A Curious Omission

[thomas15]

The Jews repeatedly (I believe ultimately by God's plan) rejected or corrupted what God had done (often due to a lack of understanding, but with the 1st Century Temple I believe it goes deeper than simple ignorance). Jesus' words to Nicodemus comes to mind. They had knowledge but lacked understanding.

This is, IMHO, the flaw in viewing the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as a fulfillment of prophesy.

By 70 AD the 1st Century Jewish religion held no place in redemptive history. It was important, culturally to the Jewish nation but the foundation of the true Temple (that which the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple symbolized) had already been laid. The Temple had already been destroyed and was raised on the third day.

JonC you are correct. If the God of the Bible is all knowing and I believe he is, then he knew exactly what would happen in redemptive history when He made his promises to Abraham, Moses, David and so forth. He knew He would be rejected but if He is a God with integrity, and I believe he is, then he is obliged to keep his promises made to even those who reject him.

And that still applies today. Jehovah is obliged to some day future open the eyes of the Jews, as He has promised and at that time they will believe in their Savior, they will receive the land as an everlasting inheritance also as promised. I don't have to personally like this teaching but it's really not up to me.

Abraham and his sons will have to be raised in spite of the fact that the Sadducees, smart as they were, didn't believe such a thing was possible, this for (Abraham and sons) to live in the land. If I'm unwilling to believe that OT promises to the nation of Israel will honored, then by what line of reasoning shall I believe that Jehovah will keep His promises to the NT Church? Are we that much more deserving than the OT sons of Abraham? Given the sad state of the modern Church, I think not.

Trust the Word and let the chips fall where they may. As wretched as I am I'm depending on God's promises, I have to. Without them I have no hope.

The restoration is not going to happen because anyone deserves it, rather it will happen for God's Holy Name's sake.

 

[Silverhair]

[QUOTE="
NOTES
1. Philip Schaff showed exemplary courage in his later life. Even though his earlier editions of the History of the Christian Church assumed a late date for Revelation he, upon further study, corrected the date to pre-AD 70 in later editions. He wrote:

"The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders, 1257 but the internal
evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70)." - The History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 653.

2. Although Theonomist Greg Bahnsen wrote a glowing Preface to Chilton's. "Days of Vengeance" he withdrew all further endorsements when Chilton converted to (what he considered was heretical) Full Preterism a few years after publication of the book.[/QUOTE]


Where you see Schaff as showing exemplary courage in his later life what I see is someone who has lost his understanding of scripture and the value of history and the early support for the late date {90-95} for Revelation. After reading through the posts made here I did some online reading of the Preterist view. What i did find was not compelling in the least in fact I would say that it was wanting in support for your view.

 

[asterisktom]

After reading through the posts made here I did some online reading of the Preterist view. What i did find was not compelling in the least in fact I would say that it was wanting in support for your view.

There is no such thing as the Preterist view just like there is no such thing as the Millennialist view. Chances are very good that your sites you saw taught a Preterism that I am very much opposed to.

 

[asterisktom]

Jehovah is obliged to some day future open the eyes of the Jews, as He has promised and at that time they will believe in their Savior, they will receive the land as an everlasting inheritance also as promised. I don't have to personally like this teaching but it's really not up to me.

What passage do you have for this assertion that God will be under obligation "to some day future open the eyes of the Jews"? I can think of several to the contrary.

 

[Lodic]

To those living around Jerusalem, including the Jewish Christians (who according to Eusebius and others, escaped the disaster by fleeing to Pella), it would have been a cataclysmic event.. To the Gentile Christians living some hundreds of miles away, and never having been anywhere near the place, I'm not so certain. They would have been much more concerned about the civil wars and the 'Year of the Four Emperors' that took place in 68 and 69.
Most of the commentators that I have read place Revelation in the reign of the Emperor Domitian, as he appears to have been the first one who banished, rather than killed, Christians - hence John is banished to Patmos. But I know that good men differ on this point and we shall probably not know the answer until we get to heaven and ask John. I simply don't have a horse in that race. My point was that Amillennialism stands whether John wrote Revelation in 65 or 95 AD.

Amillennialism gives eschatology an abiding relevance for all Christians at all times. A Futurism that pushes almost all the events into the future would have been no help to the struggling Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. A Preterism that places the culmination of history in AD 70 has precious little to say to anyone after that date. Hyper-preterism, that denies a future return of Christ is simply outside Christian orthodoxy, and is instantly refuted by Acts 1:11.

The warnings of Revelation were only meant for those whom it would have a direct impact on, not people far away.

While most commentators do place Revelation in Domitian's time, many place this book (and John's exile) during Nero's time. The strongest evidence for the late date points to an obscure quote by Irenaeus. "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no such long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of Domitian's reign". It's not clear from this quote what it was that Irenaeus saw. Was it John, or the Apocalypse? Other ECF place John's exile to Nero's time. Irenaeus is also noted for claiming that Jesus lived to be 50 years old.

