Futurists

[Primitive Baptist]

Futurists believe the majority, if not all, of the prophecies in the book Revelation are still waiting fulfillment in the future of the current generation. I was wondering how the futurists on the board interpret the following verses.

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:36)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt. 24:34)

"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" (Luke 11:50)

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Futurists believe the majority, if not all, of the prophecies in the book Revelation are still waiting fulfillment in the future of the current generation. I was wondering how the futurists on the board interpret the following verses.

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:36)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt. 24:34)

"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" (Luke 11:50)

This is really quite simple. You will have to abandon your anti-futurist attitude to understand though.

In Matthew 23, Jesus condemned the Jews, especially the Pharisees, for their unbelief and strong opposition to Christ.

In Luke 11, the same kind of condemnation appears. Jesus pretty much condemned them from the beginning (so much for "meeting them where they were" and other nonsensical ideas).

In Matthew 24, you have a totally different context and audience. In 23, Jesus condemned the Jews. In 24, Jesus is answering questions the disciples asked.

Jesus explains many different events. Toward the middle of His discourse, Jesus says, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

---

Question: is Jesus saying that this current generation that is on the earth will see all these events?

If yes, you have to ask yourself why you take this verse literally and all the other passages figuratively.

Question: is Jesus saying that the generation that witnesses all these events will be around to see the end?

If yes, you are consistent in both the time reference and to the normal understanding of all the other references.

Since Matthew 24 and 25 have not been fulfilled, the only right answer is no. 2.

[ July 25, 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

[Primitive Baptist]

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Rev. 1:3)

Since we are told the things to which John was referring were "at hand," a first-century fulfillment was to be looked for. Does "at hand" mean 2,000+ years in your eschatological view? The first part of Revelation (up to chapter 12) was clearly prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The parallels of Revelation and history are undeniable. Matthew 24 is clearly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

QUESTIONS:

1. What verses have I taken figuratively?

[ July 25, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[HankD]

Matthew 24 is clearly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Daniel David]

primitive, discuss the verses at hand and stop with the but what about this verse nonsense.

Did you ask your original question to engage in discussion? If yes, then do so.

Did you ask your original question to learn about the other position so you can stop misrepresenting them? If yes, then do so.

I answered each passage without going to another passage. Deal with each verse.

Your position demands that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. This is an enormous stretch. The early fathers and modern conservative scholarship believed it was written about A.D. 95.

According to my position, it doesn't matter when it was written.

As for Matthew 24 being about the destruction of Jerusalem, I will post more later. Try going verse by verse and reconciling what the Lord said and your position.

Stop confusing similarity with fulfillment.

BTW, you interpret the time references in one way and then symbolize the rest.

I interpret the time references in the way they were intended and would have been understood and I also don't manipulate the language by my mysterious private interpretation.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

"The language used here to depict these events may seem strange to modern ears, but it is commonly used in the Old Testament, as denoting the end of temporal empires in prophecy - e.g., of Babylon (Isa. 13:10) and of Egypt (Ezek. 32:7-8). The image of the stars falling like figs and the heavens being rolled up echo Isaiah's prophecy about the fall of Edom (Isa. 34:4). The same terms are used by Jesus in predicting the disaster that would befall the Jewish nation in that generation (Matt. 24:29, 34)." (Revelation: Four Views A Parallel Commentary)

What does the phrase "at hand" mean?

"One of the most important arguments for a Neronean date is based upon the cryptic passage in Revelation 17:10, which speaks of the king currently reigning at the time of writing: "There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time." Unless the term "kings" here is taken as "kingdoms" (i.e., Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, Rome), the natural understanding of this statement would be that five Roman emperors had fallen, and the sixth was reigning at the time of writing. Since Nero was the sixth man to be recognized as emperor of the Roman Empire, this would place the date of writing sometime within his reign [After Nero, Galba reigned only seven months, hence, "...the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time."]. A further confirmation is often found in the identification of Nero with the number "666"...Among the well-known scholars who have held to the early date of Revelation have been Jay Adams, Adam Clarke, Alfred Edersheim, J. B. Lightfoot, John A. T. Robinson, Philip Schaff, and many others. The early date was the prevalant theory among Bible scholars of the nineteenth century. Dr. Kenneth Gentry lists over 130 notable scholars and commentators who favored the early dating of Revelation" (Ibid.).

Therefore, your arguments hold no ground.

[ July 26, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Your position demands that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70. This is an enormous stretch.

Actually, it's not. There is an excellent book for the early dating of the book of Revelation during the reign of Nero entitled Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He presents absolutely great exegetical, Biblical evidence for the early date.

