Revelation for Preterists

[efta777]

I suppose with the wealth of Preterist fellowship available on this site, I might as well take advantage of it.

I've recently begun to go through Revelation verse by verse and try to understand exactly what each little piece means from a Preterist perspective. What I've discovered is that Revelation now makes MORE sense to me than it ever did as a dispensational futurist, but there are still plenty of issues in the book that I quite frankly just don't understand. I'm always coming up against certain events or symbols that make me wonder what they are referring to.
Therefore, I'd like to use this thread to discuss with fellow preterists on different aspects of Revelation, it's theme, it's flow, it's relationship with the rest of the Bible and it's general message as well as the specific symbolism used within the book.

My first question, then, to get this discussion started, is the theme of Revelation. I have read some about reading Revelation as a divorce decree against Israel, and I have to admit that while studying the book, there seems to be a great deal of truth to this theory.
Any other interpretations, or affirmations of this view?

[John Reece]

Great idea for a thread.

Thoughts off the top of my head, without having had time to test them:

The introduction and conclusion are one type of literature, and what is sandwiched between them is another.

The slices of bread (introduction and conclusion) give the time frame of fulfillment.

The meat (what is sandwiched between the slices of bread) is in the form of prophetic symbolism.

[Lizard]

Great thread efta. :thumb:

Unfortunately, I have not yet tackled Revelation in the kind of detail that you are asking about. However, I need to. Maybe this is something we can do together.

I look forward to some responsed from some more seasoned preterist as well.

Also, do want to limit this thread to just preterist?

[Jaltus]

Can non-preterists join in if they keep their heretical (or is it non-heretical this week, I keep forgetting) opinions to themselves about timing?

[efta777]

My only purpose in making this a preterist specific thread was that I didn't want it to turn into a semantics debate as so many preterist/futurist threads do. I welcome anyone who wants to join this thread simply to discuss Revelation with limited debate.

[Darth Xena]

I have been through Gentry's study on Revelation and his presentation of it as a divorce decree against Israel and found his arguments compelling, very compelling. Of course there are other themes, one of which of the eschatological Exodus demonstrated by Richard Bauckman.. if only Bauckman would take a preterist timing view and he would see how his view fits even more so tightly that it gives me goosebumps.

Chilton presents Revelation as a covenant lawsuit against Israel which is along the same lines, but to be honest, Chilton like Jordan, goes way over my head quite a bit.

[efta777]

Thoughts off the top of my head, without having had time to test them:

The introduction and conclusion are one type of literature, and what is sandwiched between them is another.

The slices of bread (introduction and conclusion) give the time frame of fulfillment.

The meat (what is sandwiched between the slices of bread) is in the form of prophetic symbolism.

This seems fairly accurate as far as I can tell from the book. Then I suppose the prologue lasts from 1:1-1:8 and the epilogue is 22:6-22:21. In between these sections is, as you put it, the 'meat.' There is also a view that I am reading right now that uses a parallel structure for the entire book, which would look like this (Taken from http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/rev/structure.html):

A- Prolog -- 1:1-8
B -- 7 Churches -- 1:9-3:22
C ---- Seals and saints -- 4:1-8:5
D ------ Warning of judgment -- 8:2, 6-11:19
E --------- Conflict over worship -- 12:1-14:20
D’------ Execution of judgment -- 15:1-18:24
C’----- “Sealing” of the wicked -- 19:1-20:15
B’--- Victorious church -- 21:1-22:5
A’- Epilog -- 22:6-21

Here, A would be parallel with A'; B with B' etc... I am still reading up on this view, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

I also agree with Gentry that the theme verse for the entire book seems to be 1:7

"Look, 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 because of him. So shall it be! Amen."

Gentry did a fairly detailed exegesis of this verse in his book "Before Jeruselem Fell." From this one verse, when viewed through the lense of the rest of the Bible, one can establish that the coming described here is not physical, but one of judgement, in that he is coming with the clouds as he did numerous times in the O.T. (Psa 18:7-15, Psa 104:3, Isa 19:1, Joel 2:1-2, Nah 1:2, Zeph 1:14-15) Also, this verse tells the reader who the judgement will be against (Those who pierced him; tribes of the earth).

The rest of Revelation is an extrapolation of this theme verse.
What does everyone else think about 1:7 as the theme verse?

Also, what is the purpose of Chapters 2-3? Are these chapters supposed to be isolated from the rest of the book, or do they fit in with the theme?

[Hitch]

Yeah ,,but when is the rapture?

[Darth Xena]

Where are the Cobra helicopters?

[efta777]

Shoot, did I leave all of that out? I meant to have all of that next to the part about the mark of the beast and chip implants... wait, you mean I forgot that, too?!?

[Etcetera]

Let us not forget the martyrs. They seem to pop up in all the sections of the book. I think it quite feasible to read Revelation as the vindication of the martyrs. It is, in that limited sense, a martyrology.

Etcetera.

[Darth Xena]

I SOOO agree Etcetera. The vindication of the blood of the righteous is a MAJOR theme of Revelation.

[efta777]

Absolutely, and not just vindication for the Christian martyrs, but also for Christ himself, who was slain by the Jews. Keeping with the idea of a divorce decree, the fact that Christ appears as the sacrificial lamb in 5:6 who is the only one worthy of opening the seven-sealed scroll, seems to imply to me that Christ's death was the final adulterous act of the whore (Israel), and because of this adulterous act, divorce could now Biblically be decreed.

One thing I noticed in my latest reading of Revelation is the fact that the bowls and trumpets do not appear to be seperated from the 7 seals, but occur as part of them. I always thought that the breaking of the 7th seal made way for the trumpet judgements, but it seems to fit more with the flow of the book if the 7th seal WAS the trumpet judgements (Then the 7th trumpet would be all 7 bowls, which would in turn also be a part of the seals). If this is the case, then the opening of this scroll would become the major focus of the book, which would be in keeping with the divorce decree idea.

Am I reading too much into this?

[Hitch]

Absolutely, and not just vindication for the Christian martyrs, but also for Christ himself, who was slain by the Jews.


To take your miximalist approach another notch.

This is entirely Christ's vindication of which the martyrs are partners. Remember Paul was accused for his persecutiuon of Jesus, in a frighteningly personal manner.

This reflects the 'divorce decree' notion by placing an emphasis on those whom He has included as compared ,not so much to outsiders, but to those who have been excluded.

The idea behind marriage is inclusion/exclusion. In the apocalypse a constant theme is 'Thou are mine own,,,AND they are not.'

Take care


H

[John Reece]

H,

:thumb:

[Etcetera]

Efta 777:

Greetings in the name of the crucified.

One thing I noticed in my latest reading of Revelation is the fact that the bowls and trumpets do not appear to be seperated from the 7 seals, but occur as part of them. I always thought that the breaking of the 7th seal made way for the trumpet judgments, but it seems to fit more with the flow of the book if the 7th seal WAS the trumpet judgments (Then the 7th trumpet would be all 7 bowls, which would in turn also be a part of the seals). If this is the case, then the opening of this scroll would become the major focus of the book, which would be in keeping with the divorce decree idea.

Am I reading too much into this?

:thumb:

If you care to glance at Calvinist's thread on the Olivet discourse (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=888), second page, you will see that I completely agree with you that the seventh seal is the blowing of the trumpets and the seventh trumpet is the pouring out of the bowls. On the third page of that same thread I interact with Curtmudgeon on that very issue.

Viewing the seventh seal itself as the blowing of the trumpets caps off the parallels between Olivet and the seven seals of the apocalypse.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Lizard]

Wow, guys you have really got me pumped up about Revelation. I am going to have to go and re-read it so I can have a chance of keeping up.

The more I learn about preterism the more beautiful it becomes to me. That may sound wierd, but I think that other preterist know what I mean.

[John Reece]

... I think that other preterist know what I mean.

:thumb:

[Ted]

For you scholars, allow me to stir the pot a bit. The seventh seal, trumpet and bowl are all the SAME EVENT. The silence in heaven in the seventh seal (Rev 8:1) reflects the time the high priest is in the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:17, Exod 28:31-35). The large amount of incense (8:3-5) is also Day of Atonement (Lev 16:12-13).