I personally believe the Bible's internal evidence points to the early date. The temple was still standing. The Jewish War was coming. Nero easily fits the "6th king" of Revelation 17. The phrase that the events "must soon take place" occur several times in the book. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" took over 400 pages to make the case for the early date of Revelation, so I can't do it justice in a couple of paragraphs. To the point of this thread, the absence of Jerusalem's destruction in any book of the New Testament strongly indicates that books were written prior to AD 70.

 

[asterisktom]

Where you see Schaff as showing exemplary courage in his later life what I see is someone who has lost his understanding of scripture and the value of history and the early support for the late date {90-95} for Revelation.

It is precisely because of his valuing of Scripture that he changed his position. His proofs, according to his own words, were all internal. Those other two categories of evidence you mention must always be kept down under the first, the Word of God. The "early support", as I mentioned, narrows down to the mistake of one man.

 

[asterisktom]

This is, IMHO, the flaw in viewing the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as a fulfillment of prophesy.

Do you mean to say that this was not prophesied in Scripture?

Daniel 9:24-26
Deuteronomy 28:49-52
Matthew 24:1-2
Micah 3:11-12

 

[JonC]

Do you mean to say that this was not prophesied in Scripture?

Daniel 9:24-26
Deuteronomy 28:49-52
Matthew 24:1-2
Micah 3:11-12

I mean to say the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD dies not have the place in Scripture that you assign it. The only passage directly referring to 70 AD is Matthew 24. And it is a statement to the Disciples who were showing Him the complex (i. e., this structure you are showing with national pride will not last. It will be destroyed, yet again).

The primary error with the view is it starts with 70 AD as a significant event in redemptive history and then goes back to Scripture to prove it. It is a result if poor study methods and emphasizes an idea not present in Scripture (it connects dots that are not there...like the Jehovah Witnesses do with WW2).

 

[asterisktom]

I mean to say the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD dies not have the place in Scripture that you assign it. The only passage directly referring to 70 AD is Matthew 24. And it is a statement to the Disciples who were showing Him the complex (i. e., this structure you are showing with national pride will not last. It will be destroyed, yet again).

The primary error with the view is it starts with 70 AD as a significant event in redemptive history and then goes back to Scripture to prove it. It is a result if poor study methods and emphasizes an idea not present in Scripture (it connects dots that are not there

I would suggest that you are overlooking dots that are there, especially the Daniel passage I cited.

I know that some preterists tend to overemphasize 70 AD, as if the main doctrine is the date. But actually the main distinctive IMO is that we have the Kingdom and reigning King now, not waiting for it and Him in the future.

The only reason for the emphasis on AD 70 in this thread is because of the topic of the OP.

 

[thomas15]

What passage do you have for this assertion that God will be under obligation "to some day future open the eyes of the Jews"? I can think of several to the contrary.

My Grandfather was seminary trained and ordained. He opted out of the ministry but could rattle off Scripture from memory all day and half the night. He also had been in the merchant marine and had traveled all over, had visited many of the places mentioned in NT.

In spite of this he told me on many occasions that truth is whatever you want it to be. He never told me that salvation is based on grace through faith in the risen Christ.

Grandpop knew the Bible better than I ever will. Difference between us is I actually believe it, he didn't, sad to say.

 

[asterisktom]

Jehovah is obliged to some day future open the eyes of the Jews, as He has promised and at that time they will believe in their Savior, they will receive the land as an everlasting inheritance also as promised.

The best passage to answer your assertion, Thomas, would be Romans 11:25-27, which would be a thread in itself.

Also we have the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The rich man in Christ's account, after a life of ignoring God, woke up in the torment of the next life. For the first time - too late - he is awakened to his spiritual condition. He also is concerned for his brothers still living. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus from the dead to warn them so that they won't share in this torment. Abraham answers that his brothers "have Moses and the prophets [today this would include more: "They have the whole Word of God"] let them hear them."

"And he [the rich man] said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

If we do not believe the words in the Bible we have no other way to be saved. Neither will the Jews, either now or anytime in the future.

For God to save the entirety of Jews living at some point in the future would require for Him to give them an opportunity that he did not give to the rich man's brothers.

And then we have this in Jude:3:

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

Our salvation is a common salvation - not as in ordinary, but as in being in common. We all share the same salvation.

God, who is not a respecter of persons, will not change the rules in order to especially favor a group, whoever they are.

The issue of Jewishness is no longer valid in this context:

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28 - 29

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:26 - 29

 

[asterisktom]

My Grandfather was seminary trained and ordained. He opted out of the ministry but could rattle off Scripture from memory all day and half the night. He also had been in the merchant marine and had traveled all over, had visited many of the places mentioned in NT.

In spite of this he told me on many occasions that truth is whatever you want it to be. He never told me that salvation is based on grace through faith in the risen Christ.

Grandpop knew the Bible better than I ever will. Difference between us is I actually believe it, he didn't, sad to say.

Thank you for sharing this. Yes, I have met people like this. It is a good reminder that our real treasure is knowing Him and not mere, dry facts - which is what verses in the Bible can become.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The warnings of Revelation were only meant for those whom it would have a direct impact on, not people far away.

