Preterists claim that Jesus said everything He predicted (in Matthew 24) had to be fulfilled within the first-century generation.
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34)
But does the text really say that?
Imagine if I told you that I intend to go to college, go on a world holiday, and then return and start a family business.
And you ask me, "When are you going to do all these things? And how are you going to advertise the new business?"
And I answer by telling you how I'm going to advertise the new business, and I tell you that before that, I'm going to college.
And then I say that before going to college, I'm first going to finish high school, get some part-time work, and enter an ameteur bodybuilding competition - I'm going to do all these things before this year is over.
It is obvious that when I say I'm going to do all these things this year, it doesn't refer to every topic I ever mentioned in my entire conversation with you - it refers only to the things I was discussing in that particular paragraph.
It didn't mean I'm going to complete high school, complete part-time work, complete college, return from an overseas holiday, and set-up the family business - all by the end of this year. More likely, it just meant all the things leading up to starting college - because that's what I was discussing with you in that particular paragraph.
Similarly, when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass away before all these things are fulfilled", I'm wondering whether the text really necessitates that He meant all things in the entire chapter - or could He just as well have meant only the things in His latest paragraph?
After all, the disciples had asked Him more than one question! And Jesus did chop and change between addressing the different questions.
If this is textually/linguistically allowable, could it then be possible that all of the things relevant to the disciples' first question (concerning the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews) indeed came to pass within the first-century generation - while the things relevant to the disciples' other questions (concerning the end of the world, and His coming) may not necessarily have had to be fulfilled within that generation?
Admittedly, the language in both Daniel and in the Olivet discourse doesn't seem to make too much of any potential time-span between the themes they were discussing. But does the text really necessitate that no time-span was possible?
I think there actually are indications - clauses in the texts (both the Lord's and Daniel's) - which could just as well indicate that an indefinite period of time could potentially span between some of the themes they were discussing. There are some clauses in the texts which might actually be indicative of that. I have examples in mind, but I won't mention them here and now.
This seems all the more possible when we remember that both the Lord Jesus and also the angel who spoke to Daniel, despite being able to give an approximate time-frame for certain themes which they'd been asked about, were not able to give as specific a time-frame for certain other themes they were asked about. Jesus actually admitted this. That means that even if in the Father's foreknowledge, there was to be a long span of time between some of the themes, Jesus and the angel could not have said very much to indicate exactly how long the time span would be. But the main things is: did they say anything in the text which precludes the possibility of a time span? That is something I'm personally investigating.
And as I've said above, while there are clauses in the texts which indicate that certain themes had to be fulfilled within a specific time frame, there also appear to be certain clauses in the texts which do seem to indicate a potential span of time between certain themes.
If this is linguistically allowable, then it might be possible that some things in Daniel and in the Olivet discourse are indeed exclusively now already fulfilled (as is claimed by preterism), while other clauses may hint at an ongoing state (as is claimed by historicism), and other things may be exclusively yet to happen in the future after all (as is claimed by futurism). But the entire chapter would not fit exclusively into just one of the classic categories. Rather, each part of the chapter would fit appropriately into its own time-frame category - past, ongoing or future - depending on the clause that qualifies it.
If so, this would allow us to accept that the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the scattering of the Jews are indeed now already fulfilled - while at the same time allow us to see that the second coming and the resurrection are indeed still future events - and that the preaching of the Gospel to all nations continues to span the period in-between (tribulations and persecutions also continue to span the period in between).
This could eliminate the modern problem of repeatedly failing end-times predictions - and maintain the orthodox hope of the future coming of the Lord and of the resurrection at the same time.
I'm still investigating whether the texts of Daniel and the Olivet discourse allows this linguistically. There are still some difficult passages. But so far the possibility still seems worth investigating.
Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Resurrection
Paul wrote that the dead in Christ were awaiting the resurrection. That means they had not yet experienced the resurrection.
The dead in Christ had already experienced a spiritual resurrection before they died, during their life in Christ on earth; and after their death, they had already begun experiencing a spiritual resurrection in heaven - yet there was still a future resurrection awaiting them, wrote Paul.
Paul explained that Christ shall bring them with Him when He comes; then they shall rise; then we which are alive and remain shall be reunited with them and with the Lord forever.
We look forward to this event with all our hearts!
The dead in Christ had already experienced a spiritual resurrection before they died, during their life in Christ on earth; and after their death, they had already begun experiencing a spiritual resurrection in heaven - yet there was still a future resurrection awaiting them, wrote Paul.
