"The most important aspect of Christianity is not the work we do, but the relationship we maintain and the surrounding influence and qualities produced by that relationship. That is all God asks us to give our attention to, and it is the one thing that is continually under attack.
"
- Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
The ever-brilliant Dave Heddle of He Lives has recently taken his ongoing series of posts on eschatology into a discussion of preterism. His His most recent entry is on the date of the Book of Revelation. It's a nice and brief overview, and it's a must-read for those interested in the implications of an early date for John's Apocalypse. Check it out.
* As opposed to just being friends with Revelation.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/838.
Comments on "Dating Revelation*":
3. Larry Fuess
- 12/23/2003 6:39 pm CST
The Problem with Perterism
Don’t worry, the tribulation is past…”The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord,” Rev. 11:15. God, that is a depressing thought! We don’t have to look very far to see problems here. I’ll leave that to you to consider.
I missed out on the army of horsemen, you know, the two hundred thousand thousand that had the heads of lions with the fire and brimstone that killed a third part of men, and the two witnesses that prophesied for a thousand two hundred and threescore days clothed in sackcloth that were killed and then raised three and a half days later. I also missed out on the greatest earthquake the world has ever seen, so great every island fled away and the mountains were not found, and the great hail out of heaven with the weight of a talent. (Rev. 16:17-21)
But most sadly, I missed out on the marriage of the Lamb, Rev. 19:5-10, and the first resurrection, 20:6. By the way, have you seen any of these?
But seriously, I think Jared has a good point with the near-far point of view. I think in reality the second coming began with the Pentecost, but the great tribulation is yet to come, as is the rapture of the saints. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been tribulations, just not the great tribulation. I think we all tend to get confused between the "reality" of the Kingdom and the "manifestation" of the Kingdom. The reality of the Kingdom comes from within, when we receive the Holy Spirit. We then grow into maturity though the cross being applied in the subjective sense, putting to death our old man so that we can live by the Spirit and be totally dependent upon Him in all we do. When Christ is manifested, those of us that are in the reality of the Kingdom, will be manifested with Him. We can see this is in opposition to the "appearance" of the Kingdom as stated in the parable of the tares. The tares have the outward appearance of wheat, but inside they are black. The tares are the false Christians; Christians in name only, the nominal Christians. They have the appearance, but not the reality of the Kingdom. The wheat represents the reality of the Kingdom. The harvest is the rapture.
The problems that Dave Heddle has with premillennialism are really not so problematic when viewed with the rest of the Bible. Yes, births will continue in the millennium, what does he think happens to the third of mankind that is left after the tribulation? These are not saved people and they were not raptured, so they are still there. Yet even with Satan bound a thousand years, some still rebel. Why? Because they have the fallen nature and this is revealed due to the fact that they still rebel without the tempter there egging them on. They cannot now say, “The devil made me do it.” These have not inherited the Kingdom, they are under the Kingdom’s rule and rebel against that rule when Satan is released after the thousand year reign. The resurrected and raptured ones are still in the heavens at the wedding feast of the Lamb, they are not on the earth yet, as they are the New Jerusalem and have not come back yet as they have inherited the Kingdom and are ruling from heaven.
Mr. Heddle also says that premillennialism views the kingdom of God as awaiting the millennium for its consummation. Again, this is not correct. We await the manifestation, Romans 8:17-19. The spiritual Kingdom is here but any are not perfected, and the manifestation of the Kingdom is still yet to come.
Well, I’m tired now, it’s 12:30 and I have to go to bed.
Praise the Lord, saints!
4. Bene Diction
- 12/23/2003 7:38 pm CST
Hey Thinklings:
Good blogging this year.:^)
Have yourselves a peaceful Christmas eh?
5. Don Curtis
- 12/24/2003 1:05 am CST
Besides being fully dependent on a early date for the book of Revelation, Preterism is flawed in its view that God's blessing shifted from the Jews to the Church. I have been developing a series on just this issue. Please visit The Jews and the Gospel for more information.
6. Jared
- 12/24/2003 5:00 am CST
I think perhaps a distinction should be made between FULL preterism and PARTIAL preterism (or preterism in general). I do not believe preterism is a heresy. I'm not even convinced that full preterism is a heresy, although I think their lack of accounting for the resurrection detailed by Paul is their Achilles heel. I have yet to ever receive a real explanation for the passages in Thessalonians from a full preterist perspective.
