End of the age

[Solly]

Dee Dee wrote:

I can believe that I can prove that the “end of the age” mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse MUST have already come unless one is going to believe in a future “millennium” which is clearly unbiblical on other grounds but this is going to take some collation of passages. Ready?

When Christ ascended to the Father He sat at His right hand and is in the process of having all enemies put under His feet. Many passages tell us this, but the most important for this discussion is Ephesians 1:15-22 since it has some very important timing verses which I am asking that you pay very close attention to.

Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, NOT ONLY IN THIS AGE BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

This passage is very important. It tells us that during the age in which Paul was writing, Christ was having all things put under His feet. Hebrews 1:13 equates this idea with sitting at the right hand of the Father. Paul also tells this that this special position will be occupied by Christ in the age in which he was writing but also in the age which is to come.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:20:28 – But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This passage tells us that all enemies will finally and completely be put under Christ’s feet at the resurrection with the destruction of the last enemy, death, and at that point, Christ’s special Messianic reign ends. Yet Paul tells us that this special reign lasts through the age in which he was writing and through the end of the age to come. Now unless we are in that age to come, meaning that the age in which Paul was writing has ended, then there is yet a whole age to come before Christ can return to resurrect the saved and the damned.


Ephesians 1:20 tells us that there are two ages in view when Paul was writing that passage. The age in which he was writing and the age to come. Paul knew that there was more than one age to come since in Ephesians 2:7 he mentions the ages to come. Now if the final age for us is the eternal state, and it is, it has to be the last of the ages to come, and thus, cannot be the “age to come” in Ephesians 1:20 since there is one more age after that one. Also remember that Christ is over all rule and authority and power and might in the age in which Paul was writing and the age to come. At the time of the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:24 (and surrounding verses) He will have DESTROYED all rule and authority and power and might. Then obviously, the resurrection has to take place at the end of the age to come described in Ephesians 1:20 which would then put in the last of the AGES to come mentioned in Ephesians 2:7. This ties in perfectly with Revelation 20 as well. We are in the millennium, the age to come from Paul’s perspective, we are spiritually reigning and ruling and sharing in the First Resurrection (Christ’s resurrection). When the thousand years are done (this age is finishing, which is the age to come from Paul’s perspective), Christ will put all rule and authority and power under His feet (described as Gog and Magog in Revelation 20), He will resurrect the just and the damned (the second resurrection), and THEN the eternal state begins. The chronology is tight and inescapable.

If the “end of the age” described in the Olivet Discourse has not come and gone, then there is still an entire age to go before the resurrection can happen.

[Solly]

This is the hurdle for me.

If this exegesis is correct, then I have to reassess my whole interpretation of NT passages which are seen as being end of the final age texts.

Thoughts anyone?

[dizzle]

Hey Solly, I am so glad you posted that. It is the big one... and I have found no one who can believably get around these texts. As you are aware all some unnamed persons would do was go, "Oh yeah!!! But what about this...." without then harmonizing any apparent contradiction or assimilating their view with the passages I brought forth in a meaningful way.

I fnd the biggest stumbling block though to accepting my statement, and the passage most often thrown in opposition to my view, is the wheat and tares parable in Matthew. However, I have written something which harmonizes that with my view and within the orthodox preterist paradigm. No one has done the opposite in interaction with my proposal as of yet.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Solly
This is the hurdle for me.

If this exegesis is correct, then I have to reassess my whole interpretation of NT passages which are seen as being end of the final age texts.

Thoughts anyone?

Deja vu. The first time I read that passage after I accepted the preterist position on the OD. I did a double take.

The exegesis is correct. Start reassessing. :D

I am still in the reassessing process myself. If you have any specific questions, ask away. I will answer what I can, and refer what I can't answer to the Queen Bee. ;)

[dizzle]

Well it was my research into those passages that started the walls of premill to come a-tumbling down like Jericho.

[Chuck_D]

Question for Dee Dee (or anyone else who knows): Is there a comprehensive preterist work that explains Bible prophecy from a preterist perspective?

I was raised Seventh Day Adventist, but I'm having serious doubts about our understanding of prophecy, which is from the historicist school. A full exposition of prophecy from other disciplines would help my search greatly.

[GrayPilgrim]

Chuck_D:
Question for Dee Dee (or anyone else who knows): Is there a comprehensive preterist work that explains Bible prophecy from a preterist perspective?



Here's the bibliography on the subject from Grudem's ST:

Adams, Jay The Time is at Hand Amil
Allis, OT Prophecy and the Church Amil
Archer, Gleason, Paul Feinberg, Douglas Moo and Richard Reiter The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulational
Berkouwer, G. The Return of Christ
Clouse, Robert G. The Meaning of Millenium: Four Views w/ contributions by George Eldon Ladd (Hisotric Premill), Herman A. Hoyt (Disp. Premill), Loraine Boettner (Postmill) and Anthony A. Hoekema (Amill)
Davis, John Jefferson Christ's Victorious Kingdom (Postmil)
Erickson, Millard Contemporary Options in Eschatology
Feiberg, Charles Millenialism: The Two Major Views (pretrib, premil)
Grier, W The Momentous Event
Gundry, R The Church and hte Tribulation (posttrin, premil)
Hendrickson, William More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation fo the Book of Revelation (Amil)
Hoekema, Anthony The Bible and the Future (Amil)
Kik, J An Eschatology of Victory (postmil)
Ladd, George Eldon The Blessed Hope (clasical premil)
Lightner Robert The Last Days Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Different Views of Prophecy
Murray, Iain The Puritan Hope (postmil)
Pentecost, J Dwight Things to Come (pretrin, premil)
Poythress, Vern Understanding Dispensationalists (Postmil_
Vos, Gerhardus The Pauline Eschatology Amil

[dizzle]

Dear Chuck:

As a preterist primer, I recommend Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar. It is well written and very easy to follow... but I always issue a warning.... well actually two.

First... do not read it unless you are prepared to have your eschatogical world rocked.l

Second, be very very cautious. There are certain people going under the term "preterist" that have fallen off the cliff and want to shoehorn ALL prophecy into the past, including the resurrection. This is a dangerous heresy (see the link in my signature line for more details).

We have a thread here called 'Greetings from an Orthodox Preterist' - there we would love to just discuss preterism with you.

And... please seriously consider the timeline presented in this thread. If historicism is true, you must find a fault with that timeline.

[Solly]

you must find a fault with that timeline.

Working on it at the moment; I should have a first post when I come back from having time off work.

[dizzle]

Good luck!! I have a few other supporting tidbits up my sleeve.

Do you really think you have something or are you throwing something against the wall to see if it sticks? I am curious because since you have now adopted a preterist view of at least part of the Discourse, you are going to have an even harder time than most coming with something for it must mesh with that understanding.

[Solly]

I don't rightly know as yet; I am working on the principle of trying to disprove it, that way I should be more convinced if it is proved, and I can answer anyone who brings up similar arguemnts to those which I am trying out.

[dizzle]

You aren't gonna make me hurt you are you?? LOL

[Solly]

;)

[Solly]

Solly:
Dee Dee wrote: When Christ ascended to the Father He sat at His right hand and is in the process of having all enemies put under His feet. Many passages tell us this, but the most important for this discussion is Ephesians 1:15-22 since it has some very important timing verses which I am asking that you pay very close attention to.

Eph 1: above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named...And He put all things under His feet
1 Cor: Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

It tells us that during the age in which Paul was writing, Christ was having all things put under His feet.

Could I ask for clarification here, in the last quote from you:

Firstly, is this really what you inteded to say. Surely all things were put under his feet; it is the coming final subjection and defeat that is in process? Mt 28.18

Secondly, is there a difference between the fact that all things are already under his feet, subjected to him - even death, and the final debacle of his enemies - even of death and the grave Rev 20.14?

[dizzle]

Dear Solly:

I am not sure of your question to be honest. I think I did say exactly what I meant, and would refer to the "now not yet" phenomena also posted above. Judically all things were already put under His feet at His ascension.... progressively all things are practically being outworked into being put under His feet now. It is an ongoing process as evidence by multiple passages including Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Psalm 110 and certain of the Kingdom parables. The end of this process is the consummation.

[joelkaki]

DeeDee, I agree with your position. I have a question, though. Would you say then that the "age" that Paul was writing in was the age leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70?


Joel

[dizzle]

Yes Joel that is exactly my position.

[joelkaki]

OK, thanks; it is what I figured, but I didn't know if everyone realizes that or not.


Joel

[dizzle]

Yeah thanks.... things can be unclear especially to anyone not already familiar with orthodox preterism.

[Solly]

Coming soon...


