Origin of Near / Far Prophecy

[adelphn]

Does anyone know the origin of the idea that some prophecies include both a near and far fulfillment? :huh:

[commonman]

Does anyone know the origin of the idea that some prophecies include both a near and far fulfillment? :huh:

In modern times Darby had a lot to do with the application of this method of prophetic interpretation as it is used today, but I do not know where he got the idea to do so.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Does anyone know the origin of the idea that some prophecies include both a near and far fulfillment? :huh:

Not sure what you are asking, but I think I have an idea (or three):

1. In several places in the NT (especially Matthew) OT prophecies, whose primary fulfillment had nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the coming Messiah, were used as "proof" the Jesus was in fact the Messiah. These prophecies, though not directly related to the first advent, were nevertheless types of the first advent. A type is when even A is a forshadowing of some greater future event. For example, the pass over in exodus is a forshadowing or type of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If this is what you mean, then you need to ask about typology.

2. In the gospels, Jesus say somehting like, "I tell you that the day will come, and is already here....." This is the "now/not yet" theme of the Kingdom of God/Heaven. If this is what you mean you need to ask about the "now/not yet" concept (of which the poster formerly known as Dee Dee Warren is our resient expert)

3. Some prophecies (may) have more than one fulfillment. IMHO all or nearly all of the prophecies that people claimed to have more than one fulfillment are really types, and that there is little to no reason to think that a prophecy that has already been fulfilled has a future to us application. However, many people (mostly futurist) do think that there are still some double fulfilled prophecies that the second fulfillment is still future. If this is what you mean, then you need to talk about double fulfillment. (and the poster formerly known as Jaltus is a proponent of this position).

I hope this helps.

Mr. Tumnus

[Hitch]

Does anyone know the origin of the idea that some prophecies include both a near and far fulfillment? :huh:Teh KJV term is 'vain imaginations'.

[adelphn]

Mr. Tumnus, you have been most helpful. Let me rephrase my question.

I recently joined a Bible study my Pastor is giving on the Book of Revelation. To supplement our study, we are reading "The Sign" by Robert Van Kampen. On page 9 he lists "Five Keys to a Face-Value Hermeneutic", key number five being, "Watch for near / far prophetic applications in Scripture."

Before applying my valuable time to this suggested "watch", my my rephrased question is this, "Is there any rational basis for believing that some prophecies do, indeed, have a double fulfillment and, in particular, are some Old Testament prophecies, in fact, predictions about the 2nd coming of Christ?" (Hence, my search for the originator of this thinking)

Assuming I can be convinced that this is a worthwhile "watch", my second question would be, "How can I tell which prophecies still have a second fulfillment standing out there somewhere" without simply resting on the "say-so" of someone else?

I sincerely appreciate your time in laboring with me on this...
April

[adelphn]

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm inclined to agree. I've not been able to find someone who can give me what I am willing to accept as a "firm foundation" for this thinking, but, for awhile yet, I will continue to hear all arguments.
April

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Mr. Tumnus, you have been most helpful. Let me rephrase my question.

I recently joined a Bible study my Pastor is giving on the Book of Revelation. To supplement our study, we are reading "The Sign" by Robert Van Kampen. On page 9 he lists "Five Keys to a Face-Value Hermeneutic", key number five being, "Watch for near / far prophetic applications in Scripture."

Before applying my valuable time to this suggested "watch", my my rephrased question is this, "Is there any rational basis for believing that some prophecies do, indeed, have a double fulfillment and, in particular, are some Old Testament prophecies, in fact, predictions about the 2nd coming of Christ?" (Hence, my search for the originator of this thinking)

Assuming I can be convinced that this is a worthwhile "watch", my second question would be, "How can I tell which prophecies still have a second fulfillment standing out there somewhere" without simply resting on the "say-so" of someone else?

I sincerely appreciate your time in laboring with me on this...
April

Thank you for the complement :blush:

First of all I am not familiar with the concept of "Face Value Hermenutic", but if it is what I think it is, I for one would not consider the entire hermenutic worthwhile. (But then I disagree with most modern American evangalist on the interpretation of Revelation, so you may not want to listen to me. If you do though, let me know. I am always eager to share :grin:)

To answer your question:

Yes, some OT prophecies do have two fulfillments. However, as far as I know all of these dual fulfilled prophecies have a primary fulfillment that is clear from the text itself, and a secondary fulfillment that is only explained after the fact by inspired NT writers. So IMHO there is no reason to suspect that any OT prophecy has a dual fulfillment, at least none that it still future to us, that we can determine.