Don, this shift of focus thing you mention is not limited to preterism, but to all covenantally thinking Christians, myself included. The focus did not shift from "Jews" to "Church" in the salvific sense, if that's what you mean. The saving purposes of God were always focused on God's people. The nation of Israel was the vessel of preservation of God's people before Christ. But salvation has never and never will be based on one's racial, ethnic, or national origin. Neither will there be "special accomodations" made in the future for Jews apart from Christ.
"Not all are Israel who are of Israel."
Larry, your detailed objections would be larger concerns if preterists interpreted Revelation literally. As they do not, they wouldn't have many problems not seeing the horsemen and all that stuff you mentioned. Revelation is apocalyptic literature; that is its genre, and it should be interpreted according to the conventions of that genre.
For myself, I look forward to the literal return of our Lord and a literal resurrection of the saints. About the surrounding events, I am currently undecided. But even though I am tentatively historical premillennialist, I suspect I have more sympathy for preterism than most who have commented here.
7. jen
- 12/24/2003 5:07 am CST
WHOOSH!
*that's the sound of this whole conversation whizzing over my head*
9. Alan
- 12/24/2003 5:30 am CST
Steve and Larry, please pause for a moment to consider that your posts assume that your Christian brethren who disagree with you on this topic are either morons who have failed to consider the most elementary objections or fools looking to swallow large chunks of heresy raw and cold.
Steve, you're equivocating between multiple types of preterism. In fact, we're all "partial" preterists. At least, you are if you believe that Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection were foreshadowed in the OT, and that these events have already occurred. They're past, hence your partial preterism. Christians can legitimately disagree over whether certain events prophesied occurred in the first century AD or not. "Full" preterists assert that there will be no future coming of our Lord and no future resurrection of the dead. These have always been essentials of the faith, back to the Apostles' Creed, and denying them is heresy.
But that's not really germane to this topic, is it? If you glanced at the linked article, you'd observe that he's not pushing full preterism.
Larry, I understand where you're coming from, and believe me, I'll be as quick to OD on sarcasm as anyone, but many books have been written addressing the very questions you pose, so a flippant dismissal doesn't really fit. This isn't just guys on the internet getting a little jiggy with their eschatology. This is a serious and growing viewpoint among evangelicals. If you're really interested in understanding the opposing point of view, then I'd recommend RC Sproul's the Last Days of Jesus, or online, you could consider David Chilton's brief book on the Great Tribulation: http://www.freebooks.com/docs/214e_47e.htm, just to get started.
11. Don Curtis
- 12/24/2003 8:12 am CST
Jared,
I will confess to sloppy wording on my part. What stimulated my series was the statement by Dr. Heddle that 70 AD marks the end of the Jewish Age and such end is what made the events of 70 AD the "Great" Tribulation--a time such as the world has never seen not will again. I have read a parallel commentary of Revelation (Revelation Four Views A Parallel Commentary--Edited by Steve Gregg). If it is a fair portrayal of Preterism, then 70 AD was a huge outpouring of wrath on the Jews. I do not find evidence for such a view compelling, but I do find compelling a view that there is a future salvation for the Jews as Jews. Rather than attack this aspect of Preterism, I prefer to state the positive case for an alternative. I invite you to consider the argument and weigh it.
So, that is what I am taking issue with and I am writing the series, because there is more than can be adequately argued in a series of comments.
By the way, I have enjoyed The Thinklings since coming upon it. And I do thank you that you included a link to my blog soon after I began writing it.
Merry Christmas to you all.
13. Jared
- 12/24/2003 11:53 am CST
If it is a fair portrayal of Preterism, then 70 AD was a huge outpouring of wrath on the Jews. I do not find evidence for such a view compelling
The presence of Roman standards in the temple was a horrendous desecration. The destruction of the temple was a cataclysmic desecration. Because the temple was the symbol of God's presence with His people -- nay, because it was the place of God's literal presence with His people -- its destruction is hugely important, more important than most of us apparently seem to realize.
This event is a severe judgment upon the Jews, and the atrocities that surrounded the destruction of Jerusalem are more terrible than is common knowledge.
