John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism

[Martin Marprelate]

Kyredneck,
Once again, I assume that you are speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
1. If any eye saw Him, no one thought to write about it.
2. It was 40 years after our Lord's words in Matt. 26. I would rather think that most of the chief priests would have been dead by then.

 

[HankD]

ky are you full preterist or partial?

Not a trick question I'm just curious.
I respect your opinions, please let me know.

Thanks
HankD

 

[kyredneck]

the second coming of Christ

Can you cite the passage (there's only one) where your most precious sacred cow holy grail 'SECOND' coming is derived from?

 

[kyredneck]

ky are you full preterist or partial?

I'm 'orthodox' preterist which is 'partial' preterist.

 

[HankD]

I'm 'orthodox' preterist which is 'partial' preterist.

Well, then I probably agree with a lot of your view of Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
being a partial fulfillment of the second coming at the sack of Jerusalem AD70-72.
Many who were standing there saw the "days of vengeance" (probably from a distance - the ones who took His advice and fled)..
The finishing touches come at some unknown time. I'm not a"cookie cutter dispie".
And I have never pretended to know all the details especially from the imagination of Darby.

HankD

 

[DHK]

Is it not an amazing thing that dhk has professed to have preached through1Corinthians many times (and has claimed a 'life time' devoted in so doing), and has authored a commentary on the epistle, yet still has not taken notice of 1:2? This passage explicitly states believers are in fact saints. dhk has obviously maintained his past RCC beliefs of 'sainthood' and it has bled through in his responses here.

My reply was not in the context of the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, but it did have context.
You are right in noticing that there is more than one meaning to the word saint, and in the context of what I said, I am not required to use biblical definitions, am I? Words have meanings. Context defines them, not always the Bible.

 

[agedman]

Can you cite the passage (there's only one) where your most precious sacred cow holy grail 'SECOND' coming is derived from?

One?

I thought you knew the Scriptures better.

Here are a few:
Acts 1:11
Acts 3: 19-11
1 Corinthians 1:7
1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:14
1 Thessalonians 5:23
2 Thessalonians 2
1 Timothy 6
2 Timothy 4
Hebrews 9

A partial list (10 places) is now given as you ask, but I doubt you will even come close to acknowledging that not only is your "sacred cow holy grail" view completely untrue, but your post of only "one verse" absurd, also.

 

[Rippon]

You are right in noticing that there is more than one meaning to the word saint, and in the context of what I said, I am not required to use biblical definitions, am I? Words have meanings. Context defines them, not always the Bible.

So I take it you meant in the way Roman Catholics define it then? The authorities in the R.C. Church define who they think should be canonized as "saints."

But speaking biblically, no one can 'make' another a saint because God alone makes someone a believer --which means saint.

If you want to inject a third meaning of 'saint' into the conversation go ahead. But it would make more sense to use a biblical word in the way it is understood by Christians.

 

[agedman]

So I take it you meant in the way Roman Catholics define it then? The authorities in the R.C. Church define who they think should be canonized as "saints."

But speaking biblically, no one can 'make' another a saint because God alone makes someone a believer --which means saint.

If you want to inject a third meaning of 'saint' into the conversation go ahead. But it would make more sense to use a biblical word in the way it is understood by Christians.

Rippon,

He was using in a colloquial sense. Not formal or literary.

As is common. Referring to one who is self righteous and a do gooder as a saint, or a saintly mother or grandmother.

It can be used either in sarcasm or in tender affection.

I think most everyone on the BB understood what DHK was stating.

 

[kyredneck]

Hebrews 9

Lol, when you use a shotgun you're bound to hit something!:

28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10

A.W. Pink:
….."For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (verse 37). The causal "For" denotes that the apostle was about to confirm what he had just said: he both adds a word to strengthen their "confidence" and "patience," and also points them to the near approach of the time when they should receive their "reward." The Greek is very expressive and emphatic. The apostle used a word which signifies "a little while," and then for further emphasis added a particle meaning "very," and this he still further intensified by repeating it; thus, literally rendered this clause reads, "For yet a very, very little while, and He that shall come will come."

