A Question

[John Reece]

My impression — which I wish to have corrected if the impression is wrong — is that the idea of ‘double fulfillment’ of New Testament prophecy is a copout for futurists who can no longer deny the force of preterist exegesis.

The preterist perspective propounded by R. T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament, which is essentially the same as Dee Dee’s perspective, has within it an exegetically sound accounting for both NT prophecy that indicates a pre-AD 70 fulfillment on the one hand, and NT prophecy for which the biblical text does not specify a first century fulfillment: the two periods of fulfillment are distinguished between the verses 35 and 36 of Matthew 24.

Here is my question: What is the exegetical basis for a theory of ‘double fulfillment’ of NT prophecy that conflates what the scriptures distinguish?

This a request for information rather than a proposal for debate.

[James Peter]

Well, whilst I wouldn't necessarily advocate such a position myself there is certainly a precedent for 'double fulfillment' of Scripture. Plenty of the 'messianic prophecies' were not originally understood as such and are best explained in terms of other events prior to the first century. If we are to take them as 'also messianic' (and the early church did) then there has to be the potential that all prophecy can be intended as 'double prophecy'. So I don't think that the position is intrinsically flawed. The problem is to determine which things are going to be double-fulfilled and which are not, and I think the only way to do so is to look back with hindsight. What if events happened that fitted something that is generally accepted as having happened in the first century perfectly (I don't know, a literal beast coming from the ocean or something equally unlikely...)? Would that mean that it was merely coincidence in the first interpretation, or that the recent event was merely a coincidence? Or that both were predicted?

This is a general problem with prophecy which includes symbolism and doesn't give a specific timescale - lots of things can be claimed to fit it and it can always be argued that what happened is only 'similar' to what was predicted. Ultimately the only way that we can determine if a prophecy was about the first or the 21st (assuming a relatively immanent end of the world as most futurists do) is 'has it already happened'? That sort of criteria is always going to be largely arbitrary...

The solution? I don't know. These are the Last Days, we are living eschatologically (the Cross was the dawn of the new, eschatological age)...God is in control... I don't think we can be any more specific than that, not without speculating. I think it is safer to look at the general trend of OT (and NT) eschatological prophecy rather than relying on the details of any particular one. God wins, Justice is served and we all get to party in the new heaven and on the new earth for a very, very long time...

[dizzle]

The problem is to determine which things are going to be double-fulfilled and which are not, and I think the only way to do so is to look back with hindsight.....

This is true, which is why we should not deflect the force of a fulfilled prophecy by saying yeah but it will be fulfilled again.

This is ESPECIALLY true with Matthew 24 as the subject matter is not conducive to be fulfilled again, and in fact, has very profond and bad consequences to claim so - in the same way of claiming that the atonement will happen again Some things just DON"T happen again, and we know this by looking at the purpose of the event. The Matthew 24 AD70 event was the proof of the establishment of the true Israel of God and the destruction of something obselete, never to be revived again.

Now, thematically (judgment, Christ crushing His enemies) WILL, IS, and DOES happen again, but to look forward to another Temple, reestablishing the Jewish people back to something that God swept away is doing horrible disservice to what was accomplished.

[James Peter]

Oh, I agree don't worry. If we see the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem as a cataclysmic vindication of Paul and those who claimed that ethic Israel was not true Israel then it is strange to imagine that such a demonstration is needed twice. I think that it is almost certain that the early church saw the destruction of Jerusalem in this way (so even if the prophecies were given after 70CE as explanations of what has happened rather than as predictions of what will happen they are still 'valid'). Israel really had lost the plot, the whole concept of the inviolability of Zion was so central that their faith and self identity really couldn't survive the destruction of Zion. The hellenistic Judaism which did survive was very different to what was destroyed.

