ 40 years. but perhaps we don't understand what that refers to or to what extent they would see the events. it seems that the early church unaminously held that AD70 was a (the) fulfillment of mt 24 et al. did they see it also as a (the) fulfillment of the resurrection, final judgment of all mankind, and the second coming? absolutely not. they were still futurists in those things. this is crystal clear from the testimony of the early church. so am i going to throw all that unanimous history out the window? am i going to say i understand exactly what Jesus was referring to in mat 24 et al and that i am certain that revelation was written pre-70AD and that it referred to the events of 70AD? no. i'm not comfortable in doing this. and i don't believe this in the least sacrifices anything or makes Christ and the apostles false prophets. the early church (and that which followed down through the ages) didn't seem to believe that this was tantamount to making Christ and the disciples liars and false prophets and neither do i. and you're not going to press me in a corner on it. i'm more willing to leave my understanding of eschatology cloudy and unresolved than i am to leave everything else uncertain. something a friend of mine said aptly summarized my stance and feelings on this issue, "i am much less willing to accept an interpretation of the time statements that not only is at odds with historic christianity, but also necessitates that many of my views on other doctrines also change to be in disharmony with the rest of the Body."

[Odyssey]

OC Israel took the same stance you are and look where it got them. They crucified their Messiah. They held to the way the 'fathers' believed and 'missed the time of their visitation.' The same argument could be said concerning 'free will.' Some in the history of the church have always held to 'free will.' That doesn't make it right. That was the argument of Erasmus against Luther. So, I am not inclined to accept what the 'fathers' or 'early church' taught.

Furthermore, history is not unanimous. Read the Archives. Todd has done an excellent job of showing that people all throughout church history have held to different passages being fulfilled in 70. Lump them all together and every passage in question is fulfilled.

Concerning the 'days, hours, etc.' of my examples: The problem is that Christ gave 'signs' to that generation. Did they witness those signs? Most definately. That is why the apostles preached and wrote what they did. They recognized the signs around them and could state that Christ was coming soon.

Furthermore, you imply that there are two separate judments, resurrections, etc., but have not supported that view from Scripture. I can't buy that. Just because preterism doesn't line up with the 'official' stance of the church regarding eschatology doesn't mean its wrong.

Maybe I am trying to 'press you in a corner.' That's just the way I see it. To me, every futurist has already pressed themselves in a corner. The corner of 'non occurance.' Since those things did not happen (supposedly), there has to be another way of looking at them. They are basing their belief on Jesus not fulfilling his word when he said he would.

You stated, 'am i going to say i understand exactly what Jesus was referring to in mat 24 et al and that i am certain that revelation was written pre-70AD and that it referred to the events of 70AD? no. i'm not comfortable in doing this. and i don't believe this in the least sacrifices anything or makes Christ and the apostles false prophets. the early church (and that which followed down through the ages) didn't seem to believe that this was tantamount to making Christ and the disciples liars and false prophets and neither do i.' Again, I don't care what the 'early church' believed. They could have been wrong. You make it sound like they couldn't have been wrong. To me, it's black and white. Jesus said he was coming back in his generation. He either did or didn't. Does that mean I have it all figured out? By no means! However, the same thing can be stated regarding just about any doctrine. If we are waiting to have all of the answers, we will never get anywhere.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

i can understand and respect what you are saying. i also do not mean to imply that the early church was right on everything. this is obvious when just looking at history. but they definitely did not believe and neither was it ever taught that all prophecy had been fulfilled in 70AD as you imply. and you can't lump the teaching of all different teachers through the ages together and say, "look see they were preterists too." i just find it strikingly odd that none of the early church, NOT ONE, saw 70AD as the fulfillment of the book of revelation, the final judgment, resurrection, and 2nd coming of Christ. not even those alive during the event. and then no one is aware of this until someone comes along over a thousand years later and says, "wait look, all prophecy has been fulfilled--Christ already has come, the resurrection and final judgment has happened. boy did we ever miss it." just too much to swallow for me. the point i'm trying to make is not that the majority held to futurism but that no one held to preterism. this speaks volumes to me and perhaps you can ignore this or dismiss it and that's your prerogative.

and i also didn't mean to imply that there are several resurrections, judgments, and 2nd comings. there is only one resurrection, one final judgment, and one 2nd coming. and i'm not going to rule out that there are many judgments. there is definitely only one final judgment which is attendent with the resurrection and 2nd coming of Christ. to say that mt 24 et al was a judgment on the nation Israel in 70AD and yet not the final judgment of all nations with the attendant resurrection and 2nd coming of Christ is not a contradiction IMHO.

[Brandan Kraft]

I agree with Jak here regarding church history. Just because preterism hasn't shown itself throughout church history does not mean it's incorrect. Doctrines must stand or fall by Scripture. Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone IS the standard. If I could see that preterism was correct through Scripture, I wouldn't care at all that it hasn't been a prominent doctrine of the past or not, and would adopt it with open arms (or would it adopt me?).

Brandan

[disciple]

i hope you see kermie that i'm not basing my entire argument on this. i obviously have more problems with it than just that it was not taught at all until the past several hundred years. the majority of my problems are Scriptural and i confess that all apocalyptic literature baffles me (so maybe that's the problem ;)). there seem to be more views on eschatological prophecy than there are stars in the sky. i've been reading stuff on the 70 weeks of daniel and you can find anything from soup to nuts. and they all have good points but they don't agree with one another. because i'm not omniscient i'm not sure that i'll ever be comfortable being dogmatic with my eschatology. but that's just me.

