Some Standing Here

[thomas15]

The following bit of information doesn't address the absurdity of preterism but it might, depending on the accuracy of it, answer a question possibly going through the minds of some here.

And that question is, if all prophecy has been fufilled and Jesus returned 19+ centuries ago and we are living in the Kingdom, what is the actual New Testament message that we are to spread to unbelievers and what is the urgency since in the preterist view there is no chance that Jesus will return at a time which we least suspect and thus find us not doing the masters work as we are charged with?

I have a collection of messages on the return of Christ and in one of those messges, Dr. David L. Larsen (professor emeritus of preaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) talks about the situation in China with respect to the gospel and the growing church there. Larsen talks briefly about a book writen by a Chinese scholar now living in the USA named Lian Xi. Xi's book is titled Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China. According to Larsen, Xi states that in China today the licensed churches are not allowed to preach on the second coming of Christ. Apparently the government see this activity as dangerous.

I have not read the book by Xi but have no reason to suspect that the information is suspect. If true, it does in my mind answer a question. And think about it, what is the one area in theology that among those who profess Christ as Lord that couses the most disagreement? The overall answer has to do with the details regarding the return of Jesus and what the Bible has to say about it.

 

[DHK]

John did not live "all through the first century". Far from it. If you want, I can dig up the references for this.

By "parousia" I mean exactly what Scripture means by the word. It does not come with observation. The first age was different than the "age to come". It was necessarily visible and visual, pointing to the more real things to come. Those earthly copies, types and shadows pointed to spiritual things that we enjoy now.

As far as "It is not for you to know..." we need to keep audience- and time-relevance in mind.

The Jews knew the Scriptures well. It spoke of a visible kingdom; a kingdom when Christ would come, sit on the throne of David, rule with a rod of iron, and bring world peace. Nations would worship Christ. There would be no more rebellions against Israel, for He would keep them in safety.

But more than that humanity would live in perfect harmony with the animal kingdom.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isaiah refers more than once to conditions such as these. They have never happened yet. They will only happen when the kingdom, that the disciples in Acts one, referred to will come. But Jesus said it is not for them to know the time thereof. It was not an invisible kingdom. It was real, physicial. It was prophesied many times all throughout the Book of Isaiah.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Jews knew the Scriptures well. It spoke of a visible kingdom; a kingdom when Christ would come, sit on the throne of David, rule with a rod of iron, and bring world peace. Nations would worship Christ. There would be no more rebellions against Israel, for He would keep them in safety.

But more than that humanity would live in perfect harmony with the animal kingdom.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isaiah refers more than once to conditions such as these. They have never happened yet. They will only happen when the kingdom, that the disciples in Acts one, referred to will come. But Jesus said it is not for them to know the time thereof. It was not an invisible kingdom. It was real, physicial. It was prophesied many times all throughout the Book of Isaiah.

the Prophets of OT times spoke concerning BOTH aspects of His coming to earth, the problem with many of the jewish religious leaders were they expected the king of the second coming, not the suffering servant of the first one!

When Christ returns, the messianic Kingdom prophets foretold indeed shall be restablishe dover all the earth, all antions will know God, all persons acknowleding Him as their King...

When did THAT happen?

 

[asterisktom]

The Jews knew the Scriptures well.

The Jews thought they knew the Scriptures, but they didn't really. They were familiar with the words of Scripture, but missed the spiritual meaning. John 5:38-47; Mark 12:24-27.

It spoke of a visible kingdom; a kingdom when Christ would come, sit on the throne of David, rule with a rod of iron, and bring world peace. Nations would worship Christ. There would be no more rebellions against Israel, for He would keep them in safety.

They understood it to be visible, many of them at least. Yet we have the more spiritually attuned ones in Hebrews 11, the faith chapter, who had more accurate knowledge of the spiritual nature of the Kingdom.

As far as your other references are concerned; every single one has NT references that put them in their proper perspective.