So was God unfaithful to Israel? No. She perverted the covenant made with her and so God destroyed that covenant and instituted a new one in its place. All (well, almost all) prophecy is conditional and so the fact that there is 'unfulfilled' prophecy shouldn't be seen as a problem (of course that doesn't work in a heavily deterministic framework). If Paul is right in claiming that the promise of God was to Abraham and Christ (Gal 3:16), not to national Israel, then no promises were broken anyway...

[Ted]

John,

I am puzzled by a statement in your premise.
the two periods of fulfillment are distinguished between the verses 35 and 36 of Matthew 24.
35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
In this, I see Jesus saying that the time at which heaven and earth pass away is known only to the Father. The fact that they will pass away is explicit. As for Jesus’ words, they will not pass away, thus no time statement can pertain to them. So how does this distinguish between two periods of fulfillment? Am I missing something?

BTW, I am inclined to agree with your basic position. That is, once a prophecy is fulfilled in full, there is nothing left for it. But if we have a partial fulfillment noted, such as Jesus in Luke 4, where he reads part of Isaiah 61 and declares it fulfilled, then we ought to wait for the rest.

Double fulfillment does seem to be an excuse to place one’s own views into scripture.

Ted

[John Reece]

John,

I am puzzled by a statement in your premise.

35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
In this, I see Jesus saying that the time at which heaven and earth pass away is known only to the Father. The fact that they will pass away is explicit. As for Jesus’ words, they will not pass away, thus no time statement can pertain to them. So how does this distinguish between two periods of fulfillment? Am I missing something?

BTW, I am inclined to agree with your basic position. That is, once a prophecy is fulfilled in full, there is nothing left for it. But if we have a partial fulfillment noted, such as Jesus in Luke 4, where he reads part of Isaiah 61 and declares it fulfilled, then we ought to wait for the rest.

Double fulfillment does seem to be an excuse to place one’s own views into scripture.

Ted

A typographical error: I meant between verse 34 and verse 36 — not between verse 35 and verse 36.

[dizzle]

But if we have a partial fulfillment noted, such as Jesus in Luke 4, where he reads part of Isaiah 61 and declares it fulfilled, then we ought to wait for the rest.

Of course. We waited the forty years Jesus said would elapse for the rest - i.e. the day of vengeance of our God noted in Luke 21.

"For these are the days of vengeance....."

a clear illusion to the omitted part of Isaiah 61 since that passage is a unified thematic whole

[eschaton]

My impression — which I wish to have corrected if the impression is wrong — is that the idea of ‘double fulfillment’ of New Testament prophecy is a copout for futurists who can no longer deny the force of preterist exegesis.

The preterist perspective propounded by R. T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament, which is essentially the same as Dee Dee’s perspective, has within it an exegetically sound accounting for both NT prophecy that indicates a pre-AD 70 fulfillment on the one hand, and NT prophecy for which the biblical text does not specify a first century fulfillment: the two periods of fulfillment are distinguished between the verses 35 and 36 of Matthew 24.

Here is my question: What is the exegetical basis for a theory of ‘double fulfillment’ of NT prophecy that conflates what the scriptures distinguish?

This a request for information rather than a proposal for debate.


John,

I may not be familiar with the type of double fulfillment you're talking about, but I would guess some see a fulfillment in 70 AD an then again in an eschatological sense. I am also unfamiliar with the force of preterist exegesis. I suppose you mean a literal, grammatical analysis of the words in Matthew 24. I have to confess that such an argument has never made any sense to me. If it did then I would assume that the stars literally fell to earth in 70 AD. A "literal" interpretation of Mat 24:34 takes it totally out of the context of the 24th chapter of Matthew.

Second of all, you never cease to amaze me in your view of these things. Some people believe the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I suppose you may believe that, but you may also believe that the earth was created 200 years ago instead of the standard 4500 or whatever it is. The reason I say that is because you always totally ignore the traditional teaching of the early church on these things. It's as though human beings evolved from Neanderthals to modern Homo Sapiens just recently. People weren't able to think until modern times. Maybe that attitude is right, but I would be careful with it because Jesus and the apostles were on the earth 2000 years ago.