Solly's refutation of DD's "age" argument.

Hurt me, DD, hurt me baaaaad:bawl::whip:

[dizzle]

Alas, Solly is delusional.

[Solly]

Tee hee

[Lizard]

:rofl: :rofl:

[dizzle]

He has already fallen to my preterist wiles, the rest is a piece of cake.

[Berean]

Dee Dee: I can believe that I can prove that the “end of the age” mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse MUST have already come unless one is going to believe in a future “millennium” which is clearly unbiblical on other grounds but this is going to take some collation of passages. Ready?.....
Dee Dee, at the risk of sounding ignorant,I got lost in your argument.I agree with your position that the age Paul was writing in is over,but I had a hard time following your proof of this position.Your exegesis of those verses is new to me(I've only recently "converted" to preterism).I want to be sure I have a good understanding of what you're saying.When you have time,would you mind repeating your argument? Maybe putting it another way will help me grasp it better. :)

[dizzle]

Dear Berean:

Hmmm, I am not sure how to reword it.. sincerely. Let's do it this way maybe. You say you agree with me that the age Paul was living in is over. Why do you believe that? By articulating your own foundation, maybe I can expand and help add to it...

And pleased to meet your acquaintance.

[Berean]

Let's do it this way maybe. You say you agree with me that the age Paul was living in is over. Why do you believe that? By articulating your own foundation, maybe I can expand and help add to it...
Well....I'll try and articulate my reasons for agreeing.Like I said,I'm brand new to preterism so my knowledge of all the details is virtually nil. I believe the Olivet Discourse speaks of the end of an age(not the world). Jesus gave information about signs that would signal the end of the age including the destruction of the temple. So if Paul wrote before the destruction of the temple,and if the destuction of the temple was the end of that age,then the age Paul wrote in must be over.
I was interested in your explanation of Ephesians 1:15-22 and 1st Corinthians 15:20-28. I have never seen these texts used to prove that the age in which Paul was writing has ended.I don't know if I just got lost in all the texts or what,but for some reason,I didn't follow you.Your comment about having to believe in a whole other age before Jesus could resurrect us(if the age Paul was writing in hasn't ended) is where I got lost.It may be my misunderstanding.I couldn't follow your proof using just those two verses.You may have had more in mind. Can you see where I'm coming from now?
And pleased to meet your acquaintance.
Nice to meet you too:cheers:

[dizzle]

Okay I see. I will focus then on those two text.. that helps narrow the focus thanks.. I will get back to this as soon as I can.

[Lizard]

Berean:

Well....I'll try and articulate my reasons for agreeing.Like I said,I'm brand new to preterism so my knowledge of all the details is virtually nil. I believe the Olivet Discourse speaks of the end of an age(not the world). Jesus gave information about signs that would signal the end of the age including the destruction of the temple. So if Paul wrote before the destruction of the temple,and if the destuction of the temple was the end of that age,then the age Paul wrote in must be over.
I was interested in your explanation of Ephesians 1:15-22 and 1st Corinthians 15:20-28. I have never seen these texts used to prove that the age in which Paul was writing has ended.I don't know if I just got lost in all the texts or what,but for some reason,I didn't follow you.Your comment about having to believe in a whole other age before Jesus could resurrect us(if the age Paul was writing in hasn't ended) is where I got lost.It may be my misunderstanding.I couldn't follow your proof using just those two verses.You may have had more in mind. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

Nice to meet you too:cheers:

Welcome fellow "new" preterist. :thumb:

After Dee Dee has set you strait ;), I recommend reading The Last Day, According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul. Chapter four deals specifically with the letters of Paul. I am currently reading it, and I am amazed at how clear some of the NT text become when read through the lens of preterism. It all makes so much sense now. :)

I will let you know how I like the rest of the book (about half way through) when I am finished. But so far, in the words of Dee Dee, "it is the bomb" :read:

[Lizard]

Oh and nice to me you Berean. :cheers:

I love your user name. :yipee:

[Berean]

I recommend reading The Last Day, According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul.
Thanks Faramir. I actually have that book,just haven't had time to read it yet. I'll put it at the top of my to-do list.
I love your user name.
Thanks again.I like yours too.I'm a big fan of LTR:thumb: (The book)

[Lizard]

Berean:


Thanks again.I like yours too.I'm a big fan of LTR:thumb: (The book)

I am a fan of the movie too. Except I did not like what they did to my man Faramir :(.

:bawl:

That was one reason I picked that name. To spread the word to those who have not read the book, that Farmir is much cooler in the book than in the movie.

[Berean]

I am a fan of the movie too. Except I did not like what they did to my man Faramir.That was one reason I picked that name. To spread the word to those who have not read the book, that Farmir is much cooler in the book than in the movie.

Don't get me wrong,I love the movie,I just think the characters are better developed in the book.I read one of your posts in another thread where you said you were unhappy about the movie's portrayal of faramir,I agree.

[Berean]

Dee Dee:

Okay I see. I will focus then on those two text.. that helps narrow the focus thanks.. I will get back to this as soon as I can.
Sure,Dee Dee,no problem.I see from your other posts that you like to get involved in many discussions at once.:) I don't mind waiting.

[dizzle]

Dear Berean:

Okay, let me see if I can explain this a little better. The futurist believes that we are still in the age in which Jesus and Paul lived. They primarily believe this because they are still waiting for the long-past “end of the age” mentioned in Matthew 24. You and I believe that we are not in that same age, because we recognize the Great Tribulation as a past event. So far so good. But this thread was to demonstrate that the “end of age” has to have come already using verses other than the Olivet Discourse to show futurism is hopelessly befuddled by other passages.

Okay…. Back to the two verses that were confusing to you in my original explanation.

Eph 1:20-21 – “…which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.”

Oh man!! I just really, really noticed something very interesting about this passage that I either never noticed before or completely forgot about!!! I am going to have to start a new thread!!! Oh, sorry, back to what I was explaining (look for the new thread, this is way cool)…..

This verse tells us that Christ will hold a certain special Messianic position, of being preeminent and ruling above all principality and power and might, and every name that is named, for a certain period of time…. The age in which Paul was living and writing and the “age to come.” There is no mention of an intervening resurrection or any intervening major event. However, we do not need to rely upon an argument from silence for if we compare this passage to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, something interesting emerges.

But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

This passage tells us the Messianic reign ENDS at the resurrection at which point all rule and authority and power are ENDED as well. So, if Paul tells us in Ephesians that the Messianic reign spans the age in which he was writing and the age to come, and then tells us in Corinthians that the resurrection ends the Messianic reign (and thus happens at the end of the “age to come” in the Ephesians) passage then there are only two options. One, the resurrection/rapture does not happen in this age, but rather believers must wait until the end of some alleged future millennium to be resurrected/raptured (no one believes that) OR we are in the age to come in which the resurrection will happen. It is elegant and indisputable.

[Berean]

Thanks Dee Dee.Very well put.:thumb: I completely understand your argument now.Futurists can not get around this.

[dizzle]

Cool. No futurist has been able to yet. You should check out that thread in the dispensationalism section called "The Location of Christ's Reign." Unanswerable I think.

[Berean]

No futurist has been able to yet.
I don't think they'll be able to.It's pretty hard to explain away.I know Solly is planning a "refutation." I'm curious as to what this would be.:) I'm going to check out that other thread right now.Thanks for letting me know about it.

[dizzle]

Dear Berean:

Solly is a preterist which will make his post all the more interesting. I think he just wants me to beat up on him a bit ;)

[Berean]

Solly is a preterist which will make his post all the more interesting. I think he just wants me to beat up on him a bit ;)
I didn't know Solly was a preterist. This will be interesting.
:rofl:

[Athanasius]

Hi Dee Dee,

Thanks for the invitation to take part in this thread. Solly pointed to something that I believe is a key to understanding these passages: the tenses. Ephesians 1:22 cannot possibly refer to the process of things being placed under Christ's feet, because it is past tense, and therefore must refer to a completed event that occurred prior to the writing of Ephesians (around 60 AD):

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

There is a sense in which all things have been placed under Christ's feet, in that He now has power over all things:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

This is not as ongoing process, but a completed event. (Like you, I think there is an ongoing process, but that can't be what Paul is referring to in Eph 1:22.)

However, we do not yet see this power fully exercised:

Hebrews 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

I agree with your statement, "Now unless we are in that age to come, meaning that the age in which Paul was writing has ended, then there is yet a whole age to come before Christ can return to resurrect the saved and the damned." If I were post mil, I would probably come to the same conclusions you do here, that the end of the age must have already come.