There may be some OT prophecies that have as their primary interpretation the second advent, but I am not aware of any.

I did a quick seach on Robert Van Kampen, and see that he has a pre-wrath post trib position regarding the rapture. I assume that that is how the Bible study in question will approach Revelation.

Which strengthens my "guess" as to what "Face-Value Hermenutics" is.

I disagree with the pre-wrath post-trib view (but I also disagree with the more popular pre-trib view aka "Left Behind" as well). So I may not be the best person to ask to get a sympathetic evaluation of "dual fulfillment".

Your post reminds me very much of myself about 4 years ago. I was begining a study of Revelation based on Tim Lahaye's "Revelation Unveiled". However, I was no longer willing to merely accept someone elses "say so". The end result is that I totally changed my interpretation of Revelation and nearly all other "end times" prophecies. It was a sometimes painful (not easy to let go of long held beliefs), but very rewarding process.

I hope you have the same experience (the rewarding part, not the painful part) as well.

[PaulT]

Thank you for the complement :blush:

First of all I am not familiar with the concept of "Face Value Hermenutic", but if it is what I think it is, I for one would not consider the entire hermenutic worthwhile. (But then I disagree with most modern American evangalist on the interpretation of Revelation, so you may not want to listen to me. If you do though, let me know. I am always eager to share :grin:)

To answer your question:

Yes, some OT prophecies do have two fulfillments. However, as far as I know all of these dual fulfilled prophecies have a primary fulfillment that is clear from the text itself, and a secondary fulfillment that is only explained after the fact by inspired NT writers. So IMHO there is no reason to suspect that any OT prophecy has a dual fulfillment, at least none that it still future to us, that we can determine.

There may be some OT prophecies that have as their primary interpretation the second advent, but I am not aware of any.

I did a quick seach on Robert Van Kampen, and see that he has a pre-wrath post trib position regarding the rapture. I assume that that is how the Bible study in question will approach Revelation.

Which strengthens my "guess" as to what "Face-Value Hermenutics" is.

I disagree with the pre-wrath post-trib view (but I also disagree with the more popular pre-trib view aka "Left Behind" as well). So I may not be the best person to ask to get a sympathetic evaluation of "dual fulfillment".

Your post reminds me very much of myself about 4 years ago. I was begining a study of Revelation based on Tim Lahaye's "Revelation Unveiled". However, I was no longer willing to merely accept someone elses "say so". The end result is that I totally changed my interpretation of Revelation and nearly all other "end times" prophecies. It was a sometimes painful (not easy to let go of long held beliefs), but very rewarding process.

I hope you have the same experience (the rewarding part, not the painful part) as well.

Do you know of any specific examples of dual fulfillment?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Do you know of any specific examples of dual fulfillment?

Off the top of my head, there is the OT passage that says, "I will call him out of Egypt" or something like that. The primary fulfillment was dealing with the nation of Israel, the secondary one was talking about Jesus.

There are many more, but that is the first one that comes to mind.

[adelphn]

Mr. Van Kampen's Face-Value Hermeneutics:

1. Accept the meaning of Scripture in its most normal, natural, customary sense.
2. Take Scripture in context (no problem there)
3. Compare Scripture to Scripture (depends on how you do it)
4. Before truth is realized, all seeming scriptural contradictions must be harmonized.
5. Watch for near / far prophetic applications in Scripture.

Okay...

I believe I recognize a lot of allegory in Scripture (IMHO), but am around others who, like Mr. Van Kampen, prefer to be "wowed" by the allegorical images as though they were not allegory at all. Example: "Can you imagine? This huge city coming down out of the sky and landing on Jerusalem. And we'll all have our own apartments there. It will have to be unimaginably huge in order to house all the saints." (Rev. 21:2) This is where I begin to wonder if I shouldn't be home doing something else. I don't know exactly why I have difficulty with this, but I suspect it has something to do with seeing the hand of God in everything around me, how He created the world, nature and man, set it spinning and how it has spun for the last 4-6000 years. It's not that I don't believe in miracles, but with God's handiwork in view all around me, it seems somehow out of character, even miraculous character, that the one who did this (everything I see around me) will do that (the above interpretation).