In the seventh trumpet (11:19), the tabernacle in heaven is opened, and the ark is seen. This is the high priest’s view on the Day of Atonement.

In the seventh bowl (16:17), we hear God say “It is done,” signaling the end of the Day of Atonement.

Further, these “sevens” are also the Day of the Lord. Rather than list the details, consider the table.

Day of the Lord Language
7th seal
Thunder
Lightning
Sounds
Earthquake
Fire hurled to earth (coals from altar—fire & brimstone; cf. “hail and fire” in 8:7)

7th trumpet
Thunder
Lightning
Sounds
Earthquake
Great hailstones

7th bowl
Thunder
Lightning
Sounds
Earthquake
Huge hailstones

The conclusion is inescapable. The three elements are the same event. Therefore, the preceding events in each series have some degree of parallelism. Any proper interpretation of the apocalypse needs to take this into account.

Ted Noel

[John Reece]

Ted,

:thumb:

[Hitch]

03-21-2003 @ 09:03 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41897#post41897)
John Reece:

Great idea for a thread.

Thoughts off the top of my head, without having had time to test them:

The introduction and conclusion are one type of literature, and what is sandwiched between them is another.

The slices of bread (introduction and conclusion) give the time frame of fulfillment.

The meat (what is sandwiched between the slices of bread) is in the form of prophetic symbolism. Dagwood could die of envy.

[John Reece]

Hitch,

:smile:

[Lizard]

:thumb:

[Darth Xena]

Hmmm, unless I am mistaken I do not think Gentry shares this view of the trumpets, seals, etc. I will need to look into it but he talked about a spiraling upward pattern to the judgments in which they parallel but are not the same. We cannot make the mistake, as a lot do, to automatically presume that similarity or even exactness of terminology equals exactness of referent. It doesn't always. That is the error of the neo-hymenaeans (not on this particular subect but on others).

[efta777]

Looking at the seals, trumpets and bowls in Revelation, I see them all as being referrent to different aspects of the Jewish war. The trumpets look to me as if they are the systems that were already in place that would lead to the destruction of the Temple - the wars, the famine, and especially the martyrs. All of these things existed in Jeruselem prior to the actual Roman siege. The trumpets then would relate to the actual judgement itself and the destruction of the temple and the massive death in and around the city. Finally, the bowls are the spiritual version of this destruction, giving a symbolic look at what happened and the Jews' reaction to the judgement.

This is just my own observation from a recent reading of Revelation. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Dee Dee:
We cannot make the mistake, as a lot do, to automatically presume that similarity or even exactness of terminology equals exactness of referent. It doesn't always
It does not NECESSITATE exactness of the referrent, but it certainly can be a valuable exegetical tool in determining a possible referent, yet to get beyond the determination of a POSSIBLE referrent, one must then look at THE REST of the evidence in the Bible.

[Hitch]

Yup.

The 'seven-ness' speaking to the completeness of the judgement and I reckon to fhat of its accomplishment. The 'wrath to come' Jesus spoke of did come, and it also came to pass. It was generationally and geographycally specific.

Finally, the bowls are the spiritual version of this destruction, giving a symbolic look at what happened and the Jews' reaction to the judgement. Hmmmmmm

Cant really argue with that. I would say though, in line with the 'spiritual' the bowels or chalices as Chilton writes, speak to the covenantal aspects of the destruction.
.

[efta777]

I asked before what relationship the letters to the churches have with the rest of the book. Any comments on that? Are the letters at all isolated from the rest of the book, or do they fit in perfectly with everything else?

[adam.naranjo]

I remember when I first read revelation as a preterist. (Actually, I was leaning towards preterism at the time) I was blown away by the coherence of the book...In fact, studying the book of revelation was part of the overwhelming evidence that pushed me out of futurism.
I remember, as a dispensationalist, how I could never fully account for much of the book of revelation. Instead, I would rely on futurist 'experts' to do it for me -- even though I felt that their exegesis was much contrived.

One of the things that blew my mind was the fact that the "great city" was Jerusalem, where "the Lord was cricified -- which is also symbolically called Sadam and Egypt" and Babylon. The divorce of Israel is clearly the main theme of the book.

I read chilton's commentary, "days of vengence". However, I definately suggest Kenneth Gentry and the late Greg Bahnsen.
Go to http://www.cmfnow.com or http://www.kennethgenrty.com For more from them.

PS... cmfnow.com is one of the best sites on the internet for great theological taining, including hundreds of MP3's. ( they are full on theonomists and reconstructionists, as well as: postmill, calvin, etc.)

[efta777]

I'm working my way slowly through Chilton's 'Days of Vengeance' right now and I'm curious to hear people's view on a number of things.

First, here is a quote from the book:

"We discussed under 1:4 the view (strangely common among modern “literalists”!) that the seven churches symbolically rep- resent “seven ages of Church history”; and, while on several counts that interpretation is patently erroneous, there is another sense in which these seven churches are related to seven periods of Church history — Old Testament Church history. For the im- agery used to describe the seven cnurches of Asia progresses chronologically from the Garden of Eden to the situation in the first century A. D.:" (Page 86)

He then goes on to describe the churches as representing the following:

Ephesus - Garden of Eden
Smyrna - The Patriarchs
Pergamum - The Exodus
Thyatira - The Davidic covenant/Israeli monarchy
Sardis - Later Prophetic period
Philedelphia - The return from exile under Nehemiah and Ezra
Laodicia - The last days (Up to A.D. 70)

My first reaction to this theory was a skeptical one; because at first it seems like perhaps Chilton is making the same mistakes as futurists by trying to read these interpretations into the text, but after reading it and looking over his evidence for it, I'm not so sure. There are definately certain elements that make this seem like a potentially viable interpretation of these passages.
What does everyone else think about this?

[Hitch]

I suggest a digestif. Read a while ,have a brandy and look again after its all settled . For all his 'down home' style Chilton had some deep literary insights.

His was the first , that I had heard, of the Apocalype as a kind of collage of the entire cannon. Im sure you have noticed there is nothing granted to the commmon (DF) interpretations. Chilton's view is wholly different basically and doctrinally. Most of which still leaves footprints on my head.

Take care

H

[John Reece]

Yesterday @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83414#post83414)
efta777:

I'm working my way slowly through Chilton's 'Days of Vengeance' right now and I'm curious to hear people's view on a number of things.

First, here is a quote from the book:

"We discussed under 1:4 the view (strangely common among modern “literalists”!) that the seven churches symbolically rep- resent “seven ages of Church history”; and, while on several counts that interpretation is patently erroneous, there is another sense in which these seven churches are related to seven periods of Church history — Old Testament Church history. For the im- agery used to describe the seven cnurches of Asia progresses chronologically from the Garden of Eden to the situation in the first century A. D.:" (Page 86)

He then goes on to describe the churches as representing the following:

Ephesus - Garden of Eden
Smyrna - The Patriarchs
Pergamum - The Exodus
Thyatira - The Davidic covenant/Israeli monarchy
Sardis - Later Prophetic period
Philedelphia - The return from exile under Nehemiah and Ezra
Laodicia - The last days (Up to A.D. 70)

My first reaction to this theory was a skeptical one; because at first it seems like perhaps Chilton is making the same mistakes as futurists by trying to read these interpretations into the text, but after reading it and looking over his evidence for it, I'm not so sure. There are definately certain elements that make this seem like a potentially viable interpretation of these passages.
What does everyone else think about this?

It's been 15 years since I read the book, and I have not read it since. But it all made sense to me as I read it.

D. A. Carson’s comments about Days of Vengeance (in New Testament Commentary Survey) were quite interesting for me to read a year after we had exchanged a number of letter’s regarding his premillennial stance:

More difficult to assess in brief compass is David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (/Dominion 1987). The book is strongest where it brings together from larger, more technical commentaries something of the wealth of OT allusions, and shows their relevance to the interpretation of the Apocalypse. But Chilton ties his interpretation of the entire book to a dogmatic insistence that it was written before A.D. 70, and that its predications are focused on the destruction of Jerusalem. Although there are some excellent theological links crafted in this book, the central setting and argument are so weak and open to criticism that I cannot recommend the work very warmly. The lengthy (18 pp.) “Publisher’s Preface” by Gary North is so arrogant and condescending it is embarrassing: I earnestly hope Chilton found it so.