[Brandan Kraft]

Right. I agree. It's just that I don't think it should be any part of our argument. Anything that deviates from Sola Scriptura is something to avoid in my opinion.

[Parousia70]

Originally posted by disciple
but they definitely did not believe and neither was it ever taught that all prophecy had been fulfilled in 70AD as you imply.

First of all, Just to be absolutely clear on this, preterists do not believe all prophesy was fulfilled in 70AD, only all eschatology.

Prophesy continues to unfold and be fulfilled every day, on into the future.


Originally posted by disciple
i just find it strikingly odd that none of the early church, NOT ONE, saw 70AD as the fulfillment of the book of revelation, the final judgment, resurrection, and 2nd coming of Christ.

Chrysostom
(John of Antioch)

(A.D.347-407)
Archbishop of Constantinople


"Remembering this saving commandment and all those things which came to pass for us: the cross, the grave, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting down at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again."


If He didin't see 70 Ad as the second coming that he believed to be past, what event in his past do you suppose he was refering to?

[Odyssey]

I respect what you are saying. I really do. 'Been there, done that', as the saying goes. However, and I don't mean to press the issue, the Jews took the same stance you are. So did the Roman Catholics. Just because something has always been understood one way doesn't make it right. Christ taught things that were completely 'new' to the understanding of first century Judaism. The same is true with the Reformers. What about NCT? How 'old' is that? Just because and idea is 'new' doesn't automatically make it wrong. Just different. Something that needs to be tested by Scripture and not church history or 'orthodoxy'.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

yeah i know what your saying. and as i said, this isn't the only problem i have with preterism. actually, there really isnothing "new" under the sun (eccl. 1:9). just old teachings rehashed, repacked, and reincarnated in a little different form. as far as your question about NCT i think it goes back further than both CT and Disp. i think there is good evidence that it goes back at least to the very beginning of the reformation in the teaching of the radical reformers, the anabaptists (especially in the writings of pilgram marpeck). there are also some elements of it which sound markedly similar to what many of the early church fathers (tertullian esp.) seemed to be teaching.

anyway, that is neither nor there. i can relate to what you're saying. but i still believe we should exercise caution when we teach something that has not been traditionally taught in historic Christianity. Christ did say that He would build His church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it and He did leave His Spirit to lead His people. i think the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church sort of have a point here although i think they've bought into a revisionist history told by their leaders to make them think that they are the only ones who have ever practiced and are currently practicing authentic Christianity.

just a small concern of mine that i think we need to exercise a little more caution than we typically do when approaching doctrine. i think protestants sometimes get a little too big for their briches and feel free to establish whatever doctrines they wish based on their interpretation. perhaps if we're the only ones teaching or believing a "new" doctrine that we're the ones interpreting it incorrectly. i mean just look at bill ross as a case in point (see http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=744). just food for thought. and please don't accuse me of being a closet Orthodox or Roman Catholic. i just believe we need to exercise a little more caution than we typically do. thanks for understanding. anyway, no more discussion on this line of argument needs to proceed any further.

[Odyssey]

Hey d,

I wasn't insinuating that you were a 'closet Orthodox or Roman Catholic'. I was just stating that they used the same type of argument. No offense intended. I completely respect you. It's great having a brother of your caliber and insight. I pray that god continually blesses you.

Grace and Peace to you bro.

Jack

[disciple]

no prob...wasn't offended in the least. just was anticipating comments because of my response. and i didn't think you were insinuating anything about me either. i realized it would be taken by some as anti-Sola Scriptura so i wanted to assure everyone reading that it was not. i just think that protestants sometimes play fast and lose with the Word and their interpretation of it. thanks for the comments and encouragement.

[Brandan Kraft]

I see your point disciple. I believe we should exercise caution when adopting new doctrines simply because we want to remain biblical, however. I do think we should be cautious before adopting preterism, not because it hasn't been prevalent in church history, but because it may indeed be non-biblical. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Odyssey]

'Non-biblical'?

jak

[Brandan Kraft]

Yes... nonbiblical.

[Odyssey]

Could you explain, please. Thanks.

Grace to you froggie,

jak

[Brandan Kraft]

Any doctrine that is not biblical truth is in fact unbiblical.

[Odyssey]

I know what unbiblical means. Could you explain how preterism is unbiblical?

Grace to you,

jak

[Brandan Kraft]

I didn't say it was unbiblical, now did I?

[countrymouse]

Kermie said that preterism may be unbiblical.

[Odyssey]

That was the implication I got from this sentence:



I do think we should be cautious before adopting preterism...because it may indeed be non-biblical.


Now, granted, you did state 'may be' unbiblical, but that was still the implication. I was just wondering how you feel it is unbiblical.

Grace to you,

jak

[Brandan Kraft]

Yes, "may be"... Thank you countrymouse.

[Brandan Kraft]

Odyssey, I did say "may be", so there was nothing implied for that sentence. (honestly)

However, I do think that full preterism is indeed unbiblical simply because to me, it seems to contradict so many other doctrines of the Bible. Sometimes, I feel full preterism takes the cross and moves it all the way to 70 ad. But right now, I'd rather not discuss this.. :D

Your Friend,
Brandan

[countrymouse]

Later, then? :D

[Odyssey]

Aaaalllllrightythen!

jak

[disciple]

just a few more items for discussion.

please explain mt 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will." there have been much worse time of tribulations that have occurred since 70AD. please comment.

please explain mt 24:30 "...they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." who is they? why the change of pronoun? does this include them (i.e., the disciples)?

why could you not refer to all believers or to those who would subsequently read what God knew would be put in writing? just because He's speaking to them does it follow that what He said had to apply to them and only them? could it have applied to the people of that generation to which He was referring of those days (mt 24:19, 22, 29)? would this be a possibility (i realize you would probably say "no" b/c this is not the way you view it, but i wonder if it is at least a possibility in your mind. an example would be when the pronoun you is used in Paul's letters and we generally accept that the you audience is larger than just the recipients of the letter)?

how did mt 24:44 "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. " apply to them? did they know when or were they expecting Him to come?

