Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST The word "preterist" is taken from the Latin word meaning "past." This view denies any future fulfillment of the book of Revelation and sees the events it describes as already having been fulfilled within the first century after Christ. There are several different forms of Preterism. Full Preterism views all of the prophecies of the Bible as having already been fulfilled in their entirety since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full Preterism is a very recent innovation that has no adherents in any of the writings of the early church. Partial Preterism maintains a future return of Christ, but views His "coming in the clouds" as described in Matthew 24:29-31 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. 1. Jesus and Preterism.
With regards to Preterism, I am reminded of the words of Jesus when He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24). It seems to me that the Preterist is one who is pointing to the A.D. 70 event and saying, "Look there! Look here!" But there is going to be no mistaking the coming of the Son of Man when He finally returns. By contrast, none of the believers of the early church viewed the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling the promise of the return of Christ. This brings us to our next point.
2. The Church Fathers and Preterism.
It is clear from a reading of the apostolic and church fathers that ALL of them expected a future return of Jesus Christ. It would be strange indeed if the entire church failed to understand the fulfillment of so many of the New Testament prophecies on such a major point. This is especially striking when we remember the promise of Revelation 1:7 that tells us, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. A preterist interpretation calls for this to be a reference to the "tribes of the land" of Israel, even though Israel was never described in such a way elsewhere in the Bible. But such an interpretation would demand that the Jews who suffered through the A.D. 70 event would have recognized that their sufferings were a punishment for their treatment of Jesus since the prophecy is not merely that they would mourn, but that they would mourn "over Him." Just as there is no evidence that anyone in the church ever recognized the fall of Jerusalem as the return of Jesus, so also there is a complete absence of evidence that the Jews ever recognized the coming of Jesus in those events.
3. The Resurrection and Preterism.
Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead. But the pattern for our resurrection is that of Jesus. The big idea presented in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus arose from the dead. This was not merely some sort of spiritual resurrection. The point is made throughout this chapter that His resurrection was bodily and physical. Furthermore we are told that His resurrection serves as the paradigm for our own resurrection. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). He is the firstfruits and we are the "later fruits." When Paul came to Athens, he was mocked by the Greeks for believing in a physical resurrection. Such mockery would not have been forthcoming had he held that the resurrection was only going to be of a spiritual or mystical nature. But he went out of his way to side himself with the Pharisees who believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8). In denying any future resurrection at the coming of Christ, the preterist also finds himself out of accord with the words of Paul when he says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). The reference to sleep is used throughout this epistle as a euphemism for death (11:30; 15:6; 15:18; 15:20). While Paul says of the coming of the Lord that it will be a time when all do not die, the preterist is left with the rather obvious historic truth that everyone who lived in the first century did indeed die. When it comes to the resurrection, the Bible teaches that Jesus is our prototype. His resurrection is the forerunner and the pattern for our own resurrection. This point is made in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that if there is no resurrection then even Jesus has not risen. The resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection. He was able to stand before His disciples in His resurrection body and say, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). 1 John 3:2 says that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore we can conclude that our future resurrection will be of a physical AND spiritual nature.
4. Preterism and the Lord's Supper.
One wonders whether the Full Preterist is completely consistent in his views. After all, most Full Preterists continue to partake of the Lord's Supper in spite of the fact that Paul said that the eating and drinking serves to "proclaim the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
5. Preterism and the Promise of a Soon Coming.
Preterists like to point out that Jesus and the disciples stated that the kingdom was near and at hand. What they often ignore is that this same formula was used in the Old Testament in instances where the eventual fulfillment was a long way off. An example of this is seen in Isaiah 13:6 where, speaking of a coming judgment against the city of Babylon, the prophet says, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." Isaiah writes these words in the 8th century B.C. but it is not until 539 B.C. that Babylon fell to the Persians. The preterist attempts to make a similar case via the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." What is conveniently ignored is the earlier context of Jesus' words in the previous chapter.
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
Notice that it was "this generation" that murdered Zechariah, the son of Berechiah." The problem is that this murder took place 400 years earlier as recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This tells us that Matthew's use of the term "generation" means something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time.
6. Preterism and the Angels at the Ascension.
Another problem facing the preterist is seen in the promise that was given to the disciples at the ascension of Jesus. The event took place on the Mount of Olives.