However, I don't equate our spiritual resurrection with the First resurrection described in Rev 20:5, because Paul speaks of the spiritual resurrection of the Ephesians in the past tense:

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

John, however, is speaking of a future event:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.

Note the future tense of "will be priests". This contrasts with the past tense of Revelation 1:6:

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

So, if the resurrection of Rev 20:6 is not the spiritual resurrection, what else can it be but the bodily resurrection of the saints?

Rusty

[Athanasius]

Hi Dee Dee,

You wrote, "This passage tells us the Messianic reign ENDS at the resurrection at which point all rule and authority and power are ENDED as well. So, if Paul tells us in Ephesians that the Messianic reign spans the age in which he was writing and the age to come, and then tells us in Corinthians that the resurrection ends the Messianic reign (and thus happens at the end of the “age to come” in the Ephesians) passage then there are only two options. One, the resurrection/rapture does not happen in this age, but rather believers must wait until the end of some alleged future millennium to be resurrected/raptured (no one believes that) OR we are in the age to come in which the resurrection will happen. It is elegant and indisputable."

I'm assuming that you concluded the Messianic reign ends at the resurrection because "the last enemy that will be destroyed is death." But most chilialists (historic premillenialists) believe that the Messianic reign will begin with the bodily resurrection of believers, and conclude with the resurrection of the rest of mankind. We believe that those we will reign over will still inhabit mortal bodies (otherwise, there would be no need to rule over them with a rod of iron), so death therefore will not be fully conquered until the end of the Messianic age.

[dizzle]

Hey Rusty!!!

Thank you for your posts, and I will post some responses as soon as I am able.

And everyone else... please make Rusty welcome, he is a friend of a good preterist friend of mine, and check out Rusty's site, www.thingstocome.org... while I do not agree with futurism,
Rusty's site tackles the preterist issue and has some very good articles, and has an excellent article by my friend Dan Trotter on the issue of hyperpreterism... so please check out Rusty's website.

I will respond soon (and that is a preterist soon, and not a futurist soon....)

[Athanasius]

Hi Dee Dee,

On our website, several of the contributors are orthodox preterists, and our co-editor, Bill Grimes, is a post-millennialist. I have felt that it is important to stand together against heretical preterism, so although I am a classic premillennialist (in the tradition of the early church fathers Papias, Justin Martyr, and others), I have, for the most part, refrained from debating futurism and partial preterism. I've had to bite my tongue a lot, so when you invited me to participate in this, it was a welcome opportunity to engage in friendly debate and test my ideas! I hope I did not jump into the debate with too much gusto, but I think that you needed a premil to test some of the ideas you were expressing against!

I really do appreciate the stand you have taken against heretical preterism, and like you, I will fight it till my dying breath. So, even though I welcome a platform to express my chiliasm, I want to be careful to speak what I think is the truth in love, because I consider you to be a valuable ally in this fight against heresy. So I hope you take my challenges to your postmillennialism as playful jousting between friends. Dialogue like this, though we may challenge each other, can lead us nearer the truth, or affirm the truth to us, provided it is done in a Christ-like spirit.

I liked your friendly joke about "soon." After spending a good deal of time studying the Greek adverb tachu and the related phase en tachei, I have come to the conclusion that "quickly" and "in haste" are the correct respective translations, rather than the word "soon". I think that these words describe the speed and suddenness with which Christ will come when He comes, rather than the nearness in time in which He will come. You can read why I came to these conclusions at http://www.thingstocome.org/tachu.htm.

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

I did not know that about you co-editor, though I did know that some of your contributors were preterist such as Dan (who is like another me - eek! that is scarey).... that is very cool. And Rusty, that is exactly it, I enjoy friendly debate and discussion for in ding so we will both learn and be edified, and who knows, maybe change our points of views on some things. I certainly did not start out as a preterist but rather a dispensational futurist.

And yes!! I loved the way you jumped in!! That is exactly why I invited you.. I knew from your site that you were competent and knowledagable.... and as you have said, we share the same firm committment to combat hyperpreterism, as does Dan. I again invite you to use my article in that regard on your site as you see fit.

Thank you for that link... I will read that article on the timing issues.. and I hope tonight to have some comments on what you had posted yesterday. And the "preterist soon not a futurist soon" thing is kind of a Dee Deeism... one of my well-know one liners. Glad you liked it... I like to joke around a lot, for I find theology fun.

There are a quite a few orthodox preterists floating around here (and I have been begging Dan to come once he frees up some time) so if you have some futurist or premill friends that like this kind of stuff, send on over... we all need to be straightened out. :)

I will be back at you soon. :yipee:

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

Thank you for your points…. The first text that you had brought up in your response was…

Ephesians 1:22 – And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

To which you said,

Ephesians 1:22 cannot possibly refer to the process of things being placed under Christ's feet, because it is past tense, and therefore must refer to a completed event that occurred prior to the writing of Ephesians (around 60 AD)

Well I would respectfully say that is incorrect and somewhat simplistic…. And to prove that I need to quote something that I often say about this subject…
There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done. Some examples are:

The Kingdom of heaven: Christ says it was among them right then (Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:21), but then also said that they were waiting for it (Matthew 6:10, Luke 21:31)

The Adoption: Paul says that we have now received the spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15), and John says that we are now children of God (1 John 3:2), but Paul also says that we are waiting for the adoption (Romans 8:23, see also 1 John 3:2)

Salvation: We have been saved (Eph 2:8, 2 Tim. 1:9), we are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, Phil 2:12-13), we are waiting to be saved (Acts 15:11, 1 Peter 1:9)

Glorification: We have already been glorified by virtue of being elected and justified (Romans 8:30) and we will be glorified after we have suffered for Christ (Romans 8:16)

Eternal Life: We have it now (John 6:47), we are waiting for it (Mark 10:30)

Judgment: the world has been judged (John 12:31), the world is being judged (Matthew 25), the world will be judged (Matthew 12:41, Hebrews 9:27)

Death: It has been abolished (2 Timothy 1:10), it will be abolished (1 Corinthians 15:26)

So, these types of events are progressive and consummational. The late David Chilton described it in this manner: "This introduces another basic Biblical pattern, a threefold pattern... Scripture presents salvation in terms of a definitive-progressive-final structure, and this is why Biblical prophecies often seem to overlap. Salvation was definitely accomplished in the perfect, finished work of Christ; it is progressively and increasingly applied during this age, personally and institutionally; and it will be finally achieved, in its highest fulfillment, at the end of history on the Last Day."

So there is no problem with having that verse in the past tense… just as many of the above verses are past tense, but yet are also progressive. And I would also have to say… either way, it does not solve the “end of the age” chronology problem I presented in any event. Notice something very carefully again…. I am asking you to be very, very specific and precise… (I am a stickler like that)

Ephesians 1:20-21 – which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

This one verse is devastating to premill in two ways. First of all, it describes the timing of Christ’s reign which is said to be taking place in the age in which Paul wrote (this age) and the age future to Paul, which premills hold to be the Millennium. Well, for sake of argument, let me grant that incorrect conclusion… the verse says way too much for premillennialism. Why? Well, not only is the timing of the reign mentioned, but also the location is specifically named as well.. and that is from Heaven at the right hand of the Father, not on earth, not in earthly Jerusalem. Also, as you pointed out, the nature of this reign is made explicit, and the nature of the reign in the “age to come” is the same as the nature of the reign in “this age” and thus this is not talking about a time after the second bodily coming after which things will drastically change.

And I respectfully submit that in pointing out the “past tense” status of the Ephesians passage you have further proven my point with 1 Cor. 15:24-28 since that FINAL event of putting His enemies under His feet must be different than what is described in the Ephesians passage since the Ephesians event is a present reality to us and to Paul and the Corinthians event is future to us both… but Paul equates the status of “this age” and “that which is to come” to be the same in nature and location, thus the only time for this Corinthian event to take place is AFTER the end of the Ephesians sequence, thus, at the END of the age to come from Paul’s perspective. That has been my whole point. Using these combination of passages, there is no way around the fact that we are in the age to come… if not.. there is a whole another age that must come and go before the rapture/resurrection can happen, and no one believes that. This chronology is inescapable.

You must reconcile the chronology of these two passages in a coherent fashion in a premill system, and frankly I don’t think it can be done. To continue with your next post...

I'm assuming that you concluded the Messianic reign ends at the resurrection because "the last enemy that will be destroyed is death." But most chilialists (historic premillenialists) believe that the Messianic reign will begin with the bodily resurrection of believers, and conclude with the resurrection of the rest of mankind. We believe that those we will reign over will still inhabit mortal bodies (otherwise, there would be no need to rule over them with a rod of iron), so death therefore will not be fully conquered until the end of the Messianic age.