[Odyssey]

Response to disciple:

Concerning Matt. 24.21: Josephus wrote, ‘But if anyone makes an unjust accusation against us, when we speak so passionately about the tyrants, or the robbers, or sorely bewail the misfortunes of our country, let him indulge my affections herein, though it be contrary to the rules for writing history; because it had so come to pass, that our city of Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. (12) Accordingly, it appears to me that the misfortunes of all men from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews {c} are not so considerable as they were;’ (Book 1, Preface, 4.11-12). The note to this states, ‘{c} That these calamities of the Jews, who were our Saviour’s murderers, were to be the greatest that had ever been since the beginning of the world, our Saviour had directly foretold, #Mt 24:21 Mr 13:19 Lu 21:23,24; and that they proved to be such accordingly, Josephus is here a most authentic witness.’

What we need to look at here is the context of Jesus’ statement. He was telling the disciples what would befall their nation within their generation. Therefore, what, IMHO, needs to be seen is what actually befell that nation. They lost their covenant with god. They no longer have a temple. They no longer have sacrifices. They no longer are a people. They, as a covenant nation, were completely obliterated in 70. They ceased to exist.

Conerning verse 30: The ‘they’ were the first century nation of Israel. Again, what was being discussed was the judgment of that nation. Therefore, the disciples would naturally be part of that group.

Concering your next series of questions: Yes, I believe that what Jesus was referring to had specific importance for the disciples. However, it included the entire first century church and the nation of Israel. Christ warned them about the coming judgment and salvation. It would come upon his generation. If they turned and followed Christ, they would be saved. However, judgment upon the nation was still coming. Therefore, the instructions were for those first century people. The pronouns clearly show this, as you pointed out. They had specific relevance to that generation. That is what I have been trying to state this whole time!

Concerning verse 44: This definitely applied to them. Of course they did not know the exact moment when he was coming—he told them as much. However, he did tell them that it would be before their generation passed and what to look for and they saw those things take place within their generation. That is why they preached and wrote so emphatically that Christ’s coming was so close.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

thanks for you prompt response. perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough in one of my questions:


could it have applied to the people of that generation to which He was referring of those days (mt 24:19, 22, 29)?

what i meant by this is that could this have referred to a generation other than their own at least grammatically? is it at all possible grammatically and from what we gather from other NT writings that He may have been referring to a different generation (thus His reference to those days) and it is this generation of which He is speaking to them about?

[Odyssey]

disciple,

There is no way, either grammaticlly or contextually, that Jesus and the apostles were referring to another generation of people. With one voice they declared that He was coming to their generation, not some distant one sepatated by thousands of years. This is the plainest things taught in Scripture. They use the clearest words.

Grace to you,

jak

PS: I am working on something that J.S. Russell wrote. I found in extremely pertinent to his conversation. I hope to be posting it in a day or so (if not sooner).

[Odyssey]

J.S. Russell, The Parousia


Summary and Conclusion

We have now reached a point in our investigation where it is possible to take a complete and connected survey of the whole field which we have traversed, and to observe the unity and consistency of the prophetic system developed in the New Testament.

1. We find that the Gospel dispensation does not come upon us as an independent and isolated scheme, —a new beginning in the divine government of the world, —but that it implies and assumes the relation of God to Israel in past ages. The whole philosophy of Jewish history is condensed into a single phrase, ‘the kingdom of God;’ and it is this kingdom which, first John the Baptist, as the herald of the coming king, and next the King Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, proclaimed as being ‘at hand.’

2. We find that John the Baptist adopts the warnings of Old Testament prophecy, especially of the last of the prophets, Malachi, and predicts that the coming of the kingdom would be the coming of wrath upon Israel. He declares that ‘the axe is already laid to the root of the tree;’ his cry is, ‘Flee from the coming wrath,’ plainly intimating that a time of judgment was fast approaching.

3. Our Lord affirms the same speedy coming of judgment upon the land and people of Israel; and He further connects this judgment with His own coming in glory, —the Parousia. This event stands forth most prominently in the New Testament; to this every eye is directed, to this every inspired messenger points. It is represented as the nucleus and centre of a cluster of great events; the end of the age, or close of the Jewish economy; the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem; the judgment of the guilty nation; the resurrection of the dead; the reward of the faithful; the consummation of the kingdom of God. All these transactions are declared to be coincident with the Parousia.

4. It is demonstrable by the express testimony of our Lord, the uniform and concurrent teaching of His apostles, and the universal expectation of the church of the apostolic age, that the Parousia and its accompanying events were represented as nigh at hand; and not only so, but as about to happen within the limits of a given period; that is to say, in the time of the apostles and their contemporaries; so that many or most of them might expect to witness the great consummation. This is the main point of the whole question, and must be decided by the authority of the Scriptures themselves. While the proof ought to be rigorously demanded, and the evidence thoroughly sifted, it ought also to be dispassionately considered, without resorting to non natural interpretation, uncritical and unfair evasion, or violent wresting of the plain sense of words.