I sought from Dr. Carson the best resource he could recommend as a presentation of a case for a late date of the authorship of Revelation, to counter the case presented by Kenneth Gentry in Before Jerusalem Fell. He recommended An Introduction to the New Testament, about to be published the year of our correspondence (1992), by himself, D. J. Moo, and Leon Morris. I bought the book just to read the case presented therein for the late date theory. Although Gentry’s book had been out for three years at that time, it seemed clear that none of the three authors had read Gentry, because there was no reference to Gentry’s work, nor any indication that they (Carson, Moo, and Morris) were even aware of the case he had presented for the early date. I remain grateful for his great grace and generosity in taking time out of his busy schedule to correspond with me. But Chilton and Gentry were much more convincing to one who was determined not to allow his own (referring to myself) or anyone else’s presuppositions to determine answers to questions re millennialism and dating.

[JackS]

Dee Dee how can Chilton be over your head? I just can't see that after all your posts I've read over the years.

Chilton says that Revlations is structured as Ezekiel. He lays out the simularity in a chapter by chapter comparison. I don't have Days of Vengance with me right now. To show this.

[CT292]

Chilton's preterist commentary on Revelation is an important contribution to preterist and to Relevation studies.

However, his former professor, the late Greg Bahnsen, was unable to commend this work due to some significant hermeneutical methods that Chilton had employed in his Exposition. You can read Dr. Bahnsen's critique of Chilton here:

Review: Another Look at Chilton’s Days of Vengeance (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb075.htm)

Colin

[themuzicman]

So, according to pretrists, is the prohpecy of revelation finished, or where are we in there, if not?

Michael

[CT292]

themuzicman wrote:
So, according to pretrists, is the prophecy of revelation finished?

According to Orthodox Preterism, the Book of Revelation is not finished.

The loosing of Satan in Rev 20:7ff is still future and will signal the end of the Millennium.

where are we in there?

We are in the period of the Millennium long binding of Satan in Rev 20:1-6.

Colin

[efta777]

Yes, most of us postmil preterists believe that everything up to the binding of Satan is fulfilled (If you have any specific piece of this prophecy that you want information about, go ahead and ask), and that we are in the millenial kingdom right now. The evidence is overwhelming - I would think more people would be convinced of this just by finding all the passages in the NT that said something along the lines of "The kingdom is here/we are now living in the kingdom, etc."

Sorry, CT292, I think I pretty much just reiterated exactly what you said... thought I'd have more, but I don't right now.

[themuzicman]

OK, so when did the sixth seal happen? (Rev 6:12)

Who are the 144,000? (rev 7:44)

How could those from every tribe tongue and people be standing before the throne wearing white robes, and how could they be uncountable? (rev 7:9-11)

When did a third of the earth and trees and all the grass get burned up? (Rev 8:7)

When was a third of the sea made into blood, and a third of the creatures of the sea die and a third of the ships lost? (Rev 8:8-9)

When was a third of the water made bitter, so that many died from it? (Rev 8:10-11)

When was a third of the sun, moon, and stars lost? (Rev 8:12)

I think you get the point. These are events that should have been recorded. And we're only in Chapter 8.

When were the 5 months that nobody died? (9:1-6)

Where is the 200 MILLION man army? (9:13-19)

Michael

[John Reece]

Today @ 06:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103375#post103375)
themuzicman:

OK, so when did the sixth seal happen? (Rev 6:12)

Who are the 144,000? (rev 7:44)

How could those from every tribe tongue and people be standing before the throne wearing white robes, and how could they be uncountable? (rev 7:9-11)

When did a third of the earth and trees and all the grass get burned up? (Rev 8:7)

When was a third of the sea made into blood, and a third of the creatures of the sea die and a third of the ships lost? (Rev 8:8-9)

When was a third of the water made bitter, so that many died from it? (Rev 8:10-11)

When was a third of the sun, moon, and stars lost? (Rev 8:12)

I think you get the point. These are events that should have been recorded. And we're only in Chapter 8.

When were the 5 months that nobody died? (9:1-6)

Where is the 200 MILLION man army? (9:13-19)

Michael

:smile:

And when was a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet and a crown of 12 stars . . .

:smile:

[themuzicman]

Even symbollically, these items must represent SOMETHING that happened. Or are these all just dismissed as nice stories?

Michael

[efta777]

Yes, Musicman, you are absolutely right about that. I think all that John was trying to get across was that they are indeed symbolic, where it sounded like you were looking for 100% literal fulfillment of all of these things. If you are open to looking at these events symbolically, then they do work into the A.D. 70 time frame.

I'll just do one at a time if you please:

First,
"OK, so when did the sixth seal happen? (Rev 6:12)"

Rev. 6:12-13
When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquoke; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

So when did this happen? On first glance I would assume that it happens at the same time as Mat. 24:29:

Matt. 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Seems reasonable, doesn't it? How could this NOT be describing the same event? Now, in my opinion, it very much DOES refer to the same thing, but it's not necessary, as this is not the only time this language is used in the Bible.

Isaiah 13:10 (Prophecy against Babylon) "For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light."

Eze. 32:7-8 (Against Pharoah) "When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens, and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness upon your land, says the Lord God."

See also, Joel 3:15, Amos 8:9, Isaiah 24:21-23, Isaiah 34:4

Now, this doesn't prove anything if all of these prophecies are referring to the exact same event; if so, it can still be 100% literal. The problem is that they DO NOT refer to the same events. They refer to REAL HISTORICAL EVENTS WHICH HAVE HAPPENED. They were prophecied first, then judgement came upon the nations. Now, I argue that the verse in Matt. refers to the same event as the verse in Rev. because the context tells me so, but I have proven that not only is the sixth seal not necessarily to be taken literally, but that it SHOULD NOT be taken literally, because the rest of the Bible shows us exactly how it should be taken.

Finally, if this IS symbolic language, as I have just shown, then it refers to a judgement upon a nation (Just like the O.T. verses), in this case, Israel. The judgement is not a complete supernatural destruction of the nation, but a destruction either politically or through war. This is exactly what happened to Israel in A.D. 70, so why are we still looking for this prophecy to be fulfilled?

I hope I laid down a decent foundation for any other preterists if they want to start briefly tackling some of these other questions, otherwise it's going to take a while for me to be able to get to them all.'
Thanks for your time.

[CT292]

OK, so when did the sixth seal happen? (Rev 6:12)...., etc, etc.

Sorry, thats all highly classified information!:teeth:

But seriously, all the events discussed prior to Rev 20 have been fulfilled locally in the seige and destruction of Jerusalem between AD 67 and AD 70.

For more information, see: The Beast FAQ (http://www.forerunner.com/beast/beastfaq.html)

And the book, Four Views on the Book of Revelation (http://www.post-boks.dk/rev-list/msg00344.html) which discusses the orthodox preterist position.

The Book of Revelation and Eschatology (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt552.htm)

David Chilton's complete preterist commentary on Revelation is online at Freebooks.com entitled, The Days of Vengeance (http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htm).

Other preterist commentaries are David S. Clark's Message From Patmos, among many others.

Colin

[CT292]

Even symbollically, these items must represent SOMETHING that happened. Or are these all just dismissed as nice stories?

No, they are not just "nice stories". The events of Revelation are real Divinely inspired prophecy which were unfilled at the time they were written, but were soon fulfilled just a few short years after they were written by the Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This is nothing difficult for Christians to believe because the Bible is filled with already fulfilled prophecy of former historical events, including the OT Messianic prophecies concerning the first Advent of Christ. They are not just "nice stories" either, but real, prophetically fulfilled events in history. Just because they were fulfilled in the past does not make them any less valuable or less real for Christians today.

