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

[asterisktom]

NOPE...

the Holy Spirit does, through the authors he inspired to write down word of God...

Also, don't pretierists determine themselves which prophecies get spiritualized and explained away?

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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"

 

[asterisktom]

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

Which scripture are you refering to, please post it.

Thanks,

Eze.40-48...

 

[JesusFan]

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.

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!

 

[asterisktom]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

Please give me a handle (chapter and verse) for this, JF, and I will see if I can handle it.

Hebrews Chapter 9:11-14

 

[thomas15]

Do we need to forget the Lord Supper as a necessity to remember Christ, since the memorial sacrifices only represent past events and the Lord's supper is for a memorial then it can be done away just as the sacrifices have been if that is all a spiritual representation. Nothing is literal per your belief, so we should not baptize nor practice the Lord's supper since all is spiritual in commands.
The millenial sacrifices are just that a memorial sacrifice to the Lord for what He has done for all.......

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

The
Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel. Its
fundamental structure is the same. Its interpretation
depends upon Ezekiel. The first half of both books leads
up to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem; in the
second they describe a new and holy Jerusalem. There
is one significant difference. Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre
is transformed into a lament over Jerusalem, the reason
being that St. John wishes to transfer to Jerusalem the
note of irrevocable doom found in the lament over Tyre.
Here lies the real difference in the messages of the two
books. Jerusalem, like Tyre, is to go forever.”45 Consider
the more obvious parallels:46
1. The Throne-Vision (Rev. 4/Ezek. 1)
2. The Book (Rev. 5/Ezek. 2-3)
3. The Four Plagues (Rev. 6:1-8/Ezek. 5)
4. The Slain under the Altar (Rev. 6:9-11/Ezek. 6)
5. The Wrath of God (Rev. 6:12-17/Ezek. 7)
6. The Seal on the Saint’s Foreheads (Rev. 7/Ezek. 9)
7. The Coals from the Altar (Rev. 8/Ezek. 10)
8. No More Delay (Rev. 10:1-7 /Ezek. 12)
9. The Eating of the Book (Rev. 10:8 -11/Ezek. 2)
10. The Measuring of the Temple
(Rev. 11:1-2/Ezek. 40-43)
11. Jerusalem and Sodom (Rev. 11:8/Ezek. 16)
12. The Cup of Wrath (Rev. 14/Ezek. 23)
13. The Vine of the Land (Rev. 14:18-20/Ezek. 15)
14. The Great Harlot (Rev. 17-18 /Ezek. 16, 23)
15. The Lament over the City (Rev. 18/Ezek. 27)
16. The Scavengers’ Feast (Rev. 19/Ezek. 39)
17. The First Resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6/Ezek. 37)
18. The Battle with Gog and Magog
(Rev. 20:7-9/Ezek. 38-39)
19. The New Jerusalem (Rev. 21/Ezek. 40-48)
20. The River of Life (Rev. 22/Ezek. 47)

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

 

[thomas15]

The Revelation is a Christian rewriting of Ezekiel.....

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

 

[revmwc]

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


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

#1 where are the 24 enthroned elders of Revelation in the Ezekial and Ezekial talks of winged living creature. The angels are seen in Revelation 4 but nothing going on in Revelation like in Ezekial.

#2 The book of judgement upon the whole earth as spoken of in Daniels 70th week. This shows prophecy will be fulfilled just as prophisied by Daniel, Ezekial and Jesus in Revelation.

#3 God will judge the whole world in Revelation 6 while the ezekiel passage talks about God bringing discipline upon Israel alone.

#4 Doesn't show the slain under the Alter in Ezekiel it says the Jews who were worshiping Idols will be slain on their alters but a Remenent will be spared. The souls of those beheaded for the sake of Christ are seen under the alter in the Revelation passage.

#5 God's wrath again on Israel in Ezekial but the Revelation passage shows God coming upon all mankind in Revelation. Paralell for His wrath but the wrath on different peoples.