5. Without going over the ground already traversed it may suffice here to appeal to three distinct and decisive declarations of our Lord respecting the time of His coming, each of them accompanied with a solemn affirmation:—

(1) ‘Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come’. {#Mt 10:23}

(2) ‘Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. {#Mt 16:28}

(3) ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled’. {#Mt 24:34}

The plain grammatical meaning of these statements has been fully discussed in these pages. No violence can extort from them any other sense than the obvious and unambiguous one, viz. that our Lord’s second coming would take place within the limits of the existing generation.

6. The doctrine of the apostles with regard to the coming of the Lord is in perfect harmony with this. Nothing can be more evident than that they all believed and taught the speedy return of the Lord. From the first speech of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost to the last utterance of St. John in the Apocalypse, this conviction is clearly and constantly expressed. To say that the apostles were themselves ignorant of the time of their Lord’s return, and therefore could have no belief on the subject, —could not teach what they did not know, —is to contradict their own express and reiterated assertions. True, they did not know, and did not teach, ‘that day and that hour;’ they did not say that He would come in a particular month of a particular year, but they assuredly did give the churches to understand that He was coming quickly; that they might soon expect to see Him; and they never ceased to exhort them to maintain the attitude of constant watchfulness and preparation.

It is not necessary to do more than advert to some of the leading testimonies borne by the apostles to the speedy coming of the Lord:—

(1) St. Paul gives great prominence in his epistles to this cherished hope of the Christian church.

a. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians he implies the possibility of the Lord’s coming in his and their lifetime, —‘We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord.’ He also prays that ‘their spirit, soul, and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

b. In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (which is often erroneously understood to teach that the coming of Christ was not at hand, but which teaches precisely the contrary doctrine) he comforts the suffering believers with the promise that they would obtain rest from their present sufferings ‘when the Lord Jesus was revealed from heaven, etc.. {#2Th 1:7}

c. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians the apostle speaks of believers as ‘waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ He warns them that ‘the time is short;’ that ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘ends of the ages,’ are come upon them; that ‘the Lord is at hand.’

d. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul expresses his confidence that though he might die before the coming of the Lord, yet God would raise him from the dead, and present him along with those who survived to that period.

e. In the Epistle to the Romans St. Paul speaks of ‘the glory about to be revealed;’ of the whole creation waiting for the manifestation of the Son of God; of salvation being near, ‘nearer than when they first believed;’ that ‘it is now high time to awake out of sleep;’ that ‘the night is far spent, and the day at hand;’ that ‘God will bruise Satan under their feet shortly.’

f. In the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians the apostle speaks of ‘the day of Christ’ as the period of hope, perfection, and glory to which they were looking forward, and he declares emphatically, ‘The Lord is at hand.’

g. In like manner, in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus the expectation of the Parousia is conspicuous. Timothy is exhorted to keep the commandment inviolate ‘until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘He is about to judge the living and the dead at his appearing, and his kingdom.’ Christians are exhorted to be looking ‘for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.’

(2) St. James represents the coming of the Lord as just at hand. ‘The last days’ are come. Suffering Christians are exhorted to ‘be patient unto the coming of the Lord.’ They are assured that ‘it is drawing nigh;’ that the Judge standeth before the door.’

(3) St. Peter, like St. Paul, gives great prominence to the Parousia and its related events.

a. On the day of Pentecost he declared that those were ‘the last days’ predicted by the prophet Joel, introductory to ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord.’

b. In his First Epistle he affirms that it was ‘the last time;’ that God was ‘ready to judge the living and the dead;’ ‘that the end of all things was at hand;’ that ‘the time had come when judgment was to begin at the house of God.’

c. In his Second Epistle he exhorts Christians to be ‘looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God;’ and depicts the approaching dissolution of ‘heaven and earth.’

(4) The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of ‘the last days’ as now present; it is ‘the end of the age;’ the day is seen to be ‘approaching;’ ‘Yet a little, little while, and he that is coming will come, and will not tarry.’

(5) St. John confirms and completes the testimony of his fellow-apostles; it is ‘the last time;’ ‘antichrist has come;’ ‘he is already in the world.’ Christians are exhorted so to live that they may not be ashamed before Christ at His coming.

Finally, the Apocalypse is full of the Parousia: ‘Behold, he cometh with clouds;’ ‘The time is at hand;’ ‘Behold, I come quickly.’

Such is a rapid sketch of the apostolic testimony to the speedy coming of the Lord. It would have been strange if, with such assurances and such exhortations, the apostolic churches had not lived in constant and eager expectation of the Parousia. That they did so we have the clearest evidence in the New Testament, and we can conceive the mighty influence which this faith and hope must have had upon Christian life and character.

But, admitting, what cannot well be denied, that the apostles and early Christians did cherish these expectations, and that their belief was founded on the teaching of our Lord, the question arises, Were they not mistaken in their expectation? This is practically to ask, Were the apostles permitted to fall into error themselves, and to lead others into a like delusion, with respect to a matter of fact which they had abundant opportunities of knowing; which must frequently have been the subject of conversation and conference among themselves; which they never failed to keep before the attention of the churches, and about which they were all agreed?

There are critics who do not scruple to affirm that the apostles were mistaken, and that time has proved the fallacy of their anticipations. They tell us that either they misunderstood the teaching of their Master, or that He too was under an erroneous impression. This is of course to set aside the claims of the apostles to speak authoritatively as the inspired messengers of Christ, and to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith.