These things get my "jive meter" rumbling, and it's pegged in the red zone when I hear someone dancing around passages such as Rev. 1:1 "things which must shortly take place" by using Van Kampen's Hermeneutic #3 and comparing that Scripture with 2 Peter 3:8 "one day is as a thousand years) to explain why it didn't happen shortly.

One more thing seems out of place. The necessity of reading Van Kampen's 517 page book, and skipping around from Revelation, to Peter, to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others in order to understand God's REVELATION to me. What kind of revelation is that???

So, what's the deal here? Am I losing my faith or just gagging on something rotten?

A few years ago I ran across the term "preterist" and looked it up on the internet. It was quite a jolt to acknowledge that those ideas echoed some of my own deep rumblings, and were easier to accept than some I'd been hearing Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. I've been uncomfortable ever since but haven't been able to bring myself to breath a word of what I'm thinking to anyone around me for fear of breaking fellowship with all my wonderful church family. I'm the worship leader in the only church in a very small, isolated community. It's doubly painful because I believe I should be "in one accord" with my Pastor, not "out of tune".

April

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Mr. Van Kampen's Face-Value Hermeneutics:

1. Accept the meaning of Scripture in its most normal, natural, customary sense.
2. Take Scripture in context (no problem there)
3. Compare Scripture to Scripture (depends on how you do it)
4. Before truth is realized, all seeming scriptural contradictions must be harmonized.
5. Watch for near / far prophetic applications in Scripture.

Okay...

OK. My take on the above:

1. Accept the meaning of Scripture in its most normal, natural, customary sense. (As it would be understood by the original intended audience. That is understand something meant as allagory as allagory)
2. Take Scripture in context (including cultural and literary style context [see #1])
3. Compare Scripture to Scripture (:yes2: but I agree you must be careful)
4. Before truth is realized, all seeming scriptural contradictions must be harmonized. (Well as much as possible anyway)
5. Watch for near / far prophetic applications in Scripture. (Nope)

I believe I recognize a lot of allegory in Scripture (IMHO), but am around others who, like Mr. Van Kampen, prefer to be "wowed" by the allegorical images as though they were not allegory at all. Example: "Can you imagine? This huge city coming down out of the sky and landing on Jerusalem. And we'll all have our own apartments there. It will have to be unimaginably huge in order to house all the saints." (Rev. 21:2) This is where I begin to wonder if I shouldn't be home doing something else. I don't know exactly why I have difficulty with this, but I suspect it has something to do with seeing the hand of God in everything around me, how He created the world, nature and man, set it spinning and how it has spun for the last 4-6000 years. It's not that I don't believe in miracles, but with God's handiwork in view all around me, it seems somehow out of character, even miraculous character, that the one who did this (everything I see around me) will do that (the above interpretation).

These things get my "jive meter" rumbling, and it's pegged in the red zone when I hear someone dancing around passages such as Rev. 1:1 "things which must shortly take place" by using Van Kampen's Hermeneutic #3 and comparing that Scripture with 2 Peter 3:8 "one day is as a thousand years) to explain why it didn't happen shortly.

Sounds like we may have a preterist in the making. :woohoo:

One more thing seems out of place. The necessity of reading Van Kampen's 517 page book, and skipping around from Revelation, to Peter, to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others in order to understand God's REVELATION to me. What kind of revelation is that???

Well, God's Revelation is the whole of scripture. So taking the whole council of scripture into consideration is wise. However, realize that no other writing including Van Kampen's book is divine revelation. (IMHO it is not even good exegisis).

So, what's the deal here? Am I losing my faith or just gagging on something rotten?

The latter. (at least IMNSHO) :hehe:

A few years ago I ran across the term "preterist" and looked it up on the internet. It was quite a jolt to acknowledge that those ideas echoed some of my own deep rumblings, and were easier to accept than some I'd been hearing Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. I've been uncomfortable ever since but haven't been able to bring myself to breath a word of what I'm thinking to anyone around me for fear of breaking fellowship with all my wonderful church family. I'm the worship leader in the only church in a very small, isolated community. It's doubly painful because I believe I should be "in one accord" with my Pastor, not "out of tune".

