I’ve had a poll running for a couple months asking Undeception readers what topics they’re interested in seeing me address. I decided to give it a while and see if trends emerged. Well, I just noticed yesterday that there is indeed a small trend. At present, there is a four-way tie for second place: Linguistics, Creation/evolution, Calvinism/Arminianism, and Worship. In first place by two votes is Eschatology/preterism, and in last place I was amused (and a bit disappointed) to see the very topic I just declared I was going to be writing another series on: Bibliology/hermeneutics! I still plan on writing on this in the near future, but to throw a bone to the masses, I decided I’d write one on the clear winner, eschatology. Fairly soon I will write about the intersection of eschatology (the study of last things) and protology (the study of first things) in my theology. I think they work together remarkably well, although I developed them mostly independently. But in the meantime, here’s a question to help me get the pulse of my readership on the issue of eschatology. And I expect at least all eight of you to answer! 
The strength of preterist eschatology is its exegesis. I don’t have any interest in going into the issue of church history in this post (check this out for a summary of my position on this matter), but instead I want to examine purely scriptural evidence; this is because most evangelical Christians in the Protestant tradition who make up my core audience believe that no church dogma should be adopted amidst biblical evidence to the contrary. Contingent of course upon your cooperation, I’m not going to write the meat of this post. In asking you the following narrowly delimited question, I want to know (and want you to make sure) that your position has biblical support and is not just an inherited presupposition. Here it is:
Question: Quote or reference the one passage or verse that you think most clearly promises a return of Christ yet future to us. If you do not believe there is a future coming, state so, and respectfully interact with those who do.
Stipulation: Please do not use as your reference a passage that only presents another eschatological event that you think has to happen before, with, or after the next coming of Christ (e.g. the Resurrection, Romans 8’s groaning creation, etc.), but rather provide an out-and-out reference to an advent that has not yet occurred (whether or not you think of it as a “second” coming).
Why that stipulation? Any evangelical affirming a future return should presumably have a scriptural basis for that belief, and I want to see if it can be found when you strip away complex theological constructs; if there is in fact at least one passage that explicitly predicts a still future Coming, I would like to see it produced. If you believe in a future coming strictly on philosophical rather than biblical grounds, I would be interested in knowing that as well.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation!
Email this post to a friend
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
25 responses so far ↓
1 Ron Osborne // Jul 23, 2008 at 9:12 am
When and why did Jesus come again?
Jesus came in A.D. 70… It’s a done deal… the purpose was to bring an end to the Old Covenant and all it’s trappings… Rituals, traditions and a Temple that housed those fraudulent self-righteous practices. This brings us to the question as to why did we rebuild temples in the form of institutional “churches” and their many denominations of exclusivity and indifference? For 300 years we were free of this bondage, until the Roman Catholic monstrosity emerged; now we are back to the same failures of the Jews and their fraudulent self-righteous institutional system.
Jesus set us free and seated himself in the hearts of His people. Period, that’s it. His Kingdom is a Kingdom of the heart; this is the New Covenant, and the good news (Gospel) of His Kingdom. Christ rules over hearts, while man rules with chains and the bondage of fraudulent governments, self-serving politics, institutions, sectarianism, rituals, traditions, self-righteous insanity and kingdoms of vanity; this is why Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, nor of it’s systems.
“Church” history is a fraud, there is no such thing. What many consider to be the “church” is modeled off an institution that had it’s beginnings around A.D. 300, which was a copy of the fraudulent Temple of the Judaic’s. The “true Church” was/is a group of called out people who are separated in mind, heart, and deed from the systems of man-made lunacy in this world.
Jesus came in A.D. 70 to set His children free; to the first century bride first (Jews and Gentiles in Him), and then to their offspring in all the generations to come… world without end. Amen…
Sectarianism, Institutional-ism, and Denominationalism are all frauds of the real thing. The real church has no historical record other than that which was written on redeemed mens hearts, and thus it is not made of bricks and mortar, and as far as archeological history is concerned, the true “Church” has no physical history.
2 Steve // Jul 23, 2008 at 9:51 am
Thanks for the comment, Ron! We agree on full preterism, and it’s nice to have another FP stumble on my site. To my knowledge, you are only the fifth ever (and three of those have only one comment apiece).
I am not near so much of the anarchist bent as your statements imply of yourself, but then again, I’m not a defender of the Rule by Historical Majority party either. I will say that while our minds, hearts, and deeds are indeed separated in source and method from “the systems of man-made lunacy,” I do not believe it is scripturally or practically justified to fully isolate ourselves from or throw off those systems; rather, we are to reform them by first reforming the minds and hearts of men. Systems aren’t evil but are simply part of the universal order (weather system, solar system, etc.), so the problem for me is not systematization but bad systematization. I don’t think Christianity was ever meant to be done in a vacuum, which is what comments such as yours imply. Do you believe there is a function for a community of believers working together?
Anyone else, interact with Ron as you will, but don’t forget to answer the OP!
3 Doug Moody // Jul 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm
GREAT QUESTION STEVE! I think this challenge would be a worthy one to have on its own merit for any theologian to debate.
Of course, you know that the participants of this site are few, so we will largely agree with one another.
Nevertheless, I haven’t got it “all worked out” and there are scriptures that don’t seem to agree with the FP position. Most of them are old testament scriptures.
Several in particular are “difficult scriptures” for me, and that is not so much because I doubt the return of Christ in 70 AD, but more because of the OTHER events which were prophesied to accompany the return of Christ did NOT, apparently, happen in 70 AD.
OK, specifically, I am thinking of the millenium, or the millenial “period” prophesied time and again in the old testament.
I realize that the agrarian metaphors were just that. They were metaphors couched in agrarian language so as to impress the people with the concepts of plenty and provision. That much is granted. Nevertheless, there are some metaphors which are “mixed” that don’t quite match up with at least the current FP positions.
I am thinking first of Zech. 14. The first few verses of Chapter 14 are very STRONG indicators of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. God gathers all nations against Jerusalem, the houses are rifled, the women ravished, etc. But in verse 3, the LORD is fighting AGAINST the armies, and THEN, He stands on the mount of Olives, and the mount cleaves in two. In verse 5, the saints are WITH Jesus (as contrasted with the 70 AD event when the saints were told to flee Jerusalem) Then , in verse 8, from Jerusalem, living waters are sent out to water the WHOLE EARTH!. Verse 9, Jesus is the king over the whole earth. In verse 11, it says specifically that MEN shall dwell in this “New Jerusalem”
Verse 12, says that those who fought AGAINST Jerusalem will have a plague in which their flesh shall consume away.
