Anti-preterist article

[Brandan Kraft]

Wow! Thank you Jak! As always you post some pretty amazing stuff. That was one long post... I'll let it soak in...

Brandan

[disciple]

OD-

i liked a lot of what you had to say but just have a quick comment (that i'm going to do a bit more studying on). a lot seems to rest on an understanding of the phrases "this age...age to come." you're proposing that it refers to covenantal ages (i.e., old and new covenants). i'm suggesting that i too only believe in two ages but that this phrase may refer to this present creation (physical and visible; of which we share with the disciples and their contemporaries) and the new creation (eternity, non-physical, invisible, heaven, etc.). i'm proposing that it may be an idiom perhaps translated into a current idiom "now...eternity." from reading the verses i don't think it's conclusive that it must (in all caess) refer to the old and new covenants (especially since when paul wrote, the new covenant age had already been consummated and had begun) although i'm not ruling this out in some cases. i'm just throwing this one out for discussion and your consideration. as i said above though, i'm going to be doing some more research on this idiom. until then...

disciple

[Odyssey]

disciple,

I love your heart! May god raise up more of us with the same desire to understand these things.

I must, however, state that I don't agree with the idea that the New Covenant was already consummated. That is what they were waiting for. The New Covenant could not be consummated until the removal of the Old Covenant.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

M. R. Nehorai says, “I should lay aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah.
N. “For a man eats its fruits in this world, and the principal remains for the world to come.
O. “But other trades are not that way.
P. “When a man gets sick or old or has pains and cannot do his job, lo, he dies of starvation.
Q. “But with Torah it is not that way.
R. “But it keeps him from all evil when he is young, and it gives him a future and a hope when he is old.
S. “Concerning his youth, what does it say? They who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength (Is. 40:31). And concerning his old age what does it say? They shall still bring forth fruit in old age (Ps. 92:14).
T. “And so it says with regard to the patriarch Abraham, may he rest in peace, And Abraham was old and well along in years, and the Lord blessed Abraham in all things (Gen. 24:1).
U. “We find that the patriarch Abraham kept the entire Torah even before it was revealed, since it says, Since Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws (Gen. 26:5).

[Odyssey]

disciple,

The book of Hebrews states that 'God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son' (1.1-2). The question for us is, 'What does this reference to "these last days" refer'?

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

but that assumes that "these last days" also refers to the "age to come" or the "world to come." an assumption that needs to be proven and developed from the text.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
disciple,

The book of Hebrews states that 'God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son' (1.1-2). The question for us is, 'What does this reference to "these last days" refer'?

Grace to you,

jak

plus this verse is about how God was/is expressing Himself to man (then it was in various and sundry ways...now it is only through His Son) and not about eschatology per se. also, i believe that "these last days" is a figure of speech referring to the writer's/speaker's current time.

[disciple]

Originally posted by disciple
plus this verse is about how God was/is expressing Himself to man (then it was in various and sundry ways...now it is only through His Son) and not about eschatology per se. also, i believe that "these last days" is a figure of speech referring to the writer's/speaker's current time.

i think a modern way of saying this in English would be "back in those days...nowadays..."

also about the idiom, "this age...the age to come" or "this world...the world to come" i believe that what is in view here is forever. i think it's an idiom for forever, eternity, everlasting, etc. also in some contexts it speaks of the afterlife (that which comes after we die physically and are buried; that world which they understood proceeded this earthly life...perhaps the messianic era of perfect peace and justice, etc.). nevertheless, i'm still trying to find a book of idioms to tell me more (which i don't think exist according to several bible translators on a bible translation list that i subscribe to) so i have more studying and research to do. anyway...just some interesting tidbits to add to the discussion.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
I must, however, state that I don't agree with the idea that the New Covenant was already consummated. That is what they were waiting for. The New Covenant could not be consummated until the removal of the Old Covenant.

but would you say that the New Covenant was already drawn (enacted)? i'm using consummated as covenant language (i.e., like a marriage is consummated). was not the New Covenant in place at the time Jesus shed His blood to enact it (Heb 9 et al)?

also some added info on "this world...world to come."

