The Argument He Won't Touch

[Xavier]

In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly brilliant piece of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere. I spent some time on it in hope that someone would offer a good critique of my thinking, but thus far nothing. So without further ado, the Xavier argument for Preteristic interpretation of Gospel Apoclyptic material...

Sure... We'll start with the verse [another poster] posted [recently]:
"And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand"

The first thing to notice is what Jesus is talking about when he says the Kingdom of God. Let's trace back to Jesus in the early parts of John:
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Here again we have a statement about the Kingdom of God, but this time even earlier on in the ministry of Christ. You'll find statements about the Kingdom of God through Jesus's teaching and parables. It would seem to be a central part of Christ's plan on Earth.

So now that we've established the importance of the Kingdom, we need to establish what the Kingdom actually IS. It's important to be mindful of what the First-Century Jews are expecting (and rightfully so) in the Messiah.

So, what does being the Messiah actually mean? We have to set the scene for the First Century A.D. Israel has been liberated from their Babylonian captivity, yet the nation of Israel still sees themselves in a state of exile. They find themselves to be disconnected from the presence of YHWH. For this vantage point, they look forward to the Messiah to bring them back to their place of glory, not only over their pagan neighbors, but also in the very sight of God. The Jews are looking for a political leader which will lead the massive uprising of Israel against her enemies (namely Rome). Throughout the First Century, both pre and post-Christ, we are faced with several people making the claim to be the Jewish Messiah. They are leading rebellion against Rome. It is on to this stage that Jesus steps.

Obviously, it should be noted that Jesus did not fit the Jewish expectations for the Messiah both given and in spite of the Scriptures. However, it is also important that their expectations were not without basis in the Scriptures. Isaiah and others point towards this leader. Isaiah's "suffering servant" and Daniel's Son of Man are the classic examples of this promise. The Messiah WOULD lead Israel to a restoration. Israel would triumph over her enemies. However, Christ is his ministry radically redefined how this would occur. In the process, Jesus becomes YHWH's righteousness in fulfilling his promise, not only to Israel, but to the WHOLE WORLD. We have to follow along as Jesus radically redefines what the Messiah and his task. He never leaves the Scriptures, but rather takes the old concepts and images (and praxis... :wink:) of Israel and assigns himself various roles within the Jewish worldview bringing about its fulfillment in the world.

With these conditions present, we can now render an exegesis on the "Kingdom of God" (or "Kingdom of Heaven" for Matthew). The whole expectation starts out with John the Baptist:
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'"

So John the Baptist is setting us up for who? The answer should be obvious:
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

Notice that the announcement of the Christ is accompanied with the message concerning judgment. This is not a mere slip of the tongue for these are not John's only words on the subject. Let's look at the intervening text:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

So from the time of John, we already have Jesus set to bring forth the Kingdom of God, and with this inauguration, we have judgment on those who reject the Christ. This theme of inauguration and judgment flows throughout the gospels' narratives. From John's proclamation in Matt 3, let's turn to the very next chapter setting up the beginning of Jesus's ministry:
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Further summary from Matt 4:
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

The Kingdom of God is the wiping away of the enemies of the people of Israel and the return of the presence of YHWH to the Temple in Jerusalem. Christ's words point towards this act. Christ's actions point toward this aim. What the Jews had been waiting for had finally come to pass, but not in the way that they had foreseen. Instead of political victory, Christ achieved victory over ALL that stood between man and YHWH in final and decisive action. Death has been conquered. As a result of this resounding victory, we see the early church proclaim Jesus not only the Messiah (Christos [sp?]), but also Lord (Kyrios [sp?]). This was in realization that Jesus had set up the Kingdom of God and in the process has laid waste to EVERY other claim to Lordship, not in the least Caesar's. Early Christianity set up these titles following from the rational end of Christ's own statements.

Next, we have to deal with the timing of the Kingdom. If we keep this context in mind, Christ's statements and actions make sense for his place in the First Century. Christ saw himself has bringing about the Kingdom. John foresaw it, Jesus preached it, and Christ brought it into being. (This is not to say that Jesus and Christ are different people, but rather just a rhetorical device.) Here's the very key that the Kingdom of God has come:
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Jesus is talking to his disciples and he tells them that some of them won't die until the Son of Man (Jesus) sees the coming of his kingdom. And if the one mention is not sufficient, the verse is repeated in the other two Synoptics:
And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

Maybe some more timing statements:
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.

"You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So now having set the Kingdom, its definition and its timing, I have one timing statement left to quote:
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

What's so special about this verse amoung so many, especially when they all same the same thing. Well, let's check out the VERY NEXT verse:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.

That's right folks... This very verse is paralleled further in the eschatological passage from Matthew 24 commonly known as the Olivet Discourse:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

And so the argument comes full circle, the Olivet Discourse is referring to the setting up of the Kingdom of God under the Son of Man. As shown, this indeed refers to the ministry of Christ and his redemption of the whole world. It is not as supposed by many both here and throughout Christendom to refer to the end of space-time and Judgment. This notion has NO PLACE in the reading of First Century Jewish documents such as the Gospels.

This is not to say anything about the book of Revelation as this is beyond our purview at the particular moment. However, I would suggest that anyone who takes the time to study the context of that letter would reveal the same thing as the Olivet Discourse.

Now, I leave you with a passage from noted New Testament scholar N.T. Wright from his book, Jesus and the Victory of God (JVG):

But does not the passage speak of the 'parouisa', the 'second coming'? Yes, the Greek word parouisa does occur, in Matthew's version (24.3, 27, 37, 39; these, are surprisingly enough in view of its popularity amoung scholars, its only occurrences in the gospels.) But why should we think – except for reasons of ecclesiastical and scholarly tradition – that parouisa means 'the second coming', and/or the downward travel on a cloud of Jesus and/or the 'son of man'? Parouisa mean 'presence' as opposed to apousia, 'absence'; hence, it denotes the 'arrival' of someone not at the moment present; and it especially used in relation to the visit 'of a royal of official personage' (LSJ 1343).Until evidence for a different meaning is produced, this should be a starting-point. [...]

The disciples now 'heard' his (Jesus's) prophetic announcement of the destruction of the Temple as the announcement, also of his own vindication; in other words, of his own 'coming' not floating around on a cloud, of course, but of his 'coming' to Jerusalem as the vindicated, rightful king.

In summary, Jesus came to announce and indeed fulfill the coming of the Kingdom of God to the world. He set up as signs of his Messianic claim the fall of the Temple and indeed the destruction of Jerusalem. These signs are the ones referred to by common eschatological passages of the Gospels. The "Great Tribulation" has occurred and indeed did occur shortly following the establishment of the Kingdom of God, thereby proclaiming it and its ruler our Lord Jesus Christ to be vindicated.

Yours,
Xavier

[dizzle]

XAvier you should write an article for my site.

[Xavier]

I wrote this one over my ski trip. I'm thinking about expanding it to include more "Kingdom" material. Personally, I find this argument to be rather interesting approach to the eshcatological question. Anywho, PM me with suggestions and I'll expand it as I get time... :smile:

[Amazing Rando]

XAvier you should write an article for my site.

Heck, he needs to get his butt to seminary. :wink:

[eschaton]

In summary, Jesus came to announce and indeed fulfill the coming of the Kingdom of God to the world. He set up as signs of his Messianic claim the fall of the Temple and indeed the destruction of Jerusalem. These signs are the ones referred to by common eschatological passages of the Gospels. The "Great Tribulation" has occurred and indeed did occur shortly following the establishment of the Kingdom of God, thereby proclaiming it and its ruler our Lord Jesus Christ to be vindicated.

Yours,
Xavier

Xavier,

It appears to me that you are grouping everything in the Olivet discourse into the time of the first century. I think this is in contradiction to Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.

http://www.apostate.com/religion/summa/XP/XP088.html

Objection 2: Further, we arrive by means of signs at the knowledge of the things signified. Now many signs of the coming judgment are declared to us in Scripture (Mt. 24, Mk. 13, Lk. 21). Therefore we can arrive at the knowledge of that time.

Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says, in his letter to Hesychius concerning the day of judgment (Ep. cxcix), "the signs mentioned in the Gospels do not all refer to the second advent which will happen at the end of the world, but some of them belong to the time of the sack of Jerusalem, which is now a thing of the past, while some, in fact many of them, refer to the advent whereby He comes daily to the Church, whom He visits spiritually when He dwells in us by faith and love." Moreover, the details mentioned in the Gospels and Epistles in connection with the last advent are not sufficient to enable us to determine the time of the judgment, for the trials that are foretold as announcing the proximity of Christ's coming occurred even at the time of the Early Church, in a degree sometimes more sometimes less marked; so that even the days of the apostles were called the last days (Acts 2:17) when Peter expounded the saying of Joel 2:28, "It shall come to pass in the last days," etc., as referring to that time. Yet it was already a long time since then: and sometimes there were more and sometimes less afflictions in the Church. Consequently it is impossible to decide after how long a time it will take place, nor fix the month, year, century, or thousand years as Augustine says in the same book (Ep. ad Hesych. cxcix). And even if we are to believe that at the end these calamities will be more frequent, it is impossible to fix what amount of such calamities will immediately precede the judgment day or the coming of Antichrist, since even at the time of the Early Church persecutions were so bitter, and the corruptions of error were so numerous, that some looked forward to the coming of Antichrist as being near or imminent; as related in Eusebius' History of the Church (vi, 7) and in Jerome's book De Viris Illustribus lii.


Eusebius' History of the Church (vi, 7)

At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was much talked about, was then near.44 So greatly did the agitation caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds of many.

44 It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the parousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6). There is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe persecution must be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at hand grew constantly weaker.




So you disagree with the traditional view of the church?

Alan

[tizzidale]

In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly brilliant piece of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere.
Brilliant, eh?

I spent some time on it in hope that someone would offer a good critique of my thinking, but thus far nothing. So without further ado, the Xavier argument for Preteristic interpretation of Gospel Apoclyptic material... Well, to be honest, I’ve tried to stay away from Eschatology, but I figured I’d give this one a go.


*snip*


Here again we have a statement about the Kingdom of God, but this time even earlier on in the ministry of Christ. You'll find statements about the Kingdom of God through Jesus's teaching and parables. It would seem to be a central part of Christ's plan on Earth. “A central part”? Come again?

*snip part about what the Jews were expecting*

Obviously, it should be noted that Jesus did not fit the Jewish expectations for the Messiah both given and in spite of the Scriptures. However, it is also important that their expectations were not without basis in the Scriptures. Isaiah and others point towards this leader. Isaiah's "suffering servant" and Daniel's Son of Man are the classic examples of this promise. The Messiah WOULD lead Israel to a restoration. Israel would triumph over her enemies. However, Christ is his ministry radically redefined how this would occur. I wouldn’t say “redefined.” I would say that He revealed in its fullness the Kingdom of God. What was prophesied was fulfilled in Christ. He did not, in any way, alter course or ‘redefine’. Just a minor criticism.