...."The spiritual has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 when that which most obstructed the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom on earth was destroyed—with the overthrow of the Temple and its worship, official Judaism came to an end. The Christians in Palestine were being constantly persecuted by the Jews, but their conquest by Titus and their consequent dispersion put an end to this. That event was less than ten years distant when Paul wrote"...


7 And shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsuffering over them?
8 I say unto you, that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth [THE LAND]? Lu 18

10 and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth [THE LAND]?
17 for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand? Rev 6

22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23

20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her.
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 [THE LAND] Rev 18.

"..For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry..."

"..he will avenge them speedily.."

"..This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished.."

"..All these things shall come upon this generation.."

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev 1
11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown. Rev 3
7 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.
12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. Rev 22

 

[agedman]

Mt 23

I find it remarkable that you take Matthew 23 as literal.

Do you take Matthew 24 as literal, too?

“See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.​

He continues on:

“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.​

He continues in Matthew 25:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.​

Such well be the start of the Millennial reign. A separation and purging of evil from this earth. Do not confuse this judgment as the great judgment of God that follows the passing away of the earth and heavens in fire. That is a completely separate judgment of every person who ever lived. There are no books of the living opened at this judgment, and no book of life, either.

Now either you missed this great event or your view is in error.

The partial preterist do not hold a literal Matthew 24 and some skew Matthew 25 into the final judgment of humankind. Yet, those that hold a partial preterist view want to spout much of the literalness of Matthew 23. There is such a display of the inconsistency of the view.

Note: because of Matthew 24, I do hope for a "pre-trib" rapture and, if it happens all the much better off I will be; however, I am completely Scriptural with the Second Coming and subsequent Millennial reign from the statements of the Lord.

 

[kyredneck]

I find it remarkable that you take Matthew 23 as literal.

Do you take Matthew 24 as literal, too?

I take both literaliy because both literally happened!

...and sheesh, what's wrong with this picture? A dispie complaining about 'literal' interpretation?

 

[agedman]

I take both literaliy because both literally happened!

...and sheesh, what's wrong with this picture? A dispie complaining about 'literal' interpretation?

Then I would assume you consider Matthew 24:30-31 and Matthew 25:31-34 as fulfilled?

Matthew 24:

30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.​

Matthew 25:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.​

Do you take, "end" used in Matthew 24:6, 13, and 14 as differently?

Matthew 24:

6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.

13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.​

 

[OldRegular]

Praise GOD, the Millennial reign started almost 2000 years ago!

 

[kyredneck]

Kyredneck,
Once again, I assume that you are speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
1. If any eye saw Him, no one thought to write about it.
2. It was 40 years after our Lord's words in Matt. 26. I would rather think that most of the chief priests would have been dead by then.

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26

Christ may have been speaking to Caiaphas here, but it's interesting to note that Josephus records that Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, Lk 3:2, Acts 4:6), perished in the seige of Jerusalem 70 AD along with some 8,000 other priests.

Gill on Matthew 26:64:
"...when he says they should "see" him, his meaning is not, that they should see him at the right hand of God with their bodily eyes, as Stephen did; but that they should, or at least might, see and know by the effects, that he was set down at the right hand of God; as by the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon his disciples, on the day of pentecost; by the wonderful spread of his Gospel, and the success of it, notwithstanding all the opposition made by them, and others; and particularly, by the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause;

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mt 24:27...."