J.B. Lightfoot
[In the world to come.] I. Some phrases were received into common use, by which in common speech they opposed the heresy of the Sadducees, who denied immortality. Of that sort were the world to come: paradise: hell, &c.

"At the end of all the prayers in the Temple" (as we observed before) "they said for ever. But when the heretics brake in and said, 'There was no age but one,' it was appointed to be said, for ever and ever."

This distinction of this world, and of the world to come, you may find almost in every page of the Rabbins.

"The Lord recompense thee a good reward for this thy good word in this world, and let thy reward be perfected in the world to come."

"It [that is, the history of the creation and of the Bible] begins therefore with the letter Beth [in the word Bereshith], because two worlds were created, this world and a world to come."

II. The world to come, hints two things especially (of which see Rambam): 1. The times of the Messias: "Be mindful of the day wherein thou camest out of Egypt, all the days of thy life. The wise men say, By 'the days of thy life,' is intimated 'this world': by 'all the days of thy life,' the days of the Messias are superinduced." In sense the apostle seems to speak, Hebrews 2:5 and 6:5. 2. The state after death, The world to come is, when a man is departed out of this world.

John Gill
The Jews use the phrase in the same sense [Sepher Chasidim: num. 234.]; a certain sick man said to his son,

"give me water, and such certain food; but if not, I will not 'forgive thee, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.'''

That is, I will never forgive thee.

[Odyssey]

If you do a search for the phrase 'last days' it refers to the last days of a nation. I don't find it as a idiom referring to 'back in those days'. I don't find it referring to eternity.

Concerning the 'end of the age/world':

Heb 9.23-38. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Here we see that the appearance of Christ happened at the 'end of the world' or 'age'.

Peter wrote the same thing:

1Pet 1.3. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

What I am trying to show here is that the appearance of Christ happened at the 'end' of something--during the 'last times' or 'last days' of something. What was that?

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
If you do a search for the phrase 'last days' it refers to the last days of a nation.

this seems a bit simplistic (not to mention the fact that we're talking about Greek not English). it doesn't appear to mean the "last days of a nation" in all the contexts. perhaps you see something i don't...

I don't find it as a idiom referring to 'back in those days'. I don't find it referring to eternity.

that's what the writer of Hebrews means in Heb 1. also, i'm not saying that SUNTELEIA TWN AIWNWN (Mt 13, Heb 9:26 et al) means 'back in those days' or 'eternity'. i was talking about a different greek construction (Mt 12:32 EN TOUTW TW AIWNI OUTE EN TW MELLONTI) which was understood and used by Jews as referring to time and eternity (in the context of mt 12:32 it was equivalent to saying that "they'll *never* be forgiven") as well as Heb 1:1 PALAI...EP' ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN (different word...not AIWNWN or 'ages' but hHMERWN or 'days') which is probably best understood as "back then...nowadays" or "back then...today."

i think you mean 1 pe 1:20 not 1 pe 1:3. here is a different phrase EP' ESCATOU TWN XRONWN (times) meaning that while the messiah was fortold and forknown, He didn't appear until these times (times concurrent with the writing).

what i'm getting at, is that these phrases aren't technical phrases to refer to any one thing (i.e., the end of a covenant or a nation or whatever). this could be construed as false assumptions about technical meaning (e.g., certain words or phrases always or nearly always have a technical meaning). it also might be ignoring the idioms and different usages of the words and phrases. this doesn't mean that they don't have a technical meaning, etc. anywhere (for example heb 9:26 may refer to the end of the jewish age) but we should exercise caution.

i've attached a summary of DA Carson's book "Exegetical Fallacies" which has been a great help to me (so much so that i took notes and wrote a summary sheet!). this might explain a little more about what i'm talking about. also, this article is helpful to me and is sort of an abridged version of Carson's book.

