Preterism and the Necessity of Honoring the Timing Statements of Christ’s Return

[DHK]

Ok... I am certain I am not mis-characterizing the dispo camp b/c I just recently left it. I was the uber-dispo. I even have a few articles published in a dispo theology journal. And academic dispos hold to stable meaning and single meaning. Your view of prophetic fulfillments is not the current amongst most modern academic dispos. Thus I made the point about classical dispo being inconsistent and it has currently moved to what Blaising and Bock call revised (or refined as I called it) dispensationalism. I know what I'm talking about. I was doing a PhD w/ a dissertation topic about dispensationalism. My teachers were profs from DTS, BBS (Clark Summit), and FBTS at Piedmont Baptist Graduate School.

I am not sure what you are referring to then.
For example does wine (oinos, yayin) mean wine or grape juice? It depends on the context doesn't it?

First, I would say that your history of Jewish interpretation is lacking historical accuracy and validity. As I said, it is easily proven that 2nd temple Judaism was very diverse. Even the NT shows us that w/ various groups like the zealots, pharisees, saducees, scribes, and others (not to mention the essenes and others).

Most of these groups that you mention arose during the inter-testamental period and are not even referred to in the OT. We are speaking of an OT phrase, not NT. As I mentioned this phrase, "The Day of the Lord," can be found as far back as in Mosaic literature (Deuteronomy), and in almost every book from thereon. It was an important doctrine. I am speaking from a Biblical point of view.

Second, I'm not trying to gain your respect. I feel I have proven my case again and again (don't we all ) w/ you hardly providing much in the way of historical facts. You claim I over-generalize yet you are the one who keeps saying that Jews held to unanimous interpretations which is historically incorrect.

I am looking at it from a Biblical point of view. Think Biblical theology.
What did the prophets say. How did the people react.

Fourth, you talk about how the Jews were not ignorant of the prophets message. But how many Jews were following Jesus at the end of his ministry? Not many at all. So either they didn't understand the prophets at all (which the prophets wrote about Jesus clearly; Lk 24:44ff.) or Jesus differed from the prophets.

The Jews had their opportunity:
"He came to his own but his own received him not" (John 1:11).
--"The Day of the Lord" is taught far more clearly in the OT then the coming of the Messiah, although both are often taught together. Christ's first coming is often obscured by the teaching of "The Day of the Lord." They thought that Christ was coming then to set up His Kingdom and were disappointed when he didn't.

Lastly, you said, "I do not bow to your assertion that these people remained clueless and ignorant of their own doctrines." That is all well and good, but you have to realize that you are saying the understood eschatology better than christology. I say that b/c the Jews clearly missed Jesus.

Christology is not well defined in the OT, but the Day of the Lord is.
The Day of the Lord has much to do with judgment.

Yet you are saying that got the end times right. If that is the case, then they majored on the minor and missed the point of the OT -- Jesus! Moses wrote about Jesus (John 5:39-47), the prophets wrote about Jesus, and the writings are all about Jesus (Lk 24:44-48). Jesus is not just in obscure, multiply fulfilled prophecies. He is the goal of the OT. What God initiated w/ Abraham (redemption) and modeled w/ Israel at the Exodus and renewed w/ David (redemption and redemption) he accomplished in Jesus.

In the OT Christ is concealed; in the NT Christ is revealed.
Other doctrines are found and taught far more clearly then Christology in the OT.

Lastly, I am curious, to what end was Israel to serve in their election by God? Or to ask it another way, why did God choose Israel?

To be a light to the Gentiles.

Was it in spite of the nations or to benefit the nations (read Gen 12:3 which is the gospel before you answer)? If the first, then YIKES. If the second, then how does that fit into your eschatology. If the gentiles are being gathered, then the restoration of Israel is taking place. And if gentiles are coming to salvation during the rejection of Israel, then why keep the nation around? Their role to be the conduit for the nations is served better without them. (I would actually say that Jesus embodied Israel and thus fulfilled their mission and covenants as he redefined what it was to be part of Israel. He then extended that to his disciples and the church.)