Likewise, the persecution of God's people around the time of AD 70 and the years thereafter was of a focus and an intensity not seen in any other time since. I think the apocalyptic language in Revelation (if indeed that book refers to these events -- I personally am not convinced they do), and certainly the language in Jesus' Olivet Discourse, suitably capture the nature of the judgment, trouble, and significance of AD 70.
For more on the importance of the temple destruction, in terms of eschatology and in terms of soteriology (if they can be divorced here), see a post at my "other blog," Mysterium Tremendum:
http://thinklings.org/jared/index.php?p=164&more=1&c=1
I too do not wish to enter a protracted debate. And especially at this time, I don't want to inspire any vain disputations.
But I do think we ought not take AD 70 lightly. It has greater significance than we think.
God bless!
15. Jared
- 12/26/2003 5:08 am CST
But those did not occur after the arrival of Christ, after the official announcement that being God's people was available outside of national/ethnic Israel and during a time of intense persecution of the followers of Jesus.
The theological ramifications of AD 70 add just as much weight to its significance as the literal atrocities that occurred.
16. J.C.
- 12/27/2003 12:42 am CST
We sometimes fall into a trap thinking that a doctrine is specifically New Testament when it existed in the Old. (Justification by faith is the most ready example, for which Paul spent ample time clarifying.) The inclusion of Gentiles into the house of Israel had always been a part of Hebrew culture (i.e. the laws and regulations for 'foreigners' or 'aliens). In fact, Christ's bloodline would have been lost several times had it not been for proactive efforts by Gentile women: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The only thing that changed was that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised (although that was hotly debated) and an overall culture of inclusion rather than exclusion, thanks to the efforts of Paul and the vision of Peter.
Rather than an "official announcement" that the Gentiles were included, I see this as a way of Christ correcting the mainstream interpretation of the Law: fulfilling the Law, rather than abolishing it.
The other theological ramification to be considered is the "partial hardening" of the Jews that Paul spoke of. We shouldn't be surprised that the Jews scattered after 70 AD, because Paul spoke of it himself. Rather than write it off as their judgement, those of us as Gentiles should busy ourselves with "provoking them to jealousy.";"0
17. Jared
- 12/27/2003 4:29 am CST
"WE sometimes fall into a trap." WE?
I'll try not to be offended.
First of all, you make two false assumptions.
One, my saying that the inclusion of Gentiles is "official," doesn't mean I think they weren't included before. I make no soteriological distinction between the Old and New Testaments. I'm not a dispy. Salvation has always been through faith (in the Messiah).
But the markers of who was in or out of God's kingdom under the old covenant were decidedly "Jewish." The temple's destruction was not only wrath on unbelieving Jews (for where, now, is the presence of God for them?) but the sign of the end of the Jewish age, a cataclysmic announcement that the presence of God must be found somewhere else (ie. in the temple of the body of the believer in Jesus Christ).
I don't believe Gentiles were "out" and then all of a sudden they're "in" after the temple destruction. I never even hinted at such a thing.
Your second false assumption is that I'm "writing off" AD 70 as (merely?) the judgement upon the Jews. My whole point on the theological significance of the event runs counter to this misunderstanding of yours. My whole point is that AD 70 was more significant that most believers believe or understand. How is that "writing it off"?
My belief that the temple destruction was God's wrath has nothing to do with "writing them off," if that's what you mean. If that is what you mean, I wonder where you get such an idea. I never suggested we shouldn't let our lights shine before ALL men or be a witness to the whole world.
The Gospel is for all people of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities. God forbid I write anyone out of the invitation to be God's people. Thank God He didn't write ME out of it!
18. J.C.
- 12/27/2003 9:53 am CST
No offense was intended.
...
"The End of the Jewish Age" is a term that I have difficulty with, not because I maintain that the Jewish Age goes on, but because I believe the term is inaccurate. An "Age" is something that is bound by time - i.e. it has a beginning and an end. The promises of God are eternal and irrevocable. Nagid Ben Chesed's post-in-progress entitled "The Jews and the Gospel" gives a very thorough argument for this, so I won't bother repeating any of his points.
If it sounded like I was trivializing your point, that is the limitations of this type of medium. The reason I am uncomfortable with this point of view is Romans 3:1 - "Therefore, what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?" It sounds like the Preterists' answer is: none. Paul's answer is "Much in every way!" If the so-called Jewish Age is over, there is no advantage to the Jew.