There are others, more reverential in their treatment of Scripture, who acknowledge that the apostles were indeed mistaken, but that this mistake was, for wise reasons, permitted, —that, in fact, the error was highly beneficial in its results: it stimulated hope, it fortified courage, it inspired devotion. {1}

‘If the Christians of the first centuries,’ says Hengstenberg, ‘had foreseen that the second coming of Christ would not take place for eighteen hundred years, how much weaker an impression would this doctrine have made upon them than when they were expecting Him every hour, and were told to watch because He would come like a thief in the night, at an hour when they looked not for Him!’ {2}

But neither can this explanation be accepted as satisfactory. Unquestionably the first Christians did receive an immense impulse to their courage and zeal from their firm belief in the speedy advent of the Lord; but was this a hope that after all made them ashamed? Must we conclude that the indomitable courage and devotion of a Paul rested mainly on a delusion? Were the martyrs and confessors of the primitive age only mistaken enthusiasts? We confess that such a conclusion is revolting to all our conceptions of Christianity as a revelation of divine truth by the instrumentality of inspired men. If the apostles misunderstood or misrepresented the teaching of Christ in regard to a matter of fact, respecting which they had the most ample opportunities of information, what dependence can be placed upon their testimony as to matters of faith, where the liability to error is so much greater? Such explanations are fitted to unsettle the foundations of confidence in apostolic teaching; and it is not easy to see how they are compatible with any practical belief in inspiration.

There is another theory, however, by which many suppose that the credit of the apostles is saved, and yet room left for avoiding the acceptance of their apparent teaching on the subject of the coming of Christ. This is, by the hypothesis of a primary and partial fulfilment of their predictions in their own time, to be followed and completed by an ultimate and plenary fulfilment at the end of human history. According to this view, the anticipations of the apostles were not wholly erroneous. Something really did take place that might be called ‘a coming of the Lord,’ ‘a judgment day.’ Their predictions received a quasi fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem and in the judgment of the guilty nation. That consummation at the close of the Jewish age was a type of another and infinitely greater catastrophe, when the whole human race will be brought before the judgment seat of Christ and the earth consumed by a general conflagration. This is probably the view which is most commonly accepted by the majority of expositors and readers of the New Testament at the present day. The first objection to this hypothesis is, that it has no foundation in the teaching of the Scriptures. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the apostles and primitive Christians had any suspicion of a twofold reference in the predictions of Jesus concerning the end. No hint is anywhere dropped that a primary and partial fulfilment of His sayings was to take place in that generation, but that the complete and exhaustive fulfilment was reserved for a future and far distant period. The very contrary is the fact. What can be more comprehensive and conclusive than our Lord’s words, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till ALL these things be fulfilled’? What critical torture has been applied to these words to extort from them some other meaning than their obvious and natural one! How has genea been hunted through all its lineage and genealogy to discover that it may not mean the persons then living on the earth! But all such efforts are wholly futile. While the words remain in the text their plain and obvious sense will prevail over all the glosses and perversions of ingenious criticism. The hypothesis of a twofold fulfilment receives no countenance from the Scriptures. We have only to read the language in which the apostles speak of the approaching consummation, to be convinced that they had one, and only one, great event in view, and that they thought and spoke of it as just at hand.

[Odyssey]

J.S. Russell, The Parousia

Summary and Conclusion continued...


This brings us to another objection to the hypothesis of a double, or even manifold, fulfilment of the predictions in the New Testament, viz. that it proceeds from a fundamentally erroneous conception of the real significance and grandeur or that great crisis in the divine government of the world which is marked by the Parousia. There are not a few who seem to think that if our Lord’s prophecy on the Mount of Olives, and the predictions of the apostles of the coming of Christ in glory, meant no more than the destruction of Jerusalem, and were fulfilled in that event, then all their announcements and expectations ended in a mere fiasco, and the historical reality answers very feebly and inadequately to the magnificent prophecy. There is reason to believe that the true significance and grandeur of that great event are very little appreciated by many. The destruction of Jerusalem was not a mere thrilling incident in the drama of history, like the siege of Troy or the downfall of Carthage, closing a chapter in the annals of a state or a people. It was an event which has no parallel in history. It was the outward and visible sign of a great epoch in the divine government of the world. It was the close of one dispensation and the commencement of another. It marked the inauguration of a new order of things. The Mosaic economy, —which had been ushered in by the miracles of Egypt, the lightnings and thunderings of Sinai, and the glorious manifestations of Jehovah to Israel, —after subsisting for more than fifteen centuries, was now abolished. The peculiar relation between the Most High and the covenant nation was dissolved. The Messianic kingdom, that is, the administration of the divine government by the Mediator, so far, at least, as Israel was concerned, reached its culminating point. The kingdom so long predicted, hoped for, prayed for, was now fully come. The final act of the King was to sit upon the throne of His glory and judge His people. He could then ‘deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ This is the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem according to the showing of the Word of God. It was not an isolated fact, a solitary catastrophe, —it was the centre of a group of related and coincident events, not only in the material, but in the spiritual world; not only on earth, but in heaven and in hell; some of them being cognisable by the senses and capable of historical confirmation, and others not.

Perhaps it may be said that such an explanation of the predictions of the New Testament, instead of relieving the difficulty, embarrasses and perplexes us more than ever. It is possible to believe in the fulfilment of predictions which take effect in the visible and outward order of things, because we have historical evidence of that fulfilment; but how can we be expected to believe in fulfilments which are said to have taken place in the region of the spiritual and invisible when we have no witnesses to depose to the facts? We can implicitly believe in the accomplishment of all that was predicted respecting the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the demolition of the city, because we have the testimony of Josephus to the facts; but how can we believe in a coming of the Son of man, in a resurrection of the dead, in an act of judgment, when we have nothing but the word of prophecy to rely upon, and no Josephus to vouch for the historical accuracy of the facts?