#6 The 144,000 sealed are sean in Revelation and the seal;ed prior to God's judgement are seen in Ezekiel. Ezekiel never gives a number and the wrath comes upon all the world in Revelation and Ezekial spells out Judgerment upon Israel.

#18 is the first inaccurate one that I see. The battle with Gog and Magog takes place in the valley of Hamon. Not as we see them coming against Jerusalem the Holy City. The dead won't need to be buried shince the battle is at the end of the Millineial kingdom and the earth will be renovated by fire and New Jerusalem comes down and rest on the new earth. So that is not a paralell between the two. Ezekial says the Jews will be burying the dead for 7 months following the battle. Revelation shows nothing of the sort. The reason for the battles are entirely different the Ezekial passage shows Gog and Magog coming to take a spoil, the Revelation passage shows them coming to try and defeat Christ in His Kingdom. Lead by Satan in revelation lead by greed in Ezekial.

I believe that will be enough to show that while some are parelell they have a different purpose on different peoples the #18 is defintiely two distinctly seperate events due to the purpose of the war and the end of each.

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

 

[thomas15]

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.

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?

 

[Logos1]

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.

 

[revmwc]

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.

You must skipped over post #32 where I showed how the parallel iconolist listed were not quite that close a parallel especially his #18 it is in no way a parallel. Also for it to occur then Christ must be ruling and reigning on the earth Physically according to Revelation 20. While some parallels are seen in events the reason for the event between Ezekial and Revelation are quite obivious to those without blinders on.

We have all proven there are different ways to interpret scripture. Futurist as you call us can pull scripture together as we believe it and show exactly how all scripture comes together to show us God's plan.

Preterist bring scripture to show parallels they see as obvious yet those parallels can't quite hold up as you compare scripture upon scripture. Preterist say here it says this but the meaning isn't literal it a mataphor, it has to be a metaphor because we believe Christ came back in 70 A.D at least the hyper preterist believes that. Yet when you look at the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekial and Zechariah then you see that some are yet to be fulfilled for Israel. The Ezekial passages Iconolist uses continually says God will leave a remenant of Israel in order to fulfill His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
If you take the Revealtion of Jesus He shows the events of Daniel's last week of the 70 weeks and then carries it to the climax of the end of the Gentile domination and to His rule and reign for 1000 years. Then Satan is loosed and muster an army of rebellion against Christ. Made up of Gog and Magog and at the end of it is the Great White throne judgement. Followed by the renovated Earth with the New Jerusalm coming and resting on that earth.
The Ezekial battle has Gog and Magog coming down to take a spoil from Israel and upon God reigning down fire on them in the valley of Hamon we are told that the inhabitants of the land will be 7 months finding and burying bodies. Not too much of a parallel there now is it?
Nice try but if you read those scriptural passages as they are written you see paralell only in the events but not in the reason they occur. Therefore there really is no parallel in them at all.

 

[JesusFan]

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

Could you please explain that to us Futurists please?

 

[thomas15]

.......
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.

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

 

[thomas15]

Could you please explain that to us Futurists please?

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

I was not offering this as a proof.Just showing how others use the bible to get answers....not the newspapers...or the left behind fiction series

There is no historical data to show that this already happened, any secular historian would laugh at you if you tried to convince otherwise.

Did i say it all happened? if I was putting my own thoughts down on EZK. i would leave some of it more general like this;
EZK 33.......the watchman
EZK 34 ......The Great Shepherd
EZK36......The promised new covenant
EZK37..... Can these bones live? the gospel going worldwide
EZK 38-39....Gog/magog opposing the saints
EZK40-47.....the growth of the NT church
And the judgements in Revelation, they are against the nations, gentile nations, this is plain as day.

some are some are not

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.

Yes there are...because the New Israel is heading toward the promised land,in the New Exodus


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?

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;

28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come. 32And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Peter says....

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

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