I'm still not convinced that AD 70 was worse than the Babylonian and Greek invasions. Rather than an end, I believe it was the beginning of the partial hardening of the Jews in order to bring light to the Gentiles. This, then, supports Paul's exclamation: "If their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead." (Rom 11:15) What additional value is there to Israel's acceptance if God's plan for the Jews is over? Would a mass conversion of, say, the Irish (my ancestors) be characterized as "life from the dead"?
19. Aaron
- 12/27/2003 10:15 am CST
I feel compelled to jump into this debate. If I were to ask any group of children in Sunday school if God was to ever flood the earth again I would get a resounding "No!" They say this for good reason because God said in Genesis 9:11, "I confirm my covenant with you: Never again will all living things be wiped out by the waters of a flood; never again will a flood destroy the earth." It is a promise that all of us accept in blind faith. So let's take a passage from Isaiah:
"'Briefly, I abandoned you, but with great compassion I am taking you back. I was angry for a moment and hid my face from you; but with everlasting grace I will have compassion on you.' Says the Lord your Redeemer. 'For me this is like Noah's flood. Just as I swore that no flood like Noah's would ever again cover the earth, so now I swear that never again will I be angry with you or rebuke you.'"
I find the comparison to God's promise of everlasting compassion to the Jews and His promise to never flood the earth again ironic. The church generally accepts God's promise to Noah while minimizing His promise to Israel.
My only point is that if Israel could not accept God at His word, how can the church today trust His word? If God found reason to reject Israel, could he not find reason to reject the modern church? If the Jews can not trust God's promise in Isaiah, can we trust New Testament passages like John 3:16?
20. Jared
- 12/27/2003 10:18 am CST
The promises of God are eternal and irrevocable.
I agree (although I suspect our views on what those promises are or what they entailed probably differ).
I only mean the end of the Jewish Age in the sense that it was the end of "being a Jew" constituting the "marker" of being a child of God. Soteriologically, I believe salvation has always been and will always be through faith in the Messiah. Before Christ, though, the nation of Israel and all of its necessary components (temple, Law, and land) served many purposes related to preservation: setting apart God's people as "different" (holy), maintaining the bloodline of Jesus, etc.
If the so-called Jewish Age is over, there is no advantage to the Jew.
You're right. There is no advantage to being a Jew, soteriologically speaking. Never was. Jews weren't saved before Christ based on their race/nationality/ethnicity -- in short, their "Jewishness." They were saved by grace through their faith.
Same today for Jews. And for people of all races.
The advantage of circumcision and all that is not soteriological. The advantage was setting oneself apart for holiness in expectation of the Messiah. It was one of the markers, pre-Christ, of what being one of God's children.
What additional value is there to Israel's acceptance if God's plan for the Jews is over?
Wait. What?
Are you asking what value accepting God's plan has? It has the same value for Jews as it does for Greeks -- deliverance from the bondage of sin, redemption from a life of death and despair, and eternal life now and in Paradise.
There is no "additional value" for someone accepting Christ if they happen to be Jewish.
Would a mass conversion of, say, the Irish (my ancestors) be characterized as "life from the dead"?
Absolutely. Just as the conversion of a single Irishman would be characterized as "life from the dead." That's what salvation is.
Btw, so that we may perhaps expose the real difference between us: Are you a dispensationalist of any sort?
22. Jared
- 12/27/2003 10:30 am CST
The church generally accepts God's promise to Noah while minimizing His promise to Israel.
I'm not sure who specifically does this, who specifically you're referring to.
But there are some of us who distinguish between national Israel and spiritual Israel, a distinction that Paul makes which greatly influences how I read the promises of the OT. Not all are Israel who are of Israel.
I believe in God's promises, His promises then, now, and tomorrow. But we will have different interpretations of what those promises mean if we have different interpretations of who those promises are made to.
23. J.C.
- 12/27/2003 4:07 pm CST
>>Would a mass conversion of, say, the Irish (my ancestors) be characterized as "life from the dead"?
>>Absolutely. Just as the conversion of a single Irishman would be characterized as "life from the dead." That's what salvation is.