The early church recognized different levels of fulfillment. They differed about whether Mat 24:15 was about 70 AD, but none saw 24:34 limiting events to the first century. I think they understood the context of the Olivet sermon better than most moderns. But they definitely saw different levels of fulfillment and it wasn't forced on them by the power of modern preterists. I continue with a post that I've given here several times.

There are other passages in the NT that would seem to indicate a
first century end of the world. (Acts 2:17, Rom 13:12 16:20, 1 Cor
7:29, 1Pet 4:7, Phil 4:5, , Heb 1:2 10:25, James 5:8,9 1 John 2:8,
Rev 1:1-3, 22:6,10 ) Although shortly or soon in our every day speech
today would probably mean a few minutes or hours, it might be argued
that it would more likely mean a few years rather than a few thousand
years.

So were Jesus and the apostles simply wrong? Some would say no
because the NT is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
when it speaks about the end of the world in an imminent way. The
problem with that is there is little or no evidence that the early
church looked at it that way.

If the predictions of the NT are merely wrong as some skeptics claim,
were Jesus and the NT writers pretty much discredited? Did
Christianity disappear after a short time of popularity? The answer
of course is no. Christianity grew continuously until it became the
world's biggest religion. Many accepted persecution and even
martyrdom rather than abandon their faith.

How did the early church understand these seeming inconsistencies?
The answers are in the scriptures themselves. He is a God that speaks
of those things that are not as though they were.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many
nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the
dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

The early church understood that prophecy spoke in a timeless way.
Justin Martyr said:

Sometimes He [the Holy Spirit] uttered words about what was to take
place, as if it was then taking place, or had taken place. And unless
those who read perceive this art, they will not be able to follow the
words of the prophet as they ought. For example's sake, I shall
repeat some prophetic passages, that you may understand what I say.
When he speaks by Isaiah, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and like a lamb before the shearer," He speaks as if the suffering
had already taken place (5).
5. Dialogue with Trypho 114.1 (ANF, 1:256).

Augustine also wrote about the scripture speaking of a future event
as though it were past:

And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." It was Himself who
was speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood
that it was Jesus Christ had He not added, "And now the Lord God and
His Spirit hath sent me." For He said this with reference to the form
of a servant, speaking of a future event as if it were past, as in
the same prophet we read, "He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter, "not "He shall be led;" but the past tense is used to
express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way. Book
XX, Ch. 30

Isa 46:13 I bring near my righteousness: it shall not be far off, and
my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for
Israel my glory.

Isa 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and
mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and
on mine arm shall they trust.

Isaiah spoke as if the righteousness of God when spring fourth in his
own day. But we see the fulfillment hundreds of years later in the NT.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The fact that the scriptures speak this way sometimes makes prophecy
hard to understand. Prophecy often refers to what Augustine calls the
continual coming of Christ in the Church. The Gospel is represented
in the believer's life in an idealistic sense. As the believer seeks
to follow seeks to follow the example of Christ's Gospel and live his
own life according to the Word, the believer faces his/her own
temptations and tribulations. Christ is coming in His church by the
Holy Spirit's work within the believer. Peter referred to this as the
daystar arising in your heart (2 Pet 1:19). Augustine tried to
delineate between verses that prophesied about the continual coming
and those that referred to the last judgment.

Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last
judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous,
or to allude rather to some other event,-whether to that coming of
the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His
members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since
the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly
Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language
which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great
day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished
unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the
three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one
another,-for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and
more plainly by another,-so that it becomes apparent what things are
meant to be referred to one event. It is this which I have been at
pains to do in a letter which I wrote to Hesychius of blessed memory,
bishop of Salon, and entitled, "Of the End of the World." Book XX Ch.
5

This is a principle the early church understood well, and it gave
them courage in the face of persecution and martyrdom.