Paul explained that Christ shall bring them with Him when He comes; then they shall rise; then we which are alive and remain shall be reunited with them and with the Lord forever.
We look forward to this event with all our hearts!
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Does Mark 9:1 Indicate the First-Century Generation?
Some modern renderings of Mk 9:1 are basically the same as the KJV’s, while others differ. But I don’t see that either rendering means Jesus necessarily had the first-century generation in mind.
If the KJV and similar versions’ rendering is correct – then the wording of the text allows the meaning that Jesus meant the generation which shall be alive when the kingdom comes, not necessarily the first-century generation.
And in that case, it makes it more a statement of the nature of the kingdom than of its timing. It makes it a statement that the kingdom shall one day be so literally present that people alive at the time will not need to die first in order to see it.
That makes sense, since Jesus said no-one knows the timing (I believe). It also makes sense seeing the nature of the kingdom was a disputed topic.
If on the other hand, the alternative renderings of Mark 9:1 are correct – and the wording of the text addressed the first-century generation directly in the first person – it still doesn’t mean it literally came to pass that way.
As an example of this non-literal use of the first person by Jesus, consider the Olivet discourse itself. Jesus spoke to four of His disciples directly, addressing them in the first person, as if they would be alive to see Jerusalem besieged by armies and to respond when it happened. But we know James was not alive to see it – for he had been martyred by Herod. We don’t know whether any of the others were present to see it either. Jesus spoke to His four disciples in the first person – but He didn’t have them personally in mind when He spoke what He spoke. Instead, he had in mind things beyond their lifetime – things which related directly not to them but to others even after their lifetime. This style is used more than once in the Olivet discourse.
Similarly therefore, Jesus’ statement in Mk 9:1 may have a future generation in mind even though it addresses a first century audience in the first person (assuming the KJV’s rendering is incorrect). If this literary style or hermeneutic is good enough for the Olivet discourse, it should be good enough for Mark 9:1 as well!
But as I said, the KJV’s rendering, if it’s correct, doesn’t necessitate the use of that hermeneutic – because the wording of the text itself allows that Jesus may have had a future generation in mind.
This is the problem I encountered with preterism after studying it for seven years. I found preterism does an excellent job of explaining that we needn’t expect a future fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple. The time-indicators for that event were clear, both in the Olivet discourse and in Daniel. But full-preterism also brings you into conflict with what I consider to be clear themes elsewhere in Scripture – such as the theme of the future, general, physical resurrection of all the dead on the day of His coming. I never found preterism’s explaining-away of these themes adequate.
So I went back and re-studied preterism’s claimed time-indicating clauses in Scripture - and I'm beginning to see that preterism leans too much weight on the so-called time-indicating clauses. I feel preterism doesn't allow for such clauses to have a different scope and meaning than theirs, even though the plain text, let alone literary rules and hermeneutics, allows it. I’m beginning to see that some of these clauses are in fact not after all such literal, unmistakable time-indicating clauses after all. While in some verses they are.
If the KJV and similar versions’ rendering is correct – then the wording of the text allows the meaning that Jesus meant the generation which shall be alive when the kingdom comes, not necessarily the first-century generation.
And in that case, it makes it more a statement of the nature of the kingdom than of its timing. It makes it a statement that the kingdom shall one day be so literally present that people alive at the time will not need to die first in order to see it.
That makes sense, since Jesus said no-one knows the timing (I believe). It also makes sense seeing the nature of the kingdom was a disputed topic.
If on the other hand, the alternative renderings of Mark 9:1 are correct – and the wording of the text addressed the first-century generation directly in the first person – it still doesn’t mean it literally came to pass that way.
As an example of this non-literal use of the first person by Jesus, consider the Olivet discourse itself. Jesus spoke to four of His disciples directly, addressing them in the first person, as if they would be alive to see Jerusalem besieged by armies and to respond when it happened. But we know James was not alive to see it – for he had been martyred by Herod. We don’t know whether any of the others were present to see it either. Jesus spoke to His four disciples in the first person – but He didn’t have them personally in mind when He spoke what He spoke. Instead, he had in mind things beyond their lifetime – things which related directly not to them but to others even after their lifetime. This style is used more than once in the Olivet discourse.
Similarly therefore, Jesus’ statement in Mk 9:1 may have a future generation in mind even though it addresses a first century audience in the first person (assuming the KJV’s rendering is incorrect). If this literary style or hermeneutic is good enough for the Olivet discourse, it should be good enough for Mark 9:1 as well!
