Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
What part of "BY NO MEANS do I belive He returned...in the consumation of His Kingdom" was unclear to you? (I'm guessing it's the bolded part)
same thing happens to me when I say eschatology - it sounds like an expensive word doesnt it?
So other than a (relatively minor) argument over whether the Millennium is yet future and a (major) argument over whether God is actually going to keep His promises to Israel, what exactly differentiates you from a futurist?
Thank you for proving my point that thusfar those arguing against partial preterism have no clue what partial preterists really believe.
As an amillennialist, I believe the "millennial kingdom" is a present reality. I understand the "thousand years" literally...which is to say in the literary form in which it was employed (as opposed to the contemporary misapplied "literal" means of interpreting something in the plain indicative sense regardless of which literary genre it is presented in). Christ is seated on the throne and is bringing all things into subjugation according to a timeline unknown to us. At a future time He will come in a visible and obvious manner to bring about the full consumation of His Kingdom and judge all men.
Please keep in mind that the millennial and preterist issues , while very closely related, are distinct issues. Both amillennialists and postmillennialists are typically partial preterists but clearly differ on the issue of the millennial kingdom.
See, I believe that the Lord "Came" in 70 AD too, in the same sense that He "Comes" any time He passes judgment. He "came" in the same sense to Ninevah, for example.
But if you agree that He did not come in such a fashion that the dead in Him were Resurrected, and if you believe that the Adversary will be released to deceive the whole world just before that, there's not much functionally separating you from a premillennialist. The only major matter that remains is whether God pulled a "bait-and-switch" in His promises to Israel.
Not as expensive as epicaricacy ;)
Haven't heard from you in awhile. How are ya?
William Gurnell wrote his massive book The Christian in his Complete Armor to assert the pointlessness of external hopes. While the Scottish covenanters were being martyred by the thousands, Gurnell deserted the field and cultivated his interior garden.
You're closer to being a partial preterist than you probably realize :)
The problem here seems to be that some here are looking at the Olivet Discourse and portions of Revelation and seeing their own Dispensational interpretation of those prophesies, then projecting them onto the preterist view that much of this has been fulfilled and asking how we can possibly believe they have been fulfilled when they clearly have not been as they understand them.
One of the fundamental hermeneutical differences here is whether one chooses to interpret the statements regarding timeframe as figurative or the statements describing the fulfillment as figurative. Dispensationalists take the former path and preterists take the latter.
As I stated earlier, I have yet to see anyone provide anything even approaching a reasonable argument as to why Matt 24:34 does not refer to the original audience of people who heard Jesus speak those words.
I believe that you can make the argument that what happened in 70AD was an allusional fulfillment inasmuch as it foreshadowed the events which will take place at the end of the age. It was not literally fulfilled since Jesus did not return. However what happened was a foreshadowing of the last days on a very very very small scale.
What Jesus is referring to in the Olivet Discourse is something that will occur on the grandest scale possible.
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (Matthew 24:21-22 KJV)
That has not happened yet. Not even on a minor scale. Remember we had a flood which killed off everyone except 7 people and Jesus is referencing something much worse than the flood!!!! WWII was nothing compared to what is coming.
We'll know it when we see it.
I assume the Apostles would have known it if they had seen it. If it happened, they didn't even notice.
It is important that they are Christians. As Christians, they would certainly write of anything so monumental as the return of Christ in 70AD. They would write of armies of heaven surrounding Jerusalem. They would write of unusual celestial events.
But, they didn't. Nor did they comment on it in their era.
And, apparently, they didn't comment on it to Josephus, either. And Josephus is not averse to commenting on Christians. He does so in a number of places in his writings.
And Josephus is not a Christian.
Let's suppose that Josephus, a non-Christian, were our ONLY source for strange events in life of a prophet of that time.
Would we attribute those to Jesus and found an entire Christian doctrine simply on Josephus comments about strange antics of a prophet that he once heard some things about?
Let's say that there were a number of followers of this Nazarene who were prolific writers, who were present, but who didn't write about even one of those things that were mentioned by Josephus.
Would we make them part and parcel of our own teachings?
I seriously doubt it.
The bottom line remains.
Not one writer of the time and NO CHRISTIAN writer of those early centuries of the church EVER mentioned the return of Christ in 70 AD.
It’s fair to point out that you as an amil and me as a postmil are much closer on the matter of the “thousand years” than to the premil (of any flavor).
I too believe the millennium is a present reality. I affirm all the things you said about Jesus present place as ruler of the nations seated on the throne of David in heaven.
Perhaps we might disagree on the necessity of gospel progress as it affects the nations of the world, but that is minor issue, IMO.