[Ted]

Between verse 34 and 36...
34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
I happen to agree with you, but I don't see from a textual basis, on this isolated quotation, anything that forces such an understanding. The hyperpreterist is logically consistent in his approach to this segment in isolation. That is, he identifies "this generation" as the time when "heaven and earth" pass away. Of course, "heaven and earth" must be taken as figurative for this to work.

Ted

[eschaton]

Actually, I don't have to go back to the ECF to find multiple or different levels of fulfillment. Consider what Martin Luther said about the Daniel's abomination of desolation. Although he said some seemingly contradictory things, he gave three levels of fulfillment.

1. Antiochus Epiphanes about 165 BC
2. The placing of an idol in the temple by Caligula, first century
3. The desolation of the true church by the pope, 1500's

I don't think he was forced into this interpretation by the force of preterist exegesis. So to answer your question, no I don't think it is a copout by futurists due to the power of preterism. There is plenty of precedence to be found in the history of interpretation of these things that predate preterism, which is a relatively recent invention.

[John Reece]

Between verse 34 and 36...
34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
I happen to agree with you, but I don't see from a textual basis, on this isolated quotation, anything that forces such an understanding. The hyperpreterist is logically consistent in his approach to this segment in isolation. That is, he identifies "this generation" as the time when "heaven and earth" pass away. Of course, "heaven and earth" must be taken as figurative for this to work.

Ted

Ted,

I agree that the three verse range is insufficient to exegetically substantiate the premise for the question raised in the OP — that’s why I cited the work of R. T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament as the exegetical foundation for the premise.

John

[eschaton]

Here is my question: What is the exegetical basis for a theory of ‘double fulfillment’ of NT prophecy that conflates what the scriptures distinguish?

This a request for information rather than a proposal for debate.

Sorry that I went off on a rant. I think I answered a question that you didn't really ask. Or did I? Is what I wrote applicable or not? Is the history of NT prophecy interpretation admissable? Or are you only looking for modern technical rules?

[John Reece]

Ted,

You have twice questioned the exegetical rationale for the premise posed in the OP, which is founded on the whole of R. T. France’s exegesis of Mark 13 and Matthew 24 in Jesus and the Old Testament.

I cannot copy for you the whole of that exegesis (the essence of which you can find in France’s Matthew in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries); however, here is the heart of the matter from Appendix A in Jesus and the Old Testament (brackets added):
In verse 32 [of Mark] (Mt. 24:36) we are introduced, it seems to a new subject. There is first the fact that whereas the preceding verses have described an event shortly to occur, and definitely within a generation, this verse [24:36] introduces an event the date of which Jesus explicitly disclaims any knowledge. Further, the phrase peri de thV hmeraV ekeinhV (‘but in that day’) is as clearly as possible setting the day it describes in contrast with what has preceded. The phrase h hmera ekeinh (‘that day’) is a new one in this chapter. The events of AD 66-70 have been described as tauta panta (‘all these things’), and as ekeinai ai hmerai (‘those days’) (verses 17, 19, 24 [of Mark]; and Mt. 24:22), but the singular has not yet occurred. The inference is clear that a new and distinct day is being described.

h hmera ekeinh [‘that day’] is used also for the final day of judgment in Mt. 7:22; Lk. 10:12; 17:31; 21:34. Also the Epistles, e.g. 2 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8. Cf. also Lk. 17:24 and the singular hmera krisewV [‘day of judgement’] in Mt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36.

In both Mark 13:32ff., therefore, and, more obviously still, Matthew 24:36ff., we come to a new section, in which the fall of Jerusalem is left behind, and the Parousia introduced, thus answering the second half of the Matthean version of the disciples’ question. In Matthew 24 this section is greatly expanded with Q material, and continues without a break into the peculiarly Matthean chapter 25 with its parables of judgment. Thus Matthew 24:36-25:46 is a unity in that it all refers to the final judgment, which coincides with the Parousia.
John

[Ted]

John,

It seems I will have to include those commentaries in my rewrite of my Matthew 24 paper for academic publication. Thank you.

