God's Kingdom on Earth

[Zinc]

I do not see how I am "spiritualizing" Matthew 24.

When I use the term "spiritualize", I mean something very specific: taking some scripture text that describes something about the world and concluding, without evidence, that the desription only applies to some "non-material" sub-set of that world.

Do you see what I mean? Example: The Bible tells us that Jesus has been installed as king of the world. To "spiritualize" such a teaching is to assert that He is only king of an an unseen "spiritual" domain, and is not really king of the very real insitutions of this material world.

I hope this clarifies things. In this sense, to suggest that Matthew 24 has already been fulfilled is not to "spiritualize".

Personally I would use the concept of "non-verifiability". If we understand Matthew 24:30 in a traditional way--that it speaks of the 2nd coming--then such an event is ultra-verifiable. You can't miss it. You aren't going to miss the "end of normal history".

As interpreted under partial preterism, Mathew 24:30 speaks of people supposedly recognizing that Jesus has been vindicated, maybe enthroned I think, or that he came "in judgement" on Jerusalem. So we are talking about things on an invisible spiritual level. (The destruction of Jersualem itself is a solid real-world verifiable event, but any supposed "spiritual" "invisible" coming of Jesus isn't.)

So to me, it looks like taking something solid and verifiable (on a traditional reading) and instead reading it in a way which has fulfillment supposedly placed in a spiritual realm.

I ignore in this post the question of whether you have good evidence for your interpretation.

 

[Drew]

Personally I would use the concept of "non-verifiability". If we understand Matthew 24:30 in a traditional way--that it speaks of the 2nd coming--then such an event is ultra-verifiable. You can't miss it. You aren't going to miss the "end of normal history".

As interpreted under partial preterism, Mathew 24:30 speaks of people supposedly recognizing that Jesus has been vindicated, maybe enthroned I think, or that he came "in judgement" on Jerusalem. So we are talking about things on an invisible spiritual level. (The destruction of Jersualem itself is a solid real-world verifiable event, but any supposed "spiritual" "invisible" coming of Jesus isn't.)

OK, I now "get" your point. I am indeed asserting that some (see below for exception) of the events predicted in Matthew 24 have come true in an "intangible" sense. But let me clarify: I am not suggesting that it is always inappropriate to understand prophecies as being fulfilled in some "non-verifiable" sense. I am instead suggesting that it is innappropriate to do so for the purposes of dismissing a tangible interpretation that makes more Biblical sense.

However, the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century has "verifiable" content, namely the destruction of the temple, carried out in 70 AD.

The destruction of the temple is part and parcel of the package of events predicted in Matthew 24. Since Jesus suggests that all the stuff in Matthew 24 will come to pass within a generation, and since the temple was indeed destroyed in a generation, it makes eminent sense to believe all the other stuff was, and to look for a way to make of those predictions.

The person who thinks that Matthew 24 lies in the future is forced, I suggest, to not take seriously the bit about "within this generation".

Of course, we cannot directly verify that some of the other

 

[jasoncran]

i have a problem buying the idea of the coming of the lord(pariousa) in ad 70. a judgment yes, but not like they way he describes the end of it all.

 

[Zinc]

The destruction of the temple is part and parcel of the package of events predicted in Matthew 24. Since Jesus suggests that all the stuff in Matthew 24 will come to pass within a generation, and since the temple was indeed destroyed in a generation, it makes eminent sense to believe all the other stuff was, and to look for a way to make of those predictions.

Could a full preterist not use pretty much the same argument?


[51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
[55] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?


You yourself will say this speaks of a different (still future) event.

But a full preterist could reasonably say that it makes much better Biblical sense to just have the one parousia at AD70 rather than splitting up the material.

And "since the temple was indeed destroyed in a generation", it makes good sense to believe all the other stuff was also fulfilled including the parousia, and that will involve related parousia material like 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. And so we should look for a way to understand how those texts were fulfilled in the first century, even if we have to depart from traditional understandings.

So why couldn't a full preterist borrow your argument? And claim at the same time that they are treating the Bible in a much more consistent way?

 

[Drew]

So why couldn't a full preterist borrow your argument? And claim at the same time that they are treating the Bible in a much more consistent way?