Verse 16 talks about a yearly feast of tabernacles worship period, and the plague that happens to those who don’t do it.
Now, if you want to take the first part of Zech 14 LITERALLY, so that you can prove the coming of Jesus in 70 AD, and tie it to the siege of Jerusalem, how then, logically, can you “mix your metaphors” and have part of the chapter mean things that happen on earth, and part of the things happening in heaven? I think this is a weakness in the FP position, because while much of the FP position makes lots of logical sense, other parts of it does not fit.
I guess I have the biggest trouble putting Jesus’ return AFTER the millenium (or the millenial metaphorical allusions found in MANY old testament prophecies) as the FP position does. The millenium is explained as being a period of time BEFORE Jesus came in 70 AD, yet even the book of Revelation says that this period comes after Jesus’ return. In addition, the FP position says that Satan has been conquered (no argument from me there) but they go on to say that he is no longer a factor in the world,and that evil is just a residual effect of his previous existence and work. Yet, Revelation says that he will indeed be loosed at the end of the millenium to stir up the nations.
Can it be that Zechariah’s (and Revelation’s) vision of a millenial period, put AFTER Jesus returns, also allows for a future prophetical time period that may just extend into the period in which we live now? Is it really that cut and dried that ALL prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD?
I know this changes the tenor of your original question, but until I see answers to these questions, I am not prepared to commit to a full preterist position.
So, now its your turn!
4 Steve // Jul 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I was awaiting your comments especially, Doug! Good questions as usual.
So your contention is that Zechariah 14 points to a future coming, it appears. I have found the partial preterist Gary Demar’s short series on Zechariah 14 (1, 2, 3) to be quite helpful on those questions of yours. He points out that the Lord’s standing on the Mount of Olives has been viewed throughout church history (Eusebius, for instance) as accomplished in the lifetime of Christ, not AD 70. Be sure to let me know what you think about his articles!
5 Steve // Jul 23, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I meant to respond to this, as well.
I am not entirely opposed to this, but I don’t see sufficient warrant for it. Regardless, my question was about a future return of Christ: other eschatological events are a different (though related) question.
6 Ron Osborne // Jul 23, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Steve replied: “Do you believe there is a function for a community of believers working together?”
The Lord told David and Solomon, “who are you to build a house for me?”… While, the Lord allowed it, it was meant for their downfall, as we see the prophets coming to Jerusalem time and again, declaring that their temple, sacrifices, rituals and traditions were an affront to God.
God saves; Period… man has no ability to save himself, if he could God would not have to send Himself in the person of Christ. Yet, man in his vanity continuously turns to his own means for salvation instead of humbly bowing to the one that God in Christ has already provided.
I am a firm believer in the pre-ordained acts of God, and men are still being divided according to the son’s of Adam (God’s ordained vessel of righteous; Seth/Able’s replacement vs. God’s ordained vessel of wrath; Cain). There are only two sides, those who Christ has already called as being in His Kingdom, and those whom he has already rejected. The scriptures declare this took place before the foundations of the earth. Opposition is the tool God uses to refine those vessels He has called to be His, while those opposing are the vessels He has created for His wrath and destruction.
This is the message of the destructions of temples, weather the two Jewish temples as outlined in the Bible and History, as well as other nations and their false temple religions. Temple ruins are scattered all over this world. It is not to often that I see so-called “churches” destroyed in this country and also in Europe, because they are not the “House of God” that they claim to be. If these were truly the “House of God” then why are there over 36,000 of them all clamoring to be the One Voice of God. Paul refuted sectarianism, Jesus condemned Temple-ism… all of these things are an affront to God. However, God uses these institutions, denominations, rituals and traditions to oppose men. Many will come before the Lord, and say “didn’t we do this and that in your name”… to which the Lord will reply “I Never Knew You”.
Do I believe there is a community of believers? Yes, we are interacting now aren’t we? We do not need a building, denomination, institution or a weekly self-help group who agree’s specifically with me and my position, that I might make a social club to affiliate with. I do not need a preacher to dictate to me his seminarian influenced Greco styled oration/enslavement. The scriptures are fulfilled, and complete. God requires me to study, and not be spoon fed a bunch of institutional rhetoric. I have many brothers who I communicate with, nearby in my own community and over the internet, the Lord has directed us into one another’s path. When I did fellowship with institutional “Christendom” I never found this brotherhood as I now have. I fellow-shipped with over 20 differing denominations, and found all of them to pander to self-righteous religiosity, while ignoring 80% of the scriptures. We have all been mislead into these “church’s”, either by birth/family involvement, or out of a hunger to find truth, we stumbled into them. The true man of faith will find these sectarian denominations to be woefully wanting. One has to admit to one’s self that these differing, warring factions have nothing to do with God’s “ONE” Brotherhood, ONE fellowship, who are of ONE mind and Heart… Oneness is an act of God and Him alone. It is His Grace that leads the true son’s of God to His truth and away from the nay-sayers who claim to maintain “God’s House”, even though their version of “God’s House” is so splintered and fractured.
Therefore, in a nut shell, I am not only a Full Preterist, but also a Consistent Cessation-ist and a firm believer in God’s perfect sovereign purposes by which He directs all things in heaven and on earth, without flaw or wavering (Soteriology). The Holy Spirit is my Guide, and no man. God has fully graced me with His Spirit, His knowledge and the His Heart to rightly know and follow Him. These things I have never found in the palaces of men. God miraculously causes brothers to cross my path and I have never been without fellowship; I am truly living out this Gospel and Kingdom walk, in true God ordained faith, without bowing to the false delusions created by sectarian men.
Grace and Peace to the Pre-destined Son’s of God…
7 Doug Moody // Jul 23, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Steve,
But I think that unless preterists can fill in some very large gaps and explain old testament prophecies within a logical and consistent framework wherein everything works, INCLUDING the “hard questions” that futurists ask, then I believe that futurists can still make a good case. I think the burden of proof is more on the preterists to make a better case than they have traditionally made.
My whole point was that if the preterist view is not fully supported in scriptures like Zech 14 (even though Zech 14 only has one portion of it dedicated to the return of Christ) and, preterists use Zech 14 as proof of Christ’s return in the past, then Zechariah must be talking about Jesus’ return in the future.
Of course, these verses by themselves don’t say anything like your question was framed, e.g., “There shall be two milleniums between the wars and rumors of wars, and then I shall return” kind of verse!
You could call me, right now, an “undecided voter” simply because of these missing links in scripture. I am a kind of guy who has to see all the major gaps filled before I can say that I am convinced. That’s not to say that the futurists don’t also have a whole lot of ’splainin to do!