Edersheim:
“......It was upon this that the High-Priest, in the most solemn manner, adjured the True One by the Living God, Whose Son He was, to say it, whether He were the Messiah and Divine, the two being so joined together, not in Jewish belief, but to express the claims of Jesus. No doubt or hesitation could here exist. Solemn, emphatic, calm, majestic, as before had been His silence, was now His speech. And His assertion of what He was, was conjoined with that of what God would show Him to be, in His Resurrection and Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, and of what they also would see, when He would come in those clouds of heaven that would break over their city and polity in the final storm of judgment.” Edersheim, Life & Times, Book 5, Chap 13

Russell:
The words themselves are sufficiently simple. All the obscurity and difficulty have been imported into them by the reluctance of interpreters to recognise in the ' coming' of Christ a distinct and definite point of time within the space of the existing generation. Often as our Lord reiterates the assurance that he would come in His kingdom, come in glory, come to judge His enemies and reward His friends, before the generation then living on earth -bad wholly passed away, there seems an almost invincible repugnance on the part of theologians to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense. They persist in supposing that He must have meant something else or something more. Once admit, what is undeniable, that our Lord Himself declared that His coming was to take place in the lifetime of some of His disciples (Matt. xvi. 27, 28), and the whole difficulty vanishes..... -James Stuart Russell

 

[Iconoclast]

yes...a coming in judgment

 

[kyredneck]

Then I would assume you consider...

Old Man, the redundancy of this topic grows wearisome with me, I've given answer to all these questions and many more several times over the years, and you're just as Russell described, "an almost invincible repugnance to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense", so I'm not going to waste my time. When you ought to be rejoicing and marveling at the accuracy and fulfillment of these prophecies you stubbornly buck against them.

"In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts, but facts to point back to prophecies." Alfred Edersheim

Go educate yourself. 'The Parousia' and 'The Works of Josephus', both available free online, are two excellent starting points.

 

[agedman]

Old Man, the redundancy of this topic grows wearisome with me, I've given answer to all these questions and many more several times over the years, and you're just as Russell described, "an almost invincible repugnance to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense", so I'm not going to waste my time. When you ought to be rejoicing and marveling at the accuracy and fulfillment of these prophecies you stubbornly buck against them.

"In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts, but facts to point back to prophecies." Alfred Edersheim

Go educate yourself. 'The Parousia' and 'The Works of Josephus', both available free online, are two excellent starting points.

Typical of the attitude, you present what YOU think as superior, and point to what you consider a lack of education in others. Such an attitude has little value in edifying others unless they are ignorant and need some hero in which to bow.

I have seen that same attitude from those of both little knowledge and would parrot what the preacher said and those puffed up by knowledge as deans of seminary and colleges. Neither of them usually held the truth.

It is almost laughable that you quote Russell.

You do know that he stated that he had a "REVELATION" (same as what Darby must have had), that the whole scheme just seemed to come to him, as some kind of what we might consider a video.

If and ONLY if the Revelation is written BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem can the preterist position stand. But that is not the time of the writing. The fulfilled prophecy given by the Lord ends with verse 13 of Matthew 24. But YOU would assign most to having been accomplished by 70 AD.

So, go away, and delight yourself in thinking you have all the answers, and all that don't agree are uneducated buffoons. Russell didn't have the kind of attitude you have displayed, and perhaps it is you who need to read of that man's character and testimony and not me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Acts 1:11. "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go."

That seems to me to exclude an invisible return, whether to destroy Jerusalem or to rapture the saints, Gill notwithstanding. Our Lord left from the earth; He will return to the earth. He left visibly; He will return visibly. He left in a body that could be touched and could eat (Luke 24:38ff); He will return in that same body.

Forty years separated the ascension of our Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem. I assume that the priests, like the Levites (Num. 4:3 etc.) took up their duties at the age of 30. Therefore the very youngest priest who took up his position on the very day the Lord Jesus went into heaven, would have been 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. If we suppose the at Caiaphas was 45 at this time (him being the High Priest and all), he would have had to be 85. If his father-in-law was 20 years older than him (which seems a reasonable minimum), then he would have had to be 105. People then did not live that long. Josephus is not inspired; he made a mistake. Precious few of those addressed by the Lord Jesus in Matt. 27:64 would have been alive in AD 70.

The New Testament speaks of only two ages: this present evil age and the age to come.. In the age to come they neither marry nor give in marriage, so this isn't it. I may write further on this when I get time.