As per an earlier post: the full preterist has to "spiritualize" the defeat of death to make their position work (if I understand their position).

In 1 Cor 15, Paul writes about how members of the church will be resurrected "at Jesus' coming". Well, if that "coming" has already happened, then we need to believe that we have already been "resurrected". I am not sure how the full preterist deals with this given the people still die. Presumably they must make an argument of this form: Paul is writing about what happen "spiritually", not physically.

I am not sure I am fairly representing the full preterists. But I would point out that the Bible teaches bodily resurrection. We are promised a resurrection body like that of Jesus (e.g. that passes through walls, etc.). And we certainly have not received those bodies yet.

My sense is that the full preterist position requires that we "morph" all sorts of prophecies about the renewal of the cosmos, and the defeat of evil, so that they are understood as being about what will happen in an "unseen spiritual" domain. And I do not think that works Biblically.

But, I will repeat - I am not really sure what the "full" preterist believes.

 

[n2thelight]

It's really all so simple,if we are still in flesh bodies,the last trump has yet to sound......Paul says we shall all be changed at that time....

 

[Stormcrow]

As per an earlier post: the full preterist has to "spiritualize" the defeat of death to make their position work (if I understand their position).

And as per an earlier post in response to this, I cited the following:

{10} but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10 (NASB)

I would also like to cite the following verses from I Corinthians 15 that are often overlooked in these discussions:

{42} So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; {43} it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; {44} it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (NASB)

{46} However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. {47} The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. {48} As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. {49} Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:46-49 (NASB)

It's OK to say we don't understand everything Paul wrote. As I noted before, even Peter struggled with some of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:14-16).

It's one thing, however, to say "I don't understand what Paul meant" and another thing entirely to create a whole new doctrine out of that misunderstanding, essentially pitting Paul's letters against Christ's words.

Christ's words are clear and unequivocal. We need to interpret Paul in light of Christ, not in light of our own misunderstanding.

For what it's worth.

 

[Stormcrow]

It's really all so simple,if we are still in flesh bodies,the last trump has yet to sound......Paul says we shall all be changed at that time....

Paul wasn't writing to you. Why do you assume the pronoun "we" means "us" living in 21st century America???

Find a way to justify that interpretation that doesn't violate every rule of hermeneutics, if you can.

 

[n2thelight]

Paul wasn't writing to you. Why do you assume the pronoun "we" means "us" living in 21st century America???

Find a way to justify that interpretation that doesn't violate every rule of hermeneutics, if you can.

Was all those people in ad70 changed?Nope!,rest my case

 

[Stormcrow]

Was all those people in ad70 changed?Nope!,rest my case

Can't address the challenge, huh?

You are fixated on a single possible, literal interpretation that does not jive with anything Christ Himself said about the events of those days, and therefore cannot possibly know what did or did not happen then.

To suggest otherwise is simply hubris.

 

[Drew]

And as per an earlier post in response to this, I cited the following:

{10} but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10 (NASB)

There is still a problem. I fully understand that this text says that Jesus abolished death. And I can see why you would insist that this statement must be taken in an unqualified form - that there is no sense at all in which death has not been defeated.

However, I suggest that we are forced by other considerations to understand the above material from 2 Timothy as follows: Jesus has defeated death in principle, but the full actualization of that defeat remains to be fulfilled.

The reason is this: We know that believers still die!!! I add the exclamation points because I politely suggest you must spiritualize this statement - consider the continuing death of Christians to not "count" as death. And sure enough you do so - apparently seeing the "spiritual body" that we get when death has been defeated as a non-physical body.

Well, that simply cannot work - the resurrection body we will get is promised to be that like Jesus was given. And that is decidedly a "body" in the sense that it is made of "matter". I politely suggest you read "spiritual" as "non-physical" - a move that I do not believe is justified in light of the full corpus of scripture. And I further suggest that the reason so many people do this is that we are heir to Greek dualistic thinking - something that was not really the way the Jew thought.

It is true, the resurrection body is not like the natural body. But this does not mean that it is not a body. As per the example of Jesus, the resurrection body is physical, yet transformed.