But as I said, the KJV’s rendering, if it’s correct, doesn’t necessitate the use of that hermeneutic – because the wording of the text itself allows that Jesus may have had a future generation in mind.
This is the problem I encountered with preterism after studying it for seven years. I found preterism does an excellent job of explaining that we needn’t expect a future fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple. The time-indicators for that event were clear, both in the Olivet discourse and in Daniel. But full-preterism also brings you into conflict with what I consider to be clear themes elsewhere in Scripture – such as the theme of the future, general, physical resurrection of all the dead on the day of His coming. I never found preterism’s explaining-away of these themes adequate.
So I went back and re-studied preterism’s claimed time-indicating clauses in Scripture - and I'm beginning to see that preterism leans too much weight on the so-called time-indicating clauses. I feel preterism doesn't allow for such clauses to have a different scope and meaning than theirs, even though the plain text, let alone literary rules and hermeneutics, allows it. I’m beginning to see that some of these clauses are in fact not after all such literal, unmistakable time-indicating clauses after all. While in some verses they are.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Preterism and the Resurrection
Since the kingdom was already at hand when John the Baptizer ministered, it's certainly at hand now!
John didn't know when the world will end, therefore he could only say that it is at hand. The angels and the Son of Man didn't know either, therefore they could only say 'soon'.
The entire Church age is therefore intrinsically the last hour - because there is nothing else covenantally which must happen in the interim - it's all been done - therefore He could potentially come at any time now.
The Bible explains why He delays His coming - so that more people come to repentance. Even a thousand years is 'soon' compared to eternity.
Nothing spiritual and covenantal happened in AD70 that wasn't already happening beforehand during the early Church. Believers already went straight to heaven when they died, said Paul in Phillipians. Unbelieving Jews were already missing out on the promises. The Bible doesn't say that Sheol was to empty in AD70.
As for the resurrection, the Bible says it is to be physical and worldwide, inclusive of all the dead, in my understanding of things. If so, then that obviously hasn't happened yet.
John didn't know when the world will end, therefore he could only say that it is at hand. The angels and the Son of Man didn't know either, therefore they could only say 'soon'.
The entire Church age is therefore intrinsically the last hour - because there is nothing else covenantally which must happen in the interim - it's all been done - therefore He could potentially come at any time now.
The Bible explains why He delays His coming - so that more people come to repentance. Even a thousand years is 'soon' compared to eternity.
Nothing spiritual and covenantal happened in AD70 that wasn't already happening beforehand during the early Church. Believers already went straight to heaven when they died, said Paul in Phillipians. Unbelieving Jews were already missing out on the promises. The Bible doesn't say that Sheol was to empty in AD70.
As for the resurrection, the Bible says it is to be physical and worldwide, inclusive of all the dead, in my understanding of things. If so, then that obviously hasn't happened yet.
The Preterist View of the End of the World
When Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:4 that "the earth abideth forever," it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the earth shall never end in future - he was just saying that the earth exists trans-generationally.
It's similar to when Moses wrote that the Levitical priesthood should continue "forever in Israel" - it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the Levitical priesthood should never end - because we now know that the Levitical priesthood was only ever intended to be temporary - it was always intended to pass away when Jesus came.
And as for Ephesians 3:21, it doesn't actually say the earth will never end, especially not in the Greek.
Therefore if we want to assert that the earth shall remain literally ‘forever’ – we will have to establish the case for it elsewhere than in the above Scriptures, because the above Scriptures didn’t have that intent.
But even if it’s true that the earth shall literally remain forever, I feel the Bible still teaches that the current age will come to an end – when Jesus returns and abolishes physical death. I don’t feel that the “end of the world(KJV)” has happened yet – because I feel the Bible says that there is to be a universal, physical resurrection of all the dead on that day.
It's similar to when Moses wrote that the Levitical priesthood should continue "forever in Israel" - it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the Levitical priesthood should never end - because we now know that the Levitical priesthood was only ever intended to be temporary - it was always intended to pass away when Jesus came.
And as for Ephesians 3:21, it doesn't actually say the earth will never end, especially not in the Greek.
Therefore if we want to assert that the earth shall remain literally ‘forever’ – we will have to establish the case for it elsewhere than in the above Scriptures, because the above Scriptures didn’t have that intent.