April

We do, we do, we do have a preterist in the making.

Well if you are a preterist in the making. You are in good company me for one (FYI, you joined TWeb at a very bizzar time. Many people changed thier user names, and have now changed back. In case you havn't figured out yet, I was Mr. Tumnus). There are several other orthodox preterist here at TWeb as well.

With every post you remind me more of myself about four years ago. I was wretching againt what my church was teaching regarding eschatology. I was afraid to say anything to anyone. I came across the word preterism (and did not like it any better than what I was hearing at church).

Well to make a long story short, I am now a preterist and think that it is by far the best understanding of eschatological passages.

I did not bring this up before, becuase I did not want to "push" my beliefs on you, if that is not what you are looking for. I think this may be what you are looking for. If not let me know and I will back off.

If it is, though :woohoo: I would be more than happy (nigh even eager) to introduce you to the wonderful world of orthodox preterism. (But beware of hyperpreterism or full preterism, that denies the future return of Christ and is IMHO heretical).

I look forward to your response.

:sig:

[Lion]

April, You have some serious questions. Let me see if I can help just a bit.
You said:
One more thing seems out of place. The necessity of reading Van Kampen's 517 page book, and skipping around from Revelation, to Peter, to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others in order to understand God's REVELATION to me. What kind of revelation is that???
----------------
Lion
I don’t blame you for feeling confused. The problem is if you start in Revelation you find a lot of things you don’t understand because you may not understand the symbols. Revelation is full of Hebraisms that are very familiar to to one who understands the Hebrew sanctuary service. Further, there is a lot of the book of Daniel in the Revelation so it is a good idea to be familar with Daniel. They are companion books and there are references in rev 13:2 to Dan 7:4-7. It is a good idea to get familiar with Dan 2 and compare with Dan 7, since they portray the same sequence of events. God is the same today as He was in Daniel’s time as in John’s day and now.

Revelation has a prologue (Rev 1:1-10)
Vision 1, Rev 1:10-3:2
Vision 2, 4:1 to 8:1
Vision 3, 8:2 to 11:18
Vision 4, 11:19 to 14:20
Vision 5, 15:1 to 16:17
Vision 6, 16:18 to 18:24
Vision 7, 19:1 to 21:4
Vision 8, 21:5 to 22:5
Epilogue 22:6- 21

I hope this helps. One other thing that helps me a great deal is Bible software. Mine has several versions on one CD plus a concordance where I can look up any word. Sometimes a word is in one version and not in another. It saves leafing from here to there in one Bible. You can look up Greek and Hebrew words at a touch.

[adelphn]

My dear Faramir (what does that mean?) I'm all ears :candle: enlighten me...

[adelphn]

Hi Lion,
Thank you for your input. I'm checking out those references, and will get back to you. I use Logos and do find it quite helpful at times. I recently read an interesting chapter in Fee & Stuart's "How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth" on the nature of apocalyptic writing. The authors point out that although The Revelation contains a combination of apocalyptic and prophetic elements, John strayed from the standard apocalyptic formula of "seal it up for a later time", and was told not to "seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near" (22:10). What do you make of that?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

My dear Faramir (what does that mean?) I'm all ears :candle: enlighten me...


What does Faramir mean? Faramir is a character from Lord of the Rings.

I would be thrilled to "enlighten" you. (Or as best as my meager skills will allow :wink: )

There are several ways we can procede.

1. We can continue in this thread.
2. We can start a new thread in eshcatology.
3. We can start a new thread in the basket ball court.

FYI the basket ball court is an area where the discussion is limmited to a limited number of participant (usually two, but sometimes three or four). This is a non-debate exhcange of ideas, question/answer type format.

I would prefer the basket ball court, as we could have a pleasant exchange without getting distracted by people looking for a debate as opposed to a discussion. (some times the debate in here can get a little heated).

But however you want to discuss this, I'm game.

I will start with a very brief discription of the preterist position:

Preterist beleive that most of the OT and NT prophecies have been fulfilled. The event prophetic event most associated with preterism is the destruction of Jerusalem/the Temple in AD 70. We believe that this was the "great tribulation" predicted by Jesus in Mt. 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 (I think I got those chapters right).