I suggest the picture you paint cannot be reconciled with this text from Romans 8:

For the creation (AO)was subjected to (AP)futility, not willingly, but (AQ)because of Him who subjected it, [i]in hope 21 that (AR)the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation (AS)groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 (AT)And not only this, but also we ourselves, having (AU)the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (AV)groan within ourselves, (AW)waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, (AX)the redemption of our body. 24 For (AY)in hope we have been saved, but (AZ)hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But (BA)if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it

This shows that Paul sees a future consummation lying ahead where believers, and creation and general are liberated from the very real physical decay that still dogs us.

I cannot emphasize enough: the picture we get in scripture is one of God seeking to redeem the 'good' physicality of creation. To see the job as done when physical day - the result of the fall - is still at work in the world is to arbitrarily decide that what really counts is "the immaterial" and the physical is of lesser importance. That, I suggest, is a decidedly unBiblical view.

Now it is possible that I have misunderstood some of what you believe - please set me aright if that is the case.

 

[Zinc]

As per an earlier post: the full preterist has to "spiritualize" the defeat of death to make their position work (if I understand their position).

Well sure, but I don't see how this means that they can't borrow your argument. It just means that they have more texts to "explain" than the partial preterist.

"Since Jesus suggests that all the stuff in Matthew 24 will come to pass within a generation, and since the temple was indeed destroyed in a generation, it makes eminent sense to believe all the other stuff was, and to look for a way to make of those predictions."


A full preterist could say that they are just "looking for a way to understand the predictions".

I am not sure I am fairly representing the full preterists. But I would point out that the Bible teaches bodily resurrection. We are promised a resurrection body like that of Jesus (e.g. that passes through walls, etc.). And we certainly have not received those bodies yet.

OK, so you object to full preterist interpretations.

Many would object to partial preterist interpretations.

I believe Ken Gentry (partial preterist) interprets the Daniel 12 resurrection:

Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the "resurrection" of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel. Thus, it bears similiarities with Eze 37 and the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel."

(I would normally give a link, but that seems to be pre-mod, so ask if you want a reference.)

Daniel 12

[2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

This is about "national resurrection" is it? Because that looks very questionable to me.

What's your own interpretation by the way?

 

[jasoncran]

that hasnt come to pass, zinc, that is in reference to the idea of a judgment of all men. if isreal was judged on that level then what of the jews in rome? or other parts of the roman empire that survived?

the jewish race didnt die out obviously as a good portion of them did die but nothing like the more recent holocaust(6milllion vs 1.5 million)

 

[n2thelight]

Can't address the challenge, huh?

You are fixated on a single possible, literal interpretation that does not jive with anything Christ Himself said about the events of those days, and therefore cannot possibly know what did or did not happen then.

To suggest otherwise is simply hubris.

What part of ALL don't you understand?We will either be changed at death,or be changed at the last trump and since people are still dying,I know what didn't happen..........

 

[Stormcrow]

What part of ALL don't you understand?

What part of "we", written to a first century audience, applies to you???

 

[Stormcrow]

Jesus has defeated death in principle, but the full actualization of that defeat remains to be fulfilled.

Really? Are we also awaiting the "full actualization" of the gospel???

Because if 2 Timothy 1:10 means that death hasn't been fully abolished, then it means the gospel hasn't been brought to light, either. Look at the verse again:

{10} but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10 (NASB)

You can't separate one from the other in the verse above. If death hasn't been abolished, then Christ hasn't been revealed and the gospel doesn't exist!

 

[n2thelight]

What part of "we", written to a first century audience, applies to you???

If the last trump sounded and all were changed,why are we not?I take it that the last trump by your way of thinking was only for those in 70ad?

Even using that logic,the flesh age should be over,it should have ended in ad70,but as you can plainly see,it hasn't!!!!

 

[felix]

What part of "we", written to a first century audience, applies to you???

Stormcrow, let me ask you a simple question.

According to you, let me know a few pending prophecies that are yet to happen according to scriptures.

 

[n2thelight]

Stormcrow, let me ask you a simple question.

According to you, let me know a few pending prophecies that are yet to happen according to scriptures.

I can answer that for you...........NONE!!!!

 

[felix]

Stormcrow, let me ask you a simple question.

According to you, let me know a few pending prophecies that are yet to happen according to scriptures.

I can answer that for you...........NONE!!!!

Let us wait for Stormcrow to answer.