Colin

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103527#post103527)
efta777:

Yes, Musicman, you are absolutely right about that. I think all that John was trying to get across was that they are indeed symbolic, where it sounded like you were looking for 100% literal fulfillment of all of these things. If you are open to looking at these events symbolically, then they do work into the A.D. 70 time frame.

See also, Joel 3:15, Amos 8:9, Isaiah 24:21-23, Isaiah 34:4

Now, this doesn't prove anything if all of these prophecies are referring to the exact same event; if so, it can still be 100% literal. The problem is that they DO NOT refer to the same events. They refer to REAL HISTORICAL EVENTS WHICH HAVE HAPPENED. They were prophecied first, then judgement came upon the nations. Now, I argue that the verse in Matt. refers to the same event as the verse in Rev. because the context tells me so, but I have proven that not only is the sixth seal not necessarily to be taken literally, but that it SHOULD NOT be taken literally, because the rest of the Bible shows us exactly how it should be taken.



Let's look more closely at the verses you didn't cite.

Joel 3:15. If you read Joel 2:28-3:1, you see that Joel is specifically about the RESTORATION of Judah and Jerusalem, when "... I will pour out my spirit on all people, your sons and daughers will prophesy, your old men will dreeam dreams" and later "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Clearly this refers to pentecost and the new covenant. In this context and timeframe, it is Isreal's enemies who are wiped out.

Isaiah 24:21-23. The opening refrain of chapter 24 refers to the Lord laying waste to the EARTH. This is the judgement of the nations, all those not in Christ. This hasn't happened, yet.

Isaiah 34:4 has the same context.

In fact, the Isaiah verses appear to not have happened, yet, and Joel 3:15 talks about the restoration of Judah after pentecost, not it's destruction.

So, while the symbolism may be accurate, the timing within the context of these three seem to be a problem.

Michael

[DBoone]

This is the part I don't get: Are we still waiting for the Jews to be restored like Paul says in Romans? And the Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century, surely they would have known about the 2nd Coming as being a past event. Does their writings support this?

Here's the personal application: You mean I'm too late? I thought I was going to be changed in a twinkling of an eye and be caught up to meet Jesus in the air. It's all in the past? Or it's all just symbolic language?

This is far from the perfect world I would expect during the millenial reign of Christ.

[DBoone]

I'm reading a website on preterism. I'll get back to you on this once I get a little more informed...

[DBoone]

More questions:

- How does the preterist interpret 1Cor12&13 and Eph4, as future or fulfilled? Please explain.

- Is there a historical event that relates to Rev19:17-21? And has the 1000 yrs passed for Satan to be loosed again?

- Paul speaks of the restoration of the Jews. When will this happen?

- Wouldn't the Church Fathers in the 2nd & 3rd centuries know that this was a done deal? Is there any indication of this in their writings, that Jesus had already returned spiritually and that the Church is now in the next phase?

[John Reece]

Today @ 08:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116352#post116352)
DBoone:

More questions:

- How does the preterist interpret 1Cor12&13 and Eph4, as future or fulfilled? Please explain.

I Corinthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4 are currently active just as described by Paul in the texts, which have a teleological focus in 1 Corinthians 13:8 (otan de elqh to teleion) and Ephesians 4:13 (eiV andra teleion). The teleological fufillment is yet future, being the ultimate consummation.

Cessationist preterists hold to presuppositions to the contrary. See the debate between Apollos and Gavin in the Boxing Ring, and the spectator comments in the Arena.

I'll let others answer the other questions in your post.

Blessings,

John

[Hitch]

06-03-2003 @ 08:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116352#post116352)
DBoone:

More questions:

- How does the preterist interpret 1Cor12&13 and Eph4, as future or fulfilled? Please explain. Have you considered ongoing?

- Is there a historical event that relates to Rev19:17-21? And has the 1000 yrs passed for Satan to be loosed again? yeah we call the battel of good vs evil, its ongoing as well. At this time it is evident taht satan's powr in checked and its allowed influence strictly controled. So it seems unlikely this is the time of 'looseing'. I wouldnt worry about it too much but that time it wont have many followers left to doits dirty work. God is righteous cutting off the covenant breakers and blessing the church.

- Paul speaks of the restoration of the Jews. When will this happen? When did Paul say anything about that?

- Wouldn't the Church Fathers in the 2nd & 3rd centuries know that this was a done deal? Is there any indication of this in their writings, that Jesus had already returned spiritually and that the Church is now in the next phase? I dont think I understand the question. Any one can see time is passing and the church, and the world are subject to it, the idea that the current reality is the eternal state would be dissappointing in the extreme.[quote]


Take care

Hitch

[DBoone]

"- Paul speaks of the restoration of the Jews. When will this happen?"
<When did Paul say anything about that?>

Rom.11
[17] But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree,
[19] You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
[23] And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
[24] For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

"- Wouldn't the Church Fathers in the 2nd & 3rd centuries know that this was a done deal? Is there any indication of this in their writings, that Jesus had already returned spiritually and that the Church is now in the next phase? "
<I dont think I understand the question.>

Sorry if my wording is wrong, the preterist view is new to me.
My question was: do the 2nd & 3rd century Church Fathers have any evidence of a preterist view in their writings? Being so near chronologically to the events would suggest that they understood the preterist view intrinsically because they were the generation "left behind", they would have had the baton of eschatology passed on to them from the Apostles who would have a very clear understanding of this view and be able to communicate the details of how all the prophecies were being fulfilled. Are there writings from AD 70-300 that might support the preterist view. We use these same authors to support the inerrancy of scripture, so can we also use these same sources to support the preterist view?

< Any one can see time is passing and the church, and the world are subject to it, the idea that the current reality is the eternal state would be dissappointing in the extreme.>

I think it would be devastating to the concept of the kingdom of God, but that's not what I'm asking. Isn't the next phase of the Church to be one of binding the Devil, to claim the spiritual land for Christ? Is this in keeping with the preterist view?

I'm also assuming that the Great Commission still stands?

So, if Christ is still going to return to bring the Judgement Day, and if the Holy Spirit is still here to function as the Teacher to perfect the Church and express God's will to the world, and the Church still has power in Christ over the Devil, and people can still be saved in this age, and we can still look forward to a new heavens and a new earth, then what's the fuss?

Sounds to me like we are in the same boat as the Apostles were: "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

[Reasonable]

I think Dboone's questions deserve more consideration. We point to the church fathers for support on many beliefs (the trinity for instance) in an effort to prove they are valid. Granted, the ECF are not gospel but if they don't speak as Preterists do today, this in itself could be a problem. Maybe they do, I don't know. Anyone have info on this?

Also, with the world the way it is today, I fail to see any serious argument to Satan being locked up. It seems pretty evident to me he's out and about doing a darn good job misleading the entire earth. (Rev 12:9) I would like Hitch to explain how it is evident he is locked up. What is better about this world now than when he was 'loose?'

[Darth Xena]

06-05-2003 @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118586#post118586)
Reasonable:

I think Dboone's questions deserve more consideration. We point to the church fathers for support on many beliefs (the trinity for instance) in an effort to prove they are valid. Granted, the ECF are not gospel but if they don't speak as Preterists do today, this in itself could be a problem. Maybe they do, I don't know. Anyone have info on this?

Actually Reasonable I do not think this is the issue that it is made to be and let me clumsily try to explain. A lot of nonTrins will complain that it is not until Nicea that a really forumalated doctrine of the Trinity was made... but that was because it was not challenged until then, and it was a huge essential of the faith. Only certain portions of eschatology have been considered essential and in those we find tremendously early witness but things like timng of the Great Trib and Revelation were never considered essentials. However, there are scattered references, very early, that support the preterist contention, just as their are only scattered references to support ANY eschatological view.... so I guess the short point is that this is not a preterist problem, it is a problem for almost any view (minus the essentials which preterists believe in anyways). I would say though that the first early and somewhat systematized preterist would be Eusebius, the Father of Church History, and noting his penchant for church history, he obviously saw no conflict.

