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

[convicted1]

You might stretch verse 10 to coincide with the death of Christ; a partial fulfillment.
But verse 13?

Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. (Isaiah 13:13)

Were the heaven shaken? Was the earth removed out of her place? I don't think so.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.



Luke 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.



Now, here is what Apostle Peter said about Jesus' death:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Now, this has nothing to do with the end times, but rather, concerning Jesus' death upon the cross. Look closely at verse 21. It states, "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved." This could not be talking about the end times, but rather, the torment of Jesus on the cross, and how the sun did not shine for three hours that great and notable day(sixth to nineth hour).

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.(I used this passage again for emphasis, Brother).

If you are thinking that the OT isn't fulfilled, then Christ is a failure. He fulfilled the Law when He said, "It is finished." He fulfilled the Law, and ushered in the Grace Covenant.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[lastday]

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

 

[HankD]

Hi Hank,

OK I admit I’m a little surprised that you would try to literalize any of these OT verses as a physical appearing of God when one verse, and there are at least two in the N. T, which. blows them all away. I think we can agree that the N.T. should be used to interpret the OT.

You could say these OT verses tell of a spiritual presence, or angel, or use whatever means necessary to rationalize them, but clearly they can’t be used to claim a physical appearing of God where people actually see God in view of the NT writings.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

So therefore it would have to follow if God has not come to earth in physical form and the father is like the son as John 5:19 tells Then when Jesus comes it won’t be in physical form either.

I think it would be tough to create a bible based case that Christ would return to the earth in a literal, physical form.

You can reference Acts and Rev 1:7, but if those are the best verses to make a case for a physical return I think as many times as it has been shown the correct interpretation of those verses that anyone not enamored by their preconceived notions would quickly dismiss those verses also.

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​

 

[Greektim]

If the passage was confined from verses 1 to 5 then you might have a case. But we are not dealing with first five verses which are directed at Babylon.
This paragraph starts at verse 6:

Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. (Isaiah 13:6)
--This is no description of Babylon. It is a description of "The Day of the Lord," which all Jews knew to be well into the future, a day when the judgement of God would come, and then Messiah would come at that time as well. Both events were connected in the Jewish mind. And both events are still connected. Nothing has changed.
The Messiah is still to come.
Judgment is still to come.
That description is still future.
It does not deal with Babylon.

Your only basis for holding to such is that you have a preconceived notion of what the day of YHWH was supposed to be. Even if the Jews knew it was to be in the future, the funny thing is, this was a prophecy of the fall of Babylon yet to take place.

But the entire context is about Babylon. The chapter begins with the obvious preface that it is about Babylon. To stop and talk about someting completely different makes prophecy seem incoherent. THen in vv. 17-19, Isaiah picks back up w/ direct references to Babylon. The logical thing to do is to apply the rule of context. Since this entire passage begins and ends w/ Babylon, then the middle probably has something to do with it too. That is unless there is something that says, "this part is not about Babylon." But the author keeps right on writing as if it were all about Babylon. Your interpretation strains at the flow of the text. You are juxtaposing things that were meant to be seen together as one flowing text. I guess I should not be surprised the dispos would even break up context to fit their eschatological grid. "If you can't take it literally, then it must not have happened yet."

The truth is, apocalyptic language can refer to political upheavals to make a good point. Isa. 13 is a prime example.

 

[HankD]

Your only basis for holding to such is that you have a preconceived notion of what the day of YHWH was supposed to be. Even if the Jews knew it was to be in the future, the funny thing is, this was a prophecy of the fall of Babylon yet to take place.

But the entire context is about Babylon. The chapter begins with the obvious preface that it is about Babylon. To stop and talk about someting completely different makes prophecy seem incoherent. THen in vv. 17-19, Isaiah picks back up w/ direct references to Babylon. The logical thing to do is to apply the rule of context. Since this entire passage begins and ends w/ Babylon, then the middle probably has something to do with it too. That is unless there is something that says, "this part is not about Babylon." But the author keeps right on writing as if it were all about Babylon. Your interpretation strains at the flow of the text. You are juxtaposing things that were meant to be seen together as one flowing text. I guess I should not be surprised the dispos would even break up context to fit their eschatological grid. "If you can't take it literally, then it must not have happened yet."

The truth is, apocalyptic language can refer to political upheavals to make a good point. Isa. 13 is a prime example.

Then preterists have the same problem with Revelation chapter 18.

What then, did literal Babylon exist in AD70?

Revelation 18 is all about Babylon.
Verse 18:20 has the apostles being avenged by her destruction as if it still existed.

