Now, this matter of time references in the N.T. are...

P.S. Preach, I'd be glad to tear into, er, read over your stuff on Daniel 9 and 1 Cor. 15 if you can post it.

Tim

 

O.K. Preach, you sound like you're being fair-minded (even if you did come to the wrong conclusion). But I do feel sorry for you when your best -known authors and speakers are the likes of LaHaye, Van Impe, and Lindsey.

My follow up question is, do Christians have to be dispensational premillenialists to become members at your church? (That's where the fair-mindedness rubber meets the road).

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim and Preach

I have been looking into Matt 24 in my discussions with a praeterist on another board. She takes vs 34 as applying to all that went before. But interestingly, the praeterist angle must start by taking the side of the apostles - who weren't the sharpest bible students around in that time. They thought the fall of the temple/Jerusalem was linked with the end of the age. Jesus pointed out that it wasn't, it was only the beginning of the end, the birth-pangs/sorrows. Carson, in his Expos Bible Comm volume, indicates that vv4-15 deal with the tribulational era that was beginning. Then goes on to the actual fall of jerusalem; mentions some warnings, and then deals with the end of the age - however far in the future that will be. The "immediatly" does not point to fulfillment, but beginning: When you see these things happeneing, you will know that I have spoken the truth, and forewarned you. That generation would see the beginning, but only the beginning.

 

Preach,

I rule out the only 1000 year millenium because it requires all those massive gaps to be inserted into O.T. prophecies of the coming kingdom which as normally read follows right on the heels of Christ's first advent. (there's now a thread on that in theology)

Also "thousand" is often used as just a big number in Scripture.

Tony,

I love Carson! Though I do disagree with him on this point. I had the priveledge of talking to him about this and several other things at a conference I attended last year.

My problem with that view is that there are so many "end time" terms in the N.T. said to be coming to pass "soon". These terms had to be meaningful to the original audience, or they were simply misleading. I believe it's the end of national Israel and the O.T. system that's in mind. In Matthew 24, it seems that Jesus is simply answering the disciples' questions directly, though with His usual imagery in language.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim

Would you go with the praeterist understanding (in DeMar/Gentry circles anyway) that Thessalonians also refers to 70ad, and that therefore there is no tribulation to come in the future, no Antichrist, no apostasy?

regards

 

Tony,
Those guys are postmill, I'm amil. As reconstructionists, they have a predisposition to think that everything is going to get better as we restablish O.T. style dominion in govt. I believe in the superiority of the New Covenant.

I don't believe the resurrection is past (full -pret.). Certainly we will still have tribulation in this world, especially as Satan is loosed to deceive the nations near the end of time (Rev. 20). As far as THE tribulation goes, I believe that was Israel's horrendous seige and destruction at the hands of the Romans. But as Israel shows us the pattern of God's dealing with the world in general, there are probably many similarities between their end and the ultimate end. But I certainly don't hold to all the "left behind" style tribulation teaching around today (all based upon misinterpretation of Dan. 9).

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim, you couldn't have stated my views better if you had read my mind.

 

Tony,

It's nice to know that somebody agrees, isn't it? Now if we can just get Preach on board ...

In Christ,

Tim

 

Preach,

You need to read Josephus to get an idea of the QUALITY of the horrors involved in the seige and destruction of Jerusalem. It's not about QUANTITY (though about a million died in the city). Not only was the war against the most powerful and determined military force of its day, but inside the walls, civil war was raging between Jewish factions. Starvation, cannibalism, disease, treachery, blood flowing down narrow streets, boulders raining over the walls at night. What's worse?

As far as Jesus' coming in that generation, no it was not His final advent in mind here, but His coming judgment upon Jerusalem. Jesus said that the Jewish leaders would see Him "coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mat. 26:64)and Rev.1:7 says that he "comes with clouds" and the eyes of those that pierced Him (Jewish leaders)would see Him. That limits this event to Jesus' generation. This language of judgment is similar to "coming" language used in the O.T.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Hebrews clarifies this. Though Jesus blood did indeed initiate the New covenant, the Old still wasn't taken away yet.They Old dying covenant overlapped the New life-giving one. In the destruction of the temple, the Jewish Old covenant was finished. God "took away the first, that he might establish the second" (Heb. 10:9)

In Christ,

Tim

 

While (I think) this is the first time I have looked in this thread and haven't read all the previous stuff, this seems a strange quote for support of your theory. The verse you cite says he took away the first so that he might establish the second. There seems a clear necessary temporal relationship which you have reversed. You say he established the second at his cross and then took away the first at the destruction of the temple. I don't understand why you cite this verse for support.