I understand that must be the millennial position but it does not fit with what the passage actually says. The passage in 1 Corinthians 15 says that death is the LAST enemy and it is described as being destroyed concurrently with the resurrection… it is the resurrection that marks the destruction of death, and concurrently with the END of Christ’s reign NOT the beginning. This dovetails perfectly with the Ephesians passage. Also, Christ in his explicit teach on the resurrectin in John 5:28-29 taught that the resurrection of the just and the unjust are ONE event, not two separated by one thousand years, and that this event would take place on the Last Day (John 6:39-44).

John 5:28-30 – Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

It says first that “the hour is coming.” That is it is yet future to when Christ was talking. It will involved ALL of the dead who are in the graves. The righteous will receive “life” and the wicked will received “condemnation” but they ALL are resurrected, it is just a qualitatively different resurrection. But this resurrection of ALL who are dead and buried is one event. It is not the righteous at point A and the wicked at point B which is at least a thousand years away from point A.

Jesus makes the same point again:

John 6:43 – “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus speaking of the resurrection of the righteous (which we have already seen is the same event as the resurrection of the wicked) which takes place on the last day. There are no days to follow.

And Jesus again uses “the last day” and does speak of the wicked.

John 12:48 – He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him— the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

So the wicked are judged (which is spoken of in John 5 as occurring when they are resurrected) on the last day which is the same time that the righteous are resurrected. It is one event occurring at the end of time.

Paul also speaks of this in Acts 17:31 – because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness.

Paul connects the two events in Acts 24:15 – I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

Hey thank you again for this opportunity to interact with you.

[Athanasius]

Hi Dee Dee,

You wrote,

Well I would respectfully say that is incorrect and somewhat simplistic…. And to prove that I need to quote something that I often say about this subject…
There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done.

I am not at all ashamed of taking the tenses for what they seem to say, even if that may seem simplistic. That is just a reflection of my belief in the precise accuracy of scripture. I must have failed in making it clear in my first post that I also see the "now/not yet" in all things being placed under Christ's feet. However, the difference in our interpretation of this verse seems to be that you take Ephesians 1:22 to refer to a progression, whereas the past tense leads me to see this verse as referring to a completed event (in the sense of all power in heaven and earth being granted to Him). A title deed gives you ownership of a property before you actually move into it. To be sure, the act of moving in is a progressive event, but once that title deed has your name on it, the transfer of ownership is a completed event. So yes, I agree with you that the placing of all things under Christ's feet is a progressive thing, but I believe that Ephesians 1:22 is referring to the aspect of this which was already past at Paul's time of writing.

That has been my whole point. Using these combination of passages, there is no way around the fact that we are in the age to come… if not.. there is a whole another age that must come and go before the rapture/resurrection can happen, and no one believes that. This chronology is inescapable.

But most premillennialists see the rapture/resurrection as being a two-stage event, with the first bodily resurrection occurring at the end of the present age, and the second general resurrection of the just and unjust, who died either rejecting or not having heard the gospel, at the end of the next age. Thus, I take John 5:28-30 to refer to the second bodily resurrection. The word "all" gives me no problems, because all of the remaining dead who have not yet been resurrected will come forth from the graves.


Will Christ return, destroy His enemies, raise the dead, and judge all of them in one 24 hour period? Surely, He can do that, but that is an awful lot to pack into just one day!

There are two ways to interpret "last day": as referring in general to end-time events (and thus describing a period longer than a 24 hour day), or as referring to a 24 hour day. The first, which I think is the sense in which Jesus spoke these words, can allow for two bodily resurrections separated by a great length of time.

But so can the second. When we read the words, "last day,' we should ask the question, "The last day of what?" Obviously, in both John 6:43 and 12:48, "last day" refers to the end of an age. But do they each refer to the last day of the same age? Perhaps they do not. Thus, the 24 hour day view can possibly accommodate two bodily resurrections, too. :)

[Solly]

Athanasius, thanks for the input. Although you are premill and I amill - I lean to the other ECFs - there is some similarity of thinking in our arguments. I think that although the texts do seem to salign quite nicely, when you llok further than just the time texts, there are serious imbalances that appear elsewhere in the system, and that the now/not yet schema is not being utilised properly.

I really hope to make my posts soon - don't want to be the next drb!! - but I am moving office today, adn so will be tied up for the rest of the week.

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

Hey thanks for the response though I think (jab, jab) you skipped right over a large part of my argument, but I guess that is my job to bring that out. I probably will not be able to respond further until the weekend as this week is very hectic for me.

[dizzle]

Dear Solly:

You have the additional problem of agreeing with me that the Discourse is fulfilled (at least up to verse 34), which puts you ikn a difficult position to dispute the rest.... but I look forward to what you have to say most certainly.

[Solly]

DD, I know; that is why my Posse membership is on hold for the moment, since I am have retreated slightly from that position. But we'll see.

Still getting in some whip practice? :fight: :whip: :lol:

[dizzle]

See!!! What a disobedient posse I have. Sigh. Like I said, it is like herding cats :whip:

[joelkaki]

Athanasius, since you are premil, perhaps you would like to take a stab at my inital post on "The downfall of the Future millennium"?


Joel

[dizzle]

Joel, can you provide the link for him?

[joelkaki]

He already found it, so I guess I don't need to.

Joel

[dizzle]

Dear Rusty:

I hope you did not take offense at my earlier comment that it was my opinion that a certain reading of a passage was “simplistic.” I did not mean that in a demeaning way, so I apologize. And I tend to word things colorfully and flamboyantly, so I am proactively apologizing for any future unintended offense that may occur in this post. LOL.

I think with Ephesians 1:20-21 we talking past each other in a sense and actually are pretty much in agreement. You had mentioned that you believed that Paul was referring to the “past” part of Christ having all things put under His feet while I was emphasizing the progressive nature of Christ having all things put under His feet. Well I do not think it is an “either/or” situation, but since you have agreed that there is a progressiveness to having all things put under His feet, I think it is a minor point in which we actually agree… for we both see that progressiveness in another NT quote/allusion to Psalm 110 –

Hebrews 2:8 – For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we do not yet see all things put under Him.

This verse demonstrates both to be true at the same time, so it is not an either/or situation.

I had next set the hook by pointing out that the combination of passages that I brought forth demonstrated that if premill is correct then there is a whole another age that must happen before the resurrection can happen…. And let me once again mention the main passage that proves that in combination with Ephesians 1:20-21 –

1 Corinthians 15:24-26 – Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.”

This verse tells us that the LAST enemy to be destroyed is death. Your position would be that this does not happen until the end of some future Millennium, but this is impossible to reconcile with this passage, for Paul goes on to describe the rapture/resurrection of the Church, and says that the destruction of death previously mentioned is concurrent with that event…

1 Corinthians 15:54 – So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

This is very, very clear. When the resurrection/rapture happens, death is destroyed, it is swallowed up in victory, it is the LAST enemy. There can be no future Millennium with death. This is a completely unsolvable problem for premill futurism.

I had also mentioned numerous other passages which make the resurrection of the just and the unjust to be one event, to which you responded….

But most premillennialists see the rapture/resurrection as being a two-stage event, with the first bodily resurrection occurring at the end of the present age, and the second general resurrection of the just and unjust, who died either rejecting or not having heard the gospel, at the end of the next age. Thus, I take John 5:28-30 to refer to the second bodily resurrection. The word "all" gives me no problems, because all of the remaining dead who have not yet been resurrected will come forth from the graves.

This is quite ad hoc and arbitrary. Here is the passage again for general perusal…

John 5:24-30 – “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Jesus is teaching on the resurrection to His believers… believers that you hold will be part of the resurrection/rapture mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. Does it make any sense to you, common, textual or otherwise, that Jesus would entirely omit the event that would be most relevant to them? That He mentions their being born again, and then skips their physical resurrection but goes on to mention the physical resurrection of people who will be born and die in a future Millennium? That makes no sense at all, especially considering the tight connection Jesus makes here between the current possession that His believers have of eternal life and the promise of their bodily resurrection. He is NOT talking about two different groups here. Jesus makes the same connection in John 11:25 immediately after Martha’s affirmation of the belief in the resurrection on the last day.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Jesus is again connecting the current status of the believer (the downpayment of the Spirit, the same connection that Paul makes in his epistles) with the absolute certainty of the final redemption in the resurrection. He is speaking about them and all believers… not a group that is born and dies in the Millennium which is an totally unwelcome intrusion into the text to save a chronologically incoherent system.