As I said before, there are many models of echatological interpretation.
The problem is sorting out the symbols, assigning the metaphors, etc...

Revelation 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
...
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
...
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.​

HankD​

 

[revmwc]

Rev,

Well actually I know Revelation had to be written before 70 AD, but that is another story. Preterism doesn’t need Revelation to be written before 70 AD to be the accurate view of eschatology and the coming of Christ.

I could refute this many ways, but let’s just humor you and say Revelation was written in 95 AD and none of the judgments, casting into the lake of fire, etc, etc or other events associated with the Lord’s return had happened yet by 95AD.

None of that would change the point I’m making in this post or reconcile the tension between the soon coming prophecies about Christ’s return having to be true if the balance of what Christ tells us about Christianity and salvation are to be believed.

Soooo, if he hasn’t come back by 95 AD and we have all those verses (many of them not in Revelation) saying such things as this generation (by 95 AD that generation would be fast running out of time) the high priest seeing him come, the ones who pierced him seeing him come, Apostles not finished going through the cities of Israel before he comes, the Thessalonians still being alive as Paul stated, the verses in Revelation promising he would come quickly, etc. –then all these things would have to happen quickly after 95AD or you would certainly violate any pretense that humans can understand the meaning of Christ’s statements to us.

We still have the exact same dilemma that we had whether Revelation was written before 70 AD or 95 AD. By insisting it was written in the 90s AD you have just boxed youself into the same dilemma only added a few years to it.

Either way the point here is the same and not affected by a few years shift. If God speaks to us in a way that is different from the normal usage of language that most people would understand it to mean thus rendering us incapable of knowing what his timetable is because we can’t depend on the normal interpretation of His words then we can’t depend on understanding any other basic tenants of Christianity either.

If we have to say when he tells us in so many different ways that he is coming back soon and we don’t really know what soon means then we have established that we can’t know that we are on the same page with God on any other matter either.

The promises of Christ we thought we understood we would now have to admit we don’t know what that really mean because we have established that Christ doesn’t always talk to us in ways that we truly understand what he means. We have established that we can’t depend on his language to us.

So you have succeeded in destroying all the fundamental tenants of Christianity. We don’t really know what raised from the grave on the third day means—that is a time statement too—but if soon doesn’t mean soon then we can’t know that third day actually means the way we normally interpret the meaning of third day.

We can’t know that we are saved by faith since words don’t mean what we think they mean.

Either we can depend of the words of Christ being true and faithful or we can’t. If we ever establish the bible is not inerrant or that we just can’t comprehend what it means because God talks to us in ways that we can’t understand then all of what it says is up for grabs.

P.S. I doubt many of us really understood that reference to American Indians, but it certainly added a nice laugh to the end of your post. Thanks. You should do that more often rev. It’s a nice touch.

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.

 

[revmwc]

Logos for the sake of space I'll split it up:

Let's say the generation of Christ and the Apostles were refered to just to appease the Preterist. They still have problems with their interpretation of it.

First they need to answer when this occured:

Mt. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I believe this never occured in 70 A.D. the gospel didn't reach the whole world, as we know America was not discovered until 1492, so the American Indians definitely hadn't heard the gospel of the kingdom before that time.
So there must be someone from Jesus generation still around.

Where do you see this as fulfilled according to historical records and scripture in order for Christ to come in 70 A.D. ?

 

[revmwc]

Second you need to identify when this occured:
Mt. 24: 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Since Christ spoke that it must occur we know it didn't occur in the time of Daniel and must therefore have occured between 33 and 70 A.D. yet nothing in history says it did, again someone from Christ generation must still be alive today in order for that generation to see it fulfilled.

Can you show through historical and biblical records support that this occured prior to 70 A.D.

 

[revmwc]

Third you will need to show when this occured:
Mt. 24: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

We have seen many periods of tribulation on the earth World War 2 comes to mind and the slaughter of so many Jews. But Christ said there shall be great tribulation not seen since the beginning of the world. till that time and neither shall there be a greater one, yet we still see things occuring like the 911 attacks so someone from that generation must still be living.

Where do you see this as fulfilled according to historical records and scripture in order for Christ to come in 70 A.D. ?

 

[revmwc]

Fourthly you need to answer when this occured:
Mt. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

When did the tribulation of those days occur and the sun darkened and the moon not giving her light? When did they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven? When did the tribes of the earth mourn at His coming not just the tribes of Israel but scripture says "the tribes of the earth mourn" again I believe the American Indians are part of the tirbes of the earth and thye definitely never mourned Christ return nor do they speak of thier people seeing Christ come in the clouds? Since this has not yet occured then somoeone from that generation must still be alive.