Sorry for the long post.

No problem for the long post. I gave you my answer to the purpose of Israel, and don't agree with much of what you have written in the last paragraph.

 

[Logos1]

Riddle me this Batman

Friends,

Currently topics on Preterism deal with the TIMING and FACT of Christ's Second Coming.
The one on TIMING concerns the "Only Honest Way" to deal with this subject. There I
wrote to Logos1 as follows in Post #82 and he responded in Post #89:

"Originally Posted by lastday View Post
Logos,
Twisting and torturing God's word regarding the 'time that is short' applies to those
who will not be resurrected until the 12-Hour-Day on which Jesus comes with
'all the saints'! Zech.14:5-7; I Thess.3:13

"The only honest way to interpret God's word, to which you refer, is that of including
those who are still waiting a 'short time for the rest of their fellow-servants to be
killed who must be killed'!! Rev.6:9-11.

"There is no way you can deny that this 'short time' has already lasted for all but
22 years of the 2000 years and about two weeks (from the Feast of Trumpets to
the Feast of Tabs) that must separate the time between Jesus' birthday at 34 and His return in the days after His 2034th birthday to fulfill Hosea's prophecy"!!! Hos.5:14-6:3.
Mel
Logos1 responds perhaps as if he thinks I am an "alien from outer space":

"Mel where have you been. I have been longing to get some more of those wonderful date filled posts of yours. Only you can comprehend the multifaceted complexities of this posting--to the rest of us mere mortals its like space aliens have descended and are sharing knowledge way beyond our feeble minds to sort out, but we love to sit in the presence of inspired truth when it visits this universe".

Logos always refers to my praise of his faithfulness to the inspiration of God's word!

But by "inspiration" I do not mean "interpretation"!!

When will Logos1 directly answer the question of why, in fact as well as timing, we are still waiting for the "Last Martyr to be killed" before Christ can come literally with all the saints to "avenge our blood"?!!!
Mel at www.lastday.net

Mel,

My good fellow if you wanted to know the answer to your riddle why are we still waiting for the last Martyr to be killed why didn’t you just come out and ask?

Answer: In regards to biblical prophecy the last martyr was killed in 70 AD.

Bonus answer: Any and all other judgments, prophecies, and requirements for the “second coming” of the Lord took place by that time also.

Extended discussion: You could have taken a short cut to this answer through many paths. Obviously any legit reading of Matt 24 ties the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Lord all together. We know as a historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed then. We know the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant and anything related to the Old Covenant had to be concluded at the destruction of the temple hence we have to acknowledge the second coming of the Lord then. This would by necessity wrap up all requirements for that event to take place.

Additional thoughts: As long as people are on earth there will no doubt be some people killed in service of the Lord. Very unfortunate, but a fact none the less. These martyrs are not a part of biblical prophecy just like the modern day state of Jerusalem is not a part of biblical prophecy. It is a political state and not in a covenant relationship with God.

Sad state of affairs: It is unfortunate that a relative new comer to eschatological thought (Dispensationalism in the 1800s through John Darby and company) have confused so many good Christians about how to apply a little context to bible prophecy. At least we can take comfort in the fact that Dispensationalism has seen its high tide is wilting under the sunlight of truth and more and more people are leaving it in the dust bin of eschatology where it belongs. John Darby RIP.


“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[Logos1]

The manifestations of God in the OT are called "theophanies" in which God takes on a physical form which can be seen with the eyes.

Christ was more than a "theophany" He was God come in the flesh. Born of a woman, the promised seed of Abraham.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.​

RE:Acts 1:11 and Revelation 1:7.

Others may "quickly dismiss" these verses in Acts 1 and Rev 1:7 as literal but many others cannot. True, it is a matter of choice.

