The New Interpreters’s Study Bible (no doubt by accident) makes a case for Preterism!

Thank you one and all

First let me thank you all for your comments—yes all of them—the good, the bad, and the ugly. I do read them all and enjoy them all. On behalf of all readers I thank you for the opportunity to think, to challenge positions and beliefs, and sometimes just for the sheer entertainment.

And, I do think it is fair to say we might be making some progress here at least in dispelling the belief that there is a still future so called “Second Coming” of Christ—even if some posters are still struggling with outright acceptance of full Preterism. I understand, I didn’t accept it all in one sitting either. It is a process to adjust long held beliefs to the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand it the way the Apostles meant for it to be understood and not the way you may have been first taught to understand it. But after all it was the Apostles who were divinely inspired and not present day bible teachers.

There are too many comments for me to respond to them all individually so I will try to be fair to everyone and touch on a number of topics.

Keep those cards and letters coming and God Bless!!!!

 

The Return of Jesusfan

Jesusfan,

What took you so long to get back to the party? I thought you were waiting for a special invite or something. Merry Christmas ol’ buddy. I hope Santa is good to you this year.

You didn’t really address a lot of your comments to me, but you did say Isaiah saw the Kingdom fully restored upon the earth by Messiah in Ch. 66.

I so enjoy reading Isaiah. It is a great book isn’t it and it is wonderfully Preterist from start to finish. I enjoy different bible translations and enjoyed reading Ch 66 in the ESV tonight—I just couldn’t find those verses where Isaiah actually said anything about seeing a literal Kingdom restored to the Jews or anyone else upon the earth.

Maybe you could be so kind to post those specific verses for our benefit.

I do think you will see upon close inspection of the Old Testament prophets that they never suggested that God was about building literal Kingdoms and temples he is about building a people and tabernacling with them through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The more you read the OT prophets the more this becomes obvious. But then God owns the whole universe so why would he limit himself to setting up a little kingdom of a few miles centered around Old Covenant Jerusalem when set the Old Covenant aside in its fulfillment and now rules through the New Covenant.

I did notice Isaiah answered many calls by futurists as did the Apostles many times by helping them see a literal fulfillment of a 70 AD return. Notice Is 66:15-16 when he provides proper understanding of his 70 return in the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and a wicked generation. He clearly speaks of His rebuke by fire and flame, that by fire he will enter into judgment, and by his sword flesh and those slain by the Lord will shall be many.

As we all know this is exactly what happened in 70 AD—the burning of the city and temple, the slaying of many Jews—this was literal, this was physical, this was documented in history, and this is indisputable. It makes a disingenuous statement to say there is no physical of the Lord’s return in 70 AD. It was on display for all to see and every eye saw the return of the Lord in judgment as they say in Rev 1:7 which of course actually means discerns that the Roman Army represents the presence of the Lord’s return to judge Israel and revenge the blood of the Saints.

Isn’t it perfect how the bible prophecies work themselves out perfectly without having to have man twist them to realize their fulfillment.

 

The Fairest of them All

Merry Christmas Amy,

Nice of you to join us.

Your post naturally refers to those famous verses in Romans 11:26 -27
Romans 11:26-27
English Standard Version (ESV)
26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

As we all know this is a direct reference to Isaiah 59:20-21. Therefore we have to turn to those verses to see how all Israel is saved. Let’s look at the actual verses.
Isaiah 59:20-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion,
to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD.
21"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."
And the ASV reads: And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.

And even the great dispensationalist Darby’s translation reads: 20And the Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.

And the NASB reads: A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD.

And even the less literal CEB reads: A redeemer will come to Zion
and to those in Jacob who stop rebelling, says the LORD.

So we see across the translations that it is not actually saying that all Israel will be saved. It is saying that all those who accept Christ will be saved (turn from transgression)—it is just the basic New Covenant expressed by God through Isaiah and later explained by Jesus. All Israel has the chance to be saved, but like the rest of us they have to accept Christ to obtain that salvation. They don’t get it by default or as a group they have to individually make a decision for Christ.