Where do you see this as fulfilled according to historical records and scripture in order for Christ to come in 70 A.D. ?

 

[revmwc]

So that leaves this to be answered:
Mt. 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

That generation had to SEE all these things to know the end was near even at the door. So the generation of Christ has someone still alive today or Christ meant it metaphorically in John, Paul and Peter seeing them come in visions, but still yet to be fulfilled in a future time.

Where do you see this as fulfilled according to historical records and scripture in order for Christ to come in 70 A.D. ?

 

[revmwc]

Finally:
You need to define which definition of quickly fits the theory for the word quickly.
Websters says:
1. not dead : living, alive

To me this wouldn't apply to the verse.

2: acting or capable of acting with speed: as a (1) : fast in understanding, thinking, or learning : mentally agile <a quick wit> <quick thinking> (2) : reacting to stimuli with speed and keen sensitivity (3) : aroused immediately and intensely <quick tempers> b (1) : fast in development or occurrence <a quick succession of events> (2) : done or taking place with rapidity <gave them a quick look> c : marked by speed, readiness, or promptness of physical movement <walked with quick steps> d : inclined to hastiness (as in action or response) <quick to criticize> e : capable of being easily and speedily prepared <a quick and tasty dinner>

To me this would cover a lot. Let's see acting or capable of acting with speed. Now what was it Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
That would be what this part of quickly means, because the twinkling of an eye is a very fast action.

The number two sub points need to be looked at also. Let's see 3. Quick tempers nope doesn't fit. Then b. 1 fast in development the coming in the twinkling of eye is a quick it develops in less than a second that fits Christ return. A quick succession of events yep that ould fit the coming in the twinkling of an eye. then b/2 done with rapidity that would fit the twinklng of an eye. Everything in this sectio would fit perfectly with 1 Corinthians 15:52 as Christ return for His church as being a quik occurance in the twinkling of an eye.
Bottom line is when Christ says He will come quickly it means He will move rapidly when He does come.

3a archaic : not stagnant : running, flowing b : moving, shifting <quick mud>
4archaic : fiery, glowing
5obsolete a : pungent b : caustic
6archaic : pregnant
7: having a sharp angle <a quick turn in the road>

These don't fit yours either. Looks like you come up wanting yet again. Everything points to the Lord tarrying as the Bridegroom of His church the bride.

 

[revmwc]

All the above show the importance of God's timing and Christ saying "when you SEE ALL these Fulfilled know the end is nearwhen ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. " ALL These everything prophecy He spoke had to be fulfilled prior to His return and if as you say He returned in 70 A.D. and the generation of His day was who He spoke of then when was it ALL LITERALLY FULFILLED?

Over and over again preterism comes up wanting when we practice what 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Commands us to do.

 

[DHK]

Your only basis for holding to such is that you have a preconceived notion of what the day of YHWH was supposed to be. Even if the Jews knew it was to be in the future, the funny thing is, this was a prophecy of the fall of Babylon yet to take place.

Your ignoring some basic hermeneutical problems here.
First there were no chapter divisions in the original autographs.
Not only were there no chapter divisions, there were no verse divisions. In fact, there wasn't any even any vowel pointing (that was put in there years later by the kind Masoretic scribes for us dummies). :laugh:

The Jews knew what the "Day of the Lord" referred to. It never referred to the fall of Babylon. Never!. It always referred to that still future day when Messiah will come, judge the nations, Israel, and set up His Kingdom. As it was then, so it is now. They understood it rightly. There is no law against a prophet changing subjects in mid-stream. They did it often. Isaiah did it often. So did Jeremiah, and especially Zechariah. They will burst out suddenly with a prophetic utterance and then come back to the main theme.

 

[JesusFan]

Your ignoring some basic hermeneutical problems here.
First there were no chapter divisions in the original autographs.
Not only were there no chapter divisions, there were no verse divisions. In fact, there wasn't any even any vowel pointing (that was put in there years later by the kind Masoretic scribes for us dummies). :laugh:

The Jews knew what the "Day of the Lord" referred to. It never referred to the fall of Babylon. Never!. It always referred to that still future day when Messiah will come, judge the nations, Israel, and set up His Kingdom. As it was then, so it is now. They understood it rightly. There is no law against a prophet changing subjects in mid-stream. They did it often. Isaiah did it often. So did Jeremiah, and especially Zechariah. They will burst out suddenly with a prophetic utterance and then come back to the main theme.