In Matt. 24:3, the disciples ask the Lord Jesus three questions. In His reply, He answers all three. To suppose that He is only speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matt. 24 is as incorrect as supposing that He isn't referring to it at all.

 

[DHK]

Edersheim:
“......It was upon this that the High-Priest, in the most solemn manner, adjured the True One by the Living God, Whose Son He was, to say it, whether He were the Messiah and Divine, the two being so joined together, not in Jewish belief, but to express the claims of Jesus. No doubt or hesitation could here exist. Solemn, emphatic, calm, majestic, as before had been His silence, was now His speech. And His assertion of what He was, was conjoined with that of what God would show Him to be, in His Resurrection and Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, and of what they also would see, when He would come in those clouds of heaven that would break over their city and polity in the final storm of judgment.” Edersheim, Life & Times, Book 5, Chap 13

But what do we know about Edersheim?

Edersheim emigrated to Hungary and became a teacher of languages. He converted to Christianity in Pest when he came under the influence of John Duncan, a Free Church of Scotland chaplain to workmen engaged in constructing a bridge over the Danube. Edersheim accompanied Duncan on his return to Scotland and studied theology at New College, Edinburgh and at the University of Berlin. In 1846 Alfred was married to Mary Broomfield. They had seven children. In the same year he was ordained to the ministry in the Free Church of Scotland. He was a missionary to the Jews at Iaşi, Romania for a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Edersheim
IOW: He was a converted Jew who had a ministry in the Free Church of Scotland. Not much help. He is biased.

Russell:
The words themselves are sufficiently simple. All the obscurity and difficulty have been imported into them by the reluctance of interpreters to recognise in the ' coming' of Christ a distinct and definite point of time within the space of the existing generation. Often as our Lord reiterates the assurance that he would come in His kingdom, come in glory, come to judge His enemies and reward His friends, before the generation then living on earth -bad wholly passed away, there seems an almost invincible repugnance on the part of theologians to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense. They persist in supposing that He must have meant something else or something more. Once admit, what is undeniable, that our Lord Himself declared that His coming was to take place in the lifetime of some of His disciples (Matt. xvi. 27, 28), and the whole difficulty vanishes..... -James Stuart Russell

What do we know about this man?

I will allow C. H. Spurgeon to do the commenting:
Charles Spurgeon[edit]

While Charles Spurgeon did not share the eschatological views of J. Stuart Russell or the final conclusions of his book, in the 1878 issue of his magazine The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon wrote a short review of The Parousia:

The second coming of Christ according to this volume had its fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the gospel dispensation. That the parables and predictions of our Lord had a more direct and exclusive reference to that period than is generally supposed, we readily admit; but we were not prepared for the assignment of all references to a second coming in the New Testament, and even in the Apocalypse itself, to so early a fulfilment. All that could be said has been said in support of this theory, and much more than ought to have been said. In this the reasoning fails. In order to concentrate the whole prophecies of the Book of Revelation upon the period of the destruction of Jerusalem it was needful to assume this book to have been written prior to that event, although the earliest ecclesiastical historians agree that John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where the book was written, by Domitian, who reigned after Titus, by whom Jerusalem was destroyed. Apart from this consideration, the compression of all the Apocalyptic visions and prophecies into so narrow a space requires more ingenuity and strength than that of men and angels combined. Too much stress is laid upon such phrases as 'The time is at hand,' 'Behold I come quickly,' whereas many prophecies of Scripture are delivered as present or past, as 'unto us a child is born,' etc., and 'Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.' Amidst the many comings of Christ spoken of in the New Testament that which is spoken of as a second, must, we think, be personal, and thus similar to the first; and such too must be the meaning of 'his appearing.' Though the author's theory is carried too far, it has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all.[1] [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Stuart_Russell

As far as any reference to Josephus is concerned, well he was an unsaved Jewish historian, and you are using him to comment on spiritual things??