Here is a brief preterist analysis of a portion of Mark 13:

1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
Notice that Jesus and the disciples are talking about the buildings then standing. Those buildings were destroyed in AD 70. It takes, IMHO, a horrid twisting of scripture to make that mean a still future temple. Jesuas is clearly talking about "these" buildings.
3And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?"


Here the disciples are asking Jeuses when these things (the destruction of the temple buildings) will take place.


14"But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Futurist say that this passage is talking about a worl wide tribulation. Yet Jesus says those in Judea (hint local) flee to the mountains. If it is "world wide" why make specific reference to those living in Judea. And what good would fleeing to the mountains do if this were world wide?

15Let the one who is on the housetop not go down

Furutuist say that this is a still future event. Flat toped houses, while common in first century Palistine, are no so common anymore.

30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Jesus says "this generation" will not pass away. (see also Mt. 24:24)

The most logical (only logical IMHO) interpretation of "this generation" is the generation living at that time. Note that a generation in the Bible is about 40 years. The temple was destroyed almost exactly 40 years after Jesus spoke these words.

We can go from here. Again my preference would be to start a thread in the Basket Ball court. We can start with the above. You can ask questions. There will be no distraction from others.

Not that I want you to only listen me. Heaven forbid!!!! Please, check out arguments for other positions, examine scripture. Heed 1 Thes. 5:21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good!"

It is that my approach to debate is that I debate not to convince others, but to sharpen my own understaning of my own position. The Basketball Court is more conducive to a "teaching" type dialog.

And FYI. By coming here and asking me to explain preterism, you just made my day. :smile:

In Christ,

:sig:

Faramir (AKA Mr. Tumnus)

[adelphn]

Tell me how to meet on the basketball court.

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Surrounded by futurists who are threatened by my questions, I've been silently forming my own opinion about a number of things for many years now and it will be refreshing to bounce (forgive the basketball pun) these things around with someone.

A little history. 7 or 8 years ago I became convinced through my Bible reading that the kingdom of God is positional relationship I entered when I agreed to submit to God's authority in my life. This began some heated arguments with those in my church family about the kingdom yet to come. That was when I first began studying Greek, and stumbled on John Reece's exegesis on many of the passages we're about to discuss. John introduced me to TWeb a few years ago, but I had too many things going on in my life at that time to get involved. He really made some sense, though, and it is his work that has motivated me to continue to mull these things over! I will go over his work again this afternoon after church, and re-read the pertinent passages we'll be discussing. What I'm struggling with now are my conclusions. I need to re-work my theology in view of this different interpretation of Scripture. That's why I'm here at TWeb, to bounce some of these things around. Thank you for your precious time!

Here is one of the issues with which I have struggled for some time:

Is Jesus coming back in the flesh? If He comes back in the flesh, and rules with an iron rod from some spot on earth, and "makes" every knee bow, then He's forcing people into His kingdom. This makes Him a dictator and causes people to enter the kingdom against their will. This does not make sense to me. Will we spend eternity with people who were forced into the kingdom kicking and screaming, and don't want to be there? What fellowship do we have with them?
April

[Sheepdog]

Yes, some OT prophecies do have two fulfillments. However, as far as I know all of these dual fulfilled prophecies have a primary fulfillment that is clear from the text itself, and a secondary fulfillment that is only explained after the fact by inspired NT writers. So IMHO there is no reason to suspect that any OT prophecy has a dual fulfillment, at least none that it still future to us, that we can determine.

this highlights the biggest problem i see for dual fulfillment. you see, before i took my leap into partial preterism, i took a dual fulfillment view. basically it's a best of both worlds / fence sitting position. 2Th. 2 convinced me that general voice of the New Testament HAD to be Preteristic (with obvious exceptions, like the Resurrection is still future), and in hindsight i came to realized the flaw in my earlier reasoning. you see, in many cases the prophecies which also typed Jesus' coming were not earlier seen as being fulfilled by the Messiah. thus, that typology had to be elaborated on after the fact, by inspired writers, and only after seeing how the whole OT was in a sense "fulfilled" in Christ. Jesus himself said that the Scriptures the teachers of the day searched through were about Him.

the problem is, all of this is counteractive to double prophecy eschatology. if God reveals the future in Scripture, then it is because He has something important to say to the church... something He no doubt wants us to know before it happens so we are adequately prepared for (or, at least we can be held responsible if we aren't). however, double fulfillment cannot fit this purpose, since it is only understood in hindsight. what good is it to warn about the future when the warning can only be understood long after the future has come to pass? also, who in our day is going to be inspired in the very same way the Apostles were inspired? but more importantly, all the double fulfillment people have to go on is that there is a precedent for dual fulfillment. but that isn't enough! it is one thing to say that it happened before, so it might happen again; it is another to say that Prophecy A, B, and C are double fulfillment.