Ted

[John Reece]

John,

It seems I will have to include those commentaries in my rewrite of my Matthew 24 paper for academic publication. Thank you.

Ted

Ted,

It would be good to include also reference to the latest and most mature work R. T. France has produced with reference to the exegesis of Matthew 24, which you will find in his 2002 NIGTC commentary on The Gospel of Mark.

John

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, I don't have to go back to the ECF to find multiple or different levels of fulfillment. Consider what Martin Luther said about the Daniel's abomination of desolation. Although he said some seemingly contradictory things, he gave three levels of fulfillment.

1. Antiochus Epiphanes about 165 BC
2. The placing of an idol in the temple by Caligula, first century
3. The desolation of the true church by the pope, 1500's

I don't think he was forced into this interpretation by the force of preterist exegesis. So to answer your question, no I don't think it is a copout by futurists due to the power of preterism. There is plenty of precedence to be found in the history of interpretation of these things that predate preterism, which is a relatively recent invention.The more interesting question with regard to those three claims attributed to Luther is whether they are good claims, not just whether Luther made them.

The first example - and the second, are plausible just because they actually do refer to the temple, although Jesus seems to have no interest in Epiphanes, and says that the event was in the future when He spoke of the destruction of the Temple. As for the pope, well I'm afraid the temple was long gone by then.

But as I understand the question of the thread, it is really about why futurists insist on a double fulfilment. Luther wasn't a futurist, he was a historicist - on the question of the antichrist. The question is: Why do futurists allow for a double fulfilment? I agree with John Reece. They allow for it because unless they did so their eschatology would be doomed. The evidence for a first century fulfilment of the Olivet discourse is just obvious, but without specific warrant, futurists somehow manage to find another another fulfilment.

What warrant might they appeal to? They obviously can't appeal to history, since it hasn't happened yet. They can't appeal to Scripture, since they admit (since they call it double fulfilment) that a first century fulfilment satisfies the criteria of fulfilment, and no "second" fulfilment is strictly required. To what then can they appeal? The answer? futurism! Since there was clearly a first century fulfilment, but since we all know that futurism is correct, we have to concoct another fulfilment to avoid the shame of giving up the highly complex eschatological construct that we cherish so much and into which our premillennial forebears of the last one and a half centuries have poured so much effort.

[eschaton]

Hi Theonomy,

I've been warned against participating in this thread so if my post disappears you know what happened. You should have read the post I made prior to the Martin Luther one. It is preterists who have no basis for their claims. The church always said these things with different levels of fulfillment.

As the law was a shadow of Christ's first coming, His first coming was a shadow of the "eternal gospel" of the heavenly kingdom.
On first principles 3.6.8
Commentary on the Gospel of John 1:40
Heb 10:1 Lam 4:20 Rev 14:6,7

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Hi Theonomy,

I've been warned against participating in this thread

No. You have not. I do not know what gave you that impression, but you are free to post in this thread.

Edit to add: If you have any questions about this, please PM me or another eschatology mod.

That is all.

[eschaton]

I'm waiting for an apoplogy. I've sent two private messages and all you've done is erased my last response.

What part of "
***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***

Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead.
If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise."


...did you not understand.

Heck, I even expressly said, contact me via PM.


I deleted your previous post to save you some embarrassment. Well no good deed goes unpunished.

In this post I went ahead and edited out your second complaint of moderation per our decorum.

Believe it or not, I have a life outside of TWeb, and am not at your beck and call. You will get a response, but don't expect it to be immediate.

If you absolutely feel you need a public airing of your grievance, take it to the Locker Room. Do not continue to post about moderation in this thread.


You may however, post about the topic.



That is all.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hi Theonomy,

I've been warned against participating in this thread so if my post disappears you know what happened. You should have read the post I made prior to the Martin Luther one. It is preterists who have no basis for their claims. The church always said these things with different levels of fulfillment.So preterists are not merely mistaken, but they literally have no basis for the claim that Matthew 24 was fulfilled int he first century? I mean - literally none? There is no evidence at all that Jesus' listeners were to expect the tribulation on Jerusalem to happen within their generation? Not one bit of evidence?