And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
The promise that was given by the angels is that Jesus would come again in exactly the same way as they had watched Him go into heaven. This had not been a spiritual ascension, but a physical and visible one. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages fully expect a future physical and visible return of Christ.
7. Preterism and the Judgment of the World.
When Paul preaches to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he declares to them that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed (Acts 17:31). The Preterist interpretation of this verse is that it points to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, yet that fall would have absolutely no impact upon the Athenians who had gathered to listen to Paul. He says that they ought to repent because of this coming judgment and such a warning is nonsensical if it only refers to a local judgment in a far away land.
There are some eschatological differences that exist between Christians that I consider to be relatively benign and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. This is not one of them. To the contrary, the teaching of Preterism comes uncomfortably close to the spiritual gangrene that is described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 when he speaks of those who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching. I cannot help but to be reminded of the litmus test suggested by Jesus: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
Read my lips, Fru.
You CANNOT use a verse that says, “This generation shall not pass until ALL these things be fulfilled”
AND
Say that you DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus has not ALREADY returned.
Jesus’ return WAS ONE OF the prophesied things in that chapter that PRECEDED the statement that ALL these things must be fulfilled.
So, you’ve got 2 choices:
1. You are admitting to playing fast and loose with your proof text
OR
2. You believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
Which is it?
“Did Jesus return in 70AD?” ~ xzins
I report. You decide. :)
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html
[large snip]
Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Mark 13:26)
Luke 21:27-8 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
“No way, Holding, NO WAY!!! You can’t say that Jesus came in the sky on a cloud in 70 AD! Get outta here!!!”
While the skeptics like our earlier-mentioned uninformed one are busy mocking, we’ll refer the reader to our corresponding study on Daniel with specific reference to the Son of Man imagery therein. For convenience, we will reproduce the most relevant paragraph here:
We know that the Son of Man envisioned here is Christ. What should be especially noted for our purposes is the Son of Man’s mode of transportation, and the direction he is going in. The Son of Man is riding with “the clouds of heaven” (the LXX has the Son of Man actually “on” the clouds) and heading towards the Ancient of Days to be enthroned. Miller [207] believes that the Son of Man rides from heaven to earth in this picture, but this is quite unlikely in view of the setting of God’s heavenly court (7:10). Goldingay [164] acknowledges that the scene of God on a throne of fire, surrounded by attendants, “locate the scene in heaven”; but counters that where “it is specifically a matter of God judging...the scene is normally on earth.” The verses he uses in support of this, however, could be said to fall to circular reasoning; for example, Jer. 49:38: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD.” Did God literally set his throne in Elam? (Other passages, like Ps. 96:10-13, say God will come to judge the earth, but how does this equate with God being physically present on earth?) Bottom line: The scene fits the placement of heaven better than it fits a placement on earth. Nor does it do to object that the scene must be on earth because of the earth and the sea seen by Daniel (7:3-4). Again, if we are thinking literal geography and envisioning here, then the Mormons must be right about God having a human body!
How then does this relate to the Olivet Discourse? The scene of Daniel 7, as Caird says [Wr.JVG, 341], involves not “a primitive form of space travel” but “a symbol for a mighty reversal of fortunes within history and at the national level...” The scene is one of a victorious enthronement and vindication over enemies. To emphasize this, we will also need to pull in a verse from another part of the Gospels:
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.(Mark 14:62)
Luke 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Jesus’ retort to Caiaphas, in light of the primary charge that Jesus threatened the Temple, is of great significance in this context. “As a prophet, Jesus staked his reputation on his prediction of the Temple’s fall within a generation; if and when it fell, he would thereby be vindicated.” Jesus also promoted himself as the new Temple which would replace the old one, with his predictions that he would raise a new one — his body — in three days. If the Temple did NOT fall, he would be proven a charlatan. But if the Temple did indeed fall, he would be vindicated — just like Daniel’s “Son of Man” which he claimed to be. In saying he will ride the clouds, Jesus is not saying, as Wright wryly notes, that Caiaphas would one say walk by a window, look outside, and see Jesus popping a wheelie on a cumulus. Rather Jesus is saying, “You will see me vindicated; you will see my predictions come true.” The “coming” — as noted, using the word erchomai, which specifies neither destination nor direction — alludes to the “going” of the Daniel 7 Son of Man from earth to heaven to be enthroned. Caipahas (or more likely, the collective assembled for the trial; as well as the “tribes of the earth” — Matthew uses “tribes” elsewhere only of Israel [19:18], and the word is used in the Septuagint to refer to them; and “earth” is ge, or land, can mean a limited area or the entire globe; in context, and in the light of the use of “tribes,” as well as the allusion to Zech 12:10 [”And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him”] it most likely means Jerusalem or Judaea only) will see the rise of the Christian movement (”from now on” or “hereafter” in the KJV), followed by the destruction of Jerusalem just as Jesus predicted — thus proving that he was and is the true Messiah, “the one in and through whom the covenant god is acting to set up his kingdom.”