Also, with the world the way it is today, I fail to see any serious argument to Satan being locked up. It seems pretty evident to me he's out and about doing a darn good job misleading the entire earth. (Rev 12:9) I would like Hitch to explain how it is evident he is locked up. What is better about this world now than when he was 'loose?'

Maybe you would like to take a look at a very slow paced discussion that Jaltus and I are having on this very point. It is here:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=923

[Reasonable]

Thanks Dee Dee. I now better understand the rational behind the Pretertist understanding of Satan being bound. Not that I agree with it but I can see why you feel the way you do. I think you make a respectable arguement.

[Darth Xena]

Hey thanks!!! You live up to your screen name.

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121349#post121349)
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey thanks!!! You live up to your screen name.


I'm just curious, what is a Preterist? What does it mean, i really never heard of it.

[John Reece]

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122273#post122273)
mickiel:

I'm just curious, what is a Preterist? What does it mean, i really never heard of it.


Not a definition:

I'm a preterist, meaning that I do not project into our future what was predicted to be fulfilled within the lifetime of those to whom the predictions were made.

[mickiel]

Today @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122282#post122282)
John Reece:




Not a definition:

I'm a preterist, meaning that I do not project into our future what was predicted to be fulfilled within the lifetime of those to whom the predictions were made.

If this is what a preterist means, then i would call them a reasonable people. Anyone who would project into the future what was meant to be now, is sleepwalking.

[John Reece]

Today @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122287#post122287)
mickiel:

If this is what a preterist means, then i would call them a reasonable people. Anyone who would project into the future what was meant to be now, is sleepwalking.

mickiel,

I edited bold print in the quote above as a focus for this response:

Not "now", but "then" (within the generation living at the time the predictions were made).

"Preterist" is defined in one dictionary as "one who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled". But that's a truncated and imprecise definition. There's more included than just the Apocalypse, and many preterists think there are some things in Revelation (= the Apocalypse) that are currently being fulfilled, and some yet to be fulfilled in the future.

[mickiel]

Today @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122306#post122306)
John Reece:



mickiel,

I edited bold print in the quote above as a focus for this response:

Not &quot;now&quot;, but &quot;then&quot; (within the generation living at the time the predictions were made).

&quot;Preterist&quot; is defined in one dictionary as &quot;one who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled&quot;. But that's a truncated and imprecise definition. There's more included than just the Apocalypse, and many preterists think there are some things in Revelation (= the Apocalypse) that are currently being fulfilled, and some yet to be fulfilled in the future.


Yes, i understand, but i still see it as reason. A fulfilled prophecy is just that, already fulfilled. It is a very common error in many who view the bible , to assume a portion of scripture that was to be fulfilled in the time it was, to be some far distant era ahead. I believe more scripture has already been fulfilled than has not. Many are seduced into a duality priniciple of scripture , which i can understand, its so easu to strecth scripture into more meanings than one. As far as the definition or description of preterist is concerned, i have no disagreement with the theology, in fact i am relieved to view one that i can agree with.

[John Reece]

Today @ 09:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122387#post122387)
mickiel:

Yes, i understand, but i still see it as reason. A fulfilled prophecy is just that, already fulfilled. It is a very common error in many who view the bible , to assume a portion of scripture that was to be fulfilled in the time it was, to be some far distant era ahead. I believe more scripture has already been fulfilled than has not. Many are seduced into a duality priniciple of scripture , which i can understand, its so easu to strecth scripture into more meanings than one. As far as the definition or description of preterist is concerned, i have no disagreement with the theology, in fact i am relieved to view one that i can agree with.

:thumb:

[Darth Xena]

Well Mickiel we agree on something ! :thumb:

[Bill the Cat]

:btc: Holding eschatological cards to himself till Wrestlemania 3:16

[mickiel]

Yesterday @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123119#post123119)
Dee Dee Warren:

Well Mickiel we agree on something ! :thumb:

Well now , you see - wonders still exisit.

[Hitch]

06-13-2003 @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122287#post122287)
mickiel:



If this is what a preterist means, then i would call them a reasonable people. Anyone who would project into the future what was meant to be now, is sleepwalking. YUp. Exactly the type of 'sleepwalking' that led to the silent disaster on part of DTS in the early 1970s, when as an institution of higher christian learning it said not a word in defense of life as the wretched caldren of RoevWade began to boil.


Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

06-05-2003 @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118565#post118565)
DBoone:

&quot;- Paul speaks of the restoration of the Jews. When will this happen?&quot;
&lt;When did Paul say anything about that?&gt;

Rom.11
[17] But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree,
[19] You will say, &quot;Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.&quot;
[23] And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
[24] For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.[quote] "If they do not persist in thier unbelief" they become christians, as did Paul. And this has nothing whatever to do with national resurgency. [quote]

&quot;- Wouldn't the Church Fathers in the 2nd &amp; 3rd centuries know that this was a done deal? Is there any indication of this in their writings, that Jesus had already returned spiritually and that the Church is now in the next phase? &quot;
&lt;I dont think I understand the question.&gt;

Sorry if my wording is wrong, the preterist view is new to me.
My question was: do the 2nd &amp; 3rd century Church Fathers have any evidence of a preterist view in their writings? Being so near chronologically to the events would suggest that they understood the preterist view intrinsically because they were the generation &quot;left behind&quot;, they would have had the baton of eschatology passed on to them from the Apostles who would have a very clear understanding of this view and be able to communicate the details of how all the prophecies were being fulfilled. Are there writings from AD 70-300 that might support the preterist view. We use these same authors to support the inerrancy of scripture, so can we also use these same sources to support the preterist view? Post and A -Millennialism were well knowwn from the begining, but if all was so well understood and finalized before ad 300 it was really quite an accomplishement since the canon of Scripture handt yet been agreed upon, certanly a more important matter of faith than eschatology.

&lt; Any one can see time is passing and the church, and the world are subject to it, the idea that the current reality is the eternal state would be dissappointing in the extreme.&gt;

I think it would be devastating to the concept of the kingdom of God, but that's not what I'm asking. Isn't the next phase of the Church to be one of binding the Devil, to claim the spiritual land for Christ? Is this in keeping with the preterist view? No. The 'next phase' is the eternal state after the Resurrection. Jesus commanded ,in the first century, the begining of worldwide evangelization.

I'm also assuming that the Great Commission still stands?See above

So, if Christ is still going to return to bring the Judgement Day, and if the Holy Spirit is still here to function as the Teacher to perfect the Church and express God's will to the world, and the Church still has power in Christ over the Devil, and people can still be saved in this age, and we can still look forward to a new heavens and a new earth, then what's the fuss? As new creations in Christ the church is the New Heavens and Earth. The 'fuss' is the many disgraced preachers of rapture and 'dont polish the brass on this sinking ship' and every one who claims the Gospel is an institutional failure in history( that includes all who can only seee apostacy ahead) and hide in their caves, be it genuine holes in the earth of the caverns of failing DF thinking.

Sounds to me like we are in the same boat as the Apostles were: &quot;Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.&quot; the difference here is that Post Millenialist adopt the gradualism Jesus so often taught and complete victory in history, through the historical process,and DF thinking expxects sudden and even secret delivery in some cases.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

06-05-2003 @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118586#post118586)
Reasonable:

I think Dboone's questions deserve more consideration. We point to the church fathers for support on many beliefs (the trinity for instance) in an effort to prove they are valid. Granted, the ECF are not gospel but if they don't speak as Preterists do today, this in itself could be a problem. Maybe they do, I don't know. Anyone have info on this?

Also, with the world the way it is today, I fail to see any serious argument to Satan being locked up. It seems pretty evident to me he's out and about doing a darn good job misleading the entire earth. (Rev 12:9) I would like Hitch to explain how it is evident he is locked up. What is better about this world now than when he was 'loose?' What is better?



Are there more believers in the world today than in Jesus lifetime?

Take a minute and compare the growth of the Kingdom to the growth of Phariseeism and the stregth of the Roman Legions over the last two-thousand years.

The 'gospel' escapism is by nature a false and failing gospel. It ignores our Lord's own magestic claim in the midst of the chaos and horrors of the first century, knowing all the terros coming hesays' Be of good cheer, I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD'.