In the process, Jesus becomes YHWH's righteousness in fulfilling his promise, not only to Israel, but to the WHOLE WORLD. We have to follow along as Jesus radically redefines what the Messiah and his task. He never leaves the Scriptures, but rather takes the old concepts and images (and praxis... :wink:) of Israel and assigns himself various roles within the Jewish worldview bringing about its fulfillment in the world. I have no idea what this paragraph actually says.


*snip the bit about John the Baptist*

Notice that the announcement of the Christ is accompanied with the message concerning judgment. This is not a mere slip of the tongue for these are not John's only words on the subject. Let's look at the intervening text:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

So from the time of John, we already have Jesus set to bring forth the Kingdom of God, and with this inauguration, we have judgment on those who reject the Christ. This theme of inauguration and judgment flows throughout the gospels' narratives. I have a problem with this. If the coming of the Messiah can be ‘redefined’ to mean a Spiritual kingdom, why can’t the judgment associated with the coming of the kingdom be ‘redefined’ to mean Spiritual judgment? I’m not saying this is the actual case, but it’s something that you should consider. After all, isn’t every man who rejects the Kingdom of God subject to the wrath of God?

The Kingdom of God is the wiping away of the enemies of the people of Israel and the return of the presence of YHWH to the Temple in Jerusalem. Christ's words point towards this act. Christ's actions point toward this aim. What the Jews had been waiting for had finally come to pass, but not in the way that they had foreseen. While not disagreeing, I fail to see where you’ve proven this.

Instead of political victory, Christ achieved victory over ALL that stood between man and YHWH in final and decisive action. Death has been conquered. As a result of this resounding victory, we see the early church proclaim Jesus not only the Messiah (Christos [sp?]), but also Lord (Kyrios [sp?]). This was in realization that Jesus had set up the Kingdom of God and in the process has laid waste to EVERY other claim to Lordship, not in the least Caesar's. Early Christianity set up these titles following from the rational end of Christ's own statements. Not much to dispute here. But it would be nice if you had some supporting documentation from the Early Church Fathers, etc.


*snip*

Jesus is talking to his disciples and he tells them that some of them won't die until the Son of Man (Jesus) sees the coming of his kingdom. And if the one mention is not sufficient, the verse is repeated in the other two Synoptics:
And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."
If I’m reading you right, you are working up to proclaiming the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of these verses. Correct? I’m going to wait on responding to the rest of your post until this clarified for me, because the remainder is vague.

Maybe a couple of clarifying questions:

1)What is the Kingdom of God?

2)When was it established?

3)Is there ever a change in status in the Kingdom of God? For instance, will the Kingdom of God ever be visible and present on the Earth, etc?

I promise I’ll address the rest as soon I as I understand better.

rusty

[Xavier]

So you disagree with the traditional view of the church?

Alan

Greetings Alan,

The short answer would be "Yes". However, it should be noted that Preterism (orthodox Preterism) has been a position in the Church for quite some time, even though like today it is often held a minority position.

Of course, our differences of opinion in other areas of theological study will prevent a more rounded discussion of your points. While I hold Church Tradition in high regard, as a Protestant, I still hold scripture as the final arbiter on the truth of a given position.

For example, the Apostolic Fathers held to general alegorical interpretations of the parables. They noted that each story had several layers of symbolism. Yet, modern studies have tended to show that in the Jewish frame of context such a mode of interpretation is untentable. New Testament scholar (and my current avatar) N.T. Wright notes in one of his lectures, "While we have respect for church tradition A, B, and C, scripture may be longing to tell us D, E, and F."

Thanks for your input... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

Hey Rusty,

I'll get to your post later this evening when I have some time to expand a couple of thoughts... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

Brilliant, eh?

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek... :wink:

Well, to be honest, I’ve tried to stay away from Eschatology, but I figured I’d give this one a go.

Thanks...

“A central part”? Come again?

Well... I do not seek to say that it was the only part of Christ's ministry on the Earth. The language was designed to limit the topic to just the Kingdom and not broader aspects of Christ's ministry on Earth.

I wouldn’t say “redefined.” I would say that He revealed in its fullness the Kingdom of God. What was prophesied was fulfilled in Christ. He did not, in any way, alter course or ‘redefine’. Just a minor criticism.

This is a fair criticism. I should have stated that Jesus redefined the Jewish expectation for the Kingdom and for its Messiah. God's plan remains forever unchanged and it is revealed in the Scriptures, even if Israel didn't quite understand them.

I have no idea what this paragraph actually says.

The paragraph is basically a nod to the Wright work from which I draw the basis for this argument. While Wright never sets out his argument in an Eschatological method, we does follow these same steps.

The gist of the paragraph is that Jesus took the common Jewish worldview and warped it into something that while remaining Jewish was also something decidedly different. As Christians, we see this as the completion of God's revelation to his people.

I have a problem with this. If the coming of the Messiah can be ‘redefined’ to mean a Spiritual kingdom, why can’t the judgement associated with the coming of the kingdom be ‘redefined’ to mean Spiritual judgement? I’m not saying this is the actual case, but it’s something that you should consider.

This brings up a classic problem. I simply do not buy a dichotomy between "Physical" and "Spiritual". There are spiritual things that are physical and visa-versa. The Kingdom of God is BOTH physical AND spiritual. It's king is physical. It's implications are perhaps described as spiritual, but ultimately a reading of Paul's letters will show that Christ's Kingdom supersedes those of the Earth's. There is no king but Christ. Christ is Lord and Caesar isn't.

Now, from working within the dichotomy frame of reference, the reason I don't view the Discourse as being entirely "spiritual" is because of its various references to the Temple. Now, one may be willing to take these reference as entirely metaphorical in nature, but that would seem awkward in hindsight considering that the Temple DID actually fall. Notice that Jesus quotes Daniel 12:11. Further notice that the open paragraph (Matthew 24:4-8) discusses the birthpangs. The language employed there is not the apocalyptic language that we see in Revelation or Daniel. We don't see beast or angel devouring the whole Earth. Rather, we see mention of nation/kingdom rising against nation/kingdom and the apparent aftermath of those battles. Combine this with that fact that the church at large still considers this to be physically oriented and that would be my argument for a physical judgement on the elect who have reject the messiah.

After all, isn’t every man who rejects the Kingdom of God subject to the wrath of God?

Yes, but we need not stray from the context in which Christ is addressing. Notice that mention of false Messiahs in Matt 24:24. Notice the mention of "fight" in verses 16 to 22. This all fits with the common Jewish expectation for a Political Messiah who will free them from oppression under Rome. Josephus (amoung other from the period) notes these various failed movements (notable the Bar Kochba (sp?) revolt).

While not disagreeing, I fail to see where you’ve proven this.

In the interest of brevity, I excluded further discussion of this point. Once you realize that the aim of Jesus is to institute the Kingdom of God, The actions of Jesus must be read from within this framework. The notable example would be the entrance to Jerusalem as well as the many of the actions of Christ during Holy Week.

Further explication on the defeat of Caesar and others might be handy as well, but I feared that this would take us too far off topic. I wanted to focus on the Eschatological consequences of the Kingdom coming forth in the Actions of Christ, rather than in some future "end-of-the-world" time.

Not much to dispute here. But it would be nice if you had some supporting documentation from the Early Church Fathers, etc.

I would include Romans especially for further detail here. The usage of Paul's language in these senses is quite extraordinary for the position of the Early Church on the instantiation of the Kingdom.

If I’m reading you right, you are working up to proclaiming the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfilment of these verses. Correct?

I believe that once we set the start of the Kingdom in the first century, then we must place the events of the Olivet Discourse in that same period. Christ speaks here (and at his trial) of his vindication. Vindication only makes sense from a Kingdom standpoint and only when the Kingdom is already in place.

I’m going to wait on responding to the rest of your post until this clarified for me, because the remainder is vague.

No problem.

Maybe a couple of clarifying questions:
1)What is the Kingdom of God?

The Kingdom of God would be the eschatological declaration of the Final Victory of God over his enemies.

2)When was it established?

The Cross. When Christ defeated Sin, he became victorious over Man's (and God's) greatest enemy. As such, he laid competing claims of Lordship to waste.

3)Is there ever a change in status in the Kingdom of God? For instance, will the Kingdom of God ever be visible and present on the Earth, etc?

That's a fair question, but I still see that working on a dichotomy between "spiritual" and "physical". The Citizens of the Kingdom of God ARE visible and present on the Earth. It's King is not present at the moment, but I would argue that he is certainly visible.

In ultimate answer to your question, I don't know. I seriously doubt that at some point in the future Christ will come down from Heaven to sit on a Throne in a room somewhere to take a political reign over the nations. However, the Kingdom will obviously change in implications following the General Rez and the Judgement.

I promise I’ll address the rest as soon I as I understand better.

No probs... You've got some very good objections.

Yours,
Xavier

PS: It's about 12:28 at the moment, so this might not reflect my best thinking on the topic at the present moment. Please bear with me.

[eschaton]

Greetings Alan,

The short answer would be "Yes". However, it should be noted that Preterism (orthodox Preterism) has been a position in the Church for quite some time, even though like today it is often held a minority position.

Of course, our differences of opinion in other areas of theological study will prevent a more rounded discussion of your points. While I hold Church Tradition in high regard, as a Protestant, I still hold scripture as the final arbiter on the truth of a given position.

For example, the Apostolic Fathers held to general alegorical interpretations of the parables. They noted that each story had several layers of symbolism. Yet, modern studies have tended to show that in the Jewish frame of context such a mode of interpretation is untentable. New Testament scholar (and my current avatar) N.T. Wright notes in one of his lectures, "While we have respect for church tradition A, B, and C, scripture may be longing to tell us D, E, and F."

Thanks for your input... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

What differences in other areas of theological study are you referring to?

AF

[tizzidale]

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek... :wink:
Well, I want to make clear that I'm not here to debate (lol), but only to critique. As an Orthodox, there is a certain 'freedom' in eschatology. But there are definite no-no's as well. For example: no chialism. Period. I've tried and tried to find Father's and commentators who see the later verses of Matthew 24 as dealing exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem. No success yet.

Thanks...
You're welcome.