Jesus also speaks, in all three versions, of being at the right hand of power — alluding all through again to Daniel 7 and the enthronement of the Son of Man. Hearken now back to the disciples’ original question. They want to know, in essence, when Jesus will assume the kingship. Jesus replies by indicating that “the Temple’s destruction would constitute his own vindication.” [Wr.JVG, 342] His parousia, his enthronement as king, would be “consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city.” [346]
In the Jewish mindset, the establishment of a Temple was intertwined with kingship. Solomon built the first temple; Herod rebuilt the temple as a sign of his kingship; Bar Kochba showed intentions to rebuild the temple in the 130s AD as part of his pseudo-messianic program. In the new era, the temple of God is now the individual believer (1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19) and the body of believers (Eph. 2:21). The Spirit indwells in the believer, where the Shekinah once dwelt in the Jewish temple. Christ now sits at the right hand of the father (Heb. 12:22, Eph. 1:20, Acts 2:33, etc.) and rules his kingdom. Paul sees Christ reigning now, though all is not yet accomplished in that reign (1 Cor. 15:25). This is NOT to say that, as pantelists maintain, the resurrection has occurred already and Christ is through with the world. That can’t be read from the Scriptures. But it is clear that with the events of 70, the reign of Christ confirmed in a very unique way.
This leaves a couple of loose ends to tie up. Matthew does say as well that a “sign” shall be seen, seemingly in heaven; what of that? DeMar [165] explains that it is not the sign which is in heaven, but the Son of Man; thus what is seen is a sign which is not given any location. The word here is semeion, used by John often to refer to Jesus’ miracles; the word itself denotes a token of identification or verification. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple itself fits this bill. Finally, Luke relates this event to “redemption” — this word is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to salvation in a spiritual sense, but it could hardly mean this in any context, whether preterist or dispensational. What does it mean? Stein (commentary on Luke, 525) sees in the term an idea of consummation of hopes; one might relate this, then, to the tangible evidence of the enthronement of Christ that the destruction of Jerusalem and the “old order” provided. (I have been asked how the destruction of Jerusalem, considering that it resulted in increased tensions between the Jews and Christians [who were then expelled from the synagogue and lost any claim to the Romans that they fell under the protected umbrella of Judaism] would have been understood by Christians as their “redemption”. The answer lies in the difference of ancient personality. Such tensions upon individuals would have been placed, in the ancient mindset, secondarily to that which was better for the group and its efforts as a whole. Believe it or not, they would have taken the expulsion and persecution, not happily of course, but would have considered the redemptive sign worth the price. For more on this see my review of this book.)
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.(Mark 13:27)
Dispensational paradigms have taught us that in this passage we have a picture of a “rapture” of believers, of divine beings picking us up by the ears and taking us home. But we should take some caution before jumping into this interpretation. All agree that “four winds” and “one end of heaven to the other” indicates a worldwide gathering, and the “elect” are believers, but the rest is open to examination.
First: “Angels” is aggelos, and while it is used of supernatural beings (Matt. 1:20, 13:40, 16:27, 28:2, Luke 1) it is also used of humans like John the Baptist (Matt. 12:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27) and Jesus’ disciples (Luke 9:52) in the NT and in the Septuagint [DeM.LDM, 175]. The word does not denote a divine being per se, but a function, that of a messenger.
Second: the “trumpet” sounding admits to several options. Keener [587] notes that the trumpet was usually in the OT a call to war, and that this is found in pagan contexts as well, but this obviously won’t bear on this context. A trumpet is also used at the resurrection of the righteous (1 Cor. 15:52), which has often been cited in favor of a “rapture” interpretation. But there are other uses as well. A trumpet was used for various proclamations, for kingship, a celebration of triumph, for a call to worship, and for the assembly of God’s people.