When you make claims that are so obviously inflated that not even you believe them, don't expect much of a concerned reaction.

[dizzle]

That is exactly why eschaton is on my ignore list. His statements to that effect are not only uncharitable but IMHO lack forthrightness and I have no time for such nonsense. Ignore lists do not help email notifications however. Anyhows, that is, even if I get an email of a post, I have generally committed not to respond until he retracts such statements which basically accuse the brethren of being utterly stupid.

[Hitch]

That is exactly why eschaton is on my ignore list. His statements to that effect are not only uncharitable but IMHO lack forthrightness and I have no time for such nonsense. Ignore lists do not help email notifications however. Anyhows, that is, even if I get an email of a post, I have generally committed not to respond until he retracts such statements which basically accuse the brethren of being utterly stupid.Its important to see a counterfiet ever so often.

[eschaton]

I want to thank everybody for the warnings I have received in this thread. Both for the first private one, and the later public ones.

Maybe this has not been made completely clear to you yet... If you want to whine, moan, argue or otherwise discuss moderator action, you may do so via PM or in the Locker Room. THAT MEANS NOT HERE!!!

[eschaton]

I also want to thank Theonomy, Dee Dee and Hitch for ignoring my arguments, and critisizing me after seeing that I had been erased twice in this thread. Also thanks to Theonomy and Dee Dee for not responding to my pm's. I appreciate the christian attitude very much.




Its important to see a counterfiet ever so often.

[eschaton]

Can't I even express my appreciation?

[eschaton]

That's a very proper thing isn't it?


* edited by a moderator *

Maybe this has not been made completely clear to you yet... If you want to whine, moan, argue or otherwise discuss moderator action, you may do so via PM or in the Locker Room. THAT MEANS NOT HERE!!!

The warning points start now... If you have anything else to say about moderation, take it to the Locker Room NOW!

[eschaton]

Thank you very much. That's all.



The warning points start now... If you have anything else to say about moderation, take it to the Locker Room NOW!

[eschaton]

And thanks again.

Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem.... LOCKER ROOM! NOW! PERIOD!

[eschaton]

Period?

[eschaton]

I'm a really happy person, and I just want to say I won't be answering questions in this thread, but I will be starting my own thread next week to discuss some of these echatological topics. Everybody have a great weekend.

[John Reece]

My computer shows seven posts by eschaton within a time span of 36 minutes.

:huh:

[eschaton]

My computer shows seven posts by eschaton within a time span of 36 minutes.

:huh:

So are you complaining?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

For the benifit of those not already in the know. The issues that eschaton has with moderation are being discussed here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?postid=1420997#post1420997).

In case there was any doubt, Eschaton did receive a warning. However, this warning was not a prohibition against posting in this thread.

Eschaton is free to post in this thread as long as he otherwise follows forum policy (i.e. no complaining of moderation, no duplicate post from other threads).

I think this would be obvious to all. However, eschaton seems to think we are trying to give the impression that he "made up" the fact that he received a warning and we are "calling him a liar".

FOR THE RECORD, eschaton did not lie or make up the fact that he got a warning. He did in fact get one. No one ever suggested or implied otherwise.

[eschaton]

Thank you very much. That's all I was asking. I'm happier than ever.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Eschaton, the post to which I responded made two claims. Firstly it said that there is no basis for preterism. This is so silly it scarecely warrants a reply. I think that on genuinely honest reflection, you will admit that you don't really think this. If you think I didn't address this claim, I thought I did, by asking if that's really what you think, since it is so obviously over inflated.

You second claim was more obscure. It was that some Fathers have referred to muyltiple levels of fulfilment. Please elaborate. Do you mean that the Fathers you have in mind said that there would be two fulfilments of the tribulation and the abomination, for example, or did you mean something different from this? (I also hope you'll forgive me for thinking that this doesn't count as a biblical reason for expecting a double fulfilment.)