[adelphn]

You make some interesting points. Tell me what conclusions you have come to regarding 2 Thessalonians 2.

[adelphn]

Sorry, I should identify to whom I am speaking. Sheepdog, tell me what you conclude from 2 Thessalonians 2.
Thanks!
adelphn

[Hitch]

Not speaking for SD.


The referent is mst likely Nero and the Caesars in general. Emporor worship was the weapon used by the apostate jews against the saints, and is probably what Jesus refers to ;


Matt 23:32-36
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(KJV)

The 'falling away' or rebellion probably centers aroind the siege as well. It could refer to the rebellion in and of its self. Personally I think if refers to those who were not strong enough to endure and succombed to the false christs and leeks and onions of apstate judaism.

[Sheepdog]

well, one day i was looking up a passage in 2Th. 2 for an unrelated point (i think i was debating with someone over at The201, but it might have been in this forum). but when i go to look up a verse, what i like to do is read the context to see if that helps any with understanding what is going on; and to be frank, what i saw startled me.

it was verse 2:6 that caught my attention in particular, in the description of the "Man of Lawlessness" (NET). Paul calls this individual a man, and yet he describes him as being restrained now, i.e. right at that point in time, as Paul was writing the letter. And to me it was clear that who we was talking about was also either the beast or the evil prophet John describes in Revelation. Yet, what Paul was talking about could not be up to or more than 2000 years in the future! he was describing an "Antichrist" who was alive and well in his day! And this individual would only shortly become unrestrained and do his thang.

Basically after realizing this, everything else just started falling into place. I was already leaning towards the Preterist view, i just needed a passage which didn't fit my double prophecy view and viola! i'm not a partial preterist :smile:

[adelphn]

OK. Let's go with this awhile.

-Nero was the man of lawlessness, what or who restrained him? (v.6)
-An apostate is one who abandons what he once believed in. What is the apostasy referred to in v.3? Who's the apostate?
-v.7 "he (who?) who now restrains will do so until he (who?) is taken out..."
-v.8 "and then the lawless one will be revealed", so Paul and his readers didn't know who the lawless one was?

[Sheepdog]

mind you, i do think it is a tad speculative... at least for me it is since i don't know as much about 1st century history as much as i'd like. but that said...

OK. Let's go with this awhile.

-Nero was the man of lawlessness, what or who restrained him? (v.6)

check this out, Dee Dee posted it in an earlier thread:

Consider this very interesting historical sidenote - preterists believe on one hand that the Beast of Revelation is Nero. At the time of this letter Nero was alive but he was not Emporor, Claudius was. Claudius was not that bad. But here is what is interesting... Claudius' name means "restrainer" or a variation thereof. Claudius was murdered by Nero's mother so that Nero could take the throne for as long as Claudius was alived, Nero was restrained.
[from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28770&highlight=thessalonians]

-An apostate is one who abandons what he once believed in. What is the apostasy referred to in v.3? Who's the apostate?

hrm... i don't see a specific apostate referenced, but it does speak of an apostacy/rebellion. what he could be refering to specifically? take your pick, as there were a few widespread apostacies reported, and IIRC Paul notes one himself somewhere. i don't recall the specific Bible verse though.

-v.7 "he (who?) who now restrains will do so until he (who?) is taken out..."

if the hypothesis holds, this would aparently be Claudius, as noted above.

-v.8 "and then the lawless one will be revealed", so Paul and his readers didn't know who the lawless one was?

maybe, or maybe not. Paul may have been intentionally cryptic to avoid bringing political persecution on himself and others (as though religious persecution wasn't enough). Paul reveals in v. 5 that he has discussed this before with the church in Thessalonica and thus there was no need to go into detail. the "then will be revealed" may simply mean it will be evident to everyone else when the time comes.

but of course that is very speculative. i'm not so sure we can know either way.