Of course we all know at what point in history Christ came and provided the opportunity of Salvation to all mankind Jew and Gentile alike. If this hasn’t already been fulfilled then it would obviously mean that Jesus wasn’t the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God and I don’t think any of us would want to go down that road. Clearly Isaiah and Romans stake out a very Preterist position.

 

Old Buddies

Old Regular my dear Baptist friend,

Have you ever stopped to think that one day we will meet on the other side! You and me side by side inside the pearly gates and all disagreement put aside. And don’t worry none when that moment comes I predict we will both slap each other on the back with great wisdom and understanding of the scriptures and all be Preterists and wonder how either of us was ever a futurist. I once made the futurist mistake myself and thought Christ was coming back in the future.

I think I can see progress on your part to inch a little closer to the Preterist camp by giving up on claiming that any verses indicate Christ will return a long time into the future.
I can also sense progress since you have made putting words in my mouth as your main debate tactic by claiming that Preterists deny the resurrection of Christ. I don’t know any Preterists that deny the resurrection of Christ, but if that is your best shot—I’m welcoming you to Preterism sooner rather than later I think.

And as for calling me heretical well you are very entertaining in your efforts. I’ve been called a heretic countless times (it has lost any ability to raise anything but laughter on my part) and by now I bet even God is laughing at it—so please entertain us with a creative way of saying it like making it rhyme with something or writing a cute limerick, maybe you could put it to verse and music and write me a song where you call me heretical. I can only hope—I long for a little creativity in my daily dose of heresy. Pretty please!

As for seeing a literal example of the 70 AD coming of Christ from the Old Testament prophets to the New Testament Apostles they spoke in one inspired voice about the fiery destruction and judgment of Jerusalem. You can read my post to Amy above for more in depth comments on the matter. I trust this will allow you to inch a little close yet to the Preterist camp now that you have your actual witnesses testifying to the fulfillment of Christ keeping his word and coming quickly in judgment against the Jews who were persecuting the Christians. Isn’t it great when you can see bible prophecy fulfilled this way and not have to hope you live long enough to see it in your life time.

 

My fellow Baptist

Steve,

From a good Southern Baptist to a jolly good English Baptist the pleasure is all mine. Just think when we meet on the other side and get a good laugh about once thinking that the soon return of Christ in the bible meant something like thousands of years in the future when the apostles did all they could do to make sure everyone realized it was going to be in their generation. I use to be subject to some pretty silly notions about it being in my future as well. I’m glad I finally realized the Apostles believed, wrote, and taught it would be in their generation and since they are the inspired ones that settled it for me that very day. I aligned my thinking with them.

Matthew 24 is wonderful in explaining how to understand bible prophecy—I think we agree on much more than we realized. Let’s look at a key verse shall we.
Matthew 24:3
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Signs of the End of the Age
3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?"

The HCSB is a Baptist translation so it seems appropriate for us to use don’t you agree?

I couldn’t help but notice that even the title of the passage simply stated one thing is being spoken of here--the signs of the end of the age. It doesn’t talk about a distant coming or separate His coming from the end of the age nor separate the end of the age from the destruction of the temple. All three happen in together.

The disciples question had its parts joined by “and” a conjunction which links these three actions together (note they don’t say they are different things and Christ doesn’t correct them and tell them they are different things) so why would anyone want to read more into the passage than is actually there? Maybe you could shed some light on that.

Just like in 1 Thessalonians when Paul didn’t separate those of us who are alive when Christ returns from his first century audience—why would anyone want to rob the first century Christians of Christ’s return. Surely no one could honestly think it would be any comfort to them if Christ came back thousands of years in the future and Paul didn’t say it would be thousands of years in the future. Hmmm, maybe it is just as simple as it looks on the surface Paul actually said in simple language what he meant and it has only been later generations who twisted his original meaning. Shame don’t you think?

I’m not sure how you get Acts 1:11 refuting any part of Preterism, but I trust when you work it out you will be quick to enlighten us. I think you might want to spend a little time in the next few days checking around for the number of verses which say Christ is coming back soon and how many say thousands of years in the future and I’m sure you will want to align your views accordingly because we Baptist are really no nonsense Believers like that. At least I know I am.

Tally Ho!
and
Ya’ll come back now ya-hear! (that is just a little southern way of saying good-by and Godspeed)