[eschaton]

Eschaton, the post to which I responded made two claims. Firstly it said that there is no basis for preterism. This is so silly it scarecely warrants a reply. I think that on genuinely honest reflection, you will admit that you don't really think this. If you think I didn't address this claim, I thought I did, by asking if that's really what you think, since it is so obviously over inflated.

You second claim was more obscure. It was that some Fathers have referred to muyltiple levels of fulfilment. Please elaborate. Do you mean that the Fathers you have in mind said that there would be two fulfilments of the tribulation and the abomination, for example, or did you mean something different from this? (I also hope you'll forgive me for thinking that this doesn't count as a biblical reason for expecting a double fulfilment.)

I told you to read my earlier post and respond. I will elaborate in another thread.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

*chuckle* I hope you'll forgive me for not taking orders. I responded to your post directed to me. I have your comments on the other thread - at least one other thread anyway, well in hand.

Best you leave it up to me to decide what to do with my time, eh?

[cbro]

QUOTE=Ted

35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
In this, I see Jesus saying that the time at which heaven and earth pass away is known only to the Father. The fact that they will pass away is explicit. As for Jesus’ words, they will not pass away, thus no time statement can pertain to them.

Ted

quote=cbro
I hope no one is suprized at how simple is my question of what it means for "Heaven and Earth to pass away". Does preterism think this has happened aready?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

QUOTE=Ted

35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
In this, I see Jesus saying that the time at which heaven and earth pass away is known only to the Father. The fact that they will pass away is explicit. As for Jesus’ words, they will not pass away, thus no time statement can pertain to them.Actually I don't think this interpretation is obvious at all, even if it is correct.

Jesus' words are words about the coming of the Son of Man. Even if heaven and earth pass away, those words will not. That's just another way of saying that His words are more steadfast and reliable than heaven and earth.

"That day" doesn't refer to when heaven and earth will pass away, it refers to the things that Jesus' eternal words were spoken about.

[cbro]

Actually I don't think this interpretation is obvious at all, even if it is correct.quote=cbro
If you mean this interpretation, it would have been alot less trouble for me if you would have included it in your quote.

QUOTE=Ted Matthew 24:35-36
35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
In this, I see Jesus saying that the time at which heaven and earth pass away is known only to the Father. The fact that they will pass away is explicit. As for Jesus’ words, they will not pass away, thus no time statement can pertain to them.
Ted


Jesus' words are words about the coming of the Son of Man. Even if heaven and earth pass away, those words will not. That's just another way of saying that His words are more steadfast and reliable than heaven and earth.

"That day" doesn't refer to when heaven and earth will pass away, it refers to the things that Jesus' eternal words were spoken about.So the really important qualifiying words are "will pass away" not 'IF' they pass. Do you have any reason to think the text should have been translated 'IF' instead of 'WILL'? Why do you say that "that day" is not one of the things "Jesus' eternal words were spoken about"?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

If you mean this interpretation, it would have been alot less trouble for me if you would have included it in your quote.I'm not sure what you mean. The interpretation to which I responded was quoted in my post.
So the really important qualifiying words are "will pass away" not 'IF' they pass. Do you have any reason to think the text should have been translated 'IF' instead of 'WILL'?No, and it makes no difference to the point I made. Even heaven and earth will pass away but Jesus' words will not. The timing statements apply to the things that Jesus' words were about.
Why do you say that "that day" is not one of the things "Jesus' eternal words were spoken about"?I never said that. I said that "that day" is what Jesus' eternal words were about, the day of all the events he descibes in this discourse. Heaven and earth itself will pass away one day, but Jesus' words here will never ever pass away. That does not require that heaven and earth will pass away when Jesus' words are fulfilled. My point was that "that day" is not the day in which heaven and earth will pass away, but rather the day that Jesus' words will come to fulfillment.