Christ return, destroy His enemies, raise the dead, and judge all of them in one 24 hour period? Surely, He can do that, but that is an awful lot to pack into just one day!
There are two ways to interpret "last day": as referring in general to end-time events (and thus describing a period longer than a 24 hour day), or as referring to a 24 hour day. The first, which I think is the sense in which Jesus spoke these words, can allow for two bodily resurrections separated by a great length of time.

Whoa!! Let’s back up a second there. First, I do not claim that this “day” is necessarily a literal twenty-four hour period of time. In fact, I think it is a split second.. and really think you would want to retract your comment about it being a lot to pack into a “day” for Paul tells us that the resurrection of the just takes place in a “twinkling of an eye,” and if in fact the unjust are raised at the same time (which I showed above and in my prior post that they are) it is in instantaneous event. The word “day” though is meant to describe the organic unity of the event. The usage of “day” in that sense speaks of one event that is unified… not one event, separated discontinuously by an age of one thousand years, and then the continuation of that event. I find it so odd that whenever a text does not fit a futurist timeline, a gap is inevitably shoehorned into a tight passage.

When we read the words, "last day,' we should ask the question, "The last day of what?" Obviously, in both John 6:43 and 12:48, "last day" refers to the end of an age. But do they each refer to the last day of the same age? Perhaps they do not. Thus, the 24 hour day view can possibly accommodate two bodily resurrections, too.

Do you really believe that Jesus was speaking of two different last days in those two passages? In context He was referring the same first century audience, without any indication He was speaking of two “last day” events. Also, please note that this would require believers to be resurrected on the “last day” of the age in which Jesus walked the earth, and unbeliever to be resurrected at the “last day” of the millennium. If this is two different last days, you have just contradicted your own earlier statement on John 5 which had the just and the unjust being resurrected in the same “last day,” which is impossible since you are talking about two different ages!!!

And Jesus taught His disciples that they would receive the resurrection, not on the last day of the age in which they were living, but that they would receive it in the “age to come,” (Mark 10:30) which is yet another verse militating against your view. You see what is happening is that you taken piecemeal you can explain with varying levels of success each individual verse but the futurist explanations cannot make the verses cohere into a logical whole, but it is internally inconsistent.

I also have to bring out that I do not think you dealt with this point in my last post…. And I respectfully submit that in pointing out the “past tense” status of the Ephesians passage you have further proven my point with 1 Cor. 15:24-28 since that FINAL event of putting His enemies under His feet must be different than what is described in the Ephesians passage since the Ephesians event is a present reality to us and to Paul and the Corinthians event is future to us both… but Paul equates the status of “this age” and “that which is to come” to be the same in nature and location, thus the only time for this Corinthian event to take place is AFTER the end of the Ephesians sequence, thus, at the END of the age to come from Paul’s perspective. That has been my whole point. Using these combination of passages, there is no way around the fact that we are in the age to come… if not.. there is a whole another age that must come and go before the rapture/resurrection can happen, and no one believes that. This chronology is inescapable.

This chronological issue has not been dealt with, and really needs to be.

Also there is a related issue, and that is the nature and location of Christ’s reign as explicated firstly by Ephesians 1:20-21. IF, as the futurist maintains, the “age to come” is the Millennium there is a problem. Paul describes the nature and location of Christ’s reign as being of the same sort as it was during Paul’s age. And the location is particularly problematic for the premill as it is in Heaven at the right hand of the Fahter, not on the Earth in Jerusalem. This would comport with Psalm 110, which is the most quoted and/or alluded to OT passage in the entire NT….

The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

Notice some very important things. The rule until all enemies are vanquished is from heaven, not from earth. This is the same thing the very passages I have brought forth have been saying all along, also the reign of Christ is characterized by His ruling from heaven in the midst of His enemies until they are vanquished, which is described in 1 Corinthians 15:24 which is the END of the Messianic reign not the beginning. For Paul says…. “then comes the END…” not the beginning. The only conclusion is that the Messianic reign is now and that we are living in the age to come from Paul’s pespective… (and I have even more ways to prove this as we progress).

[Athanasius]

Dear Dee Dee,

I hope you did not take offense at my earlier comment that it was my opinion that a certain reading of a passage was “simplistic.” I did not mean that in a demeaning way, so I apologize. And I tend to word things colorfully and flamboyantly, so I am proactively apologizing for any future unintended offense that may occur in this post. LOL.

No offense taken. So do you take the tense here in Eph 1:22 seriously and recognize that Paul is speaking of the "already fulfilled" aspects of all things being placed under Christ's feet?

Since the subjection of all things beneath His feet took place in the past, is taking place now, and will be completely accomplished in the future, should we be surprised to learn that the destruction of death also takes place progressively? Spiritual death has already been conquered for us on the cross, and that victory finds expression as each new believer is added to the church. The conquering of physical death is similarly not a single-stage event. It's source is the bodily resurrection of Christ, which transcends time, through which Enoch and Elijah in the past, the saints who rose and appeared to many following the death of Jesus, and the church at the future resurrection /rapture all have or will experience victory over death. Here again, the victory is in a sense past, in that death was defeated in the resurrection of Christ, and a few have already taken on bodily immortality. But it is also future, in that the simultaneous (and yes, instantaneous) resurrection/rapture of the saints will happen at Christ's return.

This is very, very clear. When the resurrection/rapture happens, death is destroyed, it is swallowed up in victory, it is the LAST enemy. There can be no future Millennium with death. This is a completely unsolvable problem for premill futurism.

I think that you have made an interpretative mistake here.

1 Corinthians 15:54 does NOT say that death is destroyed at the return of Christ, but rather that it is swallowed up in victory. This refers not to the resurrection of all mankind (including the lost), but specifically to OUR mortal bodies putting on immortality: "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'

Corinthians 15:26, however, speaks of the final destruction of death, the casting of death into the lake of fire: "26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." Scripture does not say that this occurs at the time of the rapture, but rather at the time that the dead who do not participate in the first resurrection are judged. So our victory over death and the final, complete destruction of death are two different events.

In fact, I think it is a split second.. and really think you would want to retract your comment about it being a lot to pack into a “day” for Paul tells us that the resurrection of the just takes place in a “twinkling of an eye,” and if in fact the unjust are raised at the same time (which I showed above and in my prior post that they are) it is in instantaneous event.

I agree that the corporate resurrection of the church will be an instantaneous event. I don't think that the judgment of the unjust will be, though, since the saints will be involved in the judgment process:

1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not then know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy of the smallest judgments?

Please note that I included the judgement of the dead in my comment about "an awful lot to pack in one day." Revelation 20:13 specifically connects the judgment with the resurrection of those who do not take part in the first resurrection, not with the resurrection of the saints: "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." The judgement of the dead who are not part of the first resurrection also takes place at a "day," according to several scriptures. So, If Jesus did mean a 24 hour day, I am talking about all of these events being packed into TWO days! That leaves more time to get things done...(LOL). Admittedly, that was a pretty poor argument!

I'm out of time, so more later.

Rusty

[Athanasius]

Athanasius Contra Postmillennialism Et Amillennialism continued…

Please note my additions to the end of my last post.

Do you really believe that Jesus was speaking of two different last days in those two passages?

As I mentioned, I think it most likely that the term "last day" refers in general to the events that will occur at and following Christ's return, so I don't want to devote much time to defending a position I'm not yet committed to. However, I think that is a possibility, especially when you consider that John seemed to speaking of the end of an age other than the church age when he wrote in 1 John 2:18: "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour." (NKJV)

If this is two different last days, you have just contradicted your own earlier statement on John 5 which had the just and the unjust being resurrected in the same "last day," which is impossible since you are talking about two different ages!!!

Actually, you misunderstood me. Contextually, when I said "the just," I meant the just who do not take part in the first resurrection. So, there was no internal contradiction to my reasoning there. I try not to argue out of both sides of my mouth!

And Jesus taught His disciples that they would receive the resurrection, not on the last day of the age in which they were living, but that they would receive it in the "age to come," (Mark 10:30) which is yet another verse militating against your view.

Is not the resurrection of the saints and the concurrent return of Christ the event which marks both the end of the previous age and the beginning of the age to come?

…but Paul equates the status of "this age" and "that which is to come" to be the same in nature and location…

Commonality of nature and location does not rule out differences of expression. Actually, I am tossing over the idea that the rule and priesthood of the saints during the millennium will be similar in many ways to that of King Melchisedec over Salem. Since we will be like the angels, and like them will "always behold the face of" our "Father which is in heaven" (Matt 18:10), there is a sense in which our rule during the millennium will truly be a rule from heaven, with us simultaneously dwelling in both heaven and Earth at the same time. Even in this age, we experience that, but without our immortal bodies:

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels…


John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

"Does not come into condemnation" indicates a sharp demarcation between the resurrection of the just and the unjust. Jesus indicates the vast difference between the two when he calls them by different names: "the resurrection of life" and the "resurrection of damnation."