8 Steve // Jul 24, 2008 at 8:39 am
Ron,
Quite an interesting POV. I do think we have limited our faith’s transmissibility and marginalized the one aspect Christ said we would be known by - our love for one another - by huddling in sharply divided, backbiting sectarian groups. What would you say of ecumenicism? Congregations uniting for service and ministry?
As long as you admit that fellowship is not “fulfilled” (i.e., retains some ongoing benefit), I can’t see how meeting together at a location with other believers automatically becomes accursed. What about meeting at someone’s house? Someone good at coordinating group efforts and with natural leadership skills taking on a leadership role, even occasionally sharing something that the Holy Spirit has been teaching him, and soliciting other such testimonies? In short, what do you think about “cell” or home fellowship groups? And what about Christian ministry organizations?
Doug,
As for full preterists needing to answer the “hard questions”, I am in full agreement. However, I’d say that most of your questions have been answered, satisfactorily or not, by a number of FPs, but you are simply unaware of them. I’m interested to know if you think Demar helped you out on what seems to be your most burning question. Regardless, I don’t think one has to provide a complete package all wrapped up and trimmed with a bow before challenging someone else’s eschatology. That’s what I’m doing here.
But I agree that the principle “everything’s gotta be fulfilled already” is utterly wrong-headed. That’s not to say that FP is wrong, but that approaching the text with a predetermined result in mind is reproachable methodology. My friend Duncan McKenzie has rightly railed about this for quite some time. What if there are things that aren’t fulfilled yet? I am willing to entertain the notion that there are, but I want to be convinced by the text and not arguments from transtemporal majority or personal preference for futuricity. Right now, the most important factors keeping me an FP are:
1) My confidence that all references to the coming of the Lord are fulfilled.
2) My current conviction that, as you intimated, all other eschatological events are tied in with that coming.
3) My willingness to live with some hard questions as long as they are prompted by questions whose answers I am utterly convinced of (such as the prophetic significance of AD 70). The prophecies of the OT are interesting and can be helpful, but I only rigorously apply their fulfillment to events after the birth of Christ when explicitly mentioned as still requiring fulfillment in the NT; e.g., I can well imagine that Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog were fulfilled by historical events that are unrecorded.
4) What I see as the glaring failure of every other eschatological position I am aware of. I do keep my eyes on the lookout for something that more neatly resolves more questions than it raises, but consistent FP is the most internally consistent scheme out there, period.
9 Ron Osborne // Jul 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Church: What it is, What it is not
First:
Everything we know and believe about the “Church” is based off of the late third century and early forth century model called the Roman Catholic Institution. The first century model of what “The Church” is has been completely forgotten. The Church is a place of the heart where Christ seats Himself; enthroned. The Church is a place called faith that mens hands cannot build with bricks and mortar or wood and nails.
Second:
The word church has nothing to do with an institution, but is better understood as an ark of safety, much like Noah’s Ark, a place to run for shelter when tribulation is about to fall on the world. The first century Ark (church) was about to face the second prophesied judgement of God; the judgement reserved for fire. Those who were in Christ at that time had entered into His Ark, when the Great Tribulation came in A.D. 70. The Church of Christ was a spiritual Ark of sorts, faith and belief is what gained one access, and not membership scribed upon a man-made document.
Remember, the first century “church” was not allowed admittance into the Rabbinical Judaic Temples, unless they were being brought there on trial before the Sanhedrin and/or for a scourging. Membership was only for those loyal to the administration of apostates. Today’s Institutional Pharisee’s and their blind followers are no different than the Temple and her priests that Christ came to destroy.
Man-made temples rarely are a place of safety as we have seen throughout history. Rarely do men’s religious institutions withstand attack or judgement. Many times these buildings are bombed, raided or a God ordained disaster destroys them, as was the case in Peru this past year when many ran to a Roman Catholic temple and were crushed to death by the collapse of it’s ceiling during a violent earthquake in the city of Pisco.
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasCrisis/idUSN18233879
Or the “church of the Nativity in Bethlehem when Judaic soldiers stormed the facility where Muslim men hid out thinking they were in a safe house.
http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=178
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1360036/Tanks-roar-into-Bethlehem.html (you will have to copy and paste this one to your browser bar)
God has proven to us time and again He does not place His name on these false institutions, as He allows them to be raided, bombed or destroyed when He inflicts His judgement through war, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and fires.
Remember: God said, “who are you, oh vain man, to build a house for me.”
10 Ron Osborne // Jul 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Steve,
Let’s go back to square one… First re-read what I wrote… I never said that I was opposed to fellowship, I just say that it is not rightly found in Institutional-ism.
Now:
Did God give Abraham a religion? -or- Did God give Abraham faith? Abraham, and his earthly father, had a religion already, as a matter of fact they served many “gods”, idols, man made religion and self-serving ritualistic garbage.
God pulled Abraham away from false ritualistic, self righteous religion and instead taught Abraham how to walk with God, wherein God became known as a friend to Abraham; One who Abraham walked and talked with. God did not command Abraham to build a Temple and force his offspring to perform rituals and traditions. God had called Abraham and had simply given Abraham faith and a covenant/an agreement. Circumcision would eventually come only as a sign between males of Abraham’s people and the rest of the nations around them. Circumcision was also a lesson to be learned that God marks His children and changes their hearts; God chooses/elects and not man. Circumcision was not intended to become a fleshly ritual, whereby man uses it to somehow please God and thereby save himself. Circumcision would ultimately become Israel’s downfall, much like H2O Baptism and Holy Communion have become for Institutional Christians; these were first century signs and nothing more. I can discuss this further if you want.
If we look at the sin of Adam, it begins with God tempting him with animals that have mates, of which, Adam is not content any longer with his relationship with God, and thus desires a mate like the animals have. This was the beginning of Adam’s downfall; dependance on someone other than God and Him alone. The second part of Adams sin is self-righteousness. Adam does not take responsibility for his sin and thus blames someone else, furthermore he tries desperately to cover-up, or atone for his own sin by placing leaves over his nakedness. Adam was already naked; God knew this; Adam was created naked. Yet, somehow Adam thinks that by covering himself he is somehow going to find approval with God, but this does not end up to be the case.
The problem with institutional-ism/denominationalism has to do with these very two points. Man is still trying to cover for himself, when God has already provided the covering. These are the sins of the flesh that the Bible is talking about with Israel and her Temple, rituals and self-righteous sacrificial worship. Sins of the flesh are not the pride of the eye and the lust of the flesh, as some have been falsely taught, all mankind has these desires, and yes they do cause man to sin, but the greater sins of the flesh are men trying to atone for himself through his own rituals, traditions and religiosity that he creates within his man-made temples. This man-made worship is not to God as some may think; this kind of worship is man centered and boasts to God “look at me, look at me”. Therefore, walking after the flesh, biblically speaking, has more to do with man’s self-righteous, ritualistic traditions and his temple building. It flies in the face of a God who has already provided everything we will ever need. Man is still boasting, “look at me God, look at me”. Man is still trying to till the ground, when God has already provided and accepted His own sacrifice. Able understood this, and self-serving Cain killed him for it, but instead of finding righteousness, Cain found shame and fear; and was thus banished from God’s presence.