And you aske me for explanation? What could I add?

Take care

Hitch

[dawnghost]

06-05-2003 @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118565#post118565)
DBoone:
So, if Christ is still going to return to bring the Judgement Day, and if the Holy Spirit is still here to function as the Teacher to perfect the Church and express God's will to the world, and the Church still has power in Christ over the Devil, and people can still be saved in this age, and we can still look forward to a new heavens and a new earth, then what's the fuss?

Sounds to me like we are in the same boat as the Apostles were: &quot;Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.&quot;

Could someone please answer this post please? Are we in the Kingdom of God then? Cause the World is a messed up place... all the wars and starving people...

:huh:

I'm gonna read DD's and Jaltus' 'slow-paced meeting of the minds'. This whole escathology stuff is just so confusing.

:ponder: :uneasy:

[Darth Xena]

Today @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130184#post130184)
dawnghost:



Could someone please answer this post please? Are we in the Kingdom of God then? Cause the World is a messed up place... all the wars and starving people...

Yes we are. There is no other reading to the Biblcal text that makes sense out of the chronology passages. If it doesn't look like we expect, we need to reexamine our understanding. The messiah didn't look like what a lot of Jews expected either, which ironically included an earthly political kingdom, which error is revived today in dispie premillennialism.

I'm gonna read DD's and Jaltus' 'slow-paced meeting of the minds'. This whole escathology stuff is just so confusing.


That might be helpful to you.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 06:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130184#post130184)
dawnghost:



Could someone please answer this post please? Are we in the Kingdom of God then? Cause the World is a messed up place... all the wars and starving people...

:huh:

I'm gonna read DD's and Jaltus' 'slow-paced meeting of the minds'. This whole escathology stuff is just so confusing.

:ponder: :uneasy: Jesus claimed to have 'all power and authority in heaven and earth'. He was last seen at the 'Right Hand of Power.

We are in the best possible situation in history. There exists in the New Heaven and Earth sin and death. These things will follow so long as time remains because it is in the 'misdt of mine enemies' that the divine rule of Christ takes place historically. The curse is gradally overcome as the church grows but until the eternal satae we will never be completely free of its effects.

The answer of course is yes. OUR GOD REIGNTH. Absolutely and with all the authory and power there is. The Kingdom of God is not temporal but righteousness in the Holy Spirit which we are granted reception because the the vicarious Sacrfice of the Blood and Body of our Lord. Certainly this is not anything new to you. But perhaps you are yet to grasp the point.
The cross is what was neccessary to bring the Kingdom of God actively into the world. Only through this rough stained wooden gate are we able, invited actuallly, to respond to the Father and the ministries of the Holy Spirit. And it is the actions of the HS ministering to us and for us that makes up the elemental factors of the Kingdom. Dont forget, the cross allows us entry while it allows the Father justice and holiness, without which He could not overlook our sin. (pardon while I pause to shout GLORY!) The Kingdom of God has nothing to do with forced rightousness, or any kind of top down threatening rule. It is concerned with A. The means to which men are called and can respond: the cross. B. The resulting lovingkindness exibited by the ministries of the HS in history, reminding us of what the Scriptures teach and the will of God in Christ.

Upon our positive response joy peace and righteousness in the Holy Spirit is the natural outcome.

Take care

Hitch



Life is fantasticly better today than in Paul's time. Still he spoke of joy and peace in the HS as his authoratively defined 'Kingdom of God'.

[dawnghost]

Thanks for the replies, DD and Hitch.

It just seems to be very weird that we are now living in the Kingdom of God, and there are so many starving people dying every day... and gay parades and murder and rape and abortion...

It's just very, very weird.

[efta777]

It just seems to be very weird that we are now living in the Kingdom of God, and there are so many starving people dying every day... and gay parades and murder and rape and abortion...

But think about it... is this really worse than the world has been in the past? There have always been horrible things happening throughout the world... Look at the world as a whole, though, people are living longer, literacy is skyrocketing in all areas of the world and we are finding ways of feeding the hungry in third world countries, all things which were never possible before.
This is the argument that is often used against preterists, saying that Satan cannot be bound, because the world is such a horrible place... well, I for one would argue that we, as humans with inherantly sinful natures, do not necessarily need help from Satan to do evil things. Evil is rooted in man, not the devil, he did not create sin, man did by listening to him. The binding of Satan does not negate man's sin, because the nature of sin is not found in Satan, but rather, prior to his binding, he had had the power to decieve the world, practically limiting the gospel to the Jewish people, but with his binding, suddenly everyone had the opportunity to be saved without being blinded by the Devil -

Scriptural proof:

Rev. 20:2-3
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

Notice that it says that Satan was bound TO KEEP HIM FROM DECIEVING THE NATIONS. This seems pretty darn consistant with the New Testament, being that Paul's epistles are focused on extending the gospel beyond the Jews and into THE NATIONS.

So the binding of Satan ushers in the Thousand years, and if I could prove when that was, then I would know right where the beginning of the thousand years was:

Matt 12:29
Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

Context: This is Jesus speaking to the Pharisees who thought that Jesus was casting out spirits as the Devil himself (Beelzebub). Jesus responds by saying that he cannot be the Devil because then he would be casting himself out - then he uses this little, but important, piece of allegorical language. Jesus is the thief, the Devil is the strong man. The devil's possessions that Jesus carries away are the nations who were previously decieved by the Devil, but since Jesus bound satan, he is able to carry those possessions off. This is the nature of the millenial reign of Christ, to establish his church (us) and allow it the OPPORTUNITY to literally fulfill the great commission. That does not mean it is easy, for in Evangelism we will always be working against the sinful nature of men, even without Satan being able to directly blind the person.

In conclusion, the millenial Kingdom is a time when Christians are destined to eventually rule, but not without a great struggle. We cannot sit here and complain about how horrible the world is and how this isn't what we expected the millenium to be because it is OUR job to fix things (with God's help, if we should have the faith to ask). This is why postmil eschatology truly is an eschatology of HOPE for a future Christian world, not an eschatology of DISPAIR for a world that will decline until it hits rock bottom and God has to return to bail us out of the hole we dug ourselves into.

Thank you for your time.

[John Reece]

:thumb:

[dawnghost]

Today @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131161#post131161)
efta777:
well, I for one would argue that we, as humans with inherantly sinful natures, do not necessarily need help from Satan to do evil things. Evil is rooted in man, not the devil, he did not create sin, man did by listening to him. The binding of Satan does not negate man's sin, because the nature of sin is not found in Satan, but rather, prior to his binding, he had had the power to decieve the world, practically limiting the gospel to the Jewish people, but with his binding, suddenly everyone had the opportunity to be saved without being blinded by the Devil -

(...)

In conclusion, the millenial Kingdom is a time when Christians are destined to eventually rule, but not without a great struggle. We cannot sit here and complain about how horrible the world is and how this isn't what we expected the millenium to be because it is OUR job to fix things (with God's help, if we should have the faith to ask). This is why postmil eschatology truly is an eschatology of HOPE for a future Christian world, not an eschatology of DISPAIR for a world that will decline until it hits rock bottom and God has to return to bail us out of the hole we dug ourselves into.

Thank you for your time.

First of all, thank you for YOUR time, efta777!

Now, for my questions: since the binding of Satan does not negate man's sin (and I'm gonna assume right now that Satan IS bound), can't we just credit our 'better world' of longer lifespan to advances in technology and economy as well? :huh:

Also, it's easy to say we're living better now, but this, I think, is wrong. In Zambia for example, there's starvation and AIDS everywhere. Fruit of sin? Sure. But God's Kingdom? That's so far away from what I always imagined.

I'm reading Jaltus' and DDW's debate... I wish they'd pay more attention to it. DDW cheated there, expanding the maximum post length to 18K :lol: what a cheap trick! :lol:

[efta777]

But God's Kingdom? That's so far away from what I always imagined.