To this it can only be said in reply, that the demand for human testimony to events in the region of the unseen is not altogether reasonable. If we receive them at all, it must be on the word of Him Who declared that all these things would assuredly take place before that generation passed away. But, after all, is the demand upon our faith in this matter so very excessive? A large portion of these predictions we know to have been literally and punctually fulfilled; we recognize in that accomplishment a remarkable proof of the truth of the Word of God and the superhuman prescience that foresaw and foretold the future. Could anything have been less probable at the time when our Lord delivered His prophetic discourse than the total destruction of the temple, the razing of the city, and the ruin of the nation in the lifetime of the existing generation? What can be more minute and particular than the signs of the end enumerated by our Lord? What can be more precise and literal than the fulfilment of them?

But the part which confessedly has been fulfilled, and which is vouched for by uninspired history, is inseparably bound up with another portion which is not so vouched for. Nothing but a violent disruption can detach the one part of this prophecy from the other. It is one from beginning to end—a complete whole. The finest instrument cannot draw a line separating one portion which relates to that generation from another portion which relates to a different and distant period. Every part of it rests on the same foundation, and the whole is so linked and concatenated that all must stand or fall together. We are justified, therefore, in holding that the exact accomplishment of so much of the prophecy as comes within the cognisance of the senses, and is capable of being vouched for by human testimony, is a presumption and guarantee in favour of the exact fulfilment of that portion which lies within the region of the invisible and spiritual, and which cannot, in the nature of things, be attested by human evidence. This is not credulity, but reasonable faith, such as men fearlessly exercise in all their worldly transactions.

We conclude, therefore, that all the parts of our Lord’s prediction refer to the same period and the same event; that the whole prophecy is one and indivisible, resting upon the same foundation of divine authority. Further, that all that was cognisable by the human senses is proved to have been fulfilled, and, therefore, we are not only warranted, but bound to assume the fulfilment of the remainder as not only credible, but certain.

As the result of the investigation we are landed in this dilemma: either the whole group of predictions, comprehending the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the dead, and the rewarding of the faithful, did take place before the passing away of that generation, as predicted by Christ, taught by the apostles, and expected by the whole church; or, else, the hope of the church was a delusion, the teaching of the apostles an error, the predictions of Jesus a dream.

There is no other alternative consistent with the fair grammatical interpretation of the words of Scripture. We may not tear the prophecy of Christ asunder, and arbitrarily decide, this is past, and that is future; this is fulfilled, and that unfulfilled. There is no pretext for such a division in the record of that discourse; like the seamless robe worn by Him who uttered it, it is all of one piece, ‘woven from the top throughout.’ The grammatical structure and the historical occasion alike imply the unity of the whole prophecy. Neither is there any ‘verifying faculty’ by which it is possible to distinguish between one part and another as belonging to different periods and epochs. Every attempt to draw such lines of distinction has proved a complete failure. The prophecy refuses to be so manipulated, and asserts its unity and homogeneity in spite of critical artifice or violence. We are compelled, therefore, by all these considerations, and chiefly by regard for the authority of Him whose word cannot be broken, to conclude that the Parousia, or second coming of Christ, with its connected and concomitant events, did take place, according to the Saviour’s own prediction, at the period when Jerusalem was destroyed, and before the passing away of ‘that generation.’


Here we might pause, for Scripture prophecy guides us no further. But the close of the aeon is not the end of the world, and the fate of Israel teaches us nothing respecting the destiny of the human race. Whether we will or no, we cannot help speculating about the future, and forecasting the ultimate fortunes of a world which has been the scene of such stupendous displays of divine judgment and mercy. It will probably be felt by some to be an unwelcome conclusion that the Apocalypse is not that syllabus of civil and ecclesiastical history which a mistaken theory of interpretation supposed it to be. It will seem to them that the extinction of those false lights, which they took for guiding stars, leaves them in total darkness about the future; and they will ask in perplexity, Whither are we tending? What is to be the end and consummation of human history? Is this earth, with its precious freight of immortal and eternal interests, advancing towards light and truth, or hurrying into regions of darkness and distance from God?

Where nothing has been revealed it would be the height of presumption to prognosticate the future. ‘It is not for us to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power.’ It has been said that ‘the uninspired prophet is a fool,’ and many instances approve the saying. Yet thus much it may be permitted us to conclude: there is no reason to despair about the future. There are some who tell us that as Judaism was a failure, so Christianity will be a failure also. We are not persuaded of this; we regard it rather as an impeachment of the divine wisdom and goodness. Judaism was never constituted to be a universal religion; it was essentially limited and national in its operation; but Christianity is made for man, and has proved its adaptation to every variety of the human family. It is indeed too true that the progress of Christianity in the world has been lamentably slow; and that, after eighteen centuries, it has not succeeded in banishing evil from the world, nor even from the regions where its influence has been most powerfully felt. Yet, after every allowance for its shortcomings, it still remains the mightiest moral force ever called into operation for purifying and ennobling the character of men. It is Christianity that differentiates the new world from the old; the modern from the ancient civilisation. This is the new factor in human society and history which may claim the largest share in the beneficent reformations of the past and to which we may look for still greater results in the future. The philosophic historian recognizes in Christianity a new power, which ‘from its very origin, and still more in its progress, entirely renovated the face of the world.’ {3}