But more than that humanity would live in perfect harmony with the animal kingdom.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isaiah refers more than once to conditions such as these. They have never happened yet. They will only happen when the kingdom, that the disciples in Acts one, referred to will come. But Jesus said it is not for them to know the time thereof. It was not an invisible kingdom. It was real, physicial. It was prophesied many times all throughout the Book of Isaiah.

You have underscored the biggest way that the Jews misunderstood the Bible: they continually took metaphorical imagery in a literal - overly-literal - sense. The same thing you are doing here.

Consider all of these misapplications:
They took literally Christ's eating of flesh and drinking of blood, John 5.
They took literally Christ's building of the temple of His body.
His own disciples took literally His comments concerning the leaven of the Pharisees.

More could be added here. But this should be enough to show that this was a major blindspot in the Jews' thinking. They had an inability to see spiritual truths, not perceiving the truth of 2 Cor 4:18

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

 

[kyredneck]

The Jews thought they knew the Scriptures, but they didn't really. They were familiar with the words of Scripture, but missed the spiritual meaning. John 5:38-47; Mark 12:24-27.


They understood it to be visible, many of them at least. Yet we have the more spiritually attuned ones in Hebrews 11, the faith chapter, who had more accurate knowledge of the spiritual nature of the Kingdom.

As far as your other references are concerned; every single one has NT references that put them in their proper perspective.

You have underscored the biggest way that the Jews misunderstood the Bible: they continually took metaphorical imagery in a literal - overly-literal - sense. The same thing you are doing here.

Consider all of these misapplications:
They took literally Christ's eating of flesh and drinking of blood, John 5.
They took literally Christ's building of the temple of His body.
His own disciples took literally His comments concerning the leaven of the Pharisees.

More could be added here. But this should be enough to show that this was a major blindspot in the Jews' thinking. They had an inability to see spiritual truths, not perceiving the truth of 2 Cor 4:18

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Excellent presentation Tom!

The letter kills, the Spirit gives life, and that totally pertains to interpretation of scripture as well.

 

[OldRegular]

The key is in the terminology used - and not used - in Scripture. There is a difference between "resurrection of the body" and "resurrection of bodies". Take a close look at the relevant passages and see if there is any mention of the latter.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus Christ tells us what is to happen in time to all that are in the graves. I must assume that all is plural and graves is plural indicating that there are bodies. Jesus Christ tells us that these bodies shall come forth either to the resurrection of life or resurrection of damnation. Now this event has not yet happened.

And then there are the words of Job: after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

God does not tell us much in the Old Testament about the resurrection of the body but I don't see how it can be more clear than Job makes it.

And then there is the problem of the downgrade of the universe!

 

[DHK]

Consider all of these misapplications:
They took literally Christ's eating of flesh and drinking of blood, John 5.
They took literally Christ's building of the temple of His body.
His own disciples took literally His comments concerning the leaven of the Pharisees.

More could be added here. But this should be enough to show that this was a major blindspot in the Jews' thinking. They had an inability to see spiritual truths, not perceiving the truth of 2 Cor 4:18

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Can you actually give an exposition of Isaiah 11:6-8?
Not everything in the Bible is allegorical.
If you allegorize Scripture like these, why not just allegorize the entire story of the cross? Where does it end?

 

[thomas15]

Can you actually give an exposition of Isaiah 11:6-8?
Not everything in the Bible is allegorical.
If you allegorize Scripture like these, why not just allegorize the entire story of the cross? Where does it end?

You of course ask a great question. To me, it really comes down to actually fully trusting the Word of God, not just select parts of it.

 

[asterisktom]

You of course ask a great question. To me, it really comes down to actually fully trusting the Word of God, not just select parts of it.

I get it. If I don't literalize passages in your way I am "not trusting the Word of God". I could just as easily say that you are not trusting the Word of God when He says "soon" and "this generation".

 

[asterisktom]

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus Christ tells us what is to happen in time to all that are in the graves. I must assume that all is plural and graves is plural indicating that there are bodies. Jesus Christ tells us that these bodies shall come forth either to the resurrection of life or resurrection of damnation. Now this event has not yet happened.