"If their [Israel's] rejection is the reconciliation of the world [Gentiles], what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"
Allow me to carry my argument to its completion as I see it now. The Jews are the firstborn of God. They are the natural sons, Gentile believers are adopted sons; they are natural branches, Gentiles are grafted-in branches. God's anger at Israel was harsh and fierce because they should have known better; they had the Law and the Prophets; they should have recognized the Messiah. "There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek...." The coin is two-sided, though. If God's outpouring of wrath is greater for the Jews, then the outpouring of blessing on Israel is also greater: "...but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek." (Rom. 2:9-10).
I don't think Paul meant to say that the salvation of a single Jew is more significant than another race. There is plenty in Scripture to refute that. I am convinced, though, that Paul is anticipating a day in which Israel as a nation will repent, which I believe will come very shortly before the second coming of Christ. Zechariah 12:10 says, "I will pour out upon the kingship of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn." According to verse 3, this will happen after all the nations of the earth have assembled against Israel (in modern politics, the U.S. seems to be the only nation not turning against Israel. Hmmm).
In the Sovereignty of God, I think the Jewish significance is not yet over. Just as Passover foreshadowed Christ's death, the Feast of Firstfruits foreshadowed His resurrection, and the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) foreshadowed the giving of the Holy Spirit, the Day of Atonement foreshadows a day when Israel returns to God as a nation, igniting the final events leading to the second coming of Christ. Blessed are we to see the beginnings of that repentance.
I am a free thinker and do not classify myself with '-isms'. That being said, I do not hold to dispensationalist doctrine. Thanks, by the way, for the lively discussion.
24. Aaron
- 12/27/2003 4:23 pm CST
No, the Bible is very clear on how to get to heaven. For both Jew and Gentile, nothing short of accepting Jesus as God's atonement for sin will work. My comments should be weighed against the main topic which is the Preterist view of Revelations.
Revelations is a complex book, and it is swift and final in its judgment of the unsaved. The Preterist view assigns that final judgment to the nation of Israel. I tend to take a futuristic approach and believe that in the final days anyone not saved will reap the judgment of God.
God gave many eternal promises to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. I included one in my post above. The Preterist view of Revelations greatly minimizes the importance of those promises to Israel. Yet, if God promised Israel everlasting compassion and reneged on His word in 70 AD, then I will ask again - what assurance do we have that God will keep His word to us today?
I am careful to head Paul's words in Romans 11:20, 21, "Granted! They (Israel) were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you."
In your responce you brought up the idea of a spiritual Israel. Isaiah 54 describes Israel as a wife with God as her husband. He promised His wife that with everlasting grace He would have compassion on her. If God at some point then replaces her because of disobedience with a new "spiritual" wife has he really kept His promise?
The thing I would like to know is how do Preterist in general explain Romans 9-11? These chapters in Romans don't allow for a "spiritual" Israel. If it did verses like Romans 11:15 would not have any meaning.
I think Nagid ben Chesed has given a reasonable and clear explanation of those important chapters. Alas, I have yet to see anyone upholding Preterist point of view give an alternate explanation of these chapters or respond to his study.
I have not mentioned how much I enjoy your blog. You guys have done a great job. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. Have a blessed 2004!
25. Jared
- 12/28/2003 6:42 am CST
J.C., it is impossible for me to argue against futurist interpretations of OT passages. You are taking for granted that all of those prophecies should be read literally and cannot apply to anything past. Apocalyptic language is apocalyptic language and ought to be read as such. As such, I cannot argue against taking those prophecies and taking them to mean some future national repentance of Israel, etc., because your interpretative mode -- literalism, I guess -- demands you interpret them that way.
I suppose you have some clear vision of the stuff in Revelation, as well (one-world government, etc). Would I be right in assuming that?
If so, I suppose I can no longer maintain my end of the discussion with you. I have found such discussions fruitless in the past.
Sorry.
26. Jared
- 12/28/2003 7:02 am CST
Revelations is a complex book, and it is swift and final in its judgment of the unsaved. The Preterist view assigns that final judgment to the nation of Israel.
This is patently false. The preterist does not make distinctions according to race about the final judgement. The preterist believes all men are judged equally. It is the dispensational-leaning futurist, the one who sees "a separate plan" for Israel, who draws distinctions between Jew and Gentile.
And btw, the book is called Revelation -- not Revelations. Sorry to point that out -- it's a weird pet peeve of mine.