Nor is there any symptom of decrepitude or exhaustion in the religion of Jesus after all the ages and conflicts, and revolutions of opinion through which it has come. It has stood the brunt of the most malignant persecution, and come off victorious. It has endured the ordeal of the most searching and hostile criticism, and come out of the fire unscathed. It has survived the more perilous patronage of pretended friends who have corrupted it into a superstition, perverted it into a policy, or degraded it into a trade. While the enemies of the Gospel predict its speedy extinction, it enters on a new career of conflict and victory. There is a perpetual tendency in Christianity to renew her youth, to regain the ideal of her pristine purity, and defecate herself from the impurities and accretions which are foreign to her nature. Never since the apostolic age were there greater vitality and vigour in the religion of the Cross than today. This is the age of Christian missions; and while all the other religions of the world have ceased to proselytise, and therefore to grow, Christianity goes forth to every land and nation, with the Bible in her hand and the proclamation of the glad tidings in her mouth, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’

The true interpretation of New Testament prophecy, instead of leaving us in darkness, encourages hope. It relieves the gloom which hung over a world which was believed to be destined to perish. There is no reason to infer that because Jerusalem was destroyed the world must burn; or, because the apostate nation was condemned, the human race must be consigned to perdition. All this sinister anticipation rests upon an erroneous interpretation of Scripture; and, the fallacies being cleared away, the prospect brightens with a glorious hope. We may trust the God of Love. He has not forsaken the earth, and He governs the world on a plan which He has not indeed disclosed to us, but which we may be well assured will finally evolve the highest good of the creature and the brightest glory of the Creator.

[Odyssey]

J.S. Russell, The Parousia

The end of the 'Summary and Conclusion'


It may, indeed, seem strange and unaccountable that we should now be left without any of those divine manifestations and revelations which in other ages God was pleased to vouchsafe to men. We seem in some respects farther off from heaven than those ages were when voices and visions reminded men of the nearness of the Unseen. We may say, with the Jews of the captivity, ‘We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long. {#Ps 74:9}

Eighteen hundred years have rolled away since a voice was heard upon earth saying, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ It is as if a door had been shut in heaven, and the direct intercourse of God with man were cut off; and we seem at a disadvantage as compared with those who were favoured with ‘visions and revelations of the Lord.’ Yet, even in this we may not judge correctly. Doubtless it is better as it is. The presence of the Holy Spirit with the disciples was declared by our Lord to be more than a compensation for His own absence. That Spirit dwells with us, and in us, and it is His office ‘to take of Christ’s, and to shew it unto us.’ We have also the written Word of God, and in this we enjoy an incalculable superiority over the former days. Better the written Word than the living prophet. But should it be needful for the welfare and guidance of mankind that God should again manifest Himself, there is no presumption against further revelations. Why should it be thought that God has spoken His last word to men? But it is for Him to choose, and not for us to dictate. It may well be that even now, in ways unsuspected by us, He is speaking to man. ‘God fulfils himself in many ways, and human history is as full of God today as in the ages of miracle and prophecy. Far from us be that incredulity which despairs of Christianity and of man. Surely, it was not in vain that Jesus said, ‘I am the Light of the World.’ ‘God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved.’ ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’

That favoured apostle who more than any other seems to have comprehended ‘the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of the love of Christ,’ suggests to us ideas of the extent and efficiency of the great redemption which our latent incredulity can scarcely receive. He does not hesitate to affirm that the restorative work of Christ will ultimately more than repair the ruin wrought by sin. ‘As by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall the many be made righteous.’ There would be no point in this comparison if ‘the many’ on the one side of the equation bore no proportion to ‘the many’ on the other side. But this is not all: the redemptive work of Christ does more than redress the balance: it outweighs, and that immeasurably, the counterpoise of evil. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did beyond measure abound: that as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign in righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’. {#Ro 5:19-21}

It does not fall within the scope of this discussion to argue on philosophical grounds the natural probability of a reign of truth and righteousness on the earth; we are happy to be assured of the consummation on higher and safer grounds, even the promises of Him who has taught us to pray, ‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is done in heaven.’ For every God-taught prayer contains a prophecy, and conveys a promise. This world belongs no more to the devil, but to God. Christ has redeemed it, and will recover it, and draw all men unto Him. Otherwise it is inconceivable that God would have taught His people in all ages to utter in faith and hope that sublime prophetic prayer:—

God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
And cause his face to shine on us;
That thy way may be known upon earth,
Thy saving health among all nations.
Let the people praise thee, O God;
Let all the people praise thee.
O let the nations be glad and sing for joy:
For Thou shalt judge the people righteously,
And govern the nations upon earth.
Let the people praise thee, O God;
Let all the people praise thee.
Then shall the earth yield her increase;
And God, even our own God, shall bless us.
God shall bless us;
And all the ends of the earth shall fear him.
{#Ps 67}


{1} ‘For ages the world’s hope has been the second advent. The early church expected it in their own day, —"We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." The Saviour Himself had said, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." Yet the Son of man has never come... In the first centuries the early Christians believed that the millennial advent was close; they heard the warning of the apostle, brief and sharp, "The time is short." Now, suppose that instead of this they had seen all the dreary page of church history unrolled; suppose that they had known that after two thousand years the world would have scarcely spelled out three letters of the meaning of Christianity, where would have been those gigantic efforts, that life spent as on the very brink of eternity, which characterize the days of the early church?’—F. W. Robertson, Sermon on the Illusiveness of Life.
{2} Hengstenberg, Christology, vol. iv. p. 443.
{3} Schlegel, Philosophy of History, Lect. x.