Preachers and priest continually falter, still trying to till the ground, thinking it is their efforts that brings themselves or God a harvest, when the work is already done. Self-righteous institutional-ist’s (temple-ist’s) set themselves high on a throne while condescendingly speaking down to their subjects. This is narcissism and idolatry personified, while God has called all of “His elect children” to be a Kingdom of priests. God is moving all the pieces on the chess board called earth; He has divided all men into the two opposing sides.
A Consistent Cessation-ist understands that God did use Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, teachers and such, but only until the full cannon of scripture was revealed. There is no use for those offices anymore since we have the full cannon of text. Paul said, “soon prophesies would end, knowledge would end, tongues would cease, but that which was perfect would remain.” We have had the perfect for quite some time. Yet, Jesus would also tell us that wolves would enter the flock and scatter them, and devise lies and mislead the faint at heart. This already was a contention within the first century, but the wolves would truly mislead the flock and divide them with the re-birth of institutional temple-dom.
Temple-dom was destroyed and buried for nearly 300 years. Once again, man had done well without it’s false sense of man inspired security. Why is it that you want to throw away the perfection that had come, and return to the false type; one that caused the destruction of national Israel?
Q: What should be the model for true faith-filled Christians today? A: The Bereans.
The Bereans met in homes, had fellowship, AND THEY SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES TOGETHER.. There were no self-appointed, sectarian Greco style orators. There were no longer any counsels to debate the word of God to make it of no effect, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Rabbi’s etc. These Christians were of one mind and heart. The Bible says: “ the wicked wrest with the scriptures, unto their own destruction, which is what they were appointed for”. Institutional-ism, Sectarianism, Denominationalism certainly does that. Martin Luther re-declared these truths when he was brought before the council of Pope Leo. Martin declared that the institutional council that he was faced with had often contradicted the scriptures, and that Martin would find it only safe to follow the conscience that God had put in his heart, via the Word that he studied that was for so long with-held from the common parishioner. Sadly, Martin was not destined to raze the Roman institution to the ground, but back slid into trying to reform that which is already corrupt. Now we have 36,000, supposedly “Reformed” denominations in Institutional Christendom, all vying for the one voice of God. We should be ashamed to advocate such an abomination. I am, and I do not advocate these frauds. I guess that’s my answer to your question: What would you say of ecumenicism? Congregations uniting for service and ministry?
Institutional-ism divides the Word of God, removing what one group would like to ignore, and or adding doctrines and traditions that are just not spelled out in that Word. God has called His son’s to rightly understand His Word and to honor it; even the parts we sometimes do not like. Solo Scripture and Holy Spirit directed “Hermen” (Ha Ha… I Like that… hermeneutics).
God is doing the dividing all men: Those that are His shall walk the earth and call God friend as Abraham did. God still causes brothers to cross each others paths, that they might worship God together with a pure true heart; yes, even in home groups. God does not fail, He sits enthroned in the hearts of His children that he has called out of this world and it’s fleshly, ritualistic, self-righteous systems. The man of God will reject his earthly fathers religion, and will be turned by true faith to walk humbly with our God. I no longer need to make a covering for myself as Adam did. While men continue to create governments, politics, heads of state, religions etc, etc. I have been found/made by God to obey Him and Him only; I will not cry out for another King or religion to be lord over me as Israel did, and perished. I have only one heavenly government that I am loyal to, and One King. The worldly fleshly man cannot understand this and continues to try to appease God within governments and temples that God has mocked already ( “who are you, Oh vain man, to build a house for Me”) and has destroyed repeatedly, throughout history.
I hope this clarify’s my position.
Grace and Peace to the Son’s of God
11 Ron Osborne // Jul 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Steve said: “I am not near so much of the anarchist bent as your statements imply of yourself, but then again, I’m not a defender of the Rule by Historical Majority party either. I will say that while our minds, hearts, and deeds are indeed separated in source and method from “the systems of man-made lunacy,” I do not believe it is scripturally or practically justified to fully isolate ourselves from or throw off those systems; rather, we are to reform them by first reforming the minds and hearts of men.”
We are not called to reform the world’s systems, show me in the Bible where we are to do that? This is what Post-Millennium Reconstruction-ist’s believe, and we see where that has gotten us. This movement brought us into thinking that by getting involved in politics, we might somehow reform our nation, when the Bible says God created nations for rising and falling. Utopia is a pipe dream, and the Reconstruction-ist movement in “Christendom”is nothing more than a futurist Utopian dream, when Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world or it’s systems, so why are we trying to join the systems of this world with Christ’s Kingdom? Reconstruction-ism caused us to vote for “Conservative” beliefs and supposed Republicans (a.k.a. Neo-Con’s) who claimed to uphold so-called “Conservative Christian values”, who destroyed our country even worse than it was, We still have feminism, homosexuality, adultery, abortion, and many times we have Institutional religious leaders being caught with their pants down so to speak. These self righteous “Conservative values” have now deceived us into sending our soldiers off to slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan and most likely Iran soon. Three cheers for man-inspired Reformation. When are we to learn from history and realize all of mens efforts are vain continually. God created us to worship Him. Period. It seems all we get done is worshiping ourselves and then paying a heavy price for it.
We are called, however, to come out from among them, what union do God’s children have with the son’s of darkness and the systems of this world? We are only called to hopefully be the messenger that does speak God’s truth, but it is God’s decision whom are reformed and who are not. He opens the right mouths of His messengers, to those who are purposed to hear His truth in the right season. In Acts we have record of this, a whole audience hearing the Gospel, yet only those who were purposed to hear actually heard and their hearts were filled with joy, while those who were not purposed wandered away damned, as it was purposed for them also. For some The Lord has made hearts of stone, ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see. For His children though, He opens our hearts, removes the scales from our eyes, and un-stops our ears.
Weather institutions, religions, politics, governments, all of these belong to this world and this world only, they will not be found on the other side in heaven so as to continue their rebellion against God. Their children of disobedience and their systems are only purposed this side of heaven to be an adversary to God’s children, so that by their adversity, God’s children are refined into a fine pearl, or diamonds and rubies, gold or silver.
