Anti-preterist article

[Odyssey]

I don't think that Peter was juxtaposing that at all.

I understand your point and hopefully you understand mine. I think that neither of us can understand the expectations of the first century peoples. When they heard that Messiah had come, eschatology became an everyday thing.

Grace to you,

jak

[disciple]

Originally posted by Odyssey
I think that neither of us can understand the expectations of the first century peoples. When they heard that Messiah had come, eschatology became an everyday thing.

i think i understand and agree. BTW, i like your sig.

[Odyssey]

Thanks. To me, that about states it all.

[stauron]

Hello everyone. Sorry for the long delay, but I have had a busy year. 3 jobs, a baby and a fairly sick wife tend to fill up your days.

I love to see gentlemen debate, and I especially like to see Oddyssey and disciple bring out the big guns...

I would just like to add that I think that Peter and the others were well aware that an age was ending. Just as we can now easily see the changes from industrial era to the technology era and the people at the cusps knew there was a change but couldn't quite put a finger on the exact time until looking back some time later.

I think that the jews had a very clear idea that the messiah was supposed to bring a change. An ending and a begining. They may not have realized the significance or exact meaning of what they saw, but they knew.

So when we read phrases like "these last days" and "the time of the end" there was a very cultural idiom attached to them and even if they didn't have the same "technical" meaning that some try to assign them, there was still a very clearly eschatalogical significance to them. In fact it seems to me that the concept of the change was a technical, established fact for them and they struggled with words as they tried to accurately communicate the idea. From an obviously preterist bent, I believe that it accounts for the now and not yet and the many different discriptions of salvation as a past/present/future work, because the authors were stuck in a time warp, or more accurately a time dialation.

Changing topics and coming back to the original post, I also wrote a response to Nixon and Bryan (read it if you like, disciple did most of my redaction, so blame him for any typos

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Crit..._response.html

But one of the main problems with the demeanor of the whole article is hypocrisy. They cast many aspersions upon preterists that are equally applicable to them.

The two that stand out the most is their idea that preterism "destroys the Christian view of history” is very funny since they are as different from a "typical evangelical" (read pessimistic) view of history as the preteristis are.

And secondly they they would and have used the same arguments as the preterist against a futurist, but change tactics as soon as a preterist joins the fray, and in fact turn and accuse the preterists of being "overly rigid" in hermeneutics. As if sticking by your hermeneutic is a bad thing.

At any rate, it is nice to be back with you sane folks again.

[wildboar]

stauron:

I certainly agree, the partial preterist position is simply an inconsistent way of applying preterist interpretations and I hope more people will see this. I noticed this when read Sproul's book, it seemed like he really wanted to agree with Russell on almost all his points but held himself back. If the the Post-millenialism/Christian Reconstructionist movement would carry forth their interpretive principles consistently they would all be preterists.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[stauron]

I have sounded that horn again and again. It is an issue of hermeneutics.

The chain should be hermeneutics -->theology-->application -->other consequeces which then make our hermenutic better and then we go around again.

If we don't like the consequences we can't just arbitrarily change our hermeneutic. The better our understanding and application is the better our hermeneutic gets. It should be self correcting, and start with the quickening of our hearts, because the Holy Spirit draws/leads us.

The point in all this deluge of words, is that each loop through the chain is one step. We can't divorce the hermeneutic from the consequences. So if we derive our hermeneutic from scripture then we have to deal with the consequences.

Thanks for the encouragement wildboar.

[disciple]

Originally posted by stauron
Hello everyone. Sorry for the long delay, but I have had a busy year. 3 jobs, a baby and a fairly sick wife tend to fill up your days.

welcome back! well, even though i haven't seen you around here, it has been nice to see you in the flesh occasionally

So when we read phrases like "these last days" and "the time of the end" there was a very cultural idiom attached to them and even if they didn't have the same "technical" meaning that some try to assign them, there was still a very clearly eschatalogical significance to them...

the question i've been trying to answer is how do we know how the author/audience would have understood that cultural idiom? would they have understood it as the "end of the world as we know it" or was there some other meaning as in a new dispensation, age, rule, etc. with no indication of an actual new state of existence (except perhaps a new emphasis). i've been trying to use all of the tools i can get my hands on to try and enter into the minds of the first century audience. this to me is the crux--how would they have understood it?

[mindonfire]

(warning: this post is way longer than I meant it to be. Forgive me. It concerns the contextual meanings of "age and age to come" as likely interpreted by first century jews--some or all)

First, let me say that this has been a great thread. Second, let me say that I will now add very little to it.

That is, first century history and the few hundred years preceding it have been a passion of mine and still are. Much of this debate has circled around the understanding of phrases like "end of the age" and "age to come" etc. Now, I will only add what I will call my own opinion here and I say that simply because I am not going to include references (at this time at least). I believe that the passages in question refer to a time then current and a time coming both of which would both take place on the earth, and are apart from an afterlife consideration.

One must examine the context of the passage and the people involved, which you are all attempting to do admirably! That is more than I can say for most people on many similar boards. Continuing in this manner, one can gain new understanding of the first century (and in deed the meaning in previous centuries) meaning of these passages by learning what the jews of the time generally thought the messiah would do and be.