[Mr. Burns (GW)]

Originally posted by disciple
just a few more items for discussion.

please explain mt 24:21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will." there have been much worse time of tribulations that have occurred since 70AD. please comment.

Hi Disciple.

AD 66-70 was the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history and unquestionably the one those jews spoke of just mere decades before it took place. This was the Day of the Lord concerning which they all professed they would be personal witnesses of its passing (1 Cor 1:6-8; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:3-4,23; Phil 1:6,10; Heb 10:25,36-39).

Furthermore, due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's Vengeance can never be repeated with the level of devastation the jews endured by being kicked out of covenant with God (Matt 21:40-43).

We also must not ignore the common figure of speech in Old Testament literature Jesus is utilizing ("never was/nor ever shall be"). We see how 1 Kings 3:12 said there was no king like Solomon before or after him. Such statements are repeated in 2 Kings 18:5 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. And, of course, Christ surpasses even Solomon (Matt. 12:42)!

The same Old Testament idea of "never will be" is employed of judgments that have already been fulfilled such as locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12; cf. Joel 1:1-4), a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6), and judgment on Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2). The point then is the expression "never has been nor ever will be" is a hebraic idiom meaning "very great" or "very much." Our Lord was simply saying there would be a very great tribulation.

Jesus promised his apostles that they would live through the great tribulation and see all those things in their generation (Matt 24:33-34).

[disciple]

thanks Mr. Burns and OD! i appreciate your posts. OD i'll get reading your posts ASAP. i'll let you know if i have any comments.

[disciple]

please explain:

Phil 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.

[Odyssey]

I think the explination would be something like this:

Since the people of the first century were still waiting for the salvation of their souls (1Pet. 1.9), they were not yet 'made perfect.' However, because of they were sealed with the HS 'for the day of redemption' (Eph. 4.30; cf. 2Cor. 1.22; Eph. 1.13), Paul could write, 'Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude...' (Phil. 3.15).

This shows us that perfection deals with resurrection and redemption. This was not finalized until 70. After that, we, whom god has been pleased to choose for his people, are perfected, resurrected, and completely redeemed at our 'appointed time set by the father' (Gal. 4.2).

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
After that, we, whom god has been pleased to choose for his people, are perfected, resurrected, and completely redeemed at our 'appointed time set by the father' (Gal. 4.2).
what does this mean? when is the "appointed time set by the father?" is this 70AD? and what does gal 4:2 have to do with this all? i can see how it applies in the context that it is in. could you please elaborate. and how are we now perfected? what about glory? are we already glorified?

[Odyssey]

disciple,

The 'time set by the father' is not AD 70. It is the time when we were saved. Resurrection, for the believer, is equal to covenantal life with god. That is, it is equal to salvation.

Are we glorified now? Yes. Paul wrote it as past tense in Romans. Are we seated with Christ right now in the heavens? Yes. Are we perfected now? Yes. These things have to do with ones covenantal stance with god and has nothing to do with our physical being.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

thanks! i'll chew on that for a bit.

[Odyssey]

You're welcome!

[disciple]

what is the the redemption of our body in ro 8:23? why does he use the word soma which is used of our corporeal nature?

[Odyssey]

I think that Paul is referring to corporate redemption by his using the plural word 'our'. The word 'soma' is also used by Paul when refering to the 'body' of Christ so this doesn't mean that it always refers to a person's physical body.

The 'body' of the first century Christians, i.e., the church, was fully redeemed / resurrected in AD 70.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
I think that Paul is referring to corporate redemption by his using the plural word 'our'. The word 'soma' is also used by Paul when refering to the 'body' of Christ so this doesn't mean that it always refers to a person's physical body.

The 'body' of the first century Christians, i.e., the church, was fully redeemed / resurrected in AD 70.

Grace to you,

jak
but this doesn't really make sense in the context or grammatically. here's the verse in context:

Ro 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

the our in the first part of verse 23 is the same our of the our body. if he wanted to refer to the corporate body then why didn't he say redepmtion of the body (of Christ)? the presence of the word our (Gr. Hemon) throws a monkey wrench in this interpretation IMHO. the body of Christ is never spoken of as our body...it is His body. and with the exclusion of ro 12:4f; 1 co 12:12ff; eph 1:23, 2:16, 4:12, 16, 5:23, 30; col 1:18, 24, 2:19, 3:15 (and even then the picture used in the metaphor is the physical body), every time our body is used in the NT it refers to our physical body and the majority of time it is used it refers the physical body. it just doesn't seem to square to me.

also, i realize that soma (by itself) doesn't always refer to corporeal nature or physical bodies. i didn't mean to imply this. but in the context he's talking to individuals and references their adoption (not just corporately but individually; adoption as sons). if he wanted to speak of corporate adoption and corporate redemption this language just doesn't seem to work for that. do you get what i'm saying?

[hoonbaba]

Hi everyone,

Long time no see =)

I just thought I'd drop by for a bit. (Does anyone even remember me!? LOL) hehe

Anyway, I just thought I'd share something (http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=244817#post244817) that might be relevant to the 'our body' issue. In fact I think it has your answer :)

It's from Christianforums.com and that one brother happened to post it earlier today. I found it a fascinating read! Also, the discussion is for the most part between a Muslim skeptic and other preterist brethren!! The skeptic REFUSES to accept any form of futurism whatsoever, and it looks like preterism is making a lot of sense to him! Praise God! =)

God bless!

-Jason