What distinguishes the futurist from us is mainly the suggestion that God has postponed His wrath being poured out on "this generation" of Jews (those to whom He was directly addressing) to a generation far in the future. The futurist seems to have no regard for the fact that such a notion would violate God’s own holy law. But them many futurists are antinomian and have little regard for the law of God. Attached to this is the odd requirement that all these ancient civilizations and forms be revived in order to “literally” make this all happen.
Which is to say . . . not literally, and you're engaging in redefining words to suit your position.
as opposed to the contemporary misapplied "literal" means of interpreting something in the plain indicative sense regardless of which literary genre it is presented in
Exactly what "genre" is that? The only true apocalyptic genre we have is in Scripture (Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, Revelation)--everything else is just the blatherings of men trying to mimick God's true Word. So what then are you comparing Revelation to in order to determine whether to take "1000 years" literally or not?
Christ is seated on the throne and is bringing all things into subjugation according to a timeline unknown to us. At a future time He will come in a visible and obvious manner to bring about the full consumation of His Kingdom and judge all men.
I'm still not seeing any major differences between your position and the premill's. We believe that Messiah rules from Heaven as well--however, as is patently obvious to anyone with eyes in their head, not all is as it should be yet, is it? You've just tacitly admitted that not all things are yet in subjugation to the Messiah. The premill acknowledges the same fact of our present existence, and looks forward to the day when Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, will rule the world "with a rod of iron" directly from David's throne in Jerusalem, as the prophets have promised.
Oh, and if you don't know that premill's believe that God is ultimately in control just as much as preterists do, then it is you, not I, who doesn't understand the position you are criticizing.
Please keep in mind that the millennial and preterist issues , while very closely related, are distinct issues.
I agree, which is why I will often clarify by saying "futurist" instead of just "premill." Likewise, Dispensationalism is simply a theology within premill futurism, not the whole enchilada.
Already been dealt with here.
This is why we do not like to have to repeat ourselves.
sigh...
Was that an indication of frustration with trying to come up with a dispensational interpretation of Matthew 16:28?
“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Oh ok. Now I know. You've had a Teshuva of sorts.
No, I simply choose to use the traditional meaning of the word rather than the contemporary meaning of it. The notion that Dispensationalists are interpreting prophesy "literally" certainly can't mean they are interpreting it "as it is written" because time and again they completely ignore the literary genres involved in the writing. But whatever...I'm not going to spend a dozen posts arguing with you over the meaning of "literal." Suffice it to say that I take the literary type and form of the prophesies into account when I interpret them.
I'm looking at it scripturally. There is no lens that I am using.
Scripturally, we're told that the coming will be a visible, real, undeniable climax of the age.
Every eye will see him, nations will mourn, sheep & goats will be divided.....
And it will be AS A KING WHO WENT ON A LONG JOURNEY; in other words, great time will have passed. The time of the Gentiles will have Jerusalem trodden under foot for a great period.
tis
And if that were the only definition of genea, you might have a point. However, as Vine's and Thayer's lexicons both point out, genea refers primarily to the "begetting," and can refer to a family or race just as easily to a period of time from one begetting to the next. The futurist therefore understands it to refer to the Jewish people as a whole, not simply to the 40-year generation between the Cross and the destruction of the Temple.
Nor is this a stretch from the word's normal usage in Greek. As Thayer's points out, it is used in this sense in the LXX of Gen. 31:3—Then the LORD said to Jacob, "Return to the land of your fathers and to your family, and I will be with you."—to translate “family” (Heb. moledet).
The word genean is used the same way in Num. 10:30 and the related word genou is used to translate “family” in Est. 2:10 and “people” (om, og) in Gen. 11:6, 17:14, 34:16, etc.
In other words, the Jews would certainly not pass away until all is fulfilled. This premise is supported both by history and the statements of God through His prophets: “’If those ordinances depart from before Me,’ saith YHVH, ‘Then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever. . . If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done,’ saith YHVH,” (Jer. 31:36-37) “and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written . . . for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Rom. 11:26, 29) It is also supported by Messiah’s use of the parable of the fig tree.
Robert Mounce agrees in his commentary on Matthew that this is a possible interpretation, though he leans towards simply recognizing the fall of Jerusalem as one of multiple fulfillments of this prophecy, similar to how this work views the Abomination of Desolation being fulfilled by Antiochus and yet being future to us as well (pp. 227f).
Personally, I agree with him, since the Hebrew word moledet has the same ambiguity in its usage as genea, meaning both "a generation" and "a family/related group of people." I think Yeshua was employing a pun, emphasizing both Jerusalem's near-term judgment, but also promising the continuation of the Jews until His more distant Second Coming.
In any case, it's clear that the preterist argument that "this generation" can only refer to 70 AD has no exegetical legs to stand on.
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.