In extremely simple terms, the Jews were not looking toward a "heavenly" or "other earthly" existence of paradise. What they were waiting for was a guy sent by God to do two things: 1) Fight and destroy whoever it was that was persecuting or enslaving them, etc. and 2) Rebuild or re-establish or cleanse the temple so that God could once again live among them. That was what the messiah was supposed to do. Of course, Jesus did do these things, but not in the way that the jews were expecting him to. He said that his kingdom has come and if his kingdom has come them all others were of no avail (a very political statement at the time and obviously one that bothered the romans at times. If Jesus was King then Caesar was not). He also reestablished the temple within the believers. He made a kingdom of Priests. He established rule and communion that could never be broken or taken away again by tyrants or conquering nations nor by the sin of his forgiven people. I would encourage a period study on the first century as well as a study of what the first century messianic expectations were among the jews. Again, there is so much more to this, but I simply want to throw this out there.

Now then, some have suggested that 2 or more questions were asked by the disciples in Matthew 24 (and Mark 13 and Luke 21). While this may be possible, I think it is unlikely. First, you simply have more than one person who just heard about the temple (THE PLACE WHERE GOD WILL DWELL AMONG THEM) as being destroyed. While speculative, I would not be surprised if all the disciples with Jesus simply asked the same question, but in different ways. This was a huge thing Jesus just told them. More incredible than we realize I think. It would certainly mean the 'end' of something. There is more to this debate for another time. BUt suffice it to say that I have personally reached this conclusion.

Second, it is often suggested that one of the questions that was asked was that of Jesus second coming, however, this is not in the text. At best, the question asked is what will be the sign of your coming (not second coming). The disciples would have recognized such a descruction of the temple, described by the man they believed to be the messiah, as a judgement from God. Such judgements are described as comings throughout the Old Testament (their Bible). The temple being destroyed was not a new thing and was previously considered a judgement of God and so it would be thought of this time as well. The 'age to come' as was referred to by many jews would have referred to the age brought about by the messiah after he had freed the people and cleansed the temple. They would still be there physically, and it would take place on earth. While the study of Jewish afterlife beliefs is very interesting, there is not a great deal said about them in the Bible.

This age to come would not likely be interpreted as eternity or another such idiom.

Finally, one more interesting point to ponder is the mention in Eph.1.20,21 of age and age to come. Jesus has been raised from the dead and seated at the Father's right hand
above everything in this age and in the one (age) to come. Many different interpretations of these passages have surfaced. Some have suggested that the age to come refers to a heavenlyl age. However, from a jewish perspective this would be an unlikely interpretation as briefly described above.

From Paul's perspective we might argue that it is referring to a heavenly or earthly age, because he is a Christian and would have interpreted things differently. There are a couple of problems with this. First, Paul is still a jew and Christianity is very jewish! Even the events expected by the Jews to be accomplished by the messiah were not very different, as mentioned above. Second, Paul understood that the temple still standing in Jerusalem was in opposition to everything that his Lord stood for. He also would have heard of the prophecy that it would be destroyed and would have still looked to the future for that event and considered it part of the process by which the Lord brought forth his reign.

Regardless of these things, however, we see in the Ephesians verse that Jesus will be at the Father's side for "this age and the age to come." We read in Hebrews 1.13 that he will sit at the Father's right side until all enemies are made a footstool under his feet. In 1 Cor. 15. we read that Jesus will not hand over the Kingdom until all enemies are made a footstool under his feet (and the final enemy is death). Therefore we can conclude that the last enemy will not be conquered until the end of the age to come. At that point, Jesus will hand over the Kingdom.

Whew! I am so sorry if this is not making much sense. I will go to the top of th epost in a second and write a warning. : )

My point here is that Paul, as a "Jew of the Jews" would understand not only what the messianic expectation of the messiah would be, but also that Jesus DID in fact, fulfill that expectation, but in different terms than most people expected. But while the terms may have differed, Paul's understanding of his current age and a future age in which Christ's reign would be established had not changed. Paul still envisioned a time in the future, when Jesus would reign over the earth, but it would not be a reign consistent with what jews traditionally expected. Just as he did not fight Rome, but still defeated all nations at His resurrection, and just as he did not rebuild or cleanse the temple, but still built the temple anew within the hearts of his people, he would not sit on the literal thrown but at the right hand on the Father in the heavenly places while he ruled and reigned and brought all things under him as a footstool. This is absolutely wonderful!

Now, as this relates to our differeing views of eschatology, that remains for another thread. Some await a yet future reign (which I don't see, as Paul stated the effectual reign of Christ began in his age and would continue in the age to come. Beginning likely at his ascension and publically at the destruction of the temple); others believe that Jesus gave the kingdom over at ad70 (not my interpretation either, but still accepted among borthers and sisters) and some have views somewhere in between.

Again, my point in this post was not to establish the validity of any one eschatological view, but only to demonstrate, strictly in general terms, that the contextual view of the "age and age to come" phrases would have most likely been understood as referring to a future wherein a messiah figure reigned, and that future still being one on earth apart from any afterlife consideration.

Forgive me if I have confused anyone. Thank you for this awesome message board. I have not meant to establish any suggestion except what I mention in the above paragraph. There is not enough room here for a more indepth treatment and ask that the reader would understand that. Nor I am qualified to provide an expert testimony of all the various eschatological views. I simply have a passion for the jewish and palestinian history of the time and surrounding and wanted to make a comment.

mindonfire