Ken

[ July 26, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
This is really quite simple. You will have to abandon your anti-futurist attitude to understand though.

That's precisely the hub of the problem with futurism, you have to look through a special mental lens to arrive at their interpretation. You have to have a "futurist attitude" to agree with futurism.

Ken

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Ken, are you a Partial Preterist? What do you believe about the "Millennium?" I am a Partial Preterist who believes in the Amillennial view.

 

[HankD]

If you haven't heard it already, here is another shibboleth...

"I am a pan-millenialist, It will all pan out in the end".

HankD

 

[KenH]

I am a postmillennialist. The millennium will be when the church is at the height of its influence on earth and most poeple the world will be true Christians.

Ken

 

[Primitive Baptist]

I figured you were a Postmillennialist because most Partial Preterists are. Jay Adams, I know, was an Amillenial Partial Preterist. You are a Calvinist also, right?

 

[Pastork]

For what its worth, I would like to second Ken's rcommendation of Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell . After giving it a thorough reading, I found his position to be unassailable. As a matter of fact, I dropped my consistent futurist interpretation of Revelation as a result, which wasn't so hard because I was never comfortable with the futurist explanation of the meaning of en tachei (1:1;22:6), tachu (2:5,16;3:11;11:14;22:7,12,20), or eggus (1:3;22:10) anyway.

Pastork

 

[tyndale1946]

The question remains was John warning those brethren about a Jerusalem that was about to fall... Pening Revelation in the reign of Nero or about a future fall somewhere in the realm of 2,000 plus years in the reign of Dalatian? Who exiled him to Patmos? What is Revelation really about?... Why don't you all lay down those left behind series books and break open Josephus!... btw thank you Primitive Baptist now I know how to define myself... A Primitive Baptist... I am a Partial Preterist who believes in the Amillennial view... Biblical history reveals nothing less to those with opened eyes and minds... Brother Glen

[ July 27, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
You are a Calvinist also, right?

Yes, I am. Although I prefer to call myself a Spurgeonite since arguable the greatest Baptist preacher of all time, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, was a Calvinistic Baptist.

Ken
www.spurgeon.org

[ July 27, 2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[tyndale1946]

So what are you really Ken... A Calvinist/Spurgeonite or a Spurgeonite/Calvinist?... Brother Glen

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Your welcome, Ray. Have you ever heard of Elder Bob Allgood of the Old Line Primitive Baptist church? He is also a partial preterist. We have been exchanging E-mails about the subject.

[ July 27, 2002, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[tyndale1946]

This will cure all your ills and show you who was the original author of the Left Behind series... Josephus... and who was really left behind!... Just break out your Bible... Read Matthew 24 and compare it and Revelation up till chapter 12... With The Complete Works Of Josephus... The Wars Of The Jews or The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem. No Christian Library should be without one! Then you will truly know what Jesus meant when he told those Jews... Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand... I'll let you other brethren take it from here!... Brother Glen

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Futurists claim the Temple will be rebuilt. In other words, when the Christians who took the advice of Jesus and fled from Jerusalem when they saw the signs Jesus warned them of (which history records they did), they said, "This is not the fulfillment of what our Savior told us because this thing is going to be rebuilt 2,000+ years down the road!" I think not! That is severely twisting the Scriptures and denying the clear fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

"The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella." (Eusebius, 325 A.D.)

The Temple took 46 years to build (John 2:20), so how could the so-called "Rapture" take place at any moment with the rebuilding of the Temple being a prerequisite for the yet future "Great Tribulation" to take place? If Matthew 24 is referring to a world-wide tribulation, why did Jesus tell the disciples to flee (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21)? Where would they flee if the tribulation was world-wide?! Again, what would the warning mean in Luke 21:21 for the ones outside the city not to enter in since the tribulation would also be taking place outside the city walls? It sounds like the Futurists have a little bit of explaining to do.

[ July 27, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[Daniel David]

Well, Primitive, I am not surprised at your approach here. You introduce a couple of passages that you think drive a wedge into the futurist understand and sit back and smirk.

Lo and behold, they were answered well within the parameters of careful exegesis.

You either forgot to or decided not to continue the discussion on those passages (I am not surprised).

Next, you have a little cheerleading squad provide moral support for your liberal position on God's plan for the ages and also, our role in it.

The only thing I have seen since is bad logic mixed with a few passages and some more smirking as though the death blow has been dealt.

I would encourage you to do a little bit of study on the issue by those who are reputable futurists. That way, at least you would be scholarly about it and not mock in ignorance and be shown to be foolish.