What's it doing in the Bible then, if it was only relevant for three or four years? If Revelation has no relevance to me, is it OK if I tear it out of my Bible? No, no. Revelation was certainly meant to bring comfort to 1st Century Christians, but not only to them. It speaks of the whole time between our Lord's ascension into heaven and His glorious return. It gives hope and instruction to Christians of all ages.

While most commentators do place Revelation in Domitian's time, many place this book (and John's exile) during Nero's time. The strongest evidence for the late date points to an obscure quote by Irenaeus. "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no such long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of Domitian's reign". It's not clear from this quote what it was that Irenaeus saw. Was it John, or the Apocalypse? Other ECF place John's exile to Nero's time. Irenaeus is also noted for claiming that Jesus lived to be 50 years old.

I personally believe the Bible's internal evidence points to the early date. The temple was still standing. The Jewish War was coming. Nero easily fits the "6th king" of Revelation 17. The phrase that the events "must soon take place" occur several times in the book. Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" took over 400 pages to make the case for the early date of Revelation, so I can't do it justice in a couple of paragraphs. To the point of this thread, the absence of Jerusalem's destruction in any book of the New Testament strongly indicates that books were written prior to AD 70.

The arguments are on both sides and, as I said, I don't think we'll ever know for sure in this life. Certainly, the vast majority of N.T. books were written before AD70, but the letters of John and Revelation seem to come from a much different time. For instance, the situation in Ephesus in Revelation 2 seems quite different to that in 1 Timothy. But it really doesn't matter much to me because my understanding of eschatology is not affected by when I suppose Revelation might have been written.

 

[kyredneck]

Henry Hammond (1653) the first English scholar to compare manuscripts of the New Testament

"'Tis ordinarily said, that the Jews were a typical people, the whole divine economy toward them is doctrinal and instructive to us, not immediately or literally, but by way of Anagogy" - Henry Hammond

 

[kyredneck]

It is interesting that Christ rarely addressed Temple rulers

...probably because He spent very little time there (in Jerusalem).

 

[Lodic]

What's it doing in the Bible then, if it was only relevant for three or four years? If Revelation has no relevance to me, is it OK if I tear it out of my Bible? No, no. Revelation was certainly meant to bring comfort to 1st Century Christians, but not only to them. It speaks of the whole time between our Lord's ascension into heaven and His glorious return. It gives hope and instruction to Christians of all ages.

Isn't that like asking what the prophecies warning Israel about coming events are doing in the Bible when those events came to pass centuries ago? Of course Revelation is relevant to us today, but not as a warning about the "End Times", "the Antichrist", etc. As John tells us at the beginning, this is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The arguments are on both sides and, as I said, I don't think we'll ever know for sure in this life. Certainly, the vast majority of N.T. books were written before AD70, but the letters of John and Revelation seem to come from a much different time. For instance, the situation in Ephesus in Revelation 2 seems quite different to that in 1 Timothy. But it really doesn't matter much to me because my understanding of eschatology is not affected by when I suppose Revelation might have been written.

I suggest that our understanding of eschatology is affected by our understanding of when it was written. For instance, if Revelation was written in the 90s, Nero wouldn't fit as the "6th king" (Rev 17:10). This would affect the way we interpret large parts of the rest of the prophecy. The early date is very much a key to the Preterist interpretation. The late date view pretty much eliminates the Preterist view. Considering the significance of the Temple, it is very curious that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are absent if Revelation was written in the 90s. While we may not agree on when it was written, I am fully convinced of the early date because it fits the prophecies best.

 

[kyredneck]

Jehovah is obliged to some day future open the eyes of the Jews

Not. At all.

...Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever.... Mt 21:19

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

 

[George Antonios]

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

Along these lines, It would be criminal to pretend the holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime). Likewise for inspired writers to neglect writing of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

Thoughts?

Such events can be omitted by the scriptures.

Excerpt from a book I'm finishing on Daniel by the grace of God, which has bearing:

"It is peculiar that Daniel claims to have lived past the year of the return of the Jewish exiles, in
the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan.6:28), yet never mentions the return.

The Pulpit commentary remarks: 'We regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon [Personal Note: the return is indirectly pointed to in Daniel 1:21, see note] as one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it. This is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passed—the greatest political change of this century—we find that most of them never once refer to it. If any one should take Cowper’s’ Letters, written during the American War, he will find comparatively few references to the whole matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have letters for nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred pages. Now, if a person were condensing these and selecting passages from them, he might easily make such a selection as would contain not a single reference to that war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle that was going on.[1]"

[1] The Pulpit Commentary – Daniel 1:21

 

[George Antonios]

Another thought:

• If John finished Revelation before 70 A.D.
• If Revelation lays out amillennial eschatology

Then Jesus Christ returning to reign, and the signs prophesied in the Olivet discourse, were all fulfilled before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

 

[37818]

Another thought:

• If John finished Revelation before 70 A.D.
• If Revelation lays out amillennial eschatology

Then Jesus Christ returning to reign, and the signs prophesied in the Olivet discourse, were all fulfilled before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

How? I am missing part of your argument.