But even if it’s true that the earth shall literally remain forever, I feel the Bible still teaches that the current age will come to an end – when Jesus returns and abolishes physical death. I don’t feel that the “end of the world(KJV)” has happened yet – because I feel the Bible says that there is to be a universal, physical resurrection of all the dead on that day.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
There Will Be An End of the World
The Greek word translated “world” in Ephesians 3:21 is – αἰῶνος – the same Greek word translated “world” in Matthew 24. Preterists seem to make it mean “earth” in Ephesians 3:21 but “age” in Matthew 24 – even though it’s the same Greek word!
In fact, the Greek text literally means, “…throughout all the generations of the age of ages…” It doesn’t actually include vocabulary conveying the certainty that the earth (terra firma) will never end.
But even if Paul did mean that the world (αἰῶνος, age) is never to end – still preterists contradict that by saying that Paul’s age did in fact end several years later!
Ephesians 3:21 is therefore not a strong basis for the view that the earth will never end.
In fact, the Greek text literally means, “…throughout all the generations of the age of ages…” It doesn’t actually include vocabulary conveying the certainty that the earth (terra firma) will never end.
But even if Paul did mean that the world (αἰῶνος, age) is never to end – still preterists contradict that by saying that Paul’s age did in fact end several years later!
Ephesians 3:21 is therefore not a strong basis for the view that the earth will never end.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Past and Future in Matthew 24
Note to Full-Preterists:
The theme of God coming with His saints to judge the world, was first written by Enoch, before the Law was given. Therefore the coming day of judgment spoken of by Enoch was not a past, localized, temporary judgment against Jerusalem, but a future, worldwide and eternal judgment.
The Temple and city were desolated in AD70 - but the end of the world and the coming of the Lord is yet for an appointed day.
The angel was able to give a timeframe in which the desolations of the Jews would be accomplished, and it apparently came to pass - but of the timing, the day of His coming, and of the end of the world, the angel could not answer. Only the Father knows.
The theme of God coming with His saints to judge the world, was first written by Enoch, before the Law was given. Therefore the coming day of judgment spoken of by Enoch was not a past, localized, temporary judgment against Jerusalem, but a future, worldwide and eternal judgment.
The Temple and city were desolated in AD70 - but the end of the world and the coming of the Lord is yet for an appointed day.
The angel was able to give a timeframe in which the desolations of the Jews would be accomplished, and it apparently came to pass - but of the timing, the day of His coming, and of the end of the world, the angel could not answer. Only the Father knows.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Some of Them Shall Not Taste of Death
This verse is about what will happen when the kingdom comes, and why it matters - it's not about when it will happen.
MATTHEW 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
It says there be some standing here - but it doesn't say when. It also says they - not you - shall not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming.
Now let's turn to Mark's account:
MARK 9:1
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Here it's narrowed-down even more. There be some of them - not just some, but some of them - not some of you. And again it says, they - not you - shall not have tasted of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come.
So, Jesus was not necessarily speaking about some of those to whom He was speaking at the time. He was speaking about some other people - them - who shall not taste of death. "Them" refers to a group of people different to the group to whom He was then speaking. He doesn't specify who the group is. Therefore, it could be a distant generation. The text doesn't disallow this meaning. Therefore, it's not a proof-text for preterism. It leaves the timeframe open.
When you think about the context, and the point Jesus had been making, it doesn't fit that Jesus would need to make a statement about timing. Therefore, this verse is not so much about when, as it is about what and why.
It's not about when the kingdom will come - it's about what its coming will be like - and why that should motivate us to take up our cross today.
MATTHEW 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
It says there be some standing here - but it doesn't say when. It also says they - not you - shall not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming.
Now let's turn to Mark's account:
MARK 9:1
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Here it's narrowed-down even more. There be some of them - not just some, but some of them - not some of you. And again it says, they - not you - shall not have tasted of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come.
So, Jesus was not necessarily speaking about some of those to whom He was speaking at the time. He was speaking about some other people - them - who shall not taste of death. "Them" refers to a group of people different to the group to whom He was then speaking. He doesn't specify who the group is. Therefore, it could be a distant generation. The text doesn't disallow this meaning. Therefore, it's not a proof-text for preterism. It leaves the timeframe open.
When you think about the context, and the point Jesus had been making, it doesn't fit that Jesus would need to make a statement about timing. Therefore, this verse is not so much about when, as it is about what and why.
It's not about when the kingdom will come - it's about what its coming will be like - and why that should motivate us to take up our cross today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)