I will tell you why I am troubled because of these debates.
I sensed in the past that I had wounded the spirit of at least one of those brethren with whom I had debated concerning this matter.
I did attempt to make it right but still, it troubled me.

That is why, for the most part, I avoid protracted debates.

I think no less of you or any child of God because of their choice in this matter (though I disagree with yours) but love and accept all my brethren.

HankD​

Hank,

Your earlier post suggested God came in a form that would allow Christ to come the same way and fulfill a literal, physical Jesus in the sky, clouds rollback, every eyeball see him type of second coming. Your theophanies are quite a different manifestation of God and don’t allow for the aforementioned type of second coming.

But that point aside.

You don’t need to worry I am in no way angry with you nor anyone else here and if I were I would be smart enough not to continue debating and doing something that causes me such stress.

As we have agreed before the points that unite us are much more numerous than matters of eschatology that divide us.

I consider you a true brother in Christ and one day we will meet on the other side and just think how we can talk over old times posting on the BB then.

I use to be a very determined dispy myself. But a search for truth was stronger than my devotion to anyone view of eschatology. When the Preterist argument became compelling to me I had no problem adopting a better understanding of biblical prophecy. I understand that others are still on that journey.

I welcome disagreement with my views and I want the best arguments any other view point can offer to mine. I welcoming challenging thought whenever I can find it.

I don’t take anything you say as a personal slight against me. I hope you don’t ever think I make anything personal with you. You are in fact one of my favorite futurists. One who is honorable, respectful, and an example to others.

I guess being a Preterist forces one to expect no quarter in these forums and have an edge that some people find abrasive when you disagree with them. I think anybody who is going to stress over a forum should be doing other things with their time.

But rest assured Hank I take no personal offense over anything you say and count you as a brother in Christ and look forward to our meeting over on the other side one day.

 

[Logos1]

The word quickly in the greek is Tachu meaning quickly or speedily. There lies your problem with it Christ said He would come Speedily. Quickly therefore means when He comes it will be speedily, as in the twinkling of an eye. You seem to understand the word as soon but it does not convey that meaning. So Christ words are faithful and true He will come very speddily when He comes it will occur quickly.
Again the Tenants of Christianity are seen in His coming speedily. The 70 A.D theory actually destroys the tenants of Christianity in making Christ a liar. When He said all these things must be fulfilled. Agian let me ask you to answer the question posed you I'll post them again and see if you will answer. I actually created a thread but see you failed to answer there also.

Rev,

I do find it rather entertaining how futurists try to hang their last defense of the timing of Christ’s coming on a very technical definition of coming quickly. I think it would be fair to say it illustrates just how desperate and bankrupt futurism is to make their last defense on such a supposed technical understanding of “quickly” in view of the broader context of the first century fulfillment of Christ’s coming.

I mean just ignore the fact that he said in this generation, the one who pierced him see him coming, the high priest see him coming, the Apostles not finish going through the towns of Jerusalem before his comes, tying his coming to the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.

If you could forget about your preconceived notions and just step back and read this as a normal person you could get a better feel for just how ludicrous this sounds.

 

[Logos1]

DHK,

You said “The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king...”

You should take this advice to heart when you look at the numerous first century references to Christ’s coming and it would be very easy to see the overwhelming context of a first century fulfillment of Christ’s return.

 

[Logos1]

Preterist Study Bible

Well gentlemen I will be away over the weekend and won’t be able to post any more till Monday at best. This thread will probably reach its maximum allowed length by then. I should get back to other duties for a while so may not be posting again right away.

I saw plenty of throwing stuff against the wall here, but no real rebuttal of the simple fact that if we don’t honor the first century context of Christ’s return then we are undermining the clear meaning of biblical language on Christ’s return and if we can’t honor and respect what the bible tells us on that subject then all the other tenants of Christianity are rendered just as meaningless. Once we establish that we don’t really understand God’s communication on timing then we establish we don’t know how to understand His communication to us period.

I’ll leave you on a high note.