Steve you are double minded, you want your cake and eat it too. Jesus was not a man like that. He was an anarchist as you say. He came to destroy man’s false ideals and systems, this is what got Him crucified. He did not back down to Pilot either, but announced to Pilot that the Roman governor had no power in his hands except that, which was given to him from above. So to further clarify, systems which we think are man made, are actually God directed, but are used by God to trip up those who are not His, and to work as an adversary against His own children, that by these earthly systems, Christ’s children see their folly, thus turning their hearts towards God’s perfect Kingdom of the heart, which is Good News (Gospel).
“Come out from among them, and be washed in the spirit of truth”….
12 Cliff Martin // Jul 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Steve,
Wow. I must admit that I haven’t the time or mental energy to wade through some of these lengthy comments. But I’m wondering … are you getting the kind of comments you were looking for? I presumed you were wanting some of us to present scriptures that lead us to believe some aspects of the Jesus coming are yet future. I’ll take the bait.
I hesitate. What I’d love is about 2 or 3 hours of face time with you to discuss how you came to your full preterism views. I am not put off by F.P. As I have said before, I would call myself a partial preterist, and I frankly do not know where to draw the line on many N.T. scriptures. But here are just a couple starters for you…
1) Peter seems to me to hold out the hope of a coming heavenly invasion of earth to his readers currently under persecution, a persecution about to be stepped up. 1 Peter 1:5, 7, 13; 2:12; 4:7, 12; 5:4; these verses seem to offer hope and comfort to these believers. 1 Peter probably predates the Fall of Jerusalem by five or six years, but I hardly see how that event could offer solace to persecuted Christians.
2) I’ve never understood how a full preterist views the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31, and 24:36 ff. But I’m pretty sure you’ll tell me! (My own take on the Olivet Discourse: mostly 70 AD, some end of the age, and some which fits into that common Biblical prophetic mode of multiple fulfillments, meaning both 70 AD and end of the age.)
13 Steve // Jul 24, 2008 at 10:47 pm
How demoralizing! I had a lengthy reply all typed out and then accidentally closed my browser!!!!!
14 Cliff Martin // Jul 24, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I’ve had it happen to me, too. Trying to resurrect all those spontaneous profundities is like next to impossible. The second time is never as good! So now, any time I am planning a comment more than a short paragraph or two, I type it first into a word processor, then paste into the comment box.
15 Steve // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:14 am
Ron, Ron, Ron,
I’m at a loss to understand what you think the Christian’s role in society is. What good is inheriting the earth doing us if we’re just supposed to sit around in a commune and talk to the Holy Spirit and occasionally other believers? How does this accomplish God’s intention for humanity seen in Genesis 1:28? I’m having a hard time understanding how your scheme accomplishes any good in the world, such as feeding the hungry or clothing the naked - if indeed you believe we should (perhaps their predicament is just God’s inexorable judgment on them). If “fulfilled” means “done away with”, then how is Christianity itself not fulfilled? Maybe God’s abolition of the “systems” was a reboot rather than a switch off.
I think the work of Christ was not to destroy everything about the world order but to replace it with his principles that are able to reform the world from the bottom up (not the government down - we agree on that).
Cliff,
)
Thanks for weighing in! (and on topic!
Before the fall of Judaism (the destruction of the temple, the end of sacrifices and the priesthood, and the Diaspora’s dissolution of tribal identity), the Jews were always a major concern to the Christians. It was a real problem: they didn’t stop at tormenting Christians with the thought that they were bastards and affirming the Jew as the true sons of God and the continuing heirs to His covenant. No, they actually tormented them by overt acts of persecution (e.g., Saul of Tarsus) and by stirring up the authorities against them. Acts especially makes a point to show that it was the Jews who were persecuting Christians and suing to have them prosecuted by the Romans (e.g., Paul of Tarsus). When the epistles speak of persecution, they are referring to the Jewish persecution. The events of AD 70 were not just judgments on Messiah-rejecting Judaism, but God’s affirmation of who His true sons were. There was a separation of sheep and goats in AD 70, and it was not based upon racial identity as the Jews expected, but upon whether or not there was a living, vibrant faith.
Now, Cliff, think about it: there was a whole heck of a lot more consolation with this than with the futurist paradigm. “Hey guys, hang on, I know it’s tough now. But just you wait a couple millennia, and then the whole world will perish! Just hold tight, and be encouraged!” The futurist treatment of this passage was, I daresay, either the most disingenuous consolation the world has ever known, or Peter was dreadfully ignorant and gave them false hope on accident. The Lord’s delay seemed interminable after only 30-odd years, so how could he, with a straight face, tell them that they would be vindicated in a short time (1.6, 1.20, 4.5, 4.7, 4.17, 5.1)?
You and I have conversed a little about the concept of multiple fulfillments. My statement in the “Herman” post about one meaning per passage did not exclude this. Each prophecy had one true meaning, which was perceived by the original audience (”fulfillment” in the normally recognized sense), but its themes and diction could be used later on as allusions or typology. For instance, in Matthew 24.29, Jesus quotes from two different passages in Isaiah (13.10, 34.4) originally prophesied to two different nations, respectively Babylon and Edom. The literal end of the sun, moon, and stars was never in view, least of all to the original audience, or else Isaiah was a false prophet - because that stuff didn’t literally happen! Jesus uses Isaiah’s words to switch from the more pragmatic issues of the preceding verses (”flee to the mountains”) to the grave register of the ancient prophetic tradition; like the original audience of Isaiah, the disciples would never have dreamed that this was to have a literal fulfillment, but they definitely would have recognized the solemn significance of his prediction of the Lord’s judgment on Jerusalem (24.2).
You also must keep in mind that the NT, when speaking of “fulfillments”, doesn’t always mean “fulfillment” in the sense that we do. For instance, most modern scholars - even some conservative ones - recognize in the Gospel of Matthew an application of the common first century interpretive tradition known as pesher used extensively (but not exclusively) at Qumran. In the pesher tradition, passages from the OT were called up (often quite out of context) and recycled in a much nuanced sense to establish a common pattern. For instance, one theme of the Gospel of Matthew is that Jesus is the new Israel. So when Matthew links Hosea 11.1 with the child Jesus’ return to Nazareth with the words, “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” and does so with “fulfillment” language, he was not saying that the original referent of Hosea’s words, the nation of Israel, was not the true or ultimate referent - only that Jesus fit the type or pattern. We see this pesher-style usage of the term “fulfill” elsewhere in Matthew. So even if you want to call the secondary allusion a “fulfillment”, you can see that it is the secondary, not the primary one.