Third: to “gather” means to collect in one place. This word (episunago) is used sparingly in the NT, and seems often to refer to a physical gathering, but not always: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” Jesus’ intent here was not to physically gather together all the Israelites; the protective umbrella was the Messianic kingdom. The Greek word is also related to the word “synagogue” (sunagoge).
To tie it all together: We noted earlier that it is predicted that the end will come when the gospel is preached to the Roman Empire. Now Jesus tells us that following the destruction of Jerusalem, the messengers or “angels” or the gospel will take that gospel worldwide, to gather his elect, the body of Christ, the “people of God” (1 Peter 2:9-10).
Matthew 24:32-39 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Mark 13:28-32; Luke 21:29-33)
Of course we now come to the central point of contention that got this started. Jesus speaks of these things happening within “this generation.” The dispensational paradigm is required to understand “this generation” in other ways (i.e., the race of Jews, for example) but we have seen that these is no need for this. The generation Jesus spoke to saw these things fulfilled.
At this point the discourses diverge substantially. Mark 13 continues the discourse to verse 37 with admonitions to be watchful. Luke 21:34-6 does the same; Luke however, does place the “Noah” warning at 17:25 and adds a comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. The warnings are good to go under any paradigm, and with that we leave Mark’s version of the discourse behind. We pick up with Matt. 24:40 and parallel:
Matthew 24:40-41 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 18:35-6 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Another “rapture” passage? “Taken” into the air, perhaps? Maybe not, and maybe the “taken” one is not the good guy at all:
Jer 6:11 Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.
Furthermore, note the parallel in the previous passage in which the wicked are the ones “taken” by the Flood [Keener, 592; Gundry, commentary on Matthew, 494]. Those taken, are taken in judgment by the impending judgment on Jerusalem and Judaea, which would be no respecter of persons. That this is not a “rapture” verse is clear in that this is where Luke places the Matthew 24:28 remark about carcasses.
We now leave also Luke’s unique material. Matthew 24:42-51 continues with more warnings of watchfulness that work under any paradigm. We now close out with some items unique to Matthew, in chapter 25.
Matthew 25:1-2 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
The parable of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13), followed by the parable of the talents (25:14-30), are both parables of general warning that fit under any paradigm. References to the bridegroom “tarrying” (25:5) do not necessarily comport with a substantial wait — as DeMar rightly notes, the bridegroom and the master return to the same people the story starts with. A “tarrying” within the generational period is more than sufficient to account for this, and if 2 Peter is to be reckoned, the doctrine of generation return was known to mockers and was being jeered at as early as the 50s and 60s, as we would expect.
But what of the apparent pictures of final judgment? They are, as Wright observes, actually threats to the “present nation of Israel” [JVG, 185] warning them to repent. “In the sad, noble, and utterly Jewish tradition of Elijah, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the coming judgment of Israel’s covenant god on his people, a judgment consisting of a great national, social and cultural disaster, ultimately comprehensible only in theological terms.” Like other signs in the Discourse, these are eschatological word-pictures — to be taken seriously enough as they stand.
This leaves the enormous account of Matthew 25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. We’ll offer enough to make the point clear:
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
But surely this has not happened? Actually it has, and still does. All agree that the Bible teaches that judgment is entered upon death (Heb. 9:27). We cannot assume that what we are being offered here is a literal picture of events — no more so than people are actually sheep or goats, or that the millions of blessed and wicked will respond with exactly the same words at once as though they were some sort of Greek tragedy chorus. As DeMar rightly says, this depicts a “judgment over time” [DeM.LDM, 200]. Jesus is now exalted to his throne and is passing this sort of judgment as more and more pass on. His remarks to the sheep and goats, and their responses, are typified and stereotyped; this should also be obvious since they cannot be a complete catalog of virtuous and wicked acts. Matthew 25:31-46 is taking place even now — it is not a future judgment (exclusively), but it is a final one.
In conclusion: The impetus for this analysis, as noted at the beginning, was skeptical claims that the Bible wrongly taught a “soon” coming of Jesus. Dispensationalists try to solve this problem by redefining “soon”. Our solution is that all along they and others have mis-defined “coming”.