And here is where your biggest problem lies - the same problem I had as a futurist. Don't you see that the second you say something like "What I always imagined" you are admitting a presupposition which clouds any objective thought. When studying a subject like this that you may have doubts about, the first thing you need to do is try to look past these presuppositions (They never really go away, but we have to make a conscious effort to ignore them), and see exactly what the Bible says. Now I look at passages regarding the millenium and realize that it perfectly describes the society we are in now - a society where Christianity continues to grow, yet one in which Christians struggle at the same time. In fact, in the time of Paul and the apostles, some of the greatest persecution of all time was taking place, and yet, Paul still seemed to firmly believe that God's kingdom had already been established by way of the crucifixion!
Here's how I attempt to discover truth: I check to see what the Bible says FIRST, for I have a presupposition to believe it is the true, perfect, word of God. Then, I interpret the world through the lense of scripture. I see the Bible saying that the millenium begins when Satan is bound. Jesus says that satan is bound. Therefore, the millenium is already established, so we we need to look at the world and see how it fits into the Biblical view of the millenium, which it does seemlessly. The Bible cannot be interpreted through the lense of current events, but it must happen the other way around.

[Hitch]

As Paul said; The Kingdom of God is not every one fed and world wide peace, and lions actually eating straw. But Righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

This is the real thing,as real and important as the Resurrection. It is coming to pass as God decreed before the world was formed and it is our unspeakable privelege to be a part of it.

Take care

H

[efta777]

:cheers:
Thanks Hitch, well said

[John Reece]

:thumb: to Hitch and efta777.

I got rid of my premillennial presuppositions: by (1) reading the NT texts over and over in Greek while at the same time appealing to God for grace to see what the texts were actually saying and not saying; and (2) by taking all my presuppositions to the Cross, repeatedly, to be put to death (that's a strange way to talk, if it does not make sense to you, sorry. I don't feel like trying to explain it - blame that on the recent major surgery :smile: ).

Blessings,

John

[dawnghost]

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132008#post132008)
efta777:
And here is where your biggest problem lies - the same problem I had as a futurist. Don't you see that the second you say something like &quot;What I always imagined&quot; you are admitting a presupposition which clouds any objective thought.

(...)

Here's how I attempt to discover truth: I check to see what the Bible says FIRST, for I have a presupposition to believe it is the true, perfect, word of God. Then, I interpret the world through the lense of scripture. I see the Bible saying that the millenium begins when Satan is bound. Jesus says that satan is bound. Therefore, the millenium is already established, so we we need to look at the world and see how it fits into the Biblical view of the millenium, which it does seemlessly. The Bible cannot be interpreted through the lense of current events, but it must happen the other way around.

Yes, I may presuppose that the Bible is the true and perfect word of God as well, but with this you are also assuming that your interpretation of the text is also the right one.

I'll read more about what Jaltus has to say about Satan being bound. This just seems too western to me... in the East we don't have that many christians, and there's no such thing as a Kingdom of God over there.

I'm not a futurist nor a preterist. I'm very new to this escathology stuff. This just seems very... unfair. We know about the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God. Great. But what about the other people starving? Are they the peasants outside the king's castle and they are going to hell for not knowing the way inside? :huh:

[efta777]

...But what about the other people starving? Are they the peasants outside the king's castle and they are going to hell for not knowing the way inside? :huh:

Okay, we're getting closer to the point now - the universal application that preterism has that is does not come with dispensational futurism. This is exactly what I'm talking about, God (Jesus) gave us the great commission which relates directly to these 'peasants.' The analogy you gave fits to a point, except that it goes against Romans 1:19, being that God has shown himself to all mankind so that we are without excuse - but regardless, the great commission MADE IT OUR JOB to witness to these people who are standing outside of the Kingdom. The greatness of the great commission when viewed from a preterist's perspective is that it is one which can actually be accomplished! Dispensational futurism teaches the acting out of the great commission, but at the same time it also teaches that this will inevitably fail anyway, so what's the point? Just remember that the binding of Satan signifies the beginning of the kingdom and that happened with Christ.

At this point, I believe I have shown that there is definite evidence that we are indeed in the millenium at this point and that postmillenial eschatology is clearly a valid exegetical claim, so now I believe the burden of proof is on you to show contextually valid scripture references that describe the millenial reign of Christ as being anything other than what we are living in right now. And the most important thing is that you remember to fully acknowledge all time texts.

Thanks again.

[efta777]

oh, and regarding your comment about my presupposition that my exegisis is true - you are correct, for no one can be truely impartial in this sense, but the fact that 1 1/2 years ago I was an avid dispie futurist I believe does much to show that I am able to have an open mind. I am really a skeptic at heart - but being a skeptical Christian has only made me grow in the faith because through questioning everything, the truth becomes the only valid solution. As of right now, however, yes i DO believe that my eschatological view is the correct one, but this does not mean that I won't read your response or anyone else's with an open mind - but as I said before, the burden of proof is on you.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132680#post132680)
efta777:
this does not mean that I won't read your response or anyone else's with an open mind - but as I said before, the burden of proof is on you.

Whoa, hold your horses there mate! I'm not debating you, I'm not a futurist, remember? I'm trying to understand some things here!

So you say Satan is bound. Does that mean there's no more demon possessions or sightings or anything like that?

[efta777]

Sorry, I suppose I should rephrase that to seem less debate-like. What I really mean is that the burden of proof is on futurists, which you are not. I'll try to refrain from turning this into a debate in the future.

Now as I said before, the nature and extent of Satan's binding is still a mystery to me. As far as I know, the Bible does not say that he is bound fully, but rather puts the condition on it, saying that he is bound so that he could no longer decieve the nations. This doesn't mean that he can't be at work in the world at all, it just means that he is severely limited.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133147#post133147)
efta777:

Sorry, I suppose I should rephrase that to seem less debate-like. What I really mean is that the burden of proof is on futurists, which you are not. I'll try to refrain from turning this into a debate in the future.

Now as I said before, the nature and extent of Satan's binding is still a mystery to me. As far as I know, the Bible does not say that he is bound fully, but rather puts the condition on it, saying that he is bound so that he could no longer decieve the nations. This doesn't mean that he can't be at work in the world at all, it just means that he is severely limited.

This is difficult isn't it? How could Satan "deceive the nations" anyway? Deceiving the leaders? Or the majority of its inhabitants?

:huh:

[Bill the Cat]

I think you guys miss the whole of the verse...

Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.


Care to explain the bolded parts? :cheers:

[dawnghost]

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133262#post133262)
Bill the Cat:
so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

WHAT

[Bill the Cat]

Not sure what the WHAT was for. I'd like an explanation of the bolded portions of the scripture.

[Hitch]

Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. The bold parts describe that accomplishement in poetic language, common throughout Scripture.

H

[Bill the Cat]

So, poetically, Jesus is an angel?

[efta777]

Bill, I understand where you're going with this, but I don't think your argument really stands up, considering the fact that we just don't have enough information about the nature of this binding. Here's how I read the information provided, though I'm in no saying that this is absolute truth, it just seems to me that it is a good possible explanation: Jesus' ministry was on Earth, and through his teachings we learn that Satan had been bound so that Jesus could have the people of the world, however, the scene in Revelation takes place apart from the Earth, describing in poetic language the actual process of Satan being bound - made possible by Christ, but performed by an angel.

Okay, that seemed like it would be easier to explain before I actually tried to explain it - if anyone wants to try and make my thoughts a little more coherant they are more than welcome to try and do so.

In other words, Bill, I understand your problem, and you raise a good question, but I don't feel like we are given enough information to declare that these verses don't correlate together - there are plenty of ways around this, and none of them are too farfetched.

[Hitch]

Today @ 12:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135608#post135608)
Bill the Cat:

So, poetically, Jesus is an angel? LOL You're trying too hard Cat

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 07:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135615#post135615)
efta777:

Bill, I understand where you're going with this, but I don't think your argument really stands up, considering the fact that we just don't have enough information about the nature of this binding. Here's how I read the information provided, though I'm in no saying that this is absolute truth, it just seems to me that it is a good possible explanation: Jesus' ministry was on Earth, and through his teachings we learn that Satan had been bound so that Jesus could have the people of the world, however, the scene in Revelation takes place apart from the Earth, describing in poetic language the actual process of Satan being bound - made possible by Christ, but performed by an angel.