[Odyssey]

Thanks for the article. I'll check it out.

Grace to you,

jak

[Odyssey]

Aside from the idea of 'this age' being the OC age and 'that age/age to come' being the NC age, how else are we to understand the limitations given by Christ and his disciples? If they were referring to 'now' versus 'eternity' how do we deal with the clear expectation that Christ was coming soon in their lifetime and their understanding that the 'world is passing away' or that the 'end of all things is at hand'? How do we substantiate a postponement?

Moreover, the references from Matthew, IMHO, can only be seen as the destruction of Jerusalem (as Bryan and Nixon agree). They list the reference without exegeting it assuming that it fulfills their understanding of the issues. I don't think, by looking at the context, that their interpretation can be correct.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
Aside from the idea of 'this age' being the OC age and 'that age/age to come' being the NC age, how else are we to understand the limitations given by Christ and his disciples?

so does understanding the phrases we've discussed thus far (cf. Mt 12:32, Heb 1:3, and 1 Pet 1:20) hinge on understanding AION as "the last days of a nation?"

and what limitations are you referring to? i don't see any limitations given in the verses we've discussed so far. or are you now talking about Mt 24 et al?

the reason i'm sort of "playing dumb" is that i want to be cautious of the danger of always viewing terms like last days [ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN], last times [ESXATOU TWN XRONWN], end of the age/world [SUNTELEIA AIWNON], etc. as technical terms referring to the same thing/event in every place regardless of context. as we already saw, it doesn't necessarily refer to the same thing in Mt 12:32, Heb 1:1f, and 1 Pe 1:20.

i understand that much of the NT and the expectations of the disciples was one of imminence and of heightened anticipation that it would all happen very soon. most of the preaching of Jesus and the apostles about the kingdom was eschatological in its nature and feel. i just don't want to run headlong into this without understanding the parameters of specific contexts, verses, and words.

If they were referring to 'now' versus 'eternity' how do we deal with the clear expectation that Christ was coming soon in their lifetime and their understanding that the 'world is passing away' or that the 'end of all things is at hand'? How do we substantiate a postponement?

i'm not saying that it is 'now' versus 'eternity' everywhere those phrases occur. that was how Mt 12:32 reads. heb 1:1f was different as was 1 Pet 1:20 (they all have different contexts). it will not do to do a word search for ESXATOS and view them as all referring to the same thing (i'm not suggesting this is all you're doing, i know you've done much more than this...this phrase is meant to illustrate that it's much more complex and to just make a point) . i just think we need to exercise caution so i'm not willing to read Mt 12:32, Heb 1:1f, and 1 Pe 1:20 as all a reference or proof of the same thing (i.e., "the last days of a nation") because i don't think their contexts will allow for that.

Moreover, the references from Matthew, IMHO, can only be seen as the destruction of Jerusalem (as Bryan and Nixon agree). They list the reference without exegeting it assuming that it fulfills their understanding of the issues. I don't think, by looking at the context, that their interpretation can be correct.

i agree that much (if not all) of Mt 24 et al refers to 70 AD. as you know OD, i've done much less study in this area that you have (therefore you might need to wait for me and be patient), but i'm not going to rush headlong into the Scriptures seeing all of it through preterist eyes without being thoroughly convinced.

a large part of the preterist argument is that there are not several comings in Scripture for Christ in the NT. but looking at the OT, did they understanding the first coming of Christ (as well as a second)? did they know about Christ coming to suffer as a substitute first only to then leave and return again to judge? from looking at the NT (gospels and such), it seems that they saw it all as one event...yet this is not the way it happened.

i'm just suggesting that perhaps there is a gap in knowledge about how exactly all the eschatological events of the Kingdom of God occur and fit together. my hesitance comes from the fact that viewing all of Scripture from a preterist viewpoint causes me to have to force, fenagle, and stretch other very plain texts (cf. Ro 8) that don't seem to fit nicely into the preterist box...texts that if you exegete from the context alone with normal methods of exegesis, you would not arrive at preterist conclusions if the preterest presuppositions weren't first applied (IMHO).