There is a coming Preterist study bible. Web site is www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.org

It will correct many poorly rendered greek terms in most translations such as oikoumene which is commonly translated as whole world when it is actually referring to the Roman world.

And, restoring the Greek word mello (about to) which is an imminent time indicator to the Holy Scriptures. The NIV for examples omits it 85 times.

I shall return as time permits.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In regards to biblical prophecy the last martyr was killed in 70 AD.

I think that says all we need to know about Hyper-preterism. It doesn't let facts get in the way of its interpetations.

Steve

 

[HankD]

Hank,

Your earlier post suggested God came in a form that would allow Christ to come the same way and fulfill a literal, physical Jesus in the sky, clouds rollback, every eyeball see him type of second coming. Your theophanies are quite a different manifestation of God and don’t allow for the aforementioned type of second coming.

But that point aside.

You don’t need to worry I am in no way angry with you nor anyone else here and if I were I would be smart enough not to continue debating and doing something that causes me such stress.

As we have agreed before the points that unite us are much more numerous than matters of eschatology that divide us.

I consider you a true brother in Christ and one day we will meet on the other side and just think how we can talk over old times posting on the BB then.

I use to be a very determined dispy myself. But a search for truth was stronger than my devotion to anyone view of eschatology. When the Preterist argument became compelling to me I had no problem adopting a better understanding of biblical prophecy. I understand that others are still on that journey.

I welcome disagreement with my views and I want the best arguments any other view point can offer to mine. I welcoming challenging thought whenever I can find it.

I don’t take anything you say as a personal slight against me. I hope you don’t ever think I make anything personal with you. You are in fact one of my favorite futurists. One who is honorable, respectful, and an example to others.

I guess being a Preterist forces one to expect no quarter in these forums and have an edge that some people find abrasive when you disagree with them. I think anybody who is going to stress over a forum should be doing other things with their time.

But rest assured Hank I take no personal offense over anything you say and count you as a brother in Christ and look forward to our meeting over on the other side one day.

Thanks Logos1, I felt that you took no offense and I certainly don't from your presentations.

We should all expect some ad hominem responses in a lively debate and it's good to "clear the dust".

And you are correct, I have curtailed a lot of my responses here at the BB as I see many others have as well but perhaps not for the same reasons.

HankD

 

[michael-acts17:11]

DHK,

You said “The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king...”

You should take this advice to heart when you look at the numerous first century references to Christ’s coming and it would be very easy to see the overwhelming context of a first century fulfillment of Christ’s return.

DHK's statement is disingenuous at best. When debating the existence of the universal Church, he completely ignores the context surrounding the word ekklesia in lieu of its "dictionary" meaning. Situational hermeneutics form the foundation of dispensationalism.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You said “The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king...”

You should take this advice to heart when you look at the numerous first century references to Christ’s coming and it would be very easy to see the overwhelming context of a first century fulfillment of Christ’s return.

I don't doubt that there are. But, for example, in Joel's prophesy quoted by Peter in Acts chapter 2, the prophesy was only partially fulfilled. It will not be completely fulfilled until Christ comes again sometime in the future. One prophecy--two different events. So it is with many of the prophecies concerning the coming of the Lord.

 

[DHK]

DHK's statement is disingenuous at best. When debating the existence of the universal Church, he completely ignores the context surrounding the word ekklesia in lieu of its "dictionary" meaning. Situational hermeneutics form the foundation of dispensationalism.

Apples and oranges.
Here we are speaking of prophecies, prophetic utterances; there we were speaking of definition of words. You can't yank the definition of a word out of its context and force a modern English definition into it. That is plain nonsense.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Apples and oranges.
Here we are speaking of prophecies, prophetic utterances; there we were speaking of definition of words. You can't yank the definition of a word out of its context and force a modern English definition into it. That is plain nonsense.