Well... I do not seek to say that it was the only part of Christ's ministry on the Earth. The language was designed to limit the topic to just the Kingdom and not broader aspects of Christ's ministry on Earth.
But, isn't the Kingdom of Heaven the mission of Christ? Oh, there's alot tied up in it for sure, but this is the message of the gospel (Matt. 4:23), right? But this comes down, essentially to what the kingdom of God actually is. Which I will get to.

This is a fair criticism. I should have stated that Jesus redefined the Jewish expectation for the Kingdom and for its Messiah. God's plan remains forever unchanged and it is revealed in the Scriptures, even if Israel didn't quite understand them.
No problem here.

*snip*

The gist of the paragraph is that Jesus took the common Jewish worldview and warped it into something that while remaining Jewish was also something decidedly different. As Christians, we see this as the completion of God's revelation to his people.
Or rather, the Jewish understanding was warped, and Jesus fulfilled the purpose of God by proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

This brings up a classic problem. I simply do not buy a dichotomy between "Physical" and "Spiritual". There are spiritual things that are physical and visa-versa. The Kingdom of God is BOTH physical AND spiritual. It's king is physical. It's implications are perhaps described as spiritual, but ultimately a reading of Paul's letters will show that Christ's Kingdom supersedes those of the Earth's. There is no king but Christ. Christ is Lord and Caesar isn't.
This comes down to what the Kingdom of God is and how we undestand its fulfillment and work.

Now, from working within the dichotomy frame of reference, the reason I don't view the Discourse as being entirely "spiritual" is because of its various references to the Temple. Now, one may be willing to take these reference as entirely metaphorical in nature, but that would seem awkward in hindsight considering that the Temple DID actually fall. Notice that Jesus quotes Daniel 12:11. Further notice that the open paragraph (Matthew 24:4-8) discusses the birthpangs. The language employed there is not the apocalyptic language that we see in Revelation or Daniel. We don't see beast or angel devouring the whole Earth. Rather, we see mention of nation/kingdom rising against nation/kingdom and the apparent aftermath of those battles. Combine this with that fact that the church at large still considers this to be physically oriented and that would be my argument for a physical judgement on the elect who have reject the messiah.

I believe that most of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem. No doubt.

*snip*

In the interest of brevity, I excluded further discussion of this point. Once you realize that the aim of Jesus is to institute the Kingdom of God, The actions of Jesus must be read from within this framework. The notable example would be the entrance to Jerusalem as well as the many of the actions of Christ during Holy Week.
For example? Perhaps you should expand on this theme a bit. Also, again, I wouldn't say that Jesus came to 'institute' the Kingdom of God. This comes from my understanding of what the Kingdom of God is. He indeed said, "The Kingdom of God is wthin you."

Further explication on the defeat of Caesar and others might be handy as well, but I feared that this would take us too far off topic. I wanted to focus on the Eschatological consequences of the Kingdom coming forth in the Actions of Christ, rather than in some future "end-of-the-world" time.
I really do not know of anyone who says that the Kingdom of God is in entirely in "some future 'end-of-the-world' time". However, even you look for the Second Coming, correct? What is the purpose of the Second Coming and how does it relate to the Kingdom of God?

I would include Romans especially for further detail here. The usage of Paul's language in these senses is quite extraordinary for the position of the Early Church on the instantiation of the Kingdom.
For example?

I believe that once we set the start of the Kingdom in the first century, then we must place the events of the Olivet Discourse in that same period. Christ speaks here (and at his trial) of his vindication. Vindication only makes sense from a Kingdom standpoint and only when the Kingdom is already in place.
It doesn't follow that the entirety of the Olivet discourse must be related to the first century simply because the Kingdom of God 'began' in this period. For the simple reason that the Kingdom of God, while 'at hand' in the first century is still 'at hand' even today.

The Kingdom of God would be the eschatological declaration of the Final Victory of God over his enemies.
I don't know. Wouldn't the Kingdom of God be redemption and restoration of man and creation to communion with God? Isn't this why repentance always precedes entrance into the Kingdom - because there's another way? The life we live before Christ must be rejected to enter into that 'straight and narrow' path.

In answer to "When was the Kingdom Established"?
The Cross. When Christ defeated Sin, he became victorious over Man's (and God's) greatest enemy. As such, he laid competing claims of Lordship to waste.
I would disagree. In Matthew 12:28 Christ says, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Often we're told by Christ about the presentness of His kingdom. So, prior to Calvary we see that the Kingdom already is. How would you account for this in your present view?

*snip the rest*

[Terral]

Hi Xavier:

Yes sir, I am the “He” in your thread title and your article was much too long to address on the Preterist Debate Thread (Post # 90) http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=6&pp=16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=6&pp=16) , just as it is improper for me to post an article here. Instead I am here to look at comments you have made on your thread and in your OP that require attention. This is the third time I have read through your post, and still your work appears vague; and your thesis statement and hypothesis practically undefined. One thing in your favor is the task of rebuking as series of disjointed ideas can be most tedious indeed.
Xavier >> In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly brilliant piece of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere. I spent some time on it in hope that someone would offer a good critique of my thinking, but thus far nothing. So without further ado, the Xavier argument for Preteristic interpretation of Gospel Apoclyptic material...
Pointing your finger to a sign that says “argument for Preterist interpretation of Gospel Apocalyptic material” is not making a declaration of very much; and misspelling Apocalyptic in your opening statement is a bit careless and indicative of the comparisons you are attempting to make in the body of your work. You appear to be leading in to pasting your prepared document below with the ‘We’ll start lingo . . . (snip)
Xavier Quotes >> Luke 21:29-31 KJV(?) “And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is near at hand"

Xavier’s Commentary >> The first thing to notice is what Jesus is talking about when he says the Kingdom of God. Let's trace back to Jesus in the early parts of John:
The first thing to notice? This should be the location for your commentary on Christ’s ‘parable of the fig tree’ teaching. If you intended to prepare us for your commentary by way of a series of introductory statements, or a teaching from another passage, then why not begin there first? Your work shows misdirection of intent from the very start, and one wonders why he is being led around from the ‘end of the age’ teaching to the very beginning of Christ’s ministry.
Xavier Quotes >> Mark 1:14-15 ESV Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Xavier’s Commentary >> Here again we have a statement about the Kingdom of God, but this time even earlier on in the ministry of Christ. You'll find statements about the Kingdom of God through Jesus's teaching and parables. It would seem to be a central part of Christ's plan on Earth. So now that we've established the importance of the Kingdom, we need to establish what the Kingdom actually IS. It's important to be mindful of what the First-Century Jews are expecting (and rightfully so) in the Messiah.
You are talking and not saying very much in this commentary thus far. Mark’s descriptions here represent Matthews’s account of Christ preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Galilee in Matthew 4:17-23. Christ is following John the Baptist proclaiming the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4. John says, “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.” John 3:22. John’s statement actually parallels Matthew account of Christ proclaiming the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Matthew 9:35 (Judea). However, I believe you are attempting to define the ‘kingdom of God’ without actually providing us the components and doctrinal precepts that describe and support your interpretation. Merely saying that you have “established the importance of the Kingdom” is not saying anything. Israel has been in anticipation of becoming the ‘kingdom of priests’ (Exodus 19:6) since the times of Moses. Also, your point about Christ being the Messiah here is moot, by the fact that Christ warned the Twelve not to tell anyone He was the Christ. Matt. 16:20. The focus of their preaching was upon the fact that the “Kingdom of heaven is at hand” to Israel only. Matt. 10:5-7, 15:24.
Xavier’s Commentary >> So, what does being the Messiah actually mean? We have to set the scene for the First Century A.D. Israel has been liberated from their Babylonian captivity, yet the nation of Israel still sees themselves in a state of exile. They find themselves to be disconnected from the presence of YHWH. For this vantage point, they look forward to the Messiah to bring them back to their place of glory, not only over their pagan neighbors, but also in the very sight of God. The Jews are looking for a political leader which will lead the massive uprising of Israel against her enemies (namely Rome). Throughout the First Century, both pre and post-Christ, we are faced with several people making the claim to be the Jewish Messiah. They are leading rebellion against Rome. It is on to this stage that Jesus steps.
Why ask a question in your topic sentence and ignore it throughout the paragraph? You have four or five good topic sentences here that could be developed into a paper on the nation of Israel, or the political aspirations of the nation 2000 years ago while towing the line for Caesar. I am still looking for how the parable of the fig tree in your opening statement is being described by anything written here. We ran from that to the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom to find ourselves hearing about massive uprisings and rebellions against Rome. Israel was a rag tag bunch of sheep herders compared to the Roman Empire of that era. Disorderly conduct meant Rome sending more troops, which meant they consumed more and more of your local resources by feeding and housing them. Where do we see John the Baptist, Christ or the Twelve railing against the Romans who occupied Israel? Instead they railed against the Pharisees, Scribes and hypocrites of their time. We can agree that Israel as looking for a conquering Messiah, but I am having trouble connecting the dots at the top of your paper . . . (expectations, world view, snip)
Xavier >> With these conditions present, we can now render an exegesis on the "Kingdom of God" (or "Kingdom of Heaven" for Matthew). The whole expectation starts out with John the Baptist: Matthew 3:1-3 ESV In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'"
We are crisscrossing the same areas of the landscape time and time again without going anyplace . . . Most bible commentary will begin with John the Baptist and then move on to Christ following. What was the purpose of showing Christ above in Galilee, now to find ourselves with John the Baptist and before Christ was ever baptized? Perhaps you will consider moving some paragraphs around in your commentary to give some continuous flow to the storyline and teaching to assist the reader in developing a clear mental image of what you are trying to say. (John the Baptist, slip of the tongue, railing at Pharisees, beginning Christ’s ministry again, snip)
Xavier >> The Kingdom of God is the wiping away of the enemies of the people of Israel and the return of the presence of YHWH to the Temple in Jerusalem. Christ's words point towards this act. Christ's actions point toward this aim. What the Jews had been waiting for had finally come to pass, but not in the way that they had foreseen.
We disagree. John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:14+15. Christ came along behind and preached the same things, as a continuation of the same ministry. This is why we can compare John’s words (Matt. 3:2) to Christ’s preaching (Matt. 4:17) and see they are identical. When John was in prison and sent messengers to Christ, He said, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them.” Luke 7:22. Christ taught Israel to “love our enemies” and that “your reward will be great.” (Luke 6:35). Christ told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, or even of this realm. John 18:36.
Xavier >> Instead of political victory, Christ achieved victory over ALL that stood between man and YHWH in final and decisive action. Death has been conquered. As a result of this resounding victory, we see the early church proclaim Jesus not only the Messiah (Christos [sp?]), but also Lord (Kyrios [sp?]). This was in realization that Jesus had set up the Kingdom of God and in the process has laid waste to EVERY other claim to Lordship, not in the least Caesar's. Early Christianity set up these titles following from the rational end of Christ's own statements.
The early church could proclaim anything they wished, but Caesar was still running the show. Anyone could be hauled to Rome to be executed for just about anything, or be crucified like Christ and the two thieves (Mark 14:13). Are we taking notice that a common thief could be crucified during those times? And that Christ was crucified for claiming to be ‘King of the Jews?’ Steven was stoned to death in Acts 7 for what? Just about nothing . . . If you believe that Christ has set up His kingdom here on the earth, then how did the Romans continue to dominate the known world for centuries after? If death has been conquered, then why do men continue to die? (rhetorical device, snip).
Xavier Quotes >> Matthew 16:27-28 ESV For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Xavier’s commentary >> Jesus is talking to his disciples and he tells them that some of them won't die until the Son of Man (Jesus) sees the coming of his kingdom. And if the one mention is not sufficient, the verse is repeated in the other two Synoptics:
Thank you, but one account is always enough, when quoting God: Christ is talking about Peter, John and James who He would lead up the Mountain in the very next chapter to see Him transfigured with Elijah and Moses. “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.” Matt. 17:2. The remainder of your commentary on this topic represents a vain attempt at connecting a literal establishment of Christ’s heavenly kingdom here on earth with absolutely no evidence to support your assumption. Christ’s kingdom is not even of this realm (John 18:36), but Peter, John and James saw a glimpse of what is to come.
Xavier >> What's so special about this verse amoung so many, especially when they all same the same thing. Well, let's check out the VERY NEXT verse: Luke 21:32 ESV Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. That's right folks... This very verse is paralleled further in the eschatological passage from Matthew 24 commonly known as the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24:24 ESV Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Are we getting a whiff of a side show shell game sort of scam or what? Scripture began establishing the true identity of ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) back in verse 3 with the question from the Disciples over the signs of all these things and “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Christ defines who ‘this generation is in the previous verse:

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour NO ONE knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father alone.”
"This generation” to see “all these things” will see Him “at the door” (Your coming). Matt. 24:33. I am a little surprised that we chased this fox all over creation to finally arrive here in an attempt at altering Christ’s definition of “this generation.” All Preterists find reasons for doing the same thing, but have various other reasons for doing so. The somewhat lazy Preterist simply borrows context from Matthew 23 describing the “Pharisees and Scribes.” Vs. 2, 13-15, etc.. The slightly more sophisticated chap will play the Lexicon Avenue shell game maneuver and simply redefine ‘houtos genea’ (this generation) from the dictionary. Others simply say that “The Son of God” knows everything, and just agree that He knows ‘when’ all these things happen, so “this generation” seeing all these signs really means “your generation” = the disciple’s generation. Your “kingdom of God” reason for inventing a definition for ‘this generation’ also contradicts Christ’s connecting of all these signs (Matt. 24:3-29) to the ‘generation’ seeing Him ‘at the door.’ Instead of trying to prove your invented definition through kingdom of God arguments, simply prove that any of these witnesses actually saw ‘all these things’ take place at His coming in 70 AD; and drop the side show routine. Where are all the Epistles from the eye witnesses who saw ‘all these things’ take place in 70 AD? John was exiled to Patmos after the persecution began following the destruction of Jerusalem. Was Peter crucified upside down in Rome or what? Was he the Pope before or after he was gathered in Matthew 24:31?
Xavier >> And so the argument comes full circle, the Olivet Discourse is referring to the setting up of the Kingdom of God under the Son of Man. As shown, this indeed refers to the ministry of Christ and his redemption of the whole world. It is not as supposed by many both here and throughout Christendom to refer to the end of space-time and Judgment. This notion has NO PLACE in the reading of First Century Jewish documents such as the Gospels.
Really? Let’s do a little comparison of what Christ says in two accounts of His coming in glory with His angels at the end of the age:

Matt 24:30+31 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Matt. 25:31-34 “But when the Son of Man comes* in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom** prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
I do not know where you get this “space-time” lingo, but Christ is describing the ‘end of the age.’ My bewilderment is over the fact that you can see Christ coming in glory in both of these passages with His angels and gathering people from one end to the other. You can even see the Kingdom being established (Rev. 21:1+), but you remain totally blind to the Judgment that appears directly between His coming* and the establishment of the Kingdom**. You are using a technique of selective reading that some of us find most difficult to understand. The Judgment is not part of Matthew 24, because the Twelve asked about when these things take place and “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” All of the parable and ‘this generation’ language was saying “I do not know when, but here are the signs of those times.”
Xavier >> This is not to say anything about the book of Revelation as this is beyond our purview at the particular moment. However, I would suggest that anyone who takes the time to study the context of that letter would reveal the same thing as the Olivet Discourse.
What is this supposed to mean? How can you write an essay or thesis paper on the “argument for Preterist interpretation of Gospel Apocalyptic material” without mentioning the ‘day of the Lord?’ Christ taught that this ‘gospel of the kingdom’ must go to the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the ‘end will come.’ Matt. 24:14. Philip is preaching the ‘good news concerning the kingdom of God’ (Acts 8:12) to the Samarians, but how did they receive the Holy Spirit? Peter and John had to go and lay hands on them. Acts 8:16+17. Peter is quoting Joel 2:28-32 about the ‘day of the Lord’ (Acts 2:20), when he says in the “last days” that “His Spirit” would be poured out on “All mankind.” Acts 2:17. The laying of hands is the way that the Holy Spirit is given while preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’ Matt. 24:14. That is what you are seeing in Acts 19:1-6 with those disciples (Acts 19:6). The ‘day of the Lord’ (Lord’s Day: Rev. 1:10) is all about this gospel of the kingdom going to the whole world and all those believing the gospel receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands, and THEN the ‘end will come.’ Matt. 24:14. Only then can the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Matt. 24:14, Dan. 12:11-13) be ‘set up,’ so that the ‘man of sin’ takes his seat in the “Temple of God displaying himself as being God.” 2Thes. 2:3+4. John describes these events in Revelation 13, and we can agree that these things occur at the end of the age, when the events of Matthew 24 are indeed fulfilled. “This generation” living in ‘that day’ shall see ‘all these things’ fulfilled, and also see Him ‘at the door.’ Matt. 24:33.

In Christ,

Terral

[Xavier]

Well, I want to make clear that I'm not here to debate (lol), but only to critique. As an Orthodox, there is a certain 'freedom' in eschatology. But there are definite no-no's as well. For example: no chialism. Period.

Per my understanding, chiliasm is on the opposite end of the spectrum from what I'm discussing at present... :wink:

I've tried and tried to find Father's and commentators who see the later verses of Matthew 24 as dealing exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem. No success yet.

There was a thread not too far back dealing with this very question. From my recollection, there were "preteristic" sayings, but nothing that I would point to and yell "HA!".

But, isn't the Kingdom of Heaven the mission of Christ? Oh, there's alot tied up in it for sure, but this is the message of the gospel (Matt. 4:23), right? But this comes down, essentially to what the kingdom of God actually is. Which I will get to.

I would agree with you completely. It's just not something that I had wanted to get to in any amount of detail. Both Jesus's and Paul's gospel's center on the Kingdom. All teachings and actions fit into this primary motivation. As you mentioned, there are ancellary tasks to this mission. However, I would argue that they either provided a foundation or a further evidence for the work of the Kingdom.

Or rather, the Jewish understanding was warped, and Jesus fulfilled the purpose of God by proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

Yes, exactly.


This comes down to what the Kingdom of God is and how we undestand its fulfillment and work.

Yes and unfortuately, I've yet to be able to come up with a good single sentance or two on it. It would seem that the consept is more complicated than other will allow for.

I believe that most of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem. No doubt.

Okay... :teeth:

Then the question would turn to:
Where do you see a gap or a change of topic through the discourse?

For example, Bill the Cat places one after the discussion of the Fig Tree (which he correctly notes as Jewish) to the "gathering of the Elect" (which he claims as a universal).

I do not see a place in the context where you can make such a delimitation. The whole subject of the discourse is the vindication of Christ's reign.

For example? Perhaps you should expand on this theme a bit.

Yes, and I will for a future revision. Actions like the clearing of the Temple need to be viewed as subversive as they really are. Notice that the clearing is what Jesus gets arrested for in the first place. What is Jesus's intent in this action? It would seem that he is trying to reclaim a symbol for himself. The Temple is of primary importance to the Jewish context. It represents the prescence of YHWH with his people (shekina). However, Jesus is redefining shekina in another way. He sees HIMSELF as the shekina rather than the Temple. Jesus is the prescence of YHWH in his people. This is a foundation for the Kingdom of God.

Also, again, I wouldn't say that Jesus came to 'institute' the Kingdom of God. This comes from my understanding of what the Kingdom of God is. He indeed said, "The Kingdom of God is within you."

That is correct in a sense. However, I would not underplay a political subversive Kingdom. The Early Church was persicuted for its beliefs. I would argue this wasn't random by any strech of the imagination. There is definately some change in the status of Kingdom from the time before Christ to the time after Christ. I call this change in status the "instantination" of the Kingdom, since it was here that Christ achieved his victory.

I really do not know of anyone who says that the Kingdom of God is in entirely in "some future 'end-of-the-world' time".

Chiliasm for one... :wink:

Most self-described premillenialists as well, per my understanding of their position.

However, even you look for the Second Coming, correct? What is the purpose of the Second Coming and how does it relate to the Kingdom of God?

What do you mean by the Second Coming? The parousia would seem to have been fulfilled already, yet I would not describe that as a "coming".

If you mean parousia, then it deals with the vindication of Christ and his Kingdom. By these signs, you will know that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Christ said this to his disciples, but also to the High Priest at his trial. Christ's mission would be vindicated by the judgement that would pour forth on apostate Israel.

For example?

As noted, there are good references in Acts and Romans as well as in the Early Patristic writings. However, such a compliation takes time and I'm lazy... :wink: "Weakness of the flesh being what it is."

For conversation's sake, notice the titles that the early Christians attach to Jesus. I mentioned this briefly in the original article. Many of them deal with the Messianic fulfillment, which could only have been seen as the rise of the Kingdom of God.

It doesn't follow that the entirety of the Olivet discourse must be related to the first century simply because the Kingdom of God 'began' in this period. For the simple reason that the Kingdom of God, while 'at hand' in the first century is still 'at hand' even today.

Agreed. However, I find the argument for places aspects of the Discourse in the Far Future to be light and unsubstantial, especially given the Kingdom context.

I don't know. Wouldn't the Kingdom of God be redemption and restoration of man and creation to communion with God? Isn't this why repentance always precedes entrance into the Kingdom - because there's another way? The life we live before Christ must be rejected to enter into that 'straight and narrow' path.