The Preterist view of Revelations greatly minimizes the importance of those promises to Israel. Yet, if God promised Israel everlasting compassion and reneged on His word in 70 AD, then I will ask again - what assurance do we have that God will keep His word to us today?
As I said before, you are reading the promises a certain way -- ie. directed toward national/ethnic Israel. I read them as directed toward God's children, spiritual Israel. So God has never reneged on His promises.
In your responce you brought up the idea of a spiritual Israel. Isaiah 54 describes Israel as a wife with God as her husband. He promised His wife that with everlasting grace He would have compassion on her. If God at some point then replaces her because of disobedience with a new "spiritual" wife has he really kept His promise?
You're misunderstanding. Spiritual Israel is not a "new thing" or something that God does to replace national Israel. It's always been spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel has always been the true constitution of God's saving and elective purposes. National Israel was the means of preservation of God's people, but not all Israelites of the OT were saved because they were Jewish. People have always been saved by God's grace through their faith.
So God's promises to Israel have always been true and did come true in the arrival of the Messiah. (This is why I suspect many of the verses/promises you and J.C. are citing as referring to some future deliverance of "Israel" may in fact refer to the salvation Christ secured for all whom God has elected to believe. Rather than waiting for God to keep these promises to national Israel "someday," we should acknowledge that God has already kept those promises to spiritual Israel about 2000 years ago.)
Romans 9-11:
I do not know how "a preterist" would respond to these chapters, because I think maybe you all are responding to "full preterism," which is school of thought I DO NOT subscribe to. But as a partial preterist, I see Romans 9-11 as speaking primarily about salvation, and in a roundabout way, justifying my "near preterist" views.
In the opening verses of Romans 9 we see Paul mourning the fact that national Israel is not saved based on them being national Israel. It is not works that save (and works include the temple/Law/land dynamic so important to the Jewish way of life).
In fact, Paul begins his theological foray into salvation by grace in Romans 9:6a, in which he says God's word has not failed. What would be the point of even saying such a thing if national Israel was saved?
And then in Romans 9:6b, Paul says not all are Israel who are of Israel. In Romans 9:7, he says it is Abraham's descendants who are God's children (and then in vs8, "It is not the children of flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.").
So far it's sounding a whole lot like the things I've been saying!
Romans 9-11 is all about how being Jewish does not merit special favor in God's saving purposes. It is all about how salvation is based on God's sovereign choice. I don't know what you're feelings are about Reformed soteriology, but as a Calvinist, I find much to like in Romans 9-11.
And in Romans 11:5, the verse you pointed out specifically as needing a response, I see nothing damaging to the preterist point of view. In context, it speaks to the fulfillment of God's promises to those He has chosen for salvation according to His grace -- not according to their race/nationality/ethnicity/flesh/works.
See especially Romans 11:7 -- "What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened."
Incidentally, I have an essay pointed on Romans 9-11 in the Thinklings Writings Section. If you're interested, just follow the Writings link in the upper lefthand menu and follow it through to Jared Wilson's Writings.
It is not necessarily from a preterist viewpoint, though, but a defense of Individual Election.
27. Larry Fuess
- 12/28/2003 5:04 pm CST
I perceive this is a popular topic, as was the previous post on eschatology. You can look at the past or the future in many ways, but you must live in the here and now. This Word you discuss is for us our food for our spiritual growth. You can expand your mind on it or you can grow from it and even feed the hungry with it. Be careful how you expand upon it because God will take you at your word. Our word is our proclomation to the universe. We are one body and one mind if indeed we are one with Christ. I know you all seek this, to be one with the Lord, and in Him there is no more Jew and Greek.
What do you think, Bird?
28. aaron
- 12/29/2003 8:39 am CST
Jared, thanks for the correction. I was writing late and did not realize my incorrect usage of Revelation. I will be sure to read your analysis of Romans 9-11 as you suggested.
More then ever before I see that one's view of Israel (spiritual or literal) really changes the way the Bible can be read. At this point I find the chasm between each of these interpretations so great I am astounded that they came from reading the same book. I have several final thoughts before I let this discussion go.
In my life and even at the moment I write this I feel that God still has a future plan for His chosen people. Every time my mind dwells on Israel and the Jewish people, a passion and excitement burns within me that I can't really explain to you. As I read the Bible this prompting within me is encouraged and strengthened. We truly serve a wonderful God! A gentile myself, I will for the rest of my life hope and pray that God would show favor to His chosen people.