The other problem with your theory is that the text of Revelation describes these things as prophecy, which is impossible if you are right since John would have been writing history. The early date argument is far too weak, too recent (to use one of your arguments against dispensationalism), and too hard to make. There is no reason to doubt the traditional dating; there is every reason to doubt that the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the events Christ spoke of with respect to his coming.

 

Quote, Pastor Larry:
"While (I think) this is the first time I have looked in this thread and haven't read all the previous stuff, this seems a strange quote for support of your theory. The verse you cite says he took away the first so that he might establish the second. There seems a clear necessary temporal relationship which you have reversed. You say he established the second at his cross and then took away the first at the destruction of the temple. I don't understand why you cite this verse for support."

Pastor Larry, what took you so long to get here? I've come to expect your consistent opposition on these prophecy matters. Welcome aboard!

Let me clarify this matter of the initiation and establishment of the New Covenant. Jesus clearly initiated the N.C. with His sacrifice, "causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease" in any meaningful way as far as God was concerned. But the Jews sewed up the curtain and started their old sacrifices up again. Only the destruction of that now desolate temple would put a halt to their practice of the Old Covenant sacrifices. In doing just that, God "established" the second covenant. Making it clear that He had abandoned the temple system and accepted the sacrifice of Christ forever. The covenant was thus established when its predecessor was finally destroyed completely.

Pastor Larry again:"The other problem with your theory is that the text of Revelation describes these things as prophecy, which is impossible if you are right since John would have been writing history. The early date argument is far too weak, too recent (to use one of your arguments against dispensationalism), and too hard to make. There is no reason to doubt the traditional dating; there is every reason to doubt that the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the events Christ spoke of with respect to his coming. "


You can simply dismiss the early date if you like, but there are some solid arguments for it.

How do you think the eyes of those who pierced Jesus would then see Him come in judgment upon them as Rev. says?

In Christ,

Tim

 

I've learned there is generally not much gained because we look at the use of language so differently. I could go on and on (and have) but never much is accomplished.

First, your use of "causing teh sacrifice and oblation to cease" is wrongly attributed to Christ. That is the work of the "prince of hte people who is to come" and it happens in teh middle of the seventieth week. The seventieth week is started with a peace treaty made by this prince with the people of Daniel. Thus, it is very difficult to see how you try to make this person Christ.

Second, the OC was ended with the death of Christ, not the destruction of the temple. Again, I say this on the basis of hte book of Hebrews. I can't see anyway around this in light of the text.

I guess the "solidness" of these arguments depend on how necessary it is for your opinion. Those who need an early date find the evidence much more convincing than the rest of us

"Those who pierced him" is the Jewish nation and it is regularly said to be such in Scripture, both OT and NT. It does not refer to the individuals, but to the corporate nation. The Jews are the ones who put him to death, piercing him; they are the ones who will see him again when he comes according to Zech 12.

 

Quote by Pastor Larry:"Those who pierced him" is the Jewish nation and it is regularly said to be such in Scripture, both OT and NT. It does not refer to the individuals, but to the corporate nation. The Jews are the ones who put him to death, piercing him; they are the ones who will see him again when he comes according to Zech 12"

So then the modern nation of Israel is guilty of killing Jesus? Sounds pretty antisemetic to me. By that logic white people today are culpable for slavery, too. Better start paying those reparations.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Hopefully this was a bad attempt at humor ... The nation of Israel as a whole is guilty. And Zech 12 (another of the passages that you glibly pass by) talk of a time when the nation of Israel will look on him whom they pierced and will repent. That is attributed to the House of David, etc. references that can only be to the nation.

 

Hopefully this was a bad attempt at humor ... The nation of Israel as a whole is guilty. And Zech 12 (another of the passages that you glibly pass by) talk of a time when the nation of Israel will look on him whom they pierced and will repent. That is attributed to the House of David, etc. references that can only be to the nation.