I don't disagree that common definition of Kingdom of God in today's context would convey such meanings, nor would I disagree that the early church didn't give it this weight. However, that definition is viewed in hindsight from the point of view of the Church. The Kingdom of God, however, from the Jewish context has a MUCH different meaning. The victory of YHWH is what the Jews are looking for in the "Kingdom".

I would disagree. In Matthew 12:28 Christ says, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Often we're told by Christ about the presentness of His kingdom. So, prior to Calvary we see that the Kingdom already is. How would you account for this in your present view?

Well from the Jewish perspective, I could see that Jesus is merely applying the macroconsept of victory to a micrositutation. Further, Jesus knows full well exactly what his mission is. Christ IS the Victory of God, even if that victory hasn't occured yet... :smile:

Very good discussion, Tizzi. I'm throughly enjoying this... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

Hi Xavier:

Greetings,

Yes sir, I am the “He” in your thread title and your article was much too long to address on the Preterist Debate Thread (Post # 90) http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43767&page=6&pp=16 , just as it is improper for me to post an article here.

You asked me to post a firm defense of my stance on Scripture which is exactly why I posted it there in the first place. I saw further dismissal of said piece to be one of ignorance, so I reposted the article here for further discussion by outside parties.

Instead I am here to look at comments you have made on your thread and in your OP that require attention. This is the third time I have read through your post, and still your work appears vague; and your thesis statement and hypothesis practically undefined. One thing in your favor is the task of rebuking as series of disjointed ideas can be most tedious indeed.

Well, I'm glad that you are addressing the post now, even if you can't seem to follow the rather simple argumentation in play here. I've provided a definition for the Jewish context of the Kingdom. Then moved to the timing of said Kingdom. Then looked for the significance of that timing to the eschatological picture.

It should be noted that others (both publicaly and privately) have followed the points easily and offered critique.

Pointing your finger to a sign that says “argument for Preterist interpretation of Gospel Apocalyptic material” is not making a declaration of very much; and misspelling Apocalyptic in your opening statement is a bit careless and indicative of the comparisons you are attempting to make in the body of your work. You appear to be leading in to pasting your prepared document below with the ‘We’ll start lingo . . . (snip)

Your ability to point out spelling mistakes is duly noted. Your abilty to not address the argumentation is also duly noted.

Eventually, I hope that you will learn how to use logic and good rhetorical skills. My first suggestion would be to figure out the relative importance of spelling to the matter at hand... :ahem:

The first thing to notice? This should be the location for your commentary on Christ’s ‘parable of the fig tree’ teaching. If you intended to prepare us for your commentary by way of a series of introductory statements, or a teaching from another passage, then why not begin there first?

I realize this one is a hard consept to grasp, but you have no idea what the parable means until you figure out the worldview that it is coming from and the worldview that it is addressing. Modern Christian ignorance of the Jewish context is precisely the reason for such outlandish futuristic proposals such as yours.

Further, It is MY article. I have arranged the contents in a logical manner to address the topic that I deemed worthy to write about. Your comments on the way you would have written it are off-topic and decidely abserd.

Your work shows misdirection of intent from the very start, and one wonders why he is being led around from the ‘end of the age’ teaching to the very beginning of Christ’s ministry.

I realize that you have no consept of a Biblical Hermeneutic. However, I fortunately do. You can't understand a single part of Christ's ministry without first understanding the ministry as a cohesive whole. This means going back to the beginning, middle, and end and attempting to find the themes of the teachings. This is a proper method of studying the Bible rather than coming up with a doctrine and force-fitting the verses around it.

You are talking and not saying very much in this commentary thus far.

Pleasantly ironic... You haven't even addressed a SINGLE point of my paper yet. :ahem:

Mark’s descriptions here represent Matthews’s account of Christ preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Galilee in Matthew 4:17-23.

Mark cannot describe or represent an account from Matthew, since Mark came first. Again, context first then start your application... :ahem:

Christ is following John the Baptist proclaiming the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:4. John says, "After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.” John 3:22. John’s statement actually parallels Matthew account of Christ proclaiming the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Matthew 9:35 (Judea).

This show your inability to understand the subject matter at hand rather clearly...

However, I believe you are attempting to define the ‘kingdom of God' without actually providing us the components and doctrinal precepts that describe and support your interpretation.

No kidding... I am establishing here the importance of the Kingdom to the ministry of Christ. I haven't even begun the work of unpacking its meaning.

Merely saying that you have “established the importance of the Kingdom” is not saying anything.

Merely saying that "is not saying anything" is not saying anything... :ahem:

Israel has been in anticipation of becoming the ‘kingdom of priests’ (Exodus 19:6) since the times of Moses.

Good! VERY Good... Maybe you do understand SOME of the context that we are unpacking here... :smile:

Also, your point about Christ being the Messiah here is moot, by the fact that Christ warned the Twelve not to tell anyone He was the Christ. Matt. 16:20. The focus of their preaching was upon the fact that the “Kingdom of heaven is at hand” to Israel only. Matt. 10:5-7, 15:24.

Amusing... If only for its own sake. Your point that Jesus didn't go amoung the Gentiles proves what exactly. Not only do your verse offer MORE evidence for my position, you show off your ignorance of this fact.

Why ask a question in your topic sentence and ignore it throughout the paragraph? You have four or five good topic sentences here that could be developed into a paper on the nation of Israel, or the political aspirations of the nation 2000 years ago while towing the line for Caesar. I am still looking for how the parable of the fig tree in your opening statement is being described by anything written here.

Stunning as ever, Terral... You cannot address the topic at hand, so we need a literary criticism. Of course, you cannot even begin to understand what the article is about, so your criticism is laughable.

We ran from that to the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom to find ourselves hearing about massive uprisings and rebellions against Rome. Israel was a rag tag bunch of sheep herders compared to the Roman Empire of that era. Disorderly conduct meant Rome sending more troops, which meant they consumed more and more of your local resources by feeding and housing them. Where do we see John the Baptist, Christ or the Twelve railing against the Romans who occupied Israel?

Once again, you are not understanding the point. I'm establishing the JEWISH expectation of the Messiah, Terral. Please try to understand what I am writing rather than offering your two cents from what you think I might be saying... :ahem:

Instead they railed against the Pharisees, Scribes and hypocrites of their time.

But pray-tell why? How do you make sense of this action?

We can agree that Israel as looking for a conquering Messiah, but I am having trouble connecting the dots at the top of your paper . . . (expectations, world view, snip)

Good again... Bear this in mind as we move from the Jewish Expectation on to what Jesus actually did. We have to understand the expectations and worldview of the Jews to understand Jesus's interactions with those very expectations and worldviews.

We are crisscrossing the same areas of the landscape time and time again without going anyplace . . .

Very true, but we have to take our new knowledge into account: the Jewish expectation and worldview.

Most bible commentary will begin with John the Baptist and then move on to Christ following. What was the purpose of showing Christ above in Galilee, now to find ourselves with John the Baptist and before Christ was ever baptized? Perhaps you will consider moving some paragraphs around in your commentary to give some continuous flow to the storyline and teaching to assist the reader in developing a clear mental image of what you are trying to say.

What do you know... More literary criticism... :ahem:

(John the Baptist, slip of the tongue, railing at Pharisees, beginning Christ’s ministry again, snip)

Cohesive whole is lost on you, isn't it? Have you ever heard of a meta-narrative???

We disagree.

Really? Surprising... :wink:

John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 1:14+15. Christ came along behind and preached the same things, as a continuation of the same ministry. This is why we can compare John’s words (Matt. 3:2) to Christ’s preaching (Matt. 4:17) and see they are identical.

Good... Jesus and John ARE teaching the same thing.

When John was in prison and sent messengers to Christ, He said, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them.” Luke 7:22. Christ taught Israel to “[color=blue]love our enemies” and that “your reward will be great.” (Luke 6:35).

Is there are point lying around in there? What do you think the gospel is?

Christ told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, or even of this realm. John 18:36.

{Booming Voice}
Now playing Left Field...
Number 22, Terral
{/Booming Voice}

We don't disagree on that... But it does rather beg another futurist question about the Millennium, doesn't it? I suppose that is for another time.

The early church could proclaim anything they wished, but Caesar was still running the show.

Begs the question of WHY they proclaimed that... Which is the issue at hand.

Anyone could be hauled to Rome to be executed for just about anything, or be crucified like Christ and the two thieves (Mark 14:13). Are we taking notice that a common thief could be crucified during those times? And that Christ was crucified for claiming to be ‘King of the Jews?’

Still wondering about your point here... Obviously the Chruch tooks notice of Christ, so your argument is moot.

Steven was stoned to death in Acts 7 for what? Just about nothing . . . If you believe that Christ has set up His kingdom here on the earth, then how did the Romans continue to dominate the known world for centuries after? If death has been conquered, then why do men continue to die? (rhetorical device, snip).

Wow... Just wow. You can't even begin to understand, Can you? Do you even try? Or are you just assuming I'm wrong from the get-go?

The answer to your first question is rather answered by your second one.

Thank you, but one account is always enough, when quoting God: Christ is talking about Peter, John and James who He would lead up the Mountain in the very next chapter to see Him transfigured with Elijah and Moses.

It would seem that the Kingdom doesn't play enough into your interpretation to be able to figure out the first bit about the context of the Olivet Discourse. So, I'm taking baby steps, Terral...

“And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.” Matt. 17:2. The remainder of your commentary on this topic represents a vain attempt at connecting a literal establishment of Christ’s heavenly kingdom here on earth with absolutely no evidence to support your assumption.

Wow... Your ignorance is simply amazing, Terral. You cannot begin to address the actual points at hand, so you simply dismiss them.

Christ’s kingdom is not even of this realm (John 18:36), but Peter, John and James saw a glimpse of what is to come.

The fact that you cannot seem to understand the meaning of your own statements continues to amaze me.

Are we getting a whiff of a side show shell game sort of scam or what? Scripture began establishing the true identity of ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) back in verse 3 with the question from the Disciples over the signs of all these things and “Your coming” at the “end of the age.”

Are we not addressing the point and veering off into our own blindly accepted interpretation... :ahem:

Here let's make the next bit easy:
Terral, you are wrong. Your interpretation is nothing but ad hoc. You cannot establish the context of the entire paragraph.

I am a little surprised that we chased this fox all over creation to finally arrive here in an attempt at altering Christ’s definition of “this generation.”