Does it make any sense to you, common, textual or otherwise, that Jesus would entirely omit the event that would be most relevant to them? That He mentions their being born again, and then skips their physical resurrection but goes on to mention the physical resurrection of people who will be born and die in a future Millennium?

He does not skip it, in that He indicates that he is already exercising that power, when He says "the hour is coming, and now is." He gave a partial demonstration of that power with the raising of Lazarus, and a complete demonstration with the raising of the saints who "appeared to many" at or near the time of His own resurrection. Since the resurrection of the saints at that time was not simultaneous with the resurrection of "they that have done good," in John 5:29, it does not follow that our own needs to be. But I do not find it unnatural that he should place great emphasis on that day, since it will be the resurrection of the great majority of mankind. Note as well, that the deeds of men are emphasized in this resurrection, reflecting Paul's words,

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

[Berean]

Welcome to Tweb Athanasius! As the others have already said, it's great to have a knowledgeable futurist in here for us preterists to test our ideas against. I will let Dee Dee respond to your posts in full (she understands this stuff way better than I do), but I do want to comment on your idea that 1 Corinthians 15:24 - 26 and 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 54 speak of two different resurrections. There is nothing in the immediate context of these passages to indicate this. All of 1 Cor. 15 seems to be one long discourse on one resurrection. (I will prove this from Scripture a little later.) You said that 1 Cor. 15:51 - 54 is about the rapture not the final destruction of death in 1 Cor. 15:26.
Athanasius:

1 Corinthians 15:54 does NOT say that death is destroyed at the return of Christ, but rather that it is swallowed up in victory. This refers not to the resurrection of all mankind (including the lost), but specifically to OUR mortal bodies putting on immortality: "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'
Rather than proving two resurrections, this verse actually strengthens Dee Dee's point about there being only one resurrection at the end of the Messianic Age.
Now let's go to the Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 15:54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."

The prase, "Death is swallowed up in victory", is from Isaiah 25:8 (slightly reworded, as NT writers often did):

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death for all time.And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces ....

This is interesting because in the same verse where it says death will be swallowed up,it also says God will wipe away the tears from all faces. The final verses are from the book of Revelation:

Revelation 20:14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:4 And He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes...

The first verse above speaks of the final destruction of death. The second is about the new heavens and earth, and speaks of God wiping away every tear, which comes after death's final destruction.So the passage in Isaiah,about death being swallowed up, must be referring to the final destruction of death. Since 1 Cor.15:54 quotes the Isaiah passage, it must also be speaking of the final destruction of death,and can not be different from the destruction of death in 1 Cor. 15:26.

[Athanasius]

Hi Berean,

Thanks for the welcome, as well as for your comments. You have made a good point. No doubt, Rev 21:4 is the final fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8. However, a prophecy can find fulfillment in the lives of some before it finds fulfillment in the lives of others. For instance, some Jews were able to return to the land of Israel before others. For them, the prophecies regarding this were truly fulfilled. Others received the fulfillent of those promises later. For us, death will be swallowed up in victory when we receive our resurrection bodies. But Paul is speaking to Christians here, so I see no reason to believe that He must be speaking of the final fulfillment of this passage for all of mankind.

[Berean]

Athanasius:

No doubt, Rev 21:4 is the final fulfillment of Isaiah 25:8. However, a prophecy can find fulfillment in the lives of some before it finds fulfillment in the lives of others. For instance, some Jews were able to return to the land of Israel before others. For them, the prophecies regarding this were truly fulfilled. Others received the fulfillent of those promises later. For us, death will be swallowed up in victory when we receive our resurrection bodies. But Paul is speaking to Christians here, so I see no reason to believe that He must be speaking of the final fulfillment of this passage for all of mankind.
I agree that certain prophecies can be fulfilled in some people's lives before others. Given that understanding, the reference to Isaiah 25:8 may not be enough by itself to prove that the two resurrections in 1 Cor. 15 are the same. I also pointed out that all of 1 Cor. 15 seems to be a discourse on one resurrection. There is nothing in the text to indicate a change in focus between 1 Cor. 15:26 and 1 Cor. 15:54. It is true that Paul is writing to Christians here, which is why he focuses on their resurrection. The unjust are not mentioned here,but every passage that mentions the resurrection of the just and the unjust together has it ocurring at the same time (as Dee Dee already showed). It begs the question to assume two resurrections and then use a passage mentioning only the just to prove that they are resurrected separately.

[Athanasius]

Berean:

It begs the question to assume two resurrections and then use a passage mentioning only the just to prove that they are resurrected separately.

Paul is addressing Christians, to be sure (except perhaps those who were denying the doctrine of the resurrection), but do his words concern only the resurrection of the just in this passage? He begins with a general defense of the doctrine of resurrection of the dead:

I Cor 15:12

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This defense applies to the resurrection of both the elect and non-elect. Later, in verse 51, he moves on to discussing specifically the resurrection and rapture of the saints.

My motive, actually, was not to use this or the other resurrection passages outside of Rev 20 to prove that there are two bodily resurrections (although perhaps it can be done). My motive was only to demonstrate that all of the resurrection passages harmonize with two resurrections. Rev 20 speaks so clearly of two bodily resurrections, that I think the other resurrection passages deserve a closer look.

One day when I was a boy, a friend and I were walking on a trail
through the woods. "Stop!" he yelled! "There is a rattlesnake in front of us!" At first, I thought that my friend was joking. But he insisted that this was no joke. I looked where he was pointing, and finally my eyes were opened to see a wonderfully camouflaged, HUGE rattler lying across the path about 4 feet ahead. Without my friend, I would not have seen it, and there is a good chance I would have been bitten.

Likewise, without Revelation 20, I would probably not perceive two time-separated bodily resurrections in some of the other resurrection passages. But looking at them more closely, I do believe that some of the passages we have been discussing harmonize with this truth made clear to us by later scripture revelation.

Without apostolic commentary to guide us, would we recognize some of the OT passages that prophesy of Jesus?

I don't think that one scripture passage should obviously mention a truth revealed in a related passage before we accept the full impact of either. Oftentimes, it is the tension or seeming contradiction of two passages that illuminates truths we might not see if we look at them in isolation, or if we use one scripture to "prove" that the other cannot be literally true. Instead, we must accept the full meaning of BOTH and allow them to shed light on each other. Would the doctrine of the Trinity ever have become clear to the church without this hermeneutic approach? I don't think so. We would likely be Arians (or perhaps tritheists), arguing, for instance, that "Jesus could not possibly be God because God is One."

[dizzle]

Of course, I will be around to respond.. I am a notoriously slow poster and I apologize for that....

[Berean]

Athanasius:

My motive, actually, was not to use this or the other resurrection passages outside of Rev 20 to prove that there are two bodily resurrections (although perhaps it can be done). My motive was only to demonstrate that all of the resurrection passages harmonize with two resurrections. Rev 20 speaks so clearly of two bodily resurrections, that I think the other resurrection passages deserve a closer look.
I understand your point, if it is true that Rev.20 speaks of two bodily resurrections (I know Dee Dee sees it differently) then, of course, the other passages need to be interpreted within that paradigm. As this area is not yet one of my strengths, I will wait and see what Dee Dee says. I am curious where you would place the rapture though.Dee Dee's end of the age timeline still stands, Whether or not there are two bodily resurrections.

[Athanasius]

I added a few additional comments to the end of my last post.

I place the rapture immediately following the first bodily resurrection, but I suppose you wanted to know if I am pre, mid, or post trib? I'm mid-trib, but that deserves another thread. We could call it "The Trouble with Tribbles."

[Berean]

Thanks for your posts Athanasius. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from now that I know you are mid-trib. I'm heading to bed now, let me think on this a while. I'll try and get a post up tomorrow. Then again, maybe I should shut up before I show my ignorance.:smile: I'm pretty new to this stuff.

[dizzle]

I will be getting a post up sometime to show my ignorance and I am not new to this stuff at all. LOL!