[Odyssey]

I still don't see how Matt. 12.32 could mean 'now' vs. 'eternity'. Are you stating that people will have to ability the 'sin against the Holy Spirit' in 'eternity'?

Also, I am not suggesting that we not look at the context of the term aion. I am stating, quite frankly, just the opposite. The context, as well as how the term is used in other contexts, needs to be considered.

Furthermore, I think that the best way to understand Hebrews 1 is the 'last days of the nation'. We see this clearly in Jesus parable about the vineyard (Matt. 21.33-46). The last one sent to the nation of Israel was the Son. It clearly signified Israel's 'last days'.

Lastly, conerning 1Pet. 1.20 (thanks), again, I think that passage clearly speaks about Christ appearing during the 'last times' of the Mosaic economy not just the 'times' of the Mosaic economy. Peter was speaking about the 'last times' of something and I believe it to be the last times of the natural nation of Israel.

Grace to you,

jak

[Manifestation1]

Good respond as always to the article Jack. See you again soon.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
I still don't see how Matt. 12.32 could mean 'now' vs. 'eternity'. Are you stating that people will have to ability the 'sin against the Holy Spirit' in 'eternity'?

it is a way to strongly emphasize that this sin WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN. it's probably not safe to extract our eschatology from a passage such as this since that's not what he's talking about.

Furthermore, I think that the best way to understand Hebrews 1 is the 'last days of the nation'. We see this clearly in Jesus parable about the vineyard (Matt. 21.33-46). The last one sent to the nation of Israel was the Son. It clearly signified Israel's 'last days'.

where is that in Heb 1? where is it speaking of the 'last days' of a nation? my point is, that from the context, it just ain't there. he's saying, "God used to speak that way, now He speaks this way..." we probably shouldn't extract eschatology from here either.

Lastly, conerning 1Pet. 1.20 (thanks), again, I think that passage clearly speaks about Christ appearing during the 'last times' of the Mosaic economy not just the 'times' of the Mosaic economy. Peter was speaking about the 'last times' of something and I believe it to be the last times of the natural nation of Israel.

where is mosaic economy in the context? it doesn't appear from context that he's contrasting covenants or ecomonies at all. look at what is juxtaposed:

1 Pe 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

1 Pe 1:20 (GK) proegnwsmenou men pro katabolhs kosmou, fanerwqentos de ep' esxatou twn xronwn di' umas

in the greek the prepositional phrase PROS KATABOLHS KOSMOU is juxtaposed with EP' ESXATOU TWN XRONWN and we clearly see this when we understand the usage of MEN...DE. often it is to be taken as on the one hand...on the other hand. as with the other verses, we probably shouldn't extract our eschatology from a verse such as this one either.

[disciple]

Originally posted by disciple
where is that in Heb 1? where is it speaking of the 'last days' of a nation? my point is, that from the context, it just ain't there. he's saying, "God used to speak that way, now He speaks this way..." we probably shouldn't extract eschatology from here either.

i wanted to add one more thing to Heb 1. the writer of hebrews here is juxtaposing long ago (PALAI) with in these last days (EP' ESXATOU TWN hHMERWN). if this was written pre-70AD then this seems to make the preterist position crumble. PALAI speaks of long ago or past times (referring to the OT revelation) not the Old Covenant which from the writer's perspective people were still in (even though it was a transitionary period). it's just a contrast between how God spoke in His previous revelation and how God is speaking now (in the NT and in the very epistle of Hebrews) and not a comment about nations, eschatology, covenants, etc. just because the word ESXATOS appears it does not mean it is talking about what we'd call eschatology. anyway, i was just looking at the greek and thought i'd add that comment.

[Odyssey]

it is a way to strongly emphasize that this sin WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN. it's probably not safe to extract our eschatology from a passage such as this since that's not what he's talking about.