The great and terrible day of the Lord from the OT perspective was the future time when God would come to judge isreal and also the pagen nations that had oppossed the Lord of the Jewish nation...

Thihink problem with the petierists is that like the OT prophets, they tend to blur as being same thing the first and second coming of the messiah![quote/]

 

[Greektim]

Your ignoring some basic hermeneutical problems here.
First there were no chapter divisions in the original autographs.
Not only were there no chapter divisions, there were no verse divisions. In fact, there wasn't any even any vowel pointing (that was put in there years later by the kind Masoretic scribes for us dummies). :laugh:

The Jews knew what the "Day of the Lord" referred to. It never referred to the fall of Babylon. Never!. It always referred to that still future day when Messiah will come, judge the nations, Israel, and set up His Kingdom. As it was then, so it is now. They understood it rightly. There is no law against a prophet changing subjects in mid-stream. They did it often. Isaiah did it often. So did Jeremiah, and especially Zechariah. They will burst out suddenly with a prophetic utterance and then come back to the main theme.

This is where rhetorical/literary criticism is helpful. Since they did not have chapters (I'm not dumb) they did have other ways to mark off sections. One of the most often used methods was to bookend or use inclusios. Beginning and ending w/ Babylon was a way to mark off that text to refer to one entire subject. That is the way of the Hebrew language. So actually I am well in my rights as far as my grammar and hermeneutics are concerned to see chp 13 as one unit.

Second, your hermeneutic of the day of the Lord is eisegesis. I don't say that b/c I disagree w/ your assessment. I say that because you stated what the DotL is and then apply it to the text. That is eisegesis. The day of the Lord has always posed problems for dispos b/c there is never a consistent consensus. So, your eisegesis takes over. You assume a theological understanding of the phrase, and wherever you see it in the text, you immediately think in your end times scenario presupposition. Therefore, the Babylon in Isa. 13 must not be historical (even though it says that they will fall to the Medes as the did in history). It must be futuristic b/c your preconceived notion of the DotL is directing your interpretation.

And you were trying to talk to me about basic hermeneutics :no:

 

[DHK]

Second, your hermeneutic of the day of the Lord is eisegesis. I don't say that b/c I disagree w/ your assessment. I say that because you stated what the DotL is and then apply it to the text. That is eisegesis. The day of the Lord has always posed problems for dispos b/c there is never a consistent consensus. So, your eisegesis takes over. You assume a theological understanding of the phrase, and wherever you see it in the text, you immediately think in your end times scenario presupposition. Therefore, the Babylon in Isa. 13 must not be historical (even though it says that they will fall to the Medes as the did in history). It must be futuristic b/c your preconceived notion of the DotL is directing your interpretation.

When spoken to a heathen king, I agree, a prophecy may have an immediate consequence. But not all prophecies are like that. In fact few are. Many of them have a near or immediate fulfillment, and then a far reaching fulfillment, and some of them another fulfillment even farther into the future. Some go like this: immediate---time of Christ---Millennial Kingdom; all in one prophecy. The Jews knew what "The Day of the Lord" meant, even if a heathen king did not. They were not ignorant of this phrase. A phrase that is used about 380 times in the OT, they would not be ignorant of. They would know the meaning of it.

 

[Greektim]

When spoken to a heathen king, I agree, a prophecy may have an immediate consequence. But not all prophecies are like that. In fact few are. Many of them have a near or immediate fulfillment, and then a far reaching fulfillment, and some of them another fulfillment even farther into the future. Some go like this: immediate---time of Christ---Millennial Kingdom; all in one prophecy. The Jews knew what "The Day of the Lord" meant, even if a heathen king did not. They were not ignorant of this phrase. A phrase that is used about 380 times in the OT, they would not be ignorant of. They would know the meaning of it.

So the Jews knew something that we Christians cannot agree on? This is your perspicuity of Scripture?

Also, you think it is ok to have an interpretation that has 3 meanings? What happened to single meaning and stable meaning??? THat is the hallmark of dispo hermeneutics. This is why classical dispensationalism is quickly losing a foothold in the institutions that use to push it. It is too inconsistent. Your hermeneutic isn't even consistent. And when it suits your purpose, you spiritualize to a kind of "already" fulfillment w/ a "not yet" fulfillment. All the while you talk about texts only having one meaning (and the cliche, "It can never mean what it never meant.")