[Berean]

Athanasius,

Here's my position of the resurrections of Rev 20 (I am willing to be convinced otherwise though) :
Rev. is a highly symbolic book full of Apocalyptic language. I think it would be an interpretive mistake to use these resurrection verses to cast light on the others, given the symbolic nature of Rev. as a whole. It may be true that other NT verses can be harmonized with the idea of two resurrections but I think we should find scriptural support for it outside of Rev. 20.
This passage is full of figurative language. For instance, how could a spiritual being like Satan be bound with a physical chain?
Since Rev. 20 is full of this kind of language,I think the burden of proof is on those who assert the first resurrection is literally a bodily one and not a picture of a spiritual one. Ezekial also uses a picture of a bodily resurrection to describe a spiritual truth. (Ezekial 37:1 - 10)
Athanasius:

We could call it "The Trouble with Tribbles."
This deserves a :thumb: 'cause I'm a Trek fan.

[Solly]

There is some discussion about the subject of this thread at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=627&perpage=15&pagenumber=6

[dizzle]

Thanks Solly. That is a good idea.

[Athanasius]

Berean:

I think it would be an interpretive mistake to use these resurrection verses to cast light on the others, given the symbolic nature of Rev. as a whole. It may be true that other NT verses can be harmonized with the idea of two resurrections but I think we should find scriptural support for it outside of Rev. 20.

What of other teachings in the Bible for which we can find only verse to support it? Isn't it enough if God says something only one time? (I say that with the recognition that in such cases, we must be very cautious to interpret such passages with great care, within their scriptural context.)

There are other things in the book of Revelation that you will not find explicitely stated in other books of the Bible. Should we interpret these spiritually as well?

It is true that while one reads the book of Revelation, one must discern what is literal and what is figurative. But the figurative language is usually very obvious (for instance, a beast with seven heads and ten horns, a woman with a crown of twelve stars on her head, etc.)

Here are two of the reasons why I believe that there will be a millenial age:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Note that those specifically mentioned who came to life were those who were "beheaded for the witness of Jesus." If this is referring to our spiritual ressurection or new birth, then why does it say that they were beheaded? To me, that just doesn't seem to fit.

Note as well that they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. There are other scriptures which support the concept of Christ and the resurrected saints ruling with a rod of iron:

Psalms 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Revelation 2:26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. [Note that the letters to the churches, for the most part, do not appear to be intended to be taken figuratively.]

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Our current rule in this age, seated in Christ at the right hand of the Father in the heavens, is not with a rod of iron. There were some Anabaptists, who, being led away to death, were told by their supposedly "Christian" persecutors that Luke 14:23 instructed them to "compel" others (by force and even threat of death). The response of these Anbaptists was that we must compel others to follow correct doctrine through the aid of the Holy Spirit and sound reasoning from the scriptures, not through threat of force!

But regarding the material, rather than solely spiritual nature of our reign during the millenium, what need will there be to rule the nations with a rod of iron in the age to come unless there are still men in mortal form to rule over?

[Berean]

Athanasius:

What of other teachings in the Bible for which we can find only verse to support it? Isn't it enough if God says something only one time? (I say that with the recognition that in such cases, we must be very cautious to interpret such passages with great care, within their scriptural context.
Yes, of course it’s enough for God to say something once. My point was that we must be sure He actually is saying it. We have to be especially careful in a highly symbolic book like Revelation (which you agree with). I did not mean to imply that God must say something more than once for us to accept it.
.There are other things in the book of Revelation that you will not find explicitly stated in other books of the Bible. Should we interpret these spiritually as well?
I did not say that everything in Rev. should be interpreted spiritually (symbolically would be a better word here). What I said above applies here.
Here are two of the reasons why I believe that there will be a millennial age:

Rev.20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw
the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their
foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Note that those specifically mentioned who came to life were those who were "beheaded for the witness of Jesus." If this is referring to our spiritual resurrection or new birth, then why does it say that they were beheaded? To me, that just doesn't seem to fit.
I decline comment, for now, on your second point about the rod of iron. This has never come up in other discussions I’ve had on this issue, so I haven’t given much thought about how this is to be interpreted within a preterist schema.
I think you have a problem with the point above though. If I understand your position correctly, you understand those who are beheaded as being killed in the first half of a future tribulation. They are then resurrected, mid-trib, (followed immediately by the rapture), and the millennium begins. After the thousand years, there is the final resurrection.
I think it can be shown from Scripture that those who are beheaded refers to people in the first century.
For this to be true, the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24), must at least be fulfilled up through verse 34.
There are just too many problems putting these verses in the future.
Matthew 24:9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated
by all nations on account of My name
Here we have martyrs because of their witness to Christ. I believe these are the same martyrs of Rev. 6:9 and Rev.20:4 (note the parallels),but I understand I have to prove this.
Matthew 24: 29 “But 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 the sky, and the powers of the
heavens will be shaken
When we compare these two verses (and the ones between), we have martyrs (Matt. 24:9); famine;
earthquake; and the reference to the sun, moon, and stars (Matt. 24:29).
Revelation 6:1 - 13. I will not quote these verses because of their number,but something really interesting emerges when you compare them to the verses from Matthew above. You have martyrs; famine; earthquake; and a reference to the sun, moon, and stars. The martyrs from Rev. 6: 9 are the same ones that are resurrected in Rev. 20:4. If the verses in Matt. took place in the first century (they did), and if the verses in Rev. are about the same event (they are), Then the saints that are killed,and later resurrected in Rev., are the same as those in Matt. So, even if Rev.20:4 is about bodily resurrection, it must have happened in the first century.

[Athanasius]

Berean:
Then the saints that are killed,and later resurrected in Rev., are the same as those in Matt. So, even if Rev.20:4 is about bodily resurrection, it must have happened in the first century.

I'm curious, Berean, are you a partial or full preterist? You don't believe that the resurrection occured in 70 AD, do you?

Berean:
I think you have a problem with the point above though. If I understand your position correctly, you understand those who are beheaded as being killed in the first half of a future tribulation. They are then resurrected, mid-trib, (followed immediately by the rapture), and the millennium begins. After the thousand years, there is the final resurrection.

Actually, although those specifically mentioned in Rev 20:4 are the tribulation martyrs, I believe that the first resurrection is not limited to them, but includes all of the church-age saints, because of Rev. 2:11 ("He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.") and Rev 2:27-28 ("And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.")

Because of this, I think that the first resurrection will include not only the tribulation martyrs, but all Christian martyrs, including those who suffered under the Roman Emporers in the first, second, and third centuries.

If you will go to http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm , you can read the three Olivet discourse accounts in phrase-by-phrase parallel, something I found to be very helpful. Please check out the accompanying notes by Andy Doerksen and I. When you carefully compare the accounts side-by-side, you will see why I believe that there is much in common between the tribulation of 70 AD and the final Great tribulation, and why I believe that the Olivet discourse actually describes both.

However, although many of the conditions that Jesus said must be fulfilled prior to his coming were met prior to 70 AD, I don't believe that they all were. See http://www.thingstocome.org/Critique.html#NineThings.

[Berean]

Berean:
Then the saints that are killed,and later resurrected in Rev., are the same as those in Matt. So, even if Rev.20:4 is about bodily resurrection, it must have happened in the first century. Athanasius
I'm curious, Berean, are you a partial or full preterist? You don't believe that the resurrection occured in 70 AD, do you?
I am an orthodox (partial) preterist. I was only saying if the two tribulations are the same, then, if your position on the martyrs being resurrected mid-trib is correct, it would have to happen in the first century. Don't worry, I'm not heretical :smile:
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

[Berean]

Solly,
This thread seems to have moved a little of topic. I apologize. I kept thinking someone would suggest we start a new thread for the other topics. When no one did, I decided to keep posting here until asked not to. I noticed you were posting your comments on the original topic of this thread in another one. Didn't mean to run you off.

[Solly]

Berean, don't worry, I only started this thread to let DD know where I was at in our discussions. My answer will be a good while coming as I mentioned on the downfall thread. Keep it up, it's all informative.

And I like the colour bar (What?! No colour bar here!!:oops: )

[Solly]

The Biblical Theology/Redemptive History/Amillennial schema of Vos, Ridderbos et al.

From a chart by James Dennison, NorthWest Theological Seminary

[dizzle]

Holy cow!! A chart!! Gah!!! You know I am allergic to charts. But... I see a lot I agree with in it... but of course a few things I don't. I am looking forward to reconverting you Solly, truly I am.

[dizzle]

Good posts Berean, thank you :thumb:

[Solly]

*a few thoughts from another thread*

DD, not to kick off the debate...

Admin note: :no:

But basically, I am following Carson in his matthew commentary.

The disciples ask their questions, linking together the end of the age and the just predicted fall of the temple. that is why they brought in the end of the age, because he mentioned the temple.