That is because you view 'age' in this passage as different realms. But, as I have shown from a number of sources, the Jews understood 'this age' as pertaining to their then Mosiac age of the Law and 'the age to come' as referring to the age of Messiah. They did not see it as the natural realm and the eternal realm.

where is that in Heb 1? where is it speaking of the 'last days' of a nation? my point is, that from the context, it just ain't there. he's saying, "God used to speak that way, now He speaks this way..." we probably shouldn't extract eschatology from here either.

That's your take on the passage. I used to have the same view. However, if we take into consideration the whole message of NT eschatology and the soon coming to pass of the OC and the establishment of the NC, we see this letter in a completely different light. We see from a number of passages that Christ appeared at the end of the OC age. He was the last one of the prophets that God sent to that nation. Furthermore, the whole book of Hebrews drips with eschatology. It constantly refers to things that were about to happen to the first century peoples, specifically the Jews.

in the greek the prepositional phrase PROS KATABOLHS KOSMOU is juxtaposed with EP' ESXATOU TWN XRONWN and we clearly see this when we understand the usage of MEN...DE. often it is to be taken as on the one hand...on the other hand. as with the other verses, we probably shouldn't extract our eschatology from a verse such as this one either.

Where is that phrased used in the way you say Peter meant it? Furthermore, what was Peter meaning by 'the last times'? The last times of what? The Jews knew that the Messianic age was what was next on the calendar. Peter was stating that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They also knew that before his age could come, theirs must desolve. It must pass away. Peter, as well as every other NT writer, wrote of this. Something was ending very soon. It was the 'last times' for something. It was the 'last hour' for something. These phrases are used consistantly throughout the Bible to talk about the end of something (and a lot of times the ushering in of something new).

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
That is because you view 'age' in this passage as different realms. But, as I have shown from a number of sources, the Jews understood 'this age' as pertaining to their then Mosiac age of the Law and 'the age to come' as referring to the age of Messiah. They did not see it as the natural realm and the eternal realm.

but the point here is not eschatology but to state that this sin "WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN" whether it be in any age or any realm. that's why jesus says this. blaspheming the Spirit is a really really bad thing to do.

That's your take on the passage. I used to have the same view. However, if we take into consideration the whole message of NT eschatology and the soon coming to pass of the OC and the establishment of the NC, we see this letter in a completely different light. We see from a number of passages that Christ appeared at the end of the OC age. He was the last one of the prophets that God sent to that nation. Furthermore, the whole book of Hebrews drips with eschatology. It constantly refers to things that were about to happen to the first century peoples, specifically the Jews.

i understand the message of hebrews and i think i agree with you on its message. my point is that you can't just insert 'last days of a nation' here if that's not what it's talking about. God used to (of old) communicate in various ways through varoius people now (since the coming of Messiah) He communicates in one way through one person. the demise of the nation, although related, is not what is in view here and it's not explicitly mentioned in this text. he's juxtaposing the different ways in which He communicates (and His new method is vastly superior and is the antitype of the type). this new covenant is much different. i understand that you are inserting this because of the overall message and because of theology but i'm saying that his point here is not to discuss eschatology. that's all.

Where is that phrased used in the way you say Peter meant it? Furthermore, what was Peter meaning by 'the last times'? The last times of what? The Jews knew that the Messianic age was what was next on the calendar. Peter was stating that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. They also knew that before his age could come, theirs must desolve. It must pass away. Peter, as well as every other NT writer, wrote of this. Something was ending very soon. It was the 'last times' for something. It was the 'last hour' for something. These phrases are used consistantly throughout the Bible to talk about the end of something (and a lot of times the ushering in of something new).

my point is that peter is juxtaposing the Messiah being 'foreknown before the foundation of the world' with 'appearing in these last times.' he's not juxtaposing some covenant or demise of the nation israel with the appearing. that's my point. we can't insert 'last days of a nation' simply because our theology drives us to that point. if it's not explicit in the text, it's probably not a good idea to use it as a proof text.