Lastly, you keep pushing the agenda that the Jews knew the DotL. Do you have any proof of this? And worse, the number of Jews who were faithful to YHWH was few (remnant theology). So I would say the number of faithful Jews was low, and probably that number is much lower when considering an agreed upon interpretation. 2nd temple Judaism is much more diverse than I guess you have been taught. But that is a fact (thank you NT Wright!).

 

[DHK]

So the Jews knew something that we Christians cannot agree on? This is your perspicuity of Scripture?

I never said that; but you just did.
I believe the Jews throughout their history had a general consensus of what "the day of the Lord" meant. Christians throughout the world today can't even agree on what salvation is. What do you expect! Even unsaved Jews are more in unity in their doctrine then the great body of saved Christians, as is indicated on this board.

Also, you think it is ok to have an interpretation that has 3 meanings? What happened to single meaning and stable meaning???

Who has been teaching you, and who have you been listening to? Get a better teacher!
The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king, for most words have more than one meaning.

THat is the hallmark of dispo hermeneutics. This is why classical dispensationalism is quickly losing a foothold in the institutions that use to push it. It is too inconsistent. Your hermeneutic isn't even consistent.

Your over-generalizations are not gaining you any respect with me.

And when it suits your purpose, you spiritualize to a kind of "already" fulfillment w/ a "not yet" fulfillment. All the while you talk about texts only having one meaning (and the cliche, "It can never mean what it never meant.")

Again, you are talking through both sides of your mouth.
If you don't know what we believe then don't try and post it, lest you condemn yourself. Remember, we are not the ones here in the Preterist camp denying the Second Coming, the physical ascension, some of the very fundamentals of the faith.

Lastly, you keep pushing the agenda that the Jews knew the DotL. Do you have any proof of this? And worse, the number of Jews who were faithful to YHWH was few (remnant theology). So I would say the number of faithful Jews was low, and probably that number is much lower when considering an agreed upon interpretation. 2nd temple Judaism is much more diverse than I guess you have been taught. But that is a fact (thank you NT Wright!).

I am not going by anyone's particular theology. I teach the OT. I know, for example, that when the prophets preached on the "Day of the Lord" that the Jews were not ignorant concerning their messages. They caused them to understand the Word of God.

And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose...And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people, and when he opened it, all the people stood up: (Nehemiah 8:4,5)
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)

From the time of Moses onward, the "Day of the Lord," is taught in the Scriptures. Such an important subject was not ignored by the average Israeli. Mentioned about 380 times they were certainly taught about it.
This has nothing to do with "remnant theology." This has to do with the history of a nation, whose history is written in 39 books of the OT, much of it teaching "The Day of the Lord." How could they escape going through their educational system and be in ignorance about this very important doctrine, is beyond me. I do not bow to your assertion that these people remained clueless and ignorant of their own doctrines.

 

[Greektim]

I never said that; but you just did.
I believe the Jews throughout their history had a general consensus of what "the day of the Lord" meant. Christians throughout the world today can't even agree on what salvation is. What do you expect! Even unsaved Jews are more in unity in their doctrine then the great body of saved Christians, as is indicated on this board.
Who has been teaching you, and who have you been listening to? Get a better teacher!
The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king, for most words have more than one meaning.
Your over-generalizations are not gaining you any respect with me.
Again, you are talking through both sides of your mouth.
If you don't know what we believe then don't try and post it, lest you condemn yourself. Remember, we are not the ones here in the Preterist camp denying the Second Coming, the physical ascension, some of the very fundamentals of the faith.
I am not going by anyone's particular theology. I teach the OT. I know, for example, that when the prophets preached on the "Day of the Lord" that the Jews were not ignorant concerning their messages. They caused them to understand the Word of God.

And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose...And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people, and when he opened it, all the people stood up: (Nehemiah 8:4,5)
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)

From the time of Moses onward, the "Day of the Lord," is taught in the Scriptures. Such an important subject was not ignored by the average Israeli. Mentioned about 380 times they were certainly taught about it.
This has nothing to do with "remnant theology." This has to do with the history of a nation, whose history is written in 39 books of the OT, much of it teaching "The Day of the Lord." How could they escape going through their educational system and be in ignorance about this very important doctrine, is beyond me. I do not bow to your assertion that these people remained clueless and ignorant of their own doctrines.

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.

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).

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.

Third, I'm a partial preterist. I do believe in a literal 2nd coming of Jesus to usher in the New Jerusalem.

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. If there is another option, then please share it. Otherwise I see the Jews missing the boat big time.

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. 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.

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? 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.