Besides that, Cliff, surely you see the nonsense (no offense!) it makes of Scripture to say that “this generation shall not pass”, “some of those standing here will not taste death until”, “about to”, “soon” could have both an immediate and a 2,000(+) year delayed referent - especially when we consider that the supposed future fulfillment is to be more literal than the initial fulfillment, with the stars falling and the moon turning to blood, etc.!
16 Cliff Martin // Jul 25, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Stephen,
1) 1 Peter: Was Peter giving a false sense of consolation to his readers, in that Jesus’ return would not happen for 2000 years or more? Not as I read 1 Peter. Despite the list of verses your site, the promises of Jesus’ coming were not promised to be soon. The consolation is not, “soon, Jesus is going to come and rescue you out of this trial”, but rather “this trial will be short-lived, and when Jesus returns you will see that it pays off when we endure!”
You did not explain how the events of 70 AD should offer any consolation or hope to the recipients of Peter’s letter, except to suggest that the Jews were the perpetrators of the persecution. My reading of Peter suggest that he has in mind the persecution from Rome, particularly Nero, and about to be ramped up by the 64 AD fire in Rome.
Of the verses you sited, only one suggests to me an imminent end times scenario. 1:6 says the current trials will be short lived. 1:20 refers to the first coming of Jesus; 4:5 merely states that God is prepared (hetoimos) to render judgment; 4:17 speaks of the imminent judgment coming upon believers; 5:1 speaks of a future revelation of glory without regard to how long. Only 4:7 suggest the idea of a near future event. And this verse is problematic no matter how you understand it. 70 AD hardly resulted in an “end of all things”. The standard futurist view, that the return of Christ is always imminent never made much sense to me. We could read eggizo to mean “the end is approaching” which would certainly be true. But even if we read it in its more natural sense of being near, or at hand, I would understand Peter to be exhorting believers not to live in this present state of affairs as though it will last forever.
2) Multiple Fulfillments: I get what you say about prophecies being pressed into service later as types. No doubt this pesher practice was common. But some prophecies seem to call more specifically for multiple fulfillments. For example, nearly all (if not all) the messianic prophecies of Isaiah. From your point of view, can you show me one such prophecy for which Jesus is the primary fulfillment? They all had more immediate fulfillments in the life and experiences of Isaiah, or in the “suffering servant” of the nation of Israel. And yet, when they are quoted in the New Testament as foretellings of Jesus (sometimes by Jesus himself), this seems (to me) to be their primary fulfillment. Do you see it otherwise?
When prophecies have multiple fulfillments (in my view) we must be careful not to press every detail into each fulfillment. This can be readily seen in many of Isaiah’s prophecies, the details of which rather enigmatically shift back and forth from the near to the distant fulfillment. I read the Olivet with this in mind. Those phrases you quote about “this generation not passing” are quite clearly referring to events in 70 AD.
The entire discourse was answering two questions (1. “When will this—the destruction of the Temple—happen?” and 2. “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”) The disciples no doubt thought those two events would coincide, and thus they thought they were asking one question. I know the F.P. take on this. Mine is different. I think Jesus went on to answer both questions without sharply distinguishing between them. And this, in part, because the two events would bear much similarity.
17 Cliff Martin // Jul 26, 2008 at 11:26 am
Stephen,
I should mention that I am open to preterist understandings. Though I have tried all my life to think independently, I cannot help to be heavily influenced by the premillenialism that has been the dominate view surrounding me, even though today I hold to very few premillenialist ideas.
While I am open to preterism, and embrace much preterism both in the teachings of Jesus and in Revelation, I find some full preterism readings of scripture to be forced (recognizing, of course, that all eschatological schemes require a bit of fancy footwork!). I still see much evidence in the Scriptures of a cataclysmic closing of this age accompanied by a return of Jesus to the earth.
18 Steve // Jul 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Sorry for taking so long, Cliff. I was out of town this weekend. Thanks for your thoughtful response! My comments are in bold.
The “end of all things” is quite the same thing as the “end of the age”, the consummation of salvation history that occurred with the disintegration of the Mosaic covenant and the induction of the Gentiles into the Kingdom, both of which had been emerging during the “last days” but which would not be complete until judgment on Israel and the Jewish cultus in AD 70. Jewish persecution of true Israel done in God’s name stopped in its tracks; that worrisome score was settled. Regarding your interpretation of 1 Peter as, “this trial will be short-lived, and when Jesus returns you will see that it pays off when we endure!” I have to wonder what good this faith-boost would do at the end of the universe. As far as I know, an appreciable majority of commentators recognize that Peter’s prediction of the trial’s end and their vindication at the Lord’s return were seen by Peter as coterminous; this is brought into alignment with futurist understandings of eschatology by various ways, such as the conservative’s vague “already-not-yet” tension or the concession on the part of the more “liberal” theologians that Peter didn’t quite have all his eschatological ducks in a row. This is unnecessary given a more contextual understanding of prophetic diction.
The ancients didn’t view an “end of the world” to be a final conflagration of the cosmos: reading the OT prophecies you will see that there were many “days of the Lord” in which God settles some score, described in colorful, hyperbolic language, and then history simply moves on. Things wear out and decay, and then are renewed; then they wear out and decay in some different way all over again. This cyclical view of history met its end under the Gentile misunderstanding of Jewish prophetic tradition made possible precisely because of the leveling of the Jews’ status resulting from the events of AD 66-70; even important aspects of the Jewish culture like their distinctive literary forms were no longer seen as essential to an understanding of the faith.
If indeed the writers of Scripture were given insight that the events of Jesus’ life were fulfillments of already fulfilled prophecies, this does not warrant our reading more fulfillments into the text. In other words, you would never have thought that Isaiah’s prophecy of the “young woman” conceiving a child was referring to anything but the prophetess in the neighboring chapters if it weren’t for the prophecies being related to Mary in the NT. Even conceding for sake of argument that Jesus’ birth of a virgin was another (or the ultimate) fulfillment, we would only know this because of the statement of the Gospel writer himself, and even he is speaking ex post facto; looking back, the Gospel writer noticed what looked like a fulfillment. In fact, as far as I know, there’s still no evidence that this prophecy had been applied to Messiah by the Jews beforehand. In theory, we could look back and see fulfillments, but I think it’s dangerous to start reading in yet future fulfillments when no scriptural warrant exists for it, and we definitely should not when the text contradicts that notion.
For instance, Jesus says, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Mat 24.21) This is utterly meaningless if there are multiple fulfillments. In the parallel passage in Luke, Jesus says, “For these are the days of vengeance when all things that are written must be fulfilled.”