Context is KING in every genre of Scripture. It's interesting how you yank the meaning of "soon", "quickly", "this generation", etc out of their Scriptural & grammatical contexts in order to force them to fit your dispy definitions. I suppose it is only logical to conclude that you use this eisegetical form of hermeneutics when interpreting the meaning of "church" too.

 

[revmwc]

Context is KING in every genre of Scripture. It's interesting how you yank the meaning of "soon", "quickly", "this generation", etc out of their Scriptural & grammatical contexts in order to force them to fit your dispy definitions. I suppose it is only logical to conclude that you use this eisegetical form of hermeneutics when interpreting the meaning of "church" too.

Well I see logos had no answer for the question about what Jesus said must be fulfilled before this generation would pass away maybe you can take a stab at them. Of course if you look at what Jesus said in the context all those things had to be fulfilled before this generation shall not pass. If those things have not taken place then the generation that will not pass would be the generation that sees the fulfillment of ALL those things.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Just read the entire chapter for your answer. Just because you do not understand how it was fulfilled doesn't mean it wasn't fulfilled as Christ promised, when He promised. He is the creator of language & verbal communication. I have no problem believing Him when He used specific grammatically correct & time language which pointed directly to the generation to whom he was speaking. You refuse to read prophetic, apocalyptic language within its proper literary context; preferring to interpret it as literal, historical language, but you have no problem assuming that Christ's specific descriptions of the timing of those events are not to be taken literally; in their proper grammatical contexts. Gotta love situational hermeneutics.

 

[revmwc]

Just read the entire chapter for your answer. Just because you do not understand how it was fulfilled doesn't mean it wasn't fulfilled as Christ promised, when He promised. He is the creator of language & verbal communication. I have no problem believing Him when He used specific grammatically correct & time language which pointed directly to the generation to whom he was speaking. You refuse to read prophetic, apocalyptic language within its proper literary context; preferring to interpret it as literal, historical language, but you have no problem assuming that Christ's specific descriptions of the timing of those events are not to be taken literally; in their proper grammatical contexts. Gotta love situational hermeneutics.

In other words it hasn't been fulfilled literally as parts of this have and preterism agin shown to be wanting. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

In other words it hasn't been fulfilled literally as parts of this have and preterism agin shown to be wanting. Thanks for proving my point.

How does believing that Christ meant what he said & said what he meant prove your point? Answer me this. What criteria do you use to determine when Christ's own words are to be interpreted as they are written & when they are to be understood as having a different meaning than what a natural reading of the text provides?
If you are going to just fall back on 2 Peter 3:8, then I must conclude that you are also a theistic evolutionist; since it is just as unnatural to apply that verse to Christ's time statements as it is to apply it to the creation account.

 

[revmwc]

How does believing that Christ meant what he said & said what he meant prove your point? Answer me this. What criteria do you use to determine when Christ's own words are to be interpreted as they are written & when they are to be understood as having a different meaning than what a natural reading of the text provides?
If you are going to just fall back on 2 Peter 3:8, then I must conclude that you are also a theistic evolutionist; since it is just as unnatural to apply that verse to Christ's time statements as it is to apply it to the creation account.

Let's see Christ started out Mt 24 saying the temple would be destroyed and there would not be one stone left upon another. That was a short term prophecy and was literally fulfilled, test of a true prophet fulfilled. Jesus said in this same passage many shall come in my name and deceive many, this was literally fulfilled. We shall hear of wars and rumors of wars again literally fulfilled and continuing to be fulfilled. Nation shall rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom, pestilences, and earthquakes in divers (different) places all these are the beginning of sorrows and all this is being literally fulfilled. That is to verse 8 so you would have folks believe that from that point on all prophecy would be metaphorically fulfilled rather than literally? The generation that sees the literal fulfillment of His prophecy will not pass away could this generation in which we are part be that generation that is spoken of as this generation that sees the fulfillement of ALL these things will not pass away. You see there in lies the problem with the preterist interpretation if 70 A.D. return were true then much of Christ longterm prophecy must have been a lie, since the short term was literally fulfilled.