I am little surprised that you cannot even begin to understand the significance of my argument, Terral. You are so dense that you cannot see the forest for the trees... :rofl:

All Preterists find reasons for doing the same thing, but have various other reasons for doing so. The somewhat lazy Preterist simply borrows context from Matthew 23 describing the “Pharisees and Scribes.” Vs. 2, 13-15, etc.. The slightly more sophisticated chap will play the Lexicon Avenue shell game maneuver and simply redefine ‘houtos genea’ (this generation) from the dictionary. Others simply say that “The Son of God” knows everything, and just agree that He knows ‘when’ all these things happen, so “this generation” seeing all these signs really means “your generation” = the disciple’s generation.

And you ignore all of them because you cannot seem to think... :haha:

*snip off-topic rant due to flagrant inability to address the brunt of the argument*

[font=Georgia][size=3]Really? Let’s do a little comparison of what Christ says in two accounts of His coming in glory with His angels at the end of the age:[/quote]

How about addressing my argument?

*snip another stupid argument that fails to address anything I've written*

I do not know where you get this “space-time” lingo, but Christ is describing the ‘end of the age.’

Jesus is describing an end of A age. The fact that you cannot seem to grasp that the age doesn't necessarily have to be the one we are currently in is also beyond me.

My bewilderment is over the fact that you can see Christ coming in glory in both of these passages with His angels and gathering people from one end to the other. You can even see the Kingdom being established (Rev. 21:1+), but you remain totally blind to the Judgment that appears directly between His coming* and the establishment of the Kingdom**.

Terral, You are an idiot. There is simply no other explanation for your reading of my article then saying something like this. I spent the ENTIRE ARTICLE showing you that the establishment of the Kingdom DID NOT take place where you WANT it to take place. You couldn't come up with a SINGLE objection that addressed the thesis of the paper.

You are using a technique of selective reading that some of us find most difficult to understand. The Judgment is not part of Matthew 24, because the Twelve asked about when these things take place and “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” All of the parable and ‘this generation’ language was saying “I do not know when, but here are the signs of those times.”

You use the technique of ignoring what you opponents say and once again offering your take on it without ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever... :ahem:

Please waste someone else's time.

What is this supposed to mean? How can you write an essay or thesis paper on the “argument for Preterist interpretation of Gospel Apocalyptic material” without mentioning the ‘day of the Lord?’

Because understanding the "day of the Lord" requires an understanding of the nature of the Kingdom....

You cannot understand the nature of the Kingdom, so why bother...

*snip more of the same ignorance*

Well, that's exactly what I thought would be the best you could come up with. Ignorance and Stupidity abound in your reply that remarkable fails to address even a single point of my argumentation even though it is quite lengthy. You are quite adept at ignoring your opposition and offering your own view with any evidence whatsoever.

Terral, for the last time, take the time to understand what I am trying to say about the nature and the timing of the Kingdom. Do not offer your own interpretation until you have dealt with mine. Refute my understanding of the Kingdom by offer counterargument to THAT point, not in the implications of the point.

Yours,
Xavier

PS: Terrier.... :rofl:

[tizzidale]

There was a thread not too far back dealing with this very question. From my recollection, there were "preteristic" sayings, but nothing that I would point to and yell "HA!". This is one of the reasons I feel preterism fails – it’s claim of innovation and the lack of it. Not in the sense that everything they say is copied, but only that the ideas espoused by preterists (i.e. Matthew 24’s fulfillment and Revelation) have been around for centuries. Only, I can’t find one Father who supports the notion that Matthew 24 is fulfilled in its entirety by the destruction of Jerusalem.

I would agree with you completely. It's just not something that I had wanted to get to in any amount of detail. Both Jesus's and Paul's gospel's center on the Kingdom. All teachings and actions fit into this primary motivation. As you mentioned, there are ancellary tasks to this mission. However, I would argue that they either provided a foundation or a further evidence for the work of the Kingdom.

Okay.

I believe that most of Matthew 24 is about the destruction of Jerusalem. No doubt. Okay...


Then the question would turn to:
Where do you see a gap or a change of topic through the discourse?

For example, Bill the Cat places one after the discussion of the Fig Tree (which he correctly notes as Jewish) to the "gathering of the Elect" (which he claims as a universal). I do not see a place in the context where you can make such a delimitation. The whole subject of the discourse is the vindication of Christ's reign.

St. John Chrysostom puts the division at verse 23. I’ll quote from him:

Having finished what concerned Jerusalem, He passes on to His own coming, and tells the signs of it, not for their use only, but for us also, and for all that shall come after us.

“Then.” When? Here, as I have often said, the word, “then,” relates not to the connection in order of time with the things before mentioned. At least, when He was minded to express the connection of time, He added, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days,” but here not so, but, “then,” not meaning what should follow straightway after these things, but what should be in the time, when these things were to be done, of which He was about to speak. So also when it is said, “In those days cometh John the Baptist,” he is not speaking of the time that should straightway follow, but that many years after, and that in which these things were done, of which He was about to speak. For, in fact, having spoken of the birth of Jesus, and of the coming of the magi, and of the death of Herod, He at once saith, “In those days cometh John the Baptist;” although thirty years had intervened. But this is customary in the Scripture, I mean, to use this manner of narration. So then here also, having passed over all the intermediate time from the taking of Jerusalem unto the preludes of the consummation, He speaketh of the time just before the consummation. “Then,” He saith therefore, “if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not.”

I would recommend his homilies on Matthew 24 to anyone.

*snip*Jesus is the prescence of YHWH in his people. This is a foundation for the Kingdom of God.

Not just ‘a’ foundation.

That is correct in a sense. However, I would not underplay a political subversive Kingdom. The Early Church was persicuted for its beliefs. I would argue this wasn't random by any strech of the imagination. There is definately some change in the status of Kingdom from the time before Christ to the time after Christ. I call this change in status the "instantination" of the Kingdom, since it was here that Christ achieved his victory.

I would like to see this further explored. Maybe there needs to be a “Kingdom” thread.

I really do not know of anyone who says that the Kingdom of God is in entirely in "some future 'end-of-the-world' time". Chiliasm for one...


Most self-described premillenialists as well, per my understanding of their position.

I guess you’re right.

What do you mean by the Second Coming? The parousia would seem to have been fulfilled already, yet I would not describe that as a "coming".

If you mean parousia, then it deals with the vindication of Christ and his Kingdom. By these signs, you will know that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Christ said this to his disciples, but also to the High Priest at his trial. Christ's mission would be vindicated by the judgement that would pour forth on apostate Israel.

And He shall come again with Glory to judge the living and the dead. Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

I would recommend this article: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/last_events_florovsky_e.htm

He gives an interesting quotation as well: "A Christian faith without expectation of the Parousia is like a ladder which leads nowhere but ends in the void."

* snip *

However, I find the argument for places aspects of the Discourse in the Far Future to be light and unsubstantial, especially given the Kingdom context.

I wouldn’t call 2000 years of Biblical interpretation ‘light and unsubstantial’. Of course, this comes down to one’s faith in the Church to correctly interpret scripture (or lack of faith).

I don't disagree that common definition of Kingdom of God in today's context would convey such meanings, nor would I disagree that the early church didn't give it this weight. However, that definition is viewed in hindsight from the point of view of the Church. The Kingdom of God, however, from the Jewish context has a MUCH different meaning. The victory of YHWH is what the Jews are looking for in the "Kingdom".

To think that the early Church didn’t take “Jewish concepts” into consideration shows your bias (or lack of reading). But nonetheless, if there are two “contexts”, we have already established that the Jewish concept was ‘warped’. I’ll stick with the Church.

* snip *


Rusty

[Terral]

Xavier, Dee Dee (mentioned):
Xavier >> Well, I'm glad that you are addressing the post now, even if you can't seem to follow the rather simple argumentation in play here. I've provided a definition for the Jewish context of the Kingdom. Then moved to the timing of said Kingdom. Then looked for the significance of that timing to the eschatological picture. It should be noted that others (both publicaly and privately) have followed the points easily and offered critique.
Can’t seem to follow? . . . My legs were tired from running all over just to find myself back in Matthew 24:34 playing your Preterist shell game. All of that running around and chanting about the Kingdom of God does not change the context of Christ’s message in Matthew 24 or the true identity of ‘this generation’ to see ‘all these things’ and see Him ‘at the door.’ Matt. 24:33. You are still altering the definition of the phrase given to us by Christ Himself in verse 33. Other Preterists on the board happen to agree with your theology. The problem is that they substitute their own definition of ‘houtos genea’ for different reasons than yourself. Did you read Dee Dee’s commentary covering this same passage and these same verses? (my rebuttal thread here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995) ) She replaces Christ’s meaning of ‘this generation’ by borrowing context from different chapters (Matt. 12, 23), where Christ is describing “this evil generation” (Matt. 12:45).