Okay, that seemed like it would be easier to explain before I actually tried to explain it - if anyone wants to try and make my thoughts a little more coherant they are more than welcome to try and do so.

In other words, Bill, I understand your problem, and you raise a good question, but I don't feel like we are given enough information to declare that these verses don't correlate together - there are plenty of ways around this, and none of them are too farfetched.

I see it as Jesus telling us that Satan CAN be bound

Mat 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."


If this is Satan's binding, what is loosed?

I also think that you guys miss the previous verse where Jesus says:

Mat 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.


The fact is that Jesus was showing that the forces of Hades, led by their master, would still be there to TRY to attack the church, but would not prevail. He was in the next verse showing that the demonic forces could be bound by our word as the Spirit gave us power, not that they were already bound and would not creep up anymore till the end of the Kingdom reign.

[efta777]

Mat 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

This isn't the Jesus quote I have been referring to, and I'm not sure that this one has anything to do with Satan's binding. Rather, I have been referring to Matt. 12:29 - see my earlier post regarding this passage and its context.

The fact is that Jesus was showing that the forces of Hades, led by their master, would still be there to TRY to attack the church, but would not prevail. He was in the next verse showing that the demonic forces could be bound by our word as the Spirit gave us power, not that they were already bound and would not creep up anymore till the end of the Kingdom reign.

This is all well and good, considering that I have not once said that Satan was fully bound - that is, that he has NO power over the Earth; but rather, his binding seems to be somewhat conditional - that he may no longer decieve the nations anymore - thus fitting in with a central theme of the N.T., that is, the strengthening of the original covenant with Israel to include the entire world - all nations - including the gentiles. Satan is no longer able to keep the gospel from going out into the world, though he may (I'm not certain) have some power over individuals... I've been saying this over and over - go back and read previous posts for further clarification.

Thanks

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135701#post135701)
efta777:



This isn't the Jesus quote I have been referring to, and I'm not sure that this one has anything to do with Satan's binding. Rather, I have been referring to Matt. 12:29 - see my earlier post regarding this passage and its context.


Oh, sorry. I see the passage as Jesus already being able to bind Satan, even before the Resurrection or the destruction of the temple.


This is all well and good, considering that I have not once said that Satan was fully bound - that is, that he has NO power over the Earth; but rather, his binding seems to be somewhat conditional - that he may no longer decieve the nations anymore - thus fitting in with a central theme of the N.T., that is, the strengthening of the original covenant with Israel to include the entire world - all nations - including the gentiles. Satan is no longer able to keep the gospel from going out into the world, though he may (I'm not certain) have some power over individuals... I've been saying this over and over - go back and read previous posts for further clarification.

Thanks

I went back and read the thread. I humbly will bow out because of the initial request to not get into debate here.


But I still disagree :teeth:

[efta777]

Bill,
I started this thread and I don't mind using it to debate. I'm much more of a 'spirit of the law' person than a 'letter of the law person' and my only point in this thread was to get a good conversation going, so I request that you do not back out now, but continue to disagree and be persuaded by my relentless and powerful debate techniques and mind tricks. :teeth:

[Bill the Cat]

OK, my big thing is that Jesus gave the "kingdom is already here" speech even before the Crucifixion. How does that match up with preterist eschatology.

And like I said to spl_cadet, the one thing I'm sure of 100% is that as Christians,

WE WIN!!!

[efta777]

I think it matches up pretty well. I would say that the binding of Satan was more than likely consummated at the resurrection, but was more or less a result of his ministry as a whole, therefore, when Jesus was giving his 'strong man' analogy, you see that the point was that his purpose in coming was to bind the devil and harvest the entire world - He's not necissarily saying that at that point it was completely finished... thinking of an example...

If I was going to go pick you up from somewhere in my car and give you a ride home, I could drive over there and say "I've come to take you home." That does not mean that you are already home, but that my purpose is to eventually get you there. This is what Jesus was saying.

[studyhound]

bump

[efta777]

I made my last argument here in June, and I suppose it was good enough to warrent the opposite side spend six months pondering it... so I'm ready for more if anyone wants to challenge my arguments, or just move onto the next topic...

[Lizard]

Today @ 05:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=371036#post371036)
efta777:

I made my last argument here in June, and I suppose it was good enough to warrent the opposite side spend six months pondering it... so I'm ready for more if anyone wants to challenge my arguments, or just move onto the next topic...

Sounds like a challenge to me.

Any takers? *cough*btc*cough*


:faramir::poke::btc:

[Rose Kendall]

I suppose with the wealth of Preterist fellowship available on this site, I might as well take advantage of it.

I've recently begun to go through Revelation verse by verse and try to understand exactly what each little piece means from a Preterist perspective. What I've discovered is that Revelation now makes MORE sense to me than it ever did as a dispensational futurist, but there are still plenty of issues in the book that I quite frankly just don't understand. I'm always coming up against certain events or symbols that make me wonder what they are referring to.
Therefore, I'd like to use this thread to discuss with fellow preterists on different aspects of Revelation, it's theme, it's flow, it's relationship with the rest of the Bible and it's general message as well as the specific symbolism used within the book.

My first question, then, to get this discussion started, is the theme of Revelation. I have read some about reading Revelation as a divorce decree against Israel, and I have to admit that while studying the book, there seems to be a great deal of truth to this theory.
Any other interpretations, or affirmations of this view?
REPLY: The whole point of Revelation is that it is a letter from Jesus to the Church - and it gives the "spiritual" or "heaven's perspective" of what took place during His 3-1/2 years of ministry on earth. All the events of Revelation took place in that 3-1/2 year period - and the effect on the heavens, of what Jesus did on earth - are being shown here.

Revelation tells us of Christ's FINISHED WORK - He fulfilled His obligation as a Kinsman-Redeemer by
(1) Redeeming indebted kinsman from slavery (Rev 7:9) (Lev 25:47-48) (seal judgements)
(2) Redeeing forfeited property (Rev 11:15) (Lev 25:25)(trumpet judgements)
(3) Marrying the widowed Church in order to produce His image for the inheritance (Rev 19:7) (Ruth 4:5; Deut 25:5; Mat 22:23-30)(vial judgements)
(4) Avenging all wrongs on the kinsman (Rev 20:1-3) (Gen 14:13-14; Deu 19:11-12)

Our problem has been that we have read too much INTO it. Just read it for what it actually says.

rose

[Rose Kendall]

I left a reply on the post portion. I have written a detailed book on the subject of Revelation, and view it as the FINISHED WORK of Jesus Christ. It is, after all, a personal letter from Himself.

[Rose Kendall]

OK, so when did the sixth seal happen? (Rev 6:12)

Who are the 144,000? (rev 7:44)

How could those from every tribe tongue and people be standing before the throne wearing white robes, and how could they be uncountable? (rev 7:9-11)

When did a third of the earth and trees and all the grass get burned up? (Rev 8:7)

When was a third of the sea made into blood, and a third of the creatures of the sea die and a third of the ships lost? (Rev 8:8-9)

When was a third of the water made bitter, so that many died from it? (Rev 8:10-11)

When was a third of the sun, moon, and stars lost? (Rev 8:12)

I think you get the point. These are events that should have been recorded. And we're only in Chapter 8.

When were the 5 months that nobody died? (9:1-6)

Where is the 200 MILLION man army? (9:13-19)

Michael
Revelation is about JESUS, not us, not the anti-christ, not the future. It shows all that Jesus ALREADY accomplished during His 3-1/2 year ministry - it all takes place in 3-1/2 years - and shows what happened in the heavens during that time. The impact His ministry had on the heavens and all that live there. Each of the judgements (seal, trumpet, and vial) took place at the same time (3-1/2 years) - just another perspective. That's why the scroll had writing on both sides. If you look carefully, you can see that things repeated themselves.

Rose

[efta777]

So you believe that Revelation in its entirety is already fulfilled? Including Chapter 20 and beyond? So you don't believe in a final judgement or Christ's coming to judge the living and the dead as a future scenario? Explain.