How does a Preterist Determine what is Metaphoric and what is Literal in Prophecy

Let me get this out of the way first, a side note: I think we have Spurgeon to thank for that unhappy, unperceptive phrase, "spiritualize away".

"spiritualized and explained away". Now think about your phrase for a moment. This is a core problem of many of the futurist/literalists. They equate spiritualizing with "spiritualizing away", which is equated with "explaining away".

This shows that any discussion on these points would be futile - as long as your hurdle remains. Spiritualizing, which is simply giving a spiritual interpretation, is found throughout the Bible. Consider Paul's spiritualizing to the Galatians:

Gal. 4:22-26
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Poor Paul! He must not believe that Abraham really had two sons, seeing that he explained them away. And then he compounds his error by confusing Hagar with the city of Jerusalem!

And what about Jesus? Those staunch literalist Jews were righteously vexed when he explained away their temple by his ridiculous assertion of rebuilding it in three days. At least, that is what it sounded like to them.

Paul shows us that those things that some make fun of because they are invisible, are actually eternal. It is reality, pure and simple. You say "spiritualize", I say "spiritual eyes".

"while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." - 2 Cor. 4:18

"9 But as it is written:

“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God." - 1Cor. 2:9-12

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Heb. 11:1

Very much of what the Bible teaches is invisible. It is a major emphasis. And these invisible things are spiritually understood - and literally misunderstood. This is where faith comes from, the virtue that has confidence in things unseen.

 

Think spiritualizing scripture refers more to the habit of taking clearly what are to be seen as literally promises made by God and explain them in a spiritual stae/metaphorical etc...

example would be in reading all of the OT promises made to jewish people/Isreal and trying to apply them today in full to the Church, as we are seen as being "Spiritual Isreal"

 

I was trying to get you to see that to you, apparently, "spiritualize" is the same as "explain away".

No need going beyond that if that isn't first dealt with.

 

Eze.40-48...

 

Not meaning that spiritualizing a passage is "explaining it away" just that many times the plain and literal meaning inteeded for the text gets replaced by something that was never meant by original author!

 

Sounds good. I agree with that.

 

Hebrews Chapter 9:11-14

 

According to preterist thinking, since Jesus returned in AD 70 we are now in what pre-mils call the MK, except that it is longer than 1000 years and there will be no future general judgement of the gentile nations as described in the seal, trumpet and bowls of Revelation. The reformed covenant a-mils dance around the kingdom question with the "already-not yet" theory that states that some of the kingdom aspects are now in the church, others will be incorporated at some future time, this allows them to continue to observe the Lords Table and Baptism, both ordanances belonging to the church age.

However, the preterist has to deal with a problem with the Lords table in the churches since in their minds Jesus already returned and estalished His kingdom making the communion unnecessary at best. Further complicating the issue is the preterist denial of any kind of actual future kingdom temple as mentioned in Ezekiel because in their minds God ordained temple sacrifices are not possible post cross. This leaves a huge amount of prophecy unfufilled which they simply dismiss as metaphor.

So how do we explain this preterist thinking? It cannot be said that preterist don't know Bible verses and many do seem to be evangelical in many other respects. But we can make the same observation of Roman Catholics, some study the Bible and can discuss theology at a high level but they don't take the Bible literal with respect to theological issues that go against their overall belief system. What they do is make the sophmoric claim that since fundamentalists who claim that they take the Bible literally are inconsistant in places where the Bible actually uses literary devices such as allagory to make a point.

So, the end result is that preterists seem to have agreement on many issues but there really isn't agreement at a detail level nor is it necessary. You never see liberals in the mainline denominations agrue on a fine point of theology amongst themselves, they save their arguements for those who take a strong stance on a literal interpretation of the Bible. A preterist has no problem getting his facts (as he sees them) from liberals such as Harnack to back up their claims. So, it can be said that preterists are smart individuals who in some areas of their theology are theological liberals. On the issue that matters most, the new birth, they are evangelical, on end times they are liberal. No one who is a preterist can make the claim that they got their belief system directly from the Bible.

A person can read the Bible 100 times and they would never on their own come to the preterist conclusion. No, many covenant a-mils and preterists would not be caught dead in public knowing that someone might think that they believe that the church will be raptured or that the Jews will one day be back in the land or that Jesus's return will be a spectacular event in world history. So, they simply dismiss it the best way they know how.

 

Here is From Days of Vengeance ,by Chilton take a look;

Partial preterists look to find links from scripture, not the newspapers

 

I needed an illustration to make my point and you provided me with one. If it were not for the 19th century protestant liberals, preterism as we know it today would not exist. The only good news is that like classic liberalism, modern day preterism will collapse under it's own weight since it lacks the theological underpinnings needed for long term viability.

Why, I ask, would large numbers of people stand behind the ridiculous claims of preterism which requires that you discount large amounts of Scripture and ignore historical fact when you can join up with the existing mainlines for their social gospel or the Roman church with it's history and magnificant physical plant and not have to argue for a literal interpretation of Scripture which address salvation? Simply just give the church or the intellectuals the task of telling you you are saved because you are a nice guy.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say in this post.Are you saying that the author showing parallel language in Ezk. and Rev. are not significant?

Did you look up the verses at all? Your answer does not answer anything.

 

He doesn't know or understand the difference between partial and full preterist. So don't expect too much from him.

 

I think it is clear what I'm saying.

But to answer your non-response though, the parallels you cite don't prove your position. There is no historical data to show that this already happened, any secular historian would laugh at you if you tried to convince otherwise. And the judgements in Revelation, they are against the nations, gentile nations, this is plain as day.

There are other parallels between the OT judgements and those in Revelation, example those in Matt ch 24-25 and those in Exodus against the Egyptians. But have you noticed that in Ezekiel from ch 4 thru ch 11 where judgement comes to the Jews beginning in ch 11 vs 14 how Jehovah brings the Jews back to the land? Have you noticed in Hosea ch 14, Joel ch 2, Zech ch 14 again Jehovah restores the Jews to the land? I guess you don't read those passages, or perhaps you don't believe them?

 

To anybody who bothers to study the parallels it is undisputable that Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel.

Personally, I wouldn’t even waste my time debating that one.

Anybody who can't grasp that does't want an honest debate--they choose denial over the obvious.

 

Could you please explain that to us Futurists please?

 

Does this mean you are going to exercise the "*tom" option?

 

Prepare to receive the old "cut and paste" job.

 

Or perhaps I have read them, and understand them the way they are to be understood .....and YOU have not grasped onto it....
For example Peter quotes Joel 2 at pentecost;

Peter says....

He does not say.....this is like that.....
He says ......this is that

So...even if it does not fit your nice little calendar,nevertheless it was fulfilled at Pentecost....not partially, but fully.

So my friend...I suspect that you might not have as clear an understanding as you think you do