I have expected, and still expect, certain reactions to this argument. Skeptics I believe will continue to do as our one critic has, merely giving a brief description as though the arguments are refuted by exposure. Fellow believers may react “violently” (as one letter writer has, though providing no more refutation than the skeptic has), but I hope will explore this view, and allow scholarship rather than popular fiction and literature to govern their eschatology. John MacArthur is right at least in saying that eschatology is a central doctrine, inseparable from others and particularly the authority and divinity of Christ. We cannot afford to be satisfied with easy solutions.
Primary Sources Dem.LDM DeMar, Gary. Last Days Madness. American Vision, 1999. Mac.SC MacArthur, John. The Second Coming. Crossway Books, 1999. With.JPEW Witherington, Ben. Jesus, Paul and the End of the World. IVP, 1992. Wr.JVG Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Fortress, 1996.
Can you describe in your own words the 70AD coming of Jesus?
Jn. 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
Rom. 12:10 Be devoted to one another with mutual affection. Honor one another above yourselves.
Rom. 12:16 Live in harmony with one another.
Rom. 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another....
Rom. 15:7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
1 Cor. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.
1 Cor. 12:24-25 ....But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
Gal. 5:13 ....But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love
Gal. 5:26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Eph. 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
Eph.4:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Col. 3:13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another....
1 Thes. 4:18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.
51 Thes. :11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up
1 Thes. 5:13 ....Live in peace with each other.
1 Thes. 5:15 Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.
Heb. 3:13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
Heb. 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds Jam. 4:11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another....
Jam. 5:9 Don’t grumble against each other, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged....
1Jn. 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God....
1 Pet. 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.
1 Pet. 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
1 Pet. 5:5 ....All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
What’s amazing is that he would try to pit Reformed against Reformed by trotting out an archenemy of his pet theory of dispensationalism, an amillennialist!
The sad fact is that the dispensationalist’s “big guns” are firing blanks and they know it. People are leaving the movement, and accepting the truly biblical eschatology of the Reformed worldview.
Oh, there will always be the likes of Tommy Ice and Tim LaHaye in the world. They don’t know when to quite, like the guys on this forum.
But it’s fun to watch the train wreck in motion. We just need to be ready with the truth when the seekers come with their hard questions.
1. You are admitting to playing fast and loose with your proof text
OR
2. You believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
Which is it?
I've already told you I believe He returned "in a fashion" in 70 AD, but I have also said plainly that there is a future coming of Christ. If you actually understood preterism you would know why I say this, but the interest doesn't seem to be in understanding it but rather in telling me what I believe and painting a distorted of picture of it. Why is it that you dismiss out of hand the notion that the things spoken of were fulfilled yet Christ will still come again in the full and final consumation of His Kingdom and the judgement of all men?
If I say that Christ has come in some fashion in 70AD and will yet come again in full consumation of His Kingdom, why is it to hard for you to accept that maybe...just MAYBE...I actually believe what I say I do and that I believe it is what Scripture teaches?
We could certainly spend the time actually examining the Olivet Discourse and other passages, but that doesn't seem to be your goal here. So far all you've done is lump partial preterists in with full preterists no matter how many times we speak to the clear and important differences between them, and then force us into the false dilemma you've presented.
As my mother used to say, "They need to clean the wax out of their ears before they start talking."
I asked what you meant by returned in a fashion, but I don’t recall that you answered it. Perhaps I missed it.
In what fashion did Jesus return?
Actually, you do. I find your style of personal attacks has not improved, btw.
Had you paid the least attention you’d know that I asked what was meant by “in what fashion.”
See post #43.
It's not a personal attack to say you are not listening.
Fru said it correctly here: If you actually understood preterism you would know why I say this, but the interest doesn't seem to be in understanding it but rather in telling me what I believe and painting a distorted of picture of it.
What happened in AD70 was not Jesus second coming, or, as we call it, His return. That will be visible to all, just as we read in Acts 1.We do not need to constantly repeat ourselves just so you can play games.What happened in AD70 is the "cloud coming". Jesus judged Israel for their disobedience (Matt. 23:38). He came sovereignly primarily through the agency of Rome. This is the way God operated in many instances in the OT, sending one nation to judge another nation:
"The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. ... They come from a far country, From the end of heaven-- The Lord and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land. Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. ... Behold, the day of the Lord comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. ... "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it." (Isaiah 13:1,5,6,9,10,17).
God used the Medes to punish the Babylonians for their treatment of Israel. (see here)
So Jesus actually came down (in the clouds) and executed judgment against Israel?