He, however, takes the end of the age first, and speaks of the character of the age from now on. then, from vs15 he does the temple in terms you and I would accept. Then he moves onto the fact of his coming, and deals with the false comings of others that they be not worried in thiknking that the Fall WAS the end, when in fact it is only the beginning of the end. "The Beginning of Sorrows", the Birth pangs. People will certainly notice when the Real Christ does come 24.27!!
Then it moves on to the end of the age of which he has just given a portrait.
This is where I have a problem with the preterist interpretation, because the terms used match those in Thessalonians, trumps, comings, suddeness etc. So either Thess is 70ad, or Matt 24.34ff is future. I take it to be future. "Immediately" points to the suddenness of the end, as the days of Noah in its unexpectedness (which can't be said of Jerusalem, which was beseiged). The fig tree does not refer to Israel as such, as Luke points out, recording "and all the trees" but the age.
Ah, but all fulfilled, you might say. yes. All come to pass, but not necessarily ended. it is ongoing. judgment on Jerusalem 70ad, on the Romans in 5th century, and continuing: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against, etc. lest people think he has gone on a journey.

[dizzle]

Solly, hmmm, are we kicking off the debate?? I will answer this one this weekend. There are some very fatal flaws contained therein.

[Solly]

No not yet. I have half a dozen Tweb and TOL threads downloaded to read thru, as well as half a dozen books and 8meg of zipped files of the internet. And I haven't got DeMar or Gentry yet. You're coming from a robustly held position, whereas I am still establishing mine.

One day, DD, one day.

[dizzle]

Hmm, are you saying you do not want me to expose your fatal flaws like a streaker through Manhattan?

[dizzle]

:yipee:

[Solly]

You can have a go, I just can't guarantee I'll respond immediately...

[Solly]

hmmm...

[dizzle]

Solly, you know me, I can't guarantee that I will do anything other than trash talk immediately. LOL... I am always good for that. We shall see if I respond soon... I am turning into a bona fide futurist with my "soon" promises. I think it was the posting of the chart.... you know that is like Kryptonite to me.

There are sooo many good threads, and sooo much spamming to do... and soo much other stuff, and that sometimes I am like


GGGGAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!


Did you like the "streaker" image??? It gave me a chuckle. I wish you could do that Paltalk thing tonight. It would be great to hear your voice.

[Solly]

Hmm, are you saying you do not want me to expose your fatal flaws like a streaker through Manhattan?

I'll keep alert, watching the shadows....

[dizzle]

Anyone remember that song "The Streak"?

Oh drat, spam points are disabled in this part of the forum.

[John Reece]

Solly,

I know you already have a huge stack of books on your reading list. In case you may find time for a couple more...

I have two to recommend, which I regard as the best of all, both by R. T. France:

Jesus and the Old Testament

The Gospel According to Matthew (Tyndale NT Commentaries)

They are small, brief, and succinct.

[Solly]

03-14-2003 @ 01:46 PM
John Reece:

Solly,

I know you already have a huge stack of books on your reading list. In case you may find time for a couple more...

I have two to recommend, which I regard as the best of all, both by R. T. France:

Jesus and the Old Testament

The Gospel According to Matthew (Tyndale NT Commentaries)

They are small, brief, and succinct.

Thanks John. Small books are always welcome, they don't take too long, and either aren't too deep, or not for very long.

[dizzle]

or both

[Berean]

Dee Dee:
Good posts Berean, thank you :thumb:
Thanks,though,I feel they could have been better. My preterist ideas aren't as systematic as yours are. I just started studying these things a few months ago and am still tying up loose ends. So please correct me if you notice any flaws in my posts:smile:

[dizzle]

Dear Solly:

I am going to attempt to interact with your last post. I understand it was just brief comments on your thoughts and not intended to be comprehensive.

The disciples ask their questions, linking together the end of the age and the just predicted fall of the temple. that is why they brought in the end of the age, because he mentioned the temple.

Of course!! There was no reason to believe that they thought Christ was talking about the end of the “world” but rather they were looking forward to the end of the age in which they were living, the preMessianic age and the beginning of the Messianic age. It is very interesting that they connected this event with His “coming.” This is a group of men that had a hard time understand that He would even be “going”!! This is a major clue that they were not thinking the same thing we automatically do every time we hear that phrase. They are the ones that linked the “end of the age” with the fall of the Temple, and Jesus never corrected that understanding. Remember also they were anticipating the beginning of the Kingdom which Jesus had already also said would be present with power before some who heard His words died (Matthew 16:27:28). This is a very clear referent to what they were referring to in one age ending and another beginning.

He, however, takes the end of the age first, and speaks of the character of the age from now on. then, from vs15 he does the temple in terms you and I would accept.

Okay no problem here in principle.

Then he moves onto the fact of his coming, and deals with the false comings of others that they be not worried in thinking that the Fall WAS the end, when in fact it is only the beginning of the end. "The Beginning of Sorrows", the Birth pangs. People will certainly notice when the Real Christ does come 24.27!!

Well the fall of Jerusalem is not mentioned in the passage speaking of the beginning of sorrows, it is mentioned afterwards. The fall was the end. And yes people did notice Christ’s “coming,” (the destruction was a very visible and public event) and nothing in that passage requires a physical, bodily, coming, and in fact the earlier verses militate against it. Lightning is a common OT idiom for judgment and God’s wrath and God’s power (Ex 19:8, 2 Samuel 22:7-15, Isaiah 30:27-30, Zechariah 9:14, Revelation 4:5, 11:19, 16:18). And just as a matter of fact, the judgment did come from the east to the west.

Then it moves on to the end of the age of which he has just given a portrait.

That is just not possible given the chronological information discussed earlier in this thread. Additionally the NT is very explicit in other places that the “end of the age” was a first century reality. Paul clearly says that the “ends of the ages” have come upon the first century Church (1 Corinthians 10:11) as does the writer of Hebrews identify his time period as the “end of the ages” (Hebrews 9:26).

This is where I have a problem with the preterist interpretation, because the terms used match those in Thessalonians, trumps, comings, suddenness etc. So either Thess is 70ad, or Matt 24.34ff is future. I take it to be future.

Whoa, wait a second. A LOT of preterists believe Matthew 24:34ff is future (but again I don’t). But that is in contradiction to what you just stated previously in which you placed verses before verse 34 as future. That is simply not possible. And just because similar or even exact terminology is used does not of a necessity make the events the same event. It is a strong evidence, I will agree, and I will also agree that is probably one of the most difficult issues in my view, but in the chronology I provided posted in the beginning of this thread, the tension is resolved. The terminology is the same because the events are related. Exact same terminology is used of Christ’s cleansing of the Temple but we do not presume He only did it one time because there are other reasons for believing that He did it in a similar manner on two different occasions.

"Immediately" points to the suddenness of the end, as the days of Noah in its unexpectedness (which can't be said of Jerusalem, which was besieged).

Noah preached for 120 years (if my memory is correct) about the coming judgment, and then it rained for forty days. It wasn’t sudden or unexpected in that respect. And you have yanked the “immediately” out of its context in Matthew 24 for what is to happen “immediately”??….. it is the collapse of entire Old Covenant order which is what happened as the city and the Temple lay in smoldering ruins. That was immediate. And again I am sure I do not need to warn you against the hyperliteralization of apocalyptic passages in matters of details or chronology. And as a matter of point, the word there for “immediately” does not mean “suddenly” in the sense you are conveying. It means immediately. Of course an immediate thing can also be sudden, but the meaning is immediately, just as soon means soon, and near means near. All of these timing words have to explained way in a nonpreteristic system, and the weight of them is enormous. I know you feel the burden of them.

And, lest anyone forget, we have all just shimmied around the huge elephant in the parlor:

Matthew 24:34 – Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

This is the deal-killer. Everything in the Discourse preceding that verse must have happened before the then-living generation passed away, and that includes verses 29-31.

The fig tree does not refer to Israel as such, as Luke points out, recording "and all the trees" but the age. Ah, but all fulfilled, you might say. yes. All come to pass, but not necessarily ended. it is ongoing. judgment on Jerusalem 70ad, on the Romans in 5th century, and continuing: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against, etc. lest people think he has gone on a journey.

No problem there but that has nothing to do with the Discourse and the disciples very specific focus and Jesus very specific focus in His answer both geographically and chronologically. So you seem to be saying that the “end of the age” began in the first century and is continuing until now. That is not an uncommon view but I find it forced and very distortive of the meaning of the phrase “end.” By that definition the end of any age is any point after the beginning for it is progressing inexorably towards the end from that point on. But of course also, it is not just that reason, but chronological reasons I have already given for why the end of the age must have already come… and we have a major redemptively significant catastrophic event to mark it, and one which was predicted in connection with the end of the age. It makes me wonder why the wranglings to avoid this obvious conclusion.