The first thing I want to say is, need Jesus be a primary fulfillment for anything? Or have we put that demand on the text? I have never seen it argued that there was an immediate fulfillment for everything in the OT (Zechariah 14, e.g.). But even if so, if Christ’s fulfillments of those events are primary because he is Messiah, then what is the point of postulating multiple fulfillments to that Messiah’s own prophecies? If he is the culmination of prophecy, then we have no reason to believe fulfillments of his prophecies that match the details down the line (”this generation”, etc.) are inadequate and await a more definitive fulfillment. Also notice that even prophecies viewed as Messianic by Christians are not dramatically more literalistic (and hence isolated from prophetic tradition) as are the alleged ultimate future fulfillments of Jesus’ prophecies.
Moreover, does the application of prior fulfillments to the events in the life of Christ mean that we are justified in postulating more fulfillments to things absent from (and, in many cases, contradictory of) the texts? Where would that stop? Who decided that Christ’s prophecies of the Olivet Discourse needed more fulfillments but the rooster crowing for Peter didn’t? Or that Agabus’ prophecy needn’t warrant multiple fulfillments? If a rooster crows after a three-time denial at some point in the future to someone other than Peter, it could only be recognized as a fulfillment in retrospect, not in anticipation. Our waiting for future fulfillments of things already fulfilled in history does not in any way follow a biblical pattern.
Perhaps they only appear to “shift back and forth” because we are incorrectly understanding the nature of the “fulfillment” language in the NT. With all respect, my friend, this seems to be an ad hoc interpretive system tailor-made to the demands of a predetermined interpretation (futurism). How can NT prophecy be in any way usefully predictive if it’s as harey-carey as all that? If the second (chronological) fulfillment was intended as the primary, it should have been the first (chronological), partial fulfillment that did not match all the details adequately.
It seems your biggest hurdle is in understanding the apocalyptic, universal language of Jesus’ prophecies. Suffice it to say that the Jews of his time would not have had 2,000 years’ worth of literalism to contend with, and would have read Jesus’ prophecies in the same way that they read Isaiah 13.1-7, 19.1, Jeremiah 10.13, Lamentations 2.1, Ezekiel 30.3, 18, 32.7, Joel 2.2, etc. (i.e., not literally). There is no evidence that they thought these things would have a literal fulfillment in the future some time.
Good discussion, Cliff. Looks like everyone else has dropped off…thanks for stepping up!
19 Cliff Martin // Jul 28, 2008 at 11:12 pm
There is much I could say about 1 Peter, but it gets into minutia, hair-splitting of language, both Greek and English. So, just a few comments about “multiple fulfillments”:
You write, For instance, Jesus says, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Mat 24.21) This is utterly meaningless if there are multiple fulfillments.
Is it really any less meaningless if we apply this to 70 AD only? Was that tribulation really that much greater than the holocaust? It seem that this statement is hyperbole no matter how we interpret it. And if we accept, first of all, that it is hyperbolic, than it has never seemed like a stretch to me that it could have multiple fulfillments. Could have, I say, because I don’t presume any of these potential future prophecies necessarily are yet future. That, I think, sets me apart from most futurists, and defines my own partial preterist view. I agree with you that it is “dangerous to start reading in yet future fulfillments” without clear scriptural warrant. My point is that it is also “dangerous” to presume a prophecy does not have some significant subsequent fulfillment.
It is my view that we err whenever we attempt to understand or closely define future prophecy (or potentially future prophecy) prior to fulfillment. I don’t use biblical prophecy to build charts of the future. Prophecy is “understandable” and applicable only by those who are observing its fulfillment (John 14:29, 2:19-22, Isaiah 48:16, etc.) So, I study prophecy, and keep a very open mind about what lies ahead. I believe this is (and always has been) the proper way to read biblical prophecy.
Now here is an interesting thing for you to consider: The Jewish leaders missed the Messiah precisely because of the way they mis-read prophecy. Clearly, those who saw Jesus and knew who he was put it all together, and they quote Isaiah and other O.T. prophecies profusely. (Was it because they believed in Jesus that Isaiah took on meaning, as you suggest? or was it that they read the Scriptures with open minds and hearts and came to believe in Jesus, in part, because of his “secondary” fulfillment of the prophecies?) The “preterists” of Jesus day (pardon me, I can’t resist), those who would declare that Isaiah has no future fulfillments, they all missed Jesus. They had their eschatological ducks in a row, and were therefore blind to the way in which Isaiah, et. al., were pointing to Jesus. And here you are telling me that I should not be looking for future fulfillments to prophecies which are already fulfilled. I hear echos of the Rabbis of Jesus day! I am trying to read prophecy as the Jews of Jesus day should have read them. You are telling me to read them the way the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus did read them. (I hope this paragraph is clear, it is a little hard to convey.)
I have not responded point by point to many of your arguments. But, if you consider how I read and understand prophecy (which is different from most futurists), I think you will see that most of you points in the final two or three paragraphs don’t apply.
20 Steve // Jul 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
If you concede even a little, as you made a point to above, that we’re not supposed to read eschatology into the headlines, you fall under your own “Rabbi” accusation - but don’t worry, since that’s a false analogy anyway.
The Jewish leaders were not full preterists; that’s a mischaracterization of the first order, rhetorical or not. If anything, they were blinded by literalistic futurism: they awaited a Messiah but they rejected him when he came but did not promise to bring about the national supremacy for Israel that they read into the Scripture. They should have been steeped enough in the clear message of the prophets of God’s desire to bring all nations into His fold that this wouldn’t have been an issue. Their rejection was due to ethnocentric ideals in contradiction of OT prophecy such as Isaiah 66, but also of course there was the matter of their own ambition for leadership. They weren’t about to give up their authority for someone who didn’t promise them the moon. Jesus wouldn’t have judged them simply for their misunderstanding, since he came and taught them that the Kingdom of God was spiritual in nature. But they wouldn’t listen to him, even when signs and wonders followed him in confirmation of who he was: that was why they were judged.
For the most part, the leadership hadn’t changed since the days of Isaiah and of Malachi. They missed their Messiah because they did not love God enough to discern His heart as revealed in the Law and Prophets; their hearts were selfish, prideful, and disdainful of the Jewish poor and the Gentile alike, having valued their political status above their mission as shepherds of God’s flock. Most of them dismissed “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (a prophecy with no prior fulfillment) without considering what he said. But not all of the leadership rejected Christ: the fact that some like Nicodemus did follow Jesus is evidence that those who truly were his sheep did hear his voice.
In short, their view of prophecy was not the problem.
21 Cliff Martin // Jul 30, 2008 at 12:11 am
Steve,
Yes, the Jewish leaders did misread the prophecies of Messiah just as you say. And when I am discussing with futurists (pre-mill, pre-trib) why the Jews failed to view Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, I refer to this. You are also correct that, ultimately, it was their spiritual condition that blinded them. But it was, in part, their spiritual condition that pre-disposed them to misread the prophecies.