Dee Dee uses the phrase “Kingdom of God” only three times in the entire commentary (outside of Scriptural quotes); once in her opening outline (chapter 21), and twice together in consecutive sentences near the bottom. Dee Dee’s Commentary >> (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html (http://www.preteristlist.com/docs/warrenend.html) ) “This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain..... Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen "it" is near. What is "it"? Luke equates "it" with the "Kingdom of God." The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS.” These are mere second person references to Luke’s account of these events of Matthew 24, which in no way even begins the attempt of describing what the ‘Kingdom of God’ means. Christ told the Twelve, “so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ].” Matt. 24:33. Luke’s account affirms the truth that the Kingdom of God is coming with Him, but this generation will still see Christ at the door.
Xavier >> Your ability to point out spelling mistakes is duly noted. Your abilty to not address the argumentation is also duly noted. Eventually, I hope that you will learn how to use logic and good rhetorical skills. My first suggestion would be to figure out the relative importance of spelling to the matter at hand...
Please . . . There is nothing to address in your opening statements where no arguments are being presented. The errors at the top of the page give the reader a distinct first impression that was duly noted in my post above (Post #12). You set yourself up for criticism by opening with, “In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly brilliant piece of mine . . .” I am the participant you are talking about, and this brilliant piece is being shown a pile of something instead. “Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off.'" 1Kings 20:11.
Xavier >> I realize this one is a hard consept to grasp, but you have no idea what the parable means until you figure out the worldview that it is coming from and the worldview that it is addressing. Modern Christian ignorance of the Jewish context is precisely the reason for such outlandish futuristic proposals such as yours.
You must be joking . . . When did the parable of the fig tree become difficult to understand? “When its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He [ Christ ] is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30+31 ].” Matt. 24:32+33. The generation to see all these signs shall see “Your Coming” at the “End of the Age” and see Him “at the door.” These few sentences explain Christ’s true definition more clearly than all of the words in your ‘brilliant piece’ combined. Preterists pretend that things are complicated, so that they can present long arduous answers to a very simple question.
Xavier >> Further, It is MY article. I have arranged the contents in a logical manner to address the topic that I deemed worthy to write about. Your comments on the way you would have written it are off-topic and decidely abserd.
No sir. The opening statement of your OP says Terral cannot touch your ‘brilliant piece,’ but he is finding errors from top to bottom. Since you have set up the competition between your work and me in such a bold manner, you should also expect this kind of reply. After all, we have Dee Dee’s thread offering up her commentary to the scrutiny of everyone (which I admire her for that even if we disagree), and people are pointing out the errors in spelling in such. What, when friends point these things out it is okay, but off topic when done by your opponents? Heh . . . My comments here are directly solely at your work and nothing else. Do not play this ‘off topic’ game with me.
Xavier >> I realize that you have no consept of a Biblical Hermeneutic. However, I fortunately do. You can't understand a single part of Christ's ministry without first understanding the ministry as a cohesive whole. This means going back to the beginning, middle, and end and attempting to find the themes of the teachings. This is a proper method of studying the Bible rather than coming up with a doctrine and force-fitting the verses around it.
That is your judgment, but this thread is dedicated to my (a participant) engagement with “a particular brilliant piece of mine.” You offered up the challenge and I am accepting by offering my reply. Your work rambles all over the place an crisscrosses over topics like buzzards who have found their next meal. Your concluding remarks in no way represented the meandering wanderings of our journey down Kingdom Avenue. Instead you presented just another reason for changing Christ’s meaning of “this generation” of Matthew 24:34 like all the other Preterists on this Board. This is the fourth documented reason for this same act of larceny I have seen to prop up Preterism and your “already fulfilled” interpretation for the ‘day of the Lord’ events of Matthew 24. The folly in all this is that there is only ‘one’ truth, which is why we call it ‘the truth.’ Therefore, the meaning of ‘this generation’ has one meaning and one meaning only, and Christ Himself tells us who they are in verse 33. The fact that we now have four different reasons from Preterists for changing Christ’s definition of ‘houtos genea’ is evidence that at least three of you are wrong. My contention is that all of you are changing Christ’s definition to prop up errant versions of the same distorted misinterpretation.
Terral Original >> Mark’s descriptions here represent Matthews’s account of Christ preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ in Galilee in Matthew 4:17-23.

Xavier >> Mark cannot describe or represent an account from Matthew, since Mark came first. Again, context first then start your application...
Heh. Mark came first? Both passages describe Christ appearing in ‘Galilee’ to begin His ministry offering the Kingdom to Israel as synoptic accounts. You ran from the fig tree to start Christ’s ministry to then jump back to John the Baptist before Christ was ever baptized. Then you have the gall to lecture me about proper hermeneutics. (subject matter, Kingdom importance, ignorance, laughable, two cents snip) The pattern here is that your literary piece turned out to be a pile in my estimation. Nothing you said here offers rebuttal to any of my statements above in Post 12. This is the classic Preterist shell game with a very long introductory speech to get things going. Thank you for the opportunity to offer critique of your so-called brilliant piece.

In Christ,

Terral

[Xavier]

Eager to prove his in ability to think and consequent ability to ignore EVERYTHING that an oppontent writes, Terral once again refuses to address anything in the article and instead leans on his own "understanding" (limited as it is).

Xavier, Dee Dee (mentioned):
Can’t seem to follow? . . . My legs were tired from running all over just to find myself back in Matthew 24:34 playing your Preterist shell game.

Here Terral admits that he has absolutely no idea as to the force of my argumentation. Instead of asking for clarification or simply studying a bit to figure it out, he instead offers his critique of what he thinks I might be saying. Needless to say, he fails miserablely once again.

All of that running around and chanting about the Kingdom of God does not change the context of Christ’s message in Matthew 24 or the true identity of ‘this generation’ to see ‘all these things’ and see Him ‘at the door.’ Matt. 24:33.

Here Terral admits that he cannot figure out what the "Kingdom of God" is and what it might mean for the context of the discourse. This amuses me since I laid this out already in several places...

You are still altering the definition of the phrase given to us by Christ Himself in verse 33.

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

Terral continues to rely on the fact that he can change the referant of pronouns halfway through a passage with no argument whatsoever. His own ignorance of the context is once again made clear.

Other Preterists on the board happen to agree with your theology. The problem is that they substitute their own definition of ‘houtos genea’ for different reasons than yourself. Did you read Dee Dee’s commentary covering this same passagse and these same verses? (my rebuttal thread here: [/size]http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44995)[size=3] ) She replaces Christ’s meaning of ‘this generation’ by borrowing context from different chapters (Matt. 12, 23), where Christ is describing “this evil generation” (Matt. 12:45).

Terral, upset that he cannot find error in my article, retreats to pointing out the other way in which preterists set the context of the language. Terral in his continuing ignorance does not seem to understand that the fact that ALL of these arguments exist is a STRENGTH. Granted with his lack of logic or rhetoric skill, this is not to be unexpected.

Dee Dee uses the phrase “Kingdom of God” only three times in the entire commentary (outside of Scriptural quotes); once in her opening outline (chapter 21), and twice together in consecutive sentences near the bottom.

YAWN! Cannot address my argument, so we'll just go point out another...
*snip discussion of a different article*

Please . . . There is nothing to address in your opening statements where no arguments are being presented.

And yet you seem more than willing to "address" them... :ahem:

The errors at the top of the page give the reader a distinct first impression that was duly noted in my post above (Post #12). You set yourself up for criticism by opening with, “In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly brilliant piece of mine . . .” I am the participant you are talking about, and this brilliant piece is being shown a pile of something instead. “
Let not him who girds on his armor boast like him who takes it off.'" 1Kings 20:11.

Here Terral attempts to further drive the discussion off-topic by defending his lack of rhetoric skill... Amazing, I've never seen someone guard their own ignorance as well as he can... :rofl:

You must be joking . . . When did the parable of the fig tree become difficult to understand?

The day you started reading it apparently... :ahem:

*snip more off-topic ranting that fails to address anything written*

These few sentences explain Christ’s true definition more clearly than all of the words in your ‘brilliant piece’ combined. Preterists pretend that things are complicated, so that they can present long arduous answers to a very simple question.

The Futurists of course continue to ignore the answers as they are given and instead rely on their own interpretation instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. This is further proof that Terral and people like him are the reason for apostacy in the modern world. They cannot seem to let their own precious dogma go for one second in order to engage someone in a discussion. Pathetic as ever...

No sir. The opening statement of your OP says Terral cannot touch your ‘brilliant piece,’ but he is finding errors from top to bottom.

Sir, you couldn't find an error in this piece if it came and bit you on the butt. You are that stupid.

Since you have set up the competition between your work and me in such a bold manner, you should also expect this kind of reply.

Since you have continued to refuse to engage me or my point, you should expect this kind of reply, moron.

After all, we have Dee Dee’s thread offering up her commentary to the scrutiny of everyone (which I admire her for that even if we disagree), and people are pointing out the errors in spelling in such. What, when friends point these things out it is okay, but off topic when done by your opponents? Heh . . . My comments here are directly solely at your work and nothing else. Do not play this ‘off topic’ game with me.

Here Terral reveals that he cannot even tell that his points are off-topic... Amusing in its own right if only for its blantant patheticness.

That is your judgment, but this thread is dedicated to my (a participant) engagement with “a particular brilliant piece of mine.” You offered up the challenge and I am accepting by offering my reply. Your work rambles all over the place an crisscrosses over topics like buzzards who have found their next meal. Your concluding remarks in no way represented the meandering wanderings of our journey down Kingdom Avenue. Instead you presented just another reason for changing Christ’s meaning of “this generation” of Matthew 24:34 like all the other Preterists on this Board. This is the fourth documented reason for this same act of larceny I have seen to prop up Preterism and your “already fulfilled” interpretation for the ‘day of the Lord’ events of Matthew 24. The folly in all this is that there is only ‘one’ truth, which is why we call it ‘the truth.’ Therefore, the meaning of ‘this generation’ has one meaning and one meaning only, and Christ Himself tells us who they are in verse 33. The fact that we now have four different reasons from Preterists for changing Christ’s definition of ‘houtos genea’ is evidence that at least three of you are wrong. My contention is that all of you are changing Christ’s definition to prop up errant versions of the same distorted misinterpretation.

Terral continues to rely on his own interpretation and calling it "Christ's own definition"... Terral, as ignorant as he is, continues to fail to see how the various points made by preterists affect his own argumentation. This is because Terral is too dense to allow someone else's thinking to influence him. He continues to ignore the points raised in favor of his own myopic approach to scripture.

The fact that Terral cannot even begin to touch the content of the article shows his inability to address anything contained within it rather well... :ahem:

Heh. Mark came first? Both passages describe Christ appearing in ‘Galilee’ to begin His ministry offering the Kingdom to Israel as synoptic accounts. You ran from the fig tree to start Christ’s ministry to then jump back to John the Baptist before Christ was ever baptized. Then you have the gall to lecture me about proper hermeneutics. (subject matter, Kingdom importance, ignorance, laughable, two cents snip)

Notice the continuing ignorance of proper hermeneutical method. Terral doesn't understand the purpose of setting up context for a passage... :rofl:

The pattern here is that your literary piece turned out to be a pile in my estimation. Nothing you said here offers rebuttal to any of my statements above in Post 12. This is the classic Preterist shell game with a very long introductory speech to get things going. Thank you for the opportunity to offer critique of your so-called brilliant piece.

So, umm, when are you going to actually citique anything I wrote? We're all still waiting... :ahem:

Ignorance is bliss, Terral... And you are probably the most blissful person I've ever had the luck to encounter... :rofl:

Yours,
Xavier

PS: ADDRESS THE ARTICLE ALREADY... From now on, anything not addressing the article will be snipped in its entirety.

[Xavier]

This is one of the reasons I feel preterism fails – it’s claim of innovation and the lack of it. Not in the sense that everything they say is copied, but only that the ideas espoused by preterists (i.e. Matthew 24’s fulfillment and Revelation) have been around for centuries. Only, I can’t find one Father who supports the notion that Matthew 24 is fulfilled in its entirety by the destruction of Jerusalem.

As noted previously, that would largely depend on your theological background...

Further, the fact that there are "preteristic" interpretation should be sufficent to show a step in the right direction.

St. John Chrysostom puts the division at verse 23. I’ll quote from him:
Having finished what concerned Jerusalem, He passes on to His own coming, and tells the signs of it, not for their use only, but for us also, and for all that shall come after us.

That would of course assume such a gap from the start... That's an odd way of proving a position.