[adelphn]

Thanks, Sheepdog, very helpful. I am especially impressed with Dee Dee's post. That's good exegesis with respect to the historical context. I can see that a good working knowledge of first century history will be valuable in pursuing this line of reasoning. I'll have to dig out Durant's History of Civilization unless you've heard of or run across a better resource. So let me get this straight, the simple definition of a preterist is one who believes that a substantial portion, or all, of Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the past. I'm assuming there are numerous positions on the preterist line from "some" to "all"?

[Sheepdog]

Thanks, Sheepdog, very helpful. I am especially impressed with Dee Dee's post. That's good exegesis with respect to the historical context. I can see that a good working knowledge of first century history will be valuable in pursuing this line of reasoning. I'll have to dig out Durant's History of Civilization unless you've heard of or run across a better resource.

like i said, i'm more ignorant on the subject than i'd like to be. but that book sounds like it might be good.

So let me get this straight, the simple definition of a preterist is one who believes that a substantial portion, or all, of Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the past. I'm assuming there are numerous positions on the preterist line from "some" to "all"?

actually, my own perception is that it tends to be stratified, where most "partial" preterists hold to generally similar views (usually the difference is in something small, like the interpretation of the last few verses of Matt. 24). i personally wouldn't call pantelists "full preterists," but the same thing is the case for them. i think it is due to the hostility between the two views (many of them tend to be obsessive and hostile, and we think they are heretics for denying a future, bodily Resurrection), though i can't imagine how a middle view between the two can be self coherent. sort of like Calvinism and Arminianism, Preterism and Pantelism are "big picture" systems, and once you hold to the starting premises, the rest of the system just follows along.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Tell me how to meet on the basketball court.

I started a thread in the b ball court here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=945640#post945640

Only you and I will be allowed to post there, all other post will be deleted (so if someone does post there, do not feel any need to respond).

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Surrounded by futurists who are threatened by my questions, I've been silently forming my own opinion about a number of things for many years now and it will be refreshing to bounce (forgive the basketball pun) these things around with someone.

Thanks. :blush: I know what you mean. I to go to a church that is predominately futurist. I have been fortunate enough to find another preterist (and we have converted a few more :wink: ) so we can discuss things. But I am very careful about who I share my views with. It can lead to a lot of heated debate. That is not needed in the church, IMHO.

A little history. 7 or 8 years ago I became convinced through my Bible reading that the kingdom of God is positional relationship I entered when I agreed to submit to God's authority in my life.

:hehe: It is amazing how so much of scripture fits together when you are not looking at it through the lenses of pre-conceived ideas. I came to that conclusion about the Kingdom of God, after, I became a preterist. It just fits. IMHO

This began some heated arguments with those in my church family about the kingdom yet to come.

Been there done that. What is really bad is that one guy I talked with accepted preterism, his wife though is still a "Left Behind" junky. She dose not like me very much any more. :shrug:
That was when I first began studying Greek, and stumbled on John Reece's exegesis on many of the passages we're about to discuss. John introduced me to TWeb a few years ago, but I had too many things going on in my life at that time to get involved. He really made some sense, though, and it is his work that has motivated me to continue to mull these things over! I will go over his work again this afternoon after church, and re-read the pertinent passages we'll be discussing. What I'm struggling with now are my conclusions.

John Reece is the bomb. :thumb: :bomb:

I need to re-work my theology in view of this different interpretation of Scripture. That's why I'm here at TWeb, to bounce some of these things around.

:yes2: When I "converted" to eshcatology, I had no idea how much it would re-shape the rest of my theology (made it a much more coherent whole IMNSHO :grin: )

Thank you for your precious time!

No thank you for being an open listener.

Here is one of the issues with which I have struggled for some time:

Is Jesus coming back in the flesh? If He comes back in the flesh, and rules with an iron rod from some spot on earth, and "makes" every knee bow, then He's forcing people into His kingdom. This makes Him a dictator and causes people to enter the kingdom against their will. This does not make sense to me. Will we spend eternity with people who were forced into the kingdom kicking and screaming, and don't want to be there? What fellowship do we have with them?
April

Jesus coming back in the flesh? Yes. But not, as you have rightly guessed, to establish a kingdom. Basic preterist time line:


Incarnation. c. 3 BC

Death/Burrial/Resurrection c. AD 30

End of Daniels 70 Weeks c. AD 30 (res) or AD 33 (stoning of Stephen) depending on the preterist.

Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse (or most of it depending on the pret) AD 70 with the destruction of the temple.

Next prophetic event= the second coming. Jesus will physically came, the dead (all the dead saved and unsaved) will be resurrected. Jesus will pass final judgment (at this time IMHO is when every knee will bow), the saved will spend eternity in heaven, the lost appart from God.

Hope this helps. If you would like we can continue this discussion in the b-ball court.

[PaulT]

I think what you are referring to is found in Matt 2:15, which is a quote from Hosea 11:1. This passage, Ho 11:1, appears to be given well after the COI left Eqypt? How could this be an example of dual fulfillment if the prophecy occurred after the 1st departure from Israel. I would appreciate any more examples you can come up with because I can't find any.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I think what you are referring to is found in Matt 2:15, which is a quote from Hosea 11:1. This passage, Ho 11:1, appears to be given well after the COI left Eqypt? How could this be an example of dual fulfillment if the prophecy occurred after the 1st departure from Israel. I would appreciate any more examples you can come up with because I can't find any.

It was not in reference to the Exodus, but some other event (I am going from memory and I could be wrong, I will look it up and get back to you).

I also will also look up other examples of dual fulfillment, and get back to you.

Edit to add.

After a little (and I mean little) research, I found some one who said that Ho 11:1 was a historic description, not a predictive prophecy. This does fit with the idea of primary v. secondary referrent with the primary being a type of the secondar. But not to dual fulfillment (which is similar). I read about Mt. 2:15 in relation to typology and confused it with dual fulfillment.

So Mt. 2:15 is not an example of dual fulfillment (at least not in the sense of dual fulfillment of predictive prophecy). However, it is an example of an OT v. having a primar refferent and a secondary refferent in the NT, which is how I was defining dual fulfillment. Sorry for the confusion on my part. (Stupid Faramir trusting his failing aged memory. :oldfart: )

However, during this little research, I did run across an article on dual fulfillement (http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/mattclb.htm)by Craig Blomberg of prophecies in Is used in Mt. that has several examples. I hope this is helpful.

[PaulT]

Thanks, I will take a look at the article. Again, if you come up with any examples of dual fullfilment I would really be interested in understanding them.

[PaulT]

Farmir,

I read through the article and it seemed most of it had to do with typology. The best case made for a vision that went beyond an immediate application was Is 7:14, but I'm not sold that this is not an example of a type. In any event, the dual fulfillment discussed doesn't seem applicable to the way I hear the term used today, in that Matt 24 will be repeated.

The argument the author makes regarding Is 7:14 as being only partially fulfilled seems to be linking attributes of a child in chapter 9 with a child born in chapter 8, but I don't quite follow how he is making the link. Why couldn't these be different prophecies about different individuals with the 1st child being a type of the second?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Farmir,

I read through the article and it seemed most of it had to do with typology. The best case made for a vision that went beyond an immediate application was Is 7:14, but I'm not sold that this is not an example of a type. In any event, the dual fulfillment discussed doesn't seem applicable to the way I hear the term used today, in that Matt 24 will be repeated.

The argument the author makes regarding Is 7:14 as being only partially fulfilled seems to be linking attributes of a child in chapter 9 with a child born in chapter 8, but I don't quite follow how he is making the link. Why couldn't these be different prophecies about different individuals with the 1st child being a type of the second?

Well, I agree with you. I think that they are all typologies. Some people use these typologies and call them "dual fulfillment" and then try to use that definition of "dual fulfillment" to make a case for a dual fulfillment (one still future) of Matt 24, and other eschatological passages. (Which is "reverse" equivocation, IMHO)

I was using the term "dual fulfillment" in that sense. I think we may have been talking past each other. :shrug:

I certainly do not think that there is any dual fulfillment of Mt. 24, nor any other passage outside of typological fulfillment of OT passages as expressed by the inspired writers of the NT.

The article gave examples of what I think is the only ligitimate type of dual fulfillment. (that being typological) The fact that some people use this definition of "dual fulfillment" to defend a totally different concept of "dual "fulfillment" was my point.

I should have been more clear, that I was talking about two different definition of 'dual fulfillment'.