The bible speaks of this event saying that every eye shall see him.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
So, the Jews must have seen him coming, eh? Or wait, it was it the Romans who pierced him, or the Jews? Regardless, every eye saw him (that would include the Jews, the Romans, the Ethiopians, the Chinese, the Australian aborigines, the American Indians...), correct?
Did anyone that you know of record this event ?
Your style if personal attack and character assassination. You remind me of a former freeper whom I still detest.
Excellent question: where is the record of this 2d coming and why didn’t anyone in the church notice it????
Didn't you know that?
Don't be thinking so carnally. Try this on for size, Kimosabe.
Free your carnal mind. Pretend Darby, Scofield, and Hal Lindsey never existed. Think the way Jesus thought. Read the symbols in the context of the rest of the Bible.Appearance of the Sign
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matt. 24:29-31)Coming in the Clouds
The third and final clause of verse 30 says, "and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.
It should be noted carefully that neither this verse nor this particular clause indicates a coming upon earth. Some have read into this clause that Jesus was actually descending to the earth for the purpose of taking up a reign in the city of Jerusalem. Nothing like that is indicated. As a matter of fact, there is not a single verse in the New Testament to indicate that Christ will reign upon a material throne in the material city of Jerusalem. This thought has been imported by a carnal interpretation of Old Testament passages. Christ is actually seated now upon his Messianic throne.
Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression "coming in the clouds" refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation. A similar expression occurs in Isaiah 19:1, "Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." Although this passage speaks of the Lord riding upon a cloud and of his presence, nevertheless we know that the Egyptians did not see the Lord in a personal, visible way. The Lord riding upon a swift cloud indicated a coming in judgment against the Egyptians.
A similar type of expression concerning judgment is found in Psalm 97:2,3: "Clouds and darkness are round him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about." In speaking of the mighty power of God the Psalmist uses this expression: "Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind" (Ps. 104:3). The expression "who maketh the clouds his chariot," is no different from "coming in the clouds of heaven." In the Psalms there is no thought of a personal, visible coming of the Lord, but rather references to his judgment and power.
Following the well-defined biblical sense of such expression the last clause of verse 30 may well be interpreted then to indicate a coming in judgment and power: judgment against his enemies and power to the establishment of his kingdom.
This interpretation is borne out by the words of Christ in other passages when he indicated that he was coming before the contemporary generation would pass away. He said: "Verily I say unto you, there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). Christ was saying that some of the people actually standing before him and listening to him would not die until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom. This could hardly refer to a personal and visible coming in that generation.
The same thought in conveyed in Christ's words to the High Priest: "Thou hast said: Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64). This High Priest was to see Christ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can this possibly refer to Christ's second coming when the description "sitting on the right hand of power" precludes such interpretation. It means rather that after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus would ascend into heaven and take his place on the right hand of God, the Father, as described in Daniel 7:13,14: "I saw in the night vision, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." When Christ ascended into heaven he was seated upon his Messianic throne. This is in full accord with the declaration of Christ as he was about to ascend into heaven: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." One of the first manifestation of the power and glory of Messiah was the destruction of the city that refused to accept him as King and Saviour. This act of judgment gave evidence that all power had indeed been given unto him. He did come in the clouds of heaven and rained destruction upon those who had rejected and crucified him. This caused the tribes of the earth to mourn. The sign of the reigning Christ was seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. The contemporary generation, indicated in verse 34, witnessed fulfillment of these things as Christ had prophesied.
J. Marcellus Kik
An Eschatology of Victory
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971
pp. 140-143
Shhh, it is suppose to be a secret.
Apparently everybody saw it, but somehow Jesus coming in the clouds did not generate enough interest in the world for anyone (before 300 AD) to make any mention of it in writing or even oral tradition.
That is strange.
I honestly believe that they have an inconsistent hermeneutic.
I’ve been swayed by the biblicism of many of the reformed crowd here on these pages. They have tried to be meticulously biblical.
Yet, the get to eschatology and all of a sudden all that gets thrown out the window. Preterism has to be the single most egregious example of eisegesis stalking the churches today. It is a conclusion in search of distorted facts to justify its claim, and it is certainly a conclusion unmoved by contradicting scripture and history.
Well then, you need to get over it. It's obviously eating away at your soul.
I have enough sins of my own not to get tagged with the sins of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.