In other words, a preterist need not be committed to the claim that heaven and earth has passed away, even metaphorically, since Jesus doesn't say that the fulfillment of his words here wil coincide with the time when heaven and earth pass away.

[John Reece]

Back to the OP:

My impression — which I wish to have corrected if the impression is wrong — is that the idea of ‘double fulfillment’ of New Testament prophecy is a copout for futurists who can no longer deny the force of preterist exegesis.

The preterist perspective propounded by R. T. France in Jesus and the Old Testament, which is essentially the same as Dee Dee’s perspective, has within it an exegetically sound accounting for both NT prophecy that indicates a pre-AD 70 fulfillment on the one hand, and NT prophecy for which the biblical text does not specify a first century fulfillment: the two periods of fulfillment are distinguished between the verses 35 and 36 of Matthew 24.

Here is my question: What is the exegetical basis for a theory of ‘double fulfillment’ of NT prophecy that conflates what the scriptures distinguish?

I see that I myself have been guilty of a certain conflating of concepts.

What I see in retrospect is that, in terms of prophecy, I should have distinguished between NT promises (which may have many fulfillments) and NT predictions (which have — if I be not mistaken — a singular fulfillment).

I wish to amend the OP to refer to NT prophecy in terms of prophetic prediction rather than in terms of prophetic promise (with texts like Matthew 24:1-34 and Mark 13:1-30 understood as prediction rather than as promise).

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

[eschaton]

Back to the OP:



I see that I myself have been guilty of a certain conflating of concepts.

What I see in retrospect is that, in terms of prophecy, I should have distinguished between NT promises (which may have many fulfillments) and NT predictions (which have — if I be not mistaken — a singular fulfillment).

I wish to amend the OP to refer to NT prophecy in terms of prophetic prediction rather than in terms of prophetic promise (with texts like Matthew 24:1-34 and Mark 13:1-30 understood as prediction rather than as promise).

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

I think that does make sense.

[cbro]

Back to the OP:

I see that I myself have been guilty of a certain conflating of concepts.

What I see in retrospect is that, in terms of prophecy, I should have distinguished between NT promises (which may have many fulfillments) and NT predictions (which have — if I be not mistaken — a singular fulfillment).

I wish to amend the OP to refer to NT prophecy in terms of prophetic prediction rather than in terms of prophetic promise (with texts like Matthew 24:1-34 and Mark 13:1-30 understood as prediction rather than as promise).

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?Not yet. Would you give some examples of promises? Are all predictions like Mat. and Mk? So that a general def. of them is major upsets of life and the def. of promises is blessings in our lives?

[John Reece]

Not yet. Would you give some examples of promises? Are all predictions like Mat. and Mk? So that a general def. of them is major upsets of life and the def. of promises is blessings in our lives?

The post to which you are responding was an ephemeral idea, which I posted without having given it sufficient thought to see how silly and sans exegetical merit it is.

Unlike the post to which you are responding, the OP was a product of serious thought and exegesis; I hereby abjure the former and re-affirm the latter.

[dizzle]

I was wondering John where you were going with that second post - I do think there is a nugget there, but I agree, it needs some pondering and consideration.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The post to which you are responding was an ephemeral idea, which I posted without having given it sufficient thought to see how silly and sans exegetical merit it is.

Unlike the post to which you are responding, the OP was a product of serious thought and exegesis; I hereby abjure the former and re-affirm the latter.Do, wait, don't give up on it. Eschaton thought it made sense. :teeth:

[John Reece]

Do, wait, don't give up on it. Eschaton thought it made sense. :teeth:

:smile:

I was wondering John where you were going with that second post - I do think there is a nugget there, but I agree, it needs some pondering and consideration.

I, too, think there is a nugget there, however maladroit my attempt to get at it may have been.

[cbro]

Do, wait, don't give up on it. Eschaton thought it made sense. :teeth:Yes, even DD thinks he is the standard for what makes sense. I can get away with saying that because DD has me on ignore.