“Then.” When? Here, as I have often said, the word, “then,” relates not to the connection in order of time with the things before mentioned. At least, when He was minded to express the connection of time, He added, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days,” but here not so, but, “then,” not meaning what should follow straightway after these things, but what should be in the time, when these things were to be done, of which He was about to speak. So also when it is said, “In those days cometh John the Baptist,” he is not speaking of the time that should straightway follow, but that many years after, and that in which these things were done, of which He was about to speak. For, in fact, having spoken of the birth of Jesus, and of the coming of the magi, and of the death of Herod, He at once saith, “In those days cometh John the Baptist;” although thirty years had intervened. But this is customary in the Scripture, I mean, to use this manner of narration. So then here also, having passed over all the intermediate time from the taking of Jerusalem unto the preludes of the consummation, He speaketh of the time just before the consummation. “Then,” He saith therefore, “if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not.”

So, following St. John's argument as best that I can, he states that the "Then" present in verse 23 marks a division of time rather than sucession. I agree with him that the passage of time is not always clearly indicated in Scripture. However, such passage also usually entails a definate change in topic. Such a change of topic is not clear in this passge though.

Here's the context for St. John's shift:
And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.

Since we have the gift of hindsight, is it odd or unlikely to suspect that the false christs and false prophets were refering to the First Century? Especially given the abundance of such figures throughout the First Century.

Further, it would seem that St. John undercuts his own argument when he notes a timing verse from after the gap (Matt 24:29), which itself is a quotation of an Old Testement passge. The sense of urgency in the tone of the passge does not bode well for a distant future portion.

Not just ‘a’ foundation.

I was refering to the Shekina prescence aspect of Christ's ministry. I would always hold that the personhood of Christ is THE foundation.

I would like to see this further explored. Maybe there needs to be a “Kingdom” thread.

Okay... Let me check with a few references and I'll try to write up something about the Early Church and its attitude concerning the Kingdom.

I guess you’re right.

:nsm:

And He shall come again with Glory to judge the living and the dead. Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Okay, then you simply define it differently than I would. This is something that I have been trying to work on over the past few weeks. I've seen people lump judgement into the pariousa, but I find this to be misleading since it assumes a futurist perspective from the outset.

I would recommend this article: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/last_events_florovsky_e.htm

He gives an interesting quotation as well: "A Christian faith without expectation of the Parousia is like a ladder which leads nowhere but ends in the void."

I would agree with him on that one... (Assuming the defintion of parouisa in play).

I wouldn’t call 2000 years of Biblical interpretation ‘light and unsubstantial’. Of course, this comes down to one’s faith in the Church to correctly interpret scripture (or lack of faith).

I do trust the church, just not as far as to the point of infaliability. I still think that the ECF argument must be weighed and measured like any modern argument.

To think that the early Church didn’t take “Jewish concepts” into consideration shows your bias (or lack of reading). But nonetheless, if there are two “contexts”, we have already established that the Jewish concept was ‘warped’. I’ll stick with the Church.

I wasn't saying that the Church's context was not valid or correct. However, the Church wasn't around yet when Christ uttered those words. We have to investigate the usage that Jesus intended to convey and that is going to have to come from the worldview of those who are listening to the message at hand.

The Church DID use the Jewish context when constructing their own worldview. One need to look no further than Paul's writings to see that one. I believe that this can be more fully explicated in a thread on the Early Church's view on the Kingdom and its consequences.

Yours,
Xavier

[Terral]

Xavier:
Xavier >> Eager to prove his in ability to think and consequent ability to ignore EVERYTHING that an oppontent writes, Terral once again refuses to address anything in the article and instead leans on his own "understanding" (limited as it is).
No sir. Your OP is a spin off of the classic Preterist shell game where your trail leads back to Matthew 24:34, and you present yet another reason for dismissing Christ’s definition of ‘this generation.’ Since my rebuttal to your so called ‘brilliant piece of mine’ was shown to be a pile in Post #12, you now feel the need to attack my person with eloquent statements like, “Notice the continuing ignorance of proper hermeneutical method.”

Well, your friends agree with you and your debating opponents are not very impressed. Christ tells us the identity of ‘this generation’ right here in the passage.

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you [ this generation ] see all these things [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour NO ONE knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father alone.”
“This generation” seeing “all these things” [ Matt. 24:3-29 ] will also see Him ‘at the door’ [ Matt. 24:30]. Matt. 24:33. Christ is describing the fulfillment of Zechariah 14 here in Matthew 24:

“Behold, a day is coming for the LORD [ day of the Lord; 2Pet. 3:10-12 ] when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you [ Judgment; Matt. 25:29-33 ]. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle [ Rev. 20:8+9 ], and the city will be captured [ when abomination of desolation set up ], the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD [ in glory: Matt. 24:30, 25:31 ] will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet [ Christ’s ] will stand on the Mount of Olives [ Matt. 24:3 ], which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives [ exactly where Christ is sitting ] will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.”
How many stones do you supposed will be left stacked up after this happens at the end of the age? Funny how Christ is sitting on this exact spot making this prophecy right? Your "the Romans did it" explanation has no Biblical support. Nobody should require so many words to demonstrate the simple truth that Christ is teaching right here in Matthew 24. Does all of the ‘kingdom of God’ business really change the meaning of ‘this generation?’ No. Enjoy the discussions over your ‘brilliant piece’ of whatever you want to call it, but my job here is finished. Thank you again for the opportunity to touch on the argument you felt I would not touch. You go ahead and try to touch that argument using Scripture . . .


In Christ,


Terral

[Xavier]

*snip*

Terral, who are you trying to impress with your ignorance?

You STILL haven't addressed a single point.

[tizzidale]

Further, the fact that there are "preteristic" interpretation should be sufficent to show a step in the right direction. Or, from my perspective: a step too far.

That would of course assume such a gap from the start... That's an odd way of proving a position. Assuming that he is assuming is also and odd way of countering a point. Of course you and I have very different perspectives. I know why I believe he was not presuming, but rather giving us the teaching of the Apostles concerning these verses. You on the other hand, believe that somehow the truth of these verses was somehow indiscernible in the interim between the time in which they were spoken and until the doctrine of preterism was conceived. But, I have read the entirety of St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on this chapter. If you have not, I would encourage it before presumptions are made.

So, following St. John's argument as best that I can, he states that the "Then" present in verse 23 marks a division of time rather than sucession. I agree with him that the passage of time is not always clearly indicated in Scripture. However, such passage also usually entails a definate change in topic. Such a change of topic is not clear in this passge though. No. Rather he is saying that in this context it does not serve as a “connection of time.” Also see my opening response in this post. St. John teaches that Jesus was answering two questions in Matthew 24. I believe you are familiar with this position.

Since we have the gift of hindsight, is it odd or unlikely to suspect that the false christs and false prophets were refering to the First Century? Especially given the abundance of such figures throughout the First Century. You spoke of St. John working from assumptions. I would say the same of you in this instance. I might say (and I daresay the Church teaches) that the whole of history since Christ has been full of false christs and prophets. You only have to look around the threads here on Theology Web to see this illustrated. But of course, the Church teaches that the spirit of antichrist is already in this world – awaiting the time when he is revealed.

Further, it would seem that St. John undercuts his own argument when he notes a timing verse from after the gap (Matt 24:29), which itself is a quotation of an Old Testement passge. The sense of urgency in the tone of the passge does not bode well for a distant future portion. I do not see how this ‘undercuts’ any argument he is making.

Of the tribulation of what days doth He speak? Of those of Antichrist and of the false prophets? For there shall be great tribulation, there being so many deceivers. But it is not protracted to a length of time. For if the Jewish war was shortened for the elect’s sake, much more shall this temptation be limited for these same’s sake. Therefore, He said not, “after the tribulation,” but Immediately “after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,” for almost at the same time all things come to pass. For the false prophets and false Christs shall come and cause confusion, and immediately He Himself will be here. Because no small turmoil is then to prevail over the world.


I was refering to the Shekina prescence aspect of Christ's ministry. I would always hold that the personhood of Christ is THE foundation. I’d like to discuss this ‘Shekina presence aspect’ with you someday.

Okay... Let me check with a few references and I'll try to write up something about the Early Church and its attitude concerning the Kingdom. Eagerly awaiting . . .

Okay, then you simply define it differently than I would. This is something that I have been trying to work on over the past few weeks. I've seen people lump judgement into the pariousa, but I find this to be misleading since it assumes a futurist perspective from the outset. Fortunately for us, the Church also was ‘futurist’ in its outset. Of course, they did not have the ‘advantage’ of being two thousand years removed.

I do trust the church, just not as far as to the point of infaliability. I still think that the ECF argument must be weighed and measured like any modern argument. No offense, but I tired of ‘modern’ arguments months ago. (2 Thes 2:15)

* snip * the rest

rusty

[Makarios]

Terral, who are you trying to impress with your ignorance?

You STILL haven't addressed a single point.

Don't hold your breath Xavier, I've yet to see Terral make an intelligible point that actually deals with someone's arguments.

He thinks repeating the same gibberish over and over will somehow convince an interested "third party."

[Xavier]

Or, from my perspective: a step too far.

It's the Church Fathers... Can they step "too far"???

Assuming that he is assuming is also and odd way of countering a point. Of course you and I have very different perspectives. I know why I believe he was not presuming, but rather giving us the teaching of the Apostles concerning these verses. You on the other hand, believe that somehow the truth of these verses was somehow indiscernible in the interim between the time in which they were spoken and until the doctrine of preterism was conceived. But, I have read the entirety of St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on this chapter. If you have not, I would encourage it before presumptions are made.

I work with what I am given Tizzi. I made my determination based on the teaching that I am given.

No. Rather he is saying that in this context it does not serve as a “connection of time.” Also see my opening response in this post. St. John teaches that Jesus was answering two questions in Matthew 24. I believe you are familiar with this position.

Familiar, Yes. Convinced, perhaps. The problem I have is postiting a gap somewhere in the Discourse. Every time someone offers their argument, it comes off to me as ad hoc to uphold a futurist interpretation.

You spoke of St. John working from assumptions. I would say the same of you in this instance. I might say (and I daresay the Church teaches) that the whole of history since Christ has been full of false christs and prophets. You only have to look around the threads here on Theology Web to see this illustrated. But of course, the Church teaches that the spirit of antichrist is already in this world – awaiting the time when he is revealed.

I'm sorry, but the church claiming false Christs after the First Century betrays an ignorance of their own term. Messiah has a very specific calling in the Scriptures. Where do we see a False Messiah appearing post early 2nd Century? Bearing in mind that the Messiah is supposed to bring Israel out of exile.

I do not see how this ‘undercuts’ any argument he is making.

For me, it would seem rather simple to place the timing of the supposed second section of the disco