And then there are the words of Job: after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

God does not tell us much in the Old Testament about the resurrection of the body but I don't see how it can be more clear than Job makes it.

I had written a lengthy article on that Job passage. It is here somewhere in the archives, but I can't find it. I see it is also on my Xanga site, but China, in their paranoid wisdom, won't let me access my Xanga. The link is here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=EtdfyoRMK3SjybAUU4Gv4w&bvm=bv.41867550,d.aGc

Or here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=KjWCd3IF9TNFbhQl6e7lEQ&bvm=bv.41867550,d.aGc

BTW, I am flying down to Shanghai in a couple hours and then on to other places along the East coast. So I may or may not be able to answer posts in the next few days/weeks.

 

[asterisktom]

Can you actually give an exposition of Isaiah 11:6-8?
Not everything in the Bible is allegorical.
If you allegorize Scripture like these, why not just allegorize the entire story of the cross? Where does it end?

1. Metaphorical usage is different than allegorical.
2. DO you take Isaiah 11 literally? And I mean the entire passage, not just the place where you stopped. Look at verses 12-14. Apparently, using your rule consistently, we are going to have Ephraim and Judah beating up on Edom, Moab, and Ammon. Ancient, long-defunct nations.

Do you not see the problem here?

 

[Iconoclast]

Paul quotes from Isa 11 here in romans 15

8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

 

[DHK]

1. Metaphorical usage is different than allegorical.
2. DO you take Isaiah 11 literally? And I mean the entire passage, not just the place where you stopped. Look at verses 12-14. Apparently, using your rule consistently, we are going to have Ephraim and Judah beating up on Edom, Moab, and Ammon. Ancient, long-defunct nations.

Do you not see the problem here?

Ephraim and Judah are two of the tribes of Israel. The other nations represent the enemies of Israel. In my study of the prophets and also of Revelation, I find that Christ will yet come again in the glory of his Father with His holy angels and take "vengeance on all them that obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ."
He will come to rescue the remnant of Israel.
"And so all Israel shall be saved."

For unto us a child is born; for unto us a son is given,
And the government shall be upon his shoulders...."

The government is not yet upon his shoulders, but they will be.
And he shall reign forever and ever.
That reign will start with a one thousand year reign on this earth.

 

[Iconoclast]

The thousand year reign spoken of in revelation 20 does not mention that it is on the earth.

The other nations represent the enemies of Israel.

Why? This is Tom's point....you have them "represent" something.....but when others do it, they are spiritualizing?

 

[John of Japan]

Actually, parousia (parousia) is a completely observable, physical event in Greek. Lightning is observable (Matt. 24:27), the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus was observable (1 Cor. 16:17), the coming of Titus was observable (2 Cor. 7:6-7), the coming of Paul was observable (2 Cor. 10:10, Phil. 1:26 & 2:12). In the apocryphal literature of the LXX, the word is used for physical presence in Judith 10:18 (a woman), 2 Mac. 8:12 (the army), 2 Mac 15:21 (an army with elephants before them) & 3 Mac. 3:17 (King Ptolomy Philopater).

In other words, there is not a single provable usage of the word parousia in the literature in which the presence was not observable. Parousia refers to a physical, observable presence. Christ's coming will be observable, just as lightning is (Matt. 24:2).

Even more specifically, "p. became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp. of kings and emperors visiting a province" (entry for parousia in the BAGD lexicon, p. 630). Christ's appearing will be a physical appearing, an official visit by a king. Again, it is "a technical term for the visit of a king" (entry in Abbot-Smith lexicon, p. 347).

Well, Tom did not answer this or explain his view of parousia, though he has answered a bunch of others since. I'll not try to guess why.

What I will do is prove that when Jesus used parousia in exchatalogical passages He meant a visible coming, not an unobservable coming (which in itself is almost contradictory.