While it is true that they were confused about what they thought Messiah would look like based on their futurist errors, they were also preterists with regard to other prophecies. They viewed the Suffering Servant of Isaiah as referring to the nation of Israel (and they were right) and failed to understand the typology of the Suffering Servant with respect to the coming Messiah.
But those whose hearts were not fouled by ambition, etc., were predisposed to look at Jesus, read Isaiah, and say “this is Him! the Messiah Isaiah spoke about.”
So, as I see O.T. Messianic prophecy, the Jewish leaders of Jesus day made many errors. What they ultimately failed to do was read prophecy with an open mind, a mind that is not biased toward some specified fulfillment, a mind that will see the prophecy as it is being fulfilled, and believe.
22 Steve // Jul 30, 2008 at 12:41 pm
To everyone: Anybody else? I’ll even let your comments stand without trying to argue my position. That was actually always my intention with this post, but when people ask me questions, I tend to feel the need to answer them. This blog isn’t about me pontificating; I simply am the one who gets to pick the topics for discussion. I covet your responses, of which I frankly would have expected more, given how high eschatology ranked on my poll. It’s not too late to weigh in.
To Cliff: One quick comment before closing this leg of discussion: I’ve never been convinced that the Suffering Servant was ever intended by Isaiah to refer to Israel - “the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed” - reading “him” and “us” within the same sentence as referencing the same person(s) strikes me as impossibly schizophrenic, but it’s not surprising that the ethnocentric Jews would read themselves in as their own hero.
Anyway, thanks for discussing these things with me. I value your opinions and beliefs, and admire your ability to think Outside the Box.
23 Cliff Martin // Jul 30, 2008 at 6:00 pm
One last comment? not to further debate, but to help provide clarity to my view …
My wife and I have been reading from Isaiah the last couple of months. As we do so, I have been paying special attention to the “servant” passages. At times, the servant is undeniably the nation of Israel. At other times, “servant” as Israel makes no sense at all (as you observe in Chapter 52-53). At times, it seems the servant might be Isaiah himself. This is but an example of how I observe prophesy floating back and forth between near fulfillment and distant fulfillment, with some details pertaining more to the issues at hand, and some pertaining more to far off events. And the arbiter? How can we tell which is which? Only by familiarizing ourselves with all Biblical prophecy, and keeping an open mind as we observe events unfolding. When we see an event that clearly was foretold, the prophecy kicks in as the faith-inspiring delayed miracle Jesus talks about in John 14:29.
~ Still a partial preterist (and your appreciative friend!),
Cliff
24 Damian // Jul 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm
OK Steve, I’ll say something, despite my hesitation. I’m not as eschatologically studied as you are, so I’m not going to make statements of faith, but I have a few questions.
Firstly, have you ever been to a synagogue? Because “There was a separation of sheep and goats in AD 70, and it was not based upon racial identity as the Jews expected, but upon whether or not there was a living, vibrant faith.” sounds like you deny the Jewish faith is living and vibrant. I think we have a lot to learn from them. I certainly think that the Jewish faith reformed remarkably, into something quite similar to Christianity after 70AD.
“Hey guys, hang on, I know it’s tough now. But just you wait a couple millennia, and then the whole world will perish! Just hold tight, and be encouraged!”
Not all futurists believe in the whole world perishing. I certainly am not pre-mil, but rather believe in a future renewal of the whole earth - the earth needn’t be destroyed, just as Jesus’ body was not destroyed before it was resurrected. I think the ‘new creation’ doctrine is something missing in its totality in the viewpoint you present, as it seems prominent in the epistles, especially Paul’s (you mentioned Romans 8). I’m sure you have an explanation for this, and I’d like to hear it.
“The ancients didn’t view an “end of the world” to be a final conflagration of the cosmos: reading the OT prophecies you will see that there were many “days of the Lord” in which God settles some score, described in colorful, hyperbolic language, and then history simply moves on. Things wear out and decay, and then are renewed; then they wear out and decay in some different way all over again.”
I agree with the first part of this statement. There was certainly a sense of history moving on after the end of the world. But I disagree that Judaism thought cyclically - the OT theology seems pretty indicative of a narrative view of the world. There was a beginning, there is a story, there will be an end, resulting in a socio-religio-political utopian epilogue. This is the story the Old Testament tells to me, and Christianity continues that story. It’s not a cyclical view.
Now, to the actual point, I hope I’m not breaking your stipulation, but I’m a little unclear on your meaning. I’ll put 1 Corinthians 15 up or examination. I see no evidence that we have been given ‘an imperishable body, raised in glory and power’ (42-44). I see no evidence that all authority, rule and power has been abolished, nor that all enemies are under His feet(24-26). Nor that the dead have been raised imperishable, the mortal put on immortality (53). Now I know this impinges on the forbidden resurrection territory, but these seem to me to be predicted events that haven’t come to past, hence are valid. If you think they’re outside stipulations, then let me know why.
25 Steve // Jul 31, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hi, Damian!
You can’t say that the modern Jewish cultus (as opposed to its belief system) in any significant way resembles the pre-AD 70 one that had a sacrificial system and priests. Regardless, even if the Jewish religion is wonderful nowadays, the fact remains that Jesus was quite clear that in its administration it was in a state the required judgment.
My point stands with that comment; it was no comfort to these guys undergoing persecution that God would recreate the world in 2,000+ years.
Well yes, but this isn’t the place for it. For starters, read my post Election and Adoption, Part 1: Romans 7 and 8.
The largest narrative undergirding the OT was of Israel’s and Judah’s exile and return from captivity, all going on during the time the OT was being written. But I wouldn’t say it was entirely cyclical in every respect: they certainly looked forward to a Messiah that was going to definitively change things. But to say they envisioned a whole new order of everything is hard to substantiate when you see that they used the same universal language to refer to local, impermanent states: read Isaiah 25-27, which prophesies the return from captivity and note the universal language of 25.8, 26.19-21, and 27.12-13. This is not to say that they didn’t necessarily prophesy anything definitive and ultimate, but the problem is that they used hyperbolic speech so much that they could not speak of something grander still in a distinctive way.
Your questions are good and quite worthy of response, but as it is outside the bounds of this discussion, I’m going to defer at present. I’ve talked about 1 Cor 15 in other posts on preterism (just check out the preterism category). The topic at hand is this: regardless of whatever reason you believe it to be so (Romans 8, the Resurrection, etc.), list one prophecy of a return of Christ for which you are still waiting.
Leave a Comment