There are two modern day occurrences which encourage a more literal interpretation of Old Testament prophesies concerning Israel.
1. The Nation of Israel - Take this prophecy in Isaiah 66: 7-10 "Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children. Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?" says the LORD. "Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?" says your God. "Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her.
In 1948, after WWII and the horror of the Holocaust Israel became a nation again. One day it was not, the next day by a U.N. mandate or resolution it existed. This is all the more impressive when you consider that natural Jews exist at all today. Since the time of Abraham many cultures, peoples and nations have come and gone, but the Jewish people still remain as a unique people group today. Hitler, himself was not able to destroy them! In 1948 those people had a homeland again as promised by God.
2. Partial control of Jerusalem by the Jews - Take these passages by both Jesus and Paul.
Luke 21:20-24 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
Romans 11:25,26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. (incidentally this literal interpretation of Zion and Jacob that Paul used can be found in Isaiah 59:20-21)
Both of these New Testament passages point to a time of Gentiles which will eventually end. Jesus indicated that this would happen when Jerusalem is no longer trampled on by Gentiles. In 1967 the nation of Israel regained part of Jerusalem during the Six Day War. It was after this significant event that many Jews in this country and throughout the world came to faith in their Messiah, Jesus. Today at last count there are over a million Messianic Jews in the world today. This trend did not exist before 1967. I encourage you to find a Messianic Congregation in your area and visit. Don't miss the opportunity to witness this powerful move of God first hand.
I want to share one more thought. There is one major event that the church is waiting for that hinges on a literal Israel accepting Jesus as their Messiah. This would be Jesus' pending return. Luke 13:34,35 says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," comes from a passage in Psalms 118. I will quote verses 22 - 26.
"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we bless you."
Jesus in his sorrowful lament over a literal Jerusalem leaves Israel and the Jewish people a ray of hope. When he said, "you will not see me again until…" the implication is that they will see him again. He left them with an opportunity which he intended them to eventually take. Jesus' second coming hinges on Israel finally seeing him as the rejected corner stone and saying "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
The nation of Israel still has a future role to play and an important one. Their acceptance of Jesus as their promised Messiah will usher in the return of Jesus (I am not saying the events will happen simultaneously, but that their salvation will happen before the return of Jesus).
So all mankind will be blessed because of the offspring of Abraham just as God said in Genesis 12:2, 3 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
30. aaron
- 12/29/2003 9:04 am CST
By the way, I have enjoyed our "back and forth discussion." I just wanted to let you know that I did read your last comments. Rather then responding to each point, I realized that our view of Preterism hinged on whether we believed in a literal or spiritual Israel. I wanted to address that point directly.
Having blogged for a little while myself, I always found it annoying when people would not respond directly to what I wrote. Hopefully, I am not perceived as being guilty of doing the same thing. If you request it, I will make some time this week to address your previous points.
I saw that you have another blog, I'll be sure to stop by and say Hello. Have a blessed New Year.
31. J.C.
- 12/30/2003 1:05 am CST
Some final thoughts:
First of all, Revelations is so cryptic, I challenge anyone who claims they have it figured out.
I can't be a literalist, because God uses symbolism everywhere. The very foundation of our faith was foreshadowed by a Passover feast, which everyone thought was supposed to be for remembrance, not anticipation.
At the same time, I can't characterize everything as symbolic either, because that path has led to numerous heresies, even to deny the resurrection of Christ Himself. When Jesus said He would be raised again after three days, He did!
As I said before, I am not any kind of an "-ist." I read, I study, I form opinions, and I test those opinions in intellectual discussions like ours. That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to stretch myself on this topic. You have cleared up some misunderstandings I had on your point, and helped refine my own opinion.
I love your website and hope to add my humble opinion to other topics in the future.
God bless.
32. Ben
- 01/30/2005 7:07 pm CST
I think you are right. One neat thing, I'd have never predicted with the internet, is that the sites are staying around, so that people can find them, read them and learn from them. The worst thing about the .edu internet was data rot (a form of link rot) where resources and knowledge went into the vapor every semester.
Bill, btw, this is your official reminder to bring to Ent-Moot that disk copy of Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" you downloaded for me a while back. If you still have it, that is.
Thanks!