Consider Matt. 24, where parousia occurs four times, more than any other chapter in the Bible (though it occurs 4 times in the book of 1 Thess.). This is enough for us to use discourse analysis (a linguistic tool) to discuss what Jesus means in Matt. 24. Here are the four times:

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

First of all, note that the disciples used the term in asking Christ about His coming. There the meaning can be construed as ambiguous, since they are asking for details--they don't know if it will be observable or not. It would be a mistake in our discourse analysis to characterize the statement of the disciples as one or the other. However, their statement sets the stage for the usage of the term in the rest of the chapter, which will be explanatory.

Now, note that two times the word is used of an obviously visible coming. In v. 27 it is used to comparing the coming of Christ to the coming of lightning, which is always observable. There is no such thing as invisible lightning.

Again, the usage might be ambiguous in v. 37. However, v. 39 explains v. 37 with an unambiguous statement of a completely observable coming--the flood. Therefore, we can say that all three usages of the term by Christ are of His observable coming.

Our discourse analysis can make one more point. Christ does not use the term (answering the disciples) until v. 27, or 24 verses later. This leads to the observation that those 24 verses are preparatory in the discourse to the explanation. They are not describing the coming of Christ itself, but events leading up to that. The implications for the preterist discussion are obvious.

Thus, discourse analysis leads to the conclusion that the coming of Christ is fully observable. In fact, "Every eye" shall see Him!

 

[DHK]

The thousand year reign spoken of in revelation 20 does not mention that it is on the earth.

"And time shall be no more."
There is no time in heaven. It is ridiculous to "time" anything in a place called eternity. Time was created for man. It is measured by the rotation of the earth on its axis--one rotation = one day. That is our starting point for time. In eternity the Lord Himself will be our Light, not the sun, and the earth revolving around the sun (which gives us a year).

Why? This is Tom's point....you have them "represent" something.....but when others do it, they are spiritualizing?

The tribes are still the same--representative of all of Israel.
They are all named in Revelation chapter seven.
Do some study about the names and places of the other nations in the time of Isaiah. Where were they located? There is a good chance that they refer to the same localities today as they did then, but now with different names. The Bible is just as relevant today as it was then. Don't dismiss it so lightly.
When it says a thousand years it means a thousand years. You can't take it to mean anything else. There are two resurrections, separated by a thousand years. I would hate to be the one that is in that second resurrection.

 

[asterisktom]

Well, Tom did not answer this or explain his view of parousia, though he has answered a bunch of others since. I'll not try to guess why.

Oh quit your chest-thumping. I answered this very question before, many times here on BB.

I am now in Shanghai and going down the coast. Internet will be slow (as here) or non-existent. Try to be cordial and imagine that my seeming silence is not from being bested or stymied, but merely unable to respond - again.

Can you do that for me John?

 

[asterisktom]

The thousand year reign spoken of in revelation 20 does not mention that it is on the earth.





Why? This is Tom's point....you have them "represent" something.....but when others do it, they are spiritualizing?

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[asterisktom]

The tribes are still the same--representative of all of Israel.
They are all named in Revelation chapter seven.
Do some study about the names and places of the other nations in the time of Isaiah. Where were they located? There is a good chance that they refer to the same localities today as they did then, but now with different names. The Bible is just as relevant today as it was then. Don't dismiss it so lightly.
When it says a thousand years it means a thousand years. You can't take it to mean anything else. There are two resurrections, separated by a thousand years. I would hate to be the one that is in that second resurrection.

When it says "one thousand years" it means one thousand years.
When it says "Edom, Moab, Ammon" it means ... anything but Edom, Moab, Ammon.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

 

[John of Japan]

Oh quit your chest-thumping. I answered this very question before, many times here on BB.

I am now in Shanghai and going down the coast. Internet will be slow (as here) or non-existent. Try to be cordial and imagine that my seeming silence is not from being bested or stymied, but merely unable to respond - again.

Can you do that for me John?

"Chest thumping?" I was being quite cordial. I did not try to guess, so I said what I did, but knowing you were in China I figured you might be having trouble getting on.

But no, I've never seen you answer my particular point before on the BB. Perhaps you could tell me where you've discussed parousia and the Greek usage